CNBC lays the smackdown on Ron Paul pollspammers...

[Manedwolf]

Reprehensible Rumpled Ron Regurgutators Romp and Rant Round, Ruining Realistic Results...

What was that about the poll results being "genuine" again?

An Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful

Editor's Note:

Dear folks,

You guys are good. Real good. You are truly a force on World Wide Web and I tip my hat to you.

That's based on my first hand experience of your work regarding our CNBC Republican candidate debate. After the debate, we put up a poll on our Web site asking who readers thought won the debate. You guys flooded it.

Now these Internet polls are admittedly unscientific and subject to hacking. In the end, they are really just a way to engage the reader and take a quick temperature reading of your audience. Nothing more and nothing less. The cyber equivalent of asking the room for a show of hands on a certain question.

So there was our after-debate poll. The numbers grew ... 7,000-plus votes after a couple of hours ... and Ron Paul was at 75%.

Now Paul is a fine gentleman with some substantial backing and, by the way, was a dynamic presence throughout the debate , but I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down.

The next day, our email basket was flooded with Ron Paul support messages. And the computer logs showed the poll had been hit with traffic from Ron Paul chat sites. I learned other Internet polls that night had been hit in similar fashion. Congratulations. You folks are obviously well-organized and feel strongly about your candidate and I can't help but admire that.

But you also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an honest "show of hands" -- it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum. That certainly wasn't our intention and certainly doesn't serve our readers ... at least those who aren't already in the Ron Paul camp.

Some of you Ron Paul fans take issue with my decision to take the poll down. Fine. When a well-organized and committed "few" can throw the results of a system meant to reflect the sentiments of "the many," I get a little worried. I'd take it down again.

Sincerely,

Allen Wastler
Managing Editor, CNBC.com

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762

[Len Budney]

What was that about the poll results being "genuine" again?

What this says is that apparently anyone who isn't a Ron Paul supporter is busy trying to locate his dupa with both hands. After all, there are so very, very few of us Ron Paul supporters, yet we're capable of feats that the fifty-times-more-numerous Giuliani supporters can only stare at in open-mouthed envy. We can vote fifty gillion times--even though the sites log IPs and otherwise try to stop us--for every one vote from the drooling, un-tech-savvy Romney supporters. We can vote multiple times in cellphone polls--despite one-voter-per-phone-number restrictions--while McCain's braindead minions can only scratch their heads and wonder how we do it.

We're obviously just about the smartest people and best hackers in the world. So if you really think Ron Paul can't win, I have one word for you: Diebold!

--Len.

[Manedwolf]

What was that about the poll results being "genuine" again?

What this says is that apparently anyone who isn't a Ron Paul supporter is busy trying to locate his dupa with both hands. After all, there are so very, very few of us Ron Paul supporters, yet we're capable of feats that the fifty-times-more-numerous Giuliani supporters can only stare at in open-mouthed envy. We can vote fifty gillion times--even though the sites log IPs and otherwise try to stop us--for every one vote from the drooling, un-tech-savvy Romney supporters. We can vote multiple times in cellphone polls--despite one-voter-per-phone-number restrictions--while McCain's braindead minions can only scratch their heads and wonder how we do it.

We're obviously just about the smartest people and best hackers in the world. So if you really think Ron Paul can't win, I have one word for you: Diebold!

--Len.

Didn't even read the article, huh?

[Len Budney]

Didn't even read the article, huh?

How do you infer that? I've read it twice: once here, and once on Digg. Note particularly this bit: "After the debate, we put up a poll on our Web site asking who readers thought won the debate. You guys flooded it." The polls on their site only allow one vote per IP address. The guy is a jackass to suppose we CAN "flood" it. Now, with that for context, reread my reply.

--Len.

[mtnbkr]

What was that about the poll results being "genuine" again?

What this says is that apparently anyone who isn't a Ron Paul supporter is busy trying to locate his dupa with both hands. After all, there are so very, very few of us Ron Paul supporters, yet we're capable of feats that the fifty-times-more-numerous Giuliani supporters can only stare at in open-mouthed envy. We can vote fifty gillion times--even though the sites log IPs and otherwise try to stop us--for every one vote from the drooling, un-tech-savvy Romney supporters. We can vote multiple times in cellphone polls--despite one-voter-per-phone-number restrictions--while McCain's braindead minions can only scratch their heads and wonder how we do it.

