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.
Allen Wastler
Managing Editor, CNBC.com
-----Response-----
Mr. Wastler,
We are good. We are real good. You do have one thing wrong though. We’re not just a force on the World Wide Web.
Regarding the results of your poll; we flooded it, with votes. However, your organization and the rest of the television media fail to realize is that we flood other events as well.
"…but I haven't seen him pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll."
Congressman Paul has consistently placed in the top three of numerous straw polls, and those involve one thing; live in-the-flesh participation. You can view the results here (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-po...) if fact checking doesn’t require too much effort from your end.
"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."
If these Internet polls are meaningless, and “unscientific,” why pull them down? Why would your organization feel the need to ignore those of us who 1) watched your program 2) watched your commercials and 3) participated in your “show of hands” ceremony? I find it rather odd, and slightly offensive that someone in your position turns around and attacks the consumer. Frankly sir, that’s just bad business. Instead of blaming those of who took the time to “consume” your product, how about CNBC figure out how your organization could best “supply” the information that we are “demanding.”
"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%."
After your debate, a rally was held in which 2500-plus real people showed up. Were you there? Where was CNBC or any of the other NBC affiliates? Why is it so hard to believe a candidate can gather such a number of people