We're obviously just about the smartest people and best hackers in the world. So if you really think Ron Paul can't win, I have one word for you: Diebold!

--Len.

There we have it folks, the honesty of Ron Paul supporters.

Chris

[Manedwolf]

Didn't even read the article, huh?

How do you infer that? I've read it twice: once here, and once on Digg. Note particularly this bit: "After the debate, we put up a poll on our Web site asking who readers thought won the debate. You guys flooded it." The polls on their site only allow one vote per IP address. The guy is a jackass to suppose we CAN "flood" it. Now, with that for context, reread my reply.

--Len.

Gee, I can hit a site from innumerable IPs by using an anonymizing proxy if I choose to...

[Len Budney]

Didn't even read the article, huh?

How do you infer that? I've read it twice: once here, and once on Digg. Note particularly this bit: "After the debate, we put up a poll on our Web site asking who readers thought won the debate. You guys flooded it." The polls on their site only allow one vote per IP address. The guy is a jackass to suppose we CAN "flood" it. Now, with that for context, reread my reply.

Gee, I can hit a site from innumerable IPs by using an anonymizing proxy if I choose to...

Which brings me back to the original point: supposedly Ron Paul supporters are doing this in droves. Yet equally enthusiastic, motivated, and many times more numerous supporters of Rudy McRomney aren't. Why not? There's only one explanation: they don't know how. Once again, reread my original reply. Apparently Ron Paul supporters are savvy hackers, and Rudy McRomney supporters can't find their dupa with both hands.

--Len.

[mtnbkr]

Didn't even read the article, huh?

How do you infer that? I've read it twice: once here, and once on Digg. Note particularly this bit: "After the debate, we put up a poll on our Web site asking who readers thought won the debate. You guys flooded it." The polls on their site only allow one vote per IP address. The guy is a jackass to suppose we CAN "flood" it. Now, with that for context, reread my reply.

--Len.

Gee, I can hit a site from innumerable IPs by using an anonymizing proxy if I choose to...

I don't even need that, I have a variety of ways to get different IPs legitimately.  I choose not to because I know it skews the poll.  It's that honesty thing again. 

Chris

[Manedwolf]

Which brings me back to the original point: supposedly Ron Paul supporters are doing this in droves. Yet equally enthusiastic, motivated, and many times more numerous supporters of Rudy McRomney aren't. Why not? There's only one explanation: they don't know how.

Or they don't feel a need to prop up their candidate by cheating, and prefer to let the candidates prove themselves, instead of making their One True Candidate into a religion in and of itself?

It's nice to know that you, as a Paul supporter, have no problem with cheating. I do.

[mtnbkr]

Which brings me back to the original point: supposedly Ron Paul supporters are doing this in droves. Yet equally enthusiastic, motivated, and many times more numerous supporters of Rudy McRomney aren't. Why not? There's only one explanation: they don't know how. Once again, reread my original reply. Apparently Ron Paul supporters are savvy hackers, and Rudy McRomney supporters can't find their dupa with both hands.
--Len.

No, some folks know what's right and what's wrong.  What good is a poll if it's not even close to legitimate.  Scared of seeing just how little real support your candidate has?  It goes both ways.  I wouldn't do this for my own pet cause because accurate data is important even if it doesn't support your cause.

Chris

[Len Budney]

Which brings me back to the original point: supposedly Ron Paul supporters are doing this in droves. Yet equally enthusiastic, motivated, and many times more numerous supporters of Rudy McRomney aren't. Why not? There's only one explanation: they don't know how.

Or they don't feel a need to prop up their candidate by cheating, and prefer to let the candidates prove themselves, instead of making their One True Candidate into a religion in and of itself?

Yep. That's a plausible theory. Millions and millions of Rudy McRomney supporters, and every one as horrified by multiple voting as a virginal Sunday School teacher. Real plausible. 

It's nice to know that you, as a Paul supporter, have no problem with cheating. I do.

I've never cheated. To my knowledge, we don't cheat. I would expect that some do, but I would expect that the number of cheaters would be proportional to the number of supporters--and hence, Rudy McRomney cheaters would outnumber Ron Paul cheaters by some 50-to-1. My original reply was to illustrate the crazy things you have to believe in order to accept the insane conspiracy theory put forth by the idiot at CNBC.

--Len.

[mtnbkr]

I've never cheated. To my knowledge, we don't cheat. I would expect that some do, but I would expect that the number of cheaters would be proportional to the number of supporters--and hence, Rudy McRomney cheaters would outnumber Ron Paul cheaters by some 50-to-1. My original reply was to illustrate the crazy things you have to believe in order to accept the insane conspiracy theory put forth by the idiot at CNBC.

--Len.

Nonsense.  You were just bragging about the supposed intelligence of Ron Paul supporters.  Are we now supposed to infer that you were being sacastic or are you just backpeddaling because you got called on it?

Seems pretty obvious it was poll stuffing when it tracks back to Ron Paul discussion boards.

Unless it was evil "Rudy McRonmey" droids logging into the Ron Paul board in order to make it look like RP supporters messing with the poll.  Where's my tinfoil...

Chris

[Sergeant Bob]

Len Budney =

[wooderson]

It's disengenuous for Paulistas to ignore the fact that the leading GOP candidates do not have the same kind of fanatical 'netroots' support that would allow them to warp a poll like this. Their support is broad but relatively shallow (for now) - because there's not all that much to differentiate between candidates but personality.

They represent the majority of Republican voters, and will fight a war of attrition until one is on top - he will then garner the support of everyone else's supporters. Ron Paul cannot win this kind of war of attrition - he doesn't have the political personality to suck in the people who are supporting Romney and McCain and Rudy right now.

Broad but shallow beats narrow and fanatical, Paulistas would be better off giving up or planning on a third-party bid..

[Len Budney]

I've never cheated. To my knowledge, we don't cheat. I would expect that some do, but I would expect that the number of cheaters would be proportional to the number of supporters--and hence, Rudy McRomney cheaters would outnumber Ron Paul cheaters by some 50-to-1. My original reply was to illustrate the crazy things you have to believe in order to accept the insane conspiracy theory put forth by the idiot at CNBC.

Nonsense.  You were just bragging about the supposed intelligence of Ron Paul supporters.  Are we now supposed to infer that you were being sacastic...

You were originally supposed to infer it. Now it's too late for you to infer anything, because I came out and told you.

--Len.

[Len Budney]

Broad but shallow beats narrow and fanatical, Paulistas would be better off giving up or planning on a third-party bid..

I don't see why. I'm interested in the glimmer of hope that the system can be repaired from within. But since I never believed that it could be repaired from within, the entire 2008 election is either an experiment or a side show, depending how you look at it.

Once it's over, we can forget about all this "freedom" crap, and start arguing what really matters--like whether government money should be buying guns or butter.

--Len.

[Len Budney]

Len Budney =

I find it extremely interesting how much time is spent on purely personal insults for a "polite" society.

--Len.

[HankB]

It's not unusual for the MSM to take down "unscientific" polls when the results don't show what they want . . . this is the case with CNBC. Wastler just let his peevishness show . . . poor baby, cry me a river.

And BTW, while I think Ron Paul is a fine Congressman, I don't care to have him anywhere near the Oval Office.

(Sadly, I really don't see any "frontrunner" I'd like to see there, either . . . )

[Sergeant Bob]

Len Budney =

I find it extremely interesting how much time is spent on purely personal insults for a "polite" society.

--Len.

So, what is insulting about it? I looked for a picture of Len Budney "Jumping the Shark", but couldn't find one, So I had to settle for Homer.

[ilbob]

I suspect Ron Paul's supporters are just more organized at hitting the Internet polls. Howard Dean had similar success with the Internet crowd. Wouldn't surprise me if some of the same people who pushed for Dean are now pushing for Paul. Maybe more of an Internet thing than a political thing.

[Perd Hapley]

What this says is that apparently anyone who isn't a Ron Paul supporter is busy trying to locate his dupa with both hands. After all, there are so very, very few of us Ron Paul supporters, yet we're capable of feats that the fifty-times-more-numerous Giuliani supporters can only stare at in open-mouthed envy. We can vote fifty gillion times--even though the sites log IPs and otherwise try to stop us--for every one vote from the drooling, un-tech-savvy Romney supporters. We can vote multiple times in cellphone polls--despite one-voter-per-phone-number restrictions--while McCain's braindead minions can only scratch their heads and wonder how we do it. 

I hope you don't really believe that.  I'm not sure if you do.  Obviously, fans of the other candidates could do it if they cared to.  So why didn't they?  Why should they?  Obviously, it is only the Ron Paul crowd that puts that kind of importance on internet polls. 

Maybe I'm missing something because I'm not a geek, but I assumed the "flooding" was due to the Paulistas spreading the word about this poll over the internet, rather than from dishonesty.  Like gun nuts always do with gun-related issues. 

[Paddy]

Maybe I'm missing something because I'm not a geek, but I assumed the "flooding" was due to the Paulistas spreading the word about this poll over the internet, rather than from dishonesty.  Like gun nuts always do with gun-related issues.

That's probably it.  The crusading Hallelujah Chorus of Libertarian Zealots burning, burning, I tell ya, with the fire of Evangelical Calvinists, spreading the Holy Gospel of Ayn Rand and Lysander Spooner until every ear has heard the Word, and all will know that government is depraved, depraved and immoral, I tell ya.   

[Len Budney]

What this says is that apparently anyone who isn't a Ron Paul supporter is busy trying to locate his dupa with both hands...

I hope you don't really believe that.  I'm not sure if you do.  Obviously, fans of the other candidates could do it if they cared to.  So why didn't they?  Why should they?  Obviously, it is only the Ron Paul crowd that puts that kind of importance on internet polls. 

I don't think any side is doing it--or more precisely, I don't think any side is doing it more often than any other. I'm offering a reductio ad absurdam demonstrating that it's impossible to believe that Ron Paul's supporters are "gaming the internet" without believing either (1) that Ron Paul's supporters are orders of magnitude more skilled than anyone else's supporters, or (2) that everyone else's supporters are orders of magnitude more "honest" than Ron Paul's.

I've helped freep enough polls on behalf of Bush in 1999-2000 to know that every candidates supporters engage in such practices; so option #2 is untenable. You're left either with option #1, which is equally ridiculous, or else you must reject the initial assumption that Ron Paul's supporters are (disproportionately) "spamming." While I'd find option #1 flattering, I don't find it credible; therefore, there must be more Ron Paul supporters than you thought. QED.

Maybe I'm missing something because I'm not a geek, but I assumed the "flooding" was due to the Paulistas spreading the word about this poll over the internet, rather than from dishonesty.  Like gun nuts always do with gun-related issues. 

Yup, there's no question that Ron Paul's supporters respond to "go hit this poll!" messages. As do Billary supporters on DU and Rudy McRomney supporters on FreeRepublic. The net effect should therefore be roughly proportional to the candidates' support from Internet users, even if the numbers are inflated for every candidate. The Internet conspiracy theory says that Freepers and DUmmies never gang up on polls, while Paulistas spend all their time doing nothing else.

--Len.

[Finch]

I've never put much faith in internet polls, and even as a Ron Paul supporter I ahev always assumed that the polls were being spammed ( I mean come on, 8x%). But when Fox news did the text message poll after a debate, and paul still took a large majority, you begin to think. The text message poll would only allow a person to vote one time by blocking phone numbers. Then there are the rallies that garner 2000+ people. Or that fact that almost everyone I talk to about ron paul comes back to me with enthusastic support saying how they wish they had heard of hime sooner.

So we may have a bunch of people on here who love to bash Ron Paul....so be it. His international policies might not be to the liking of those who love perpetual wars against nations that were never a threat to us. Some of you may like the fact that you can now be thrown in prision without right to an attorney or public trial (heh who needs Habeus Corpus anyways), hey to each thier own. But as for me, I kind like the thought of a president who actually reads what he would swear to uphold.

And as to the whole poll spamming thing, how come there is never an outcry like this when we tell people to go and spam gun control polls?

[Tallpine]

Ron Paul doesn't have much support.  That's only a rumor spread by a bunch of people who support Ron Paul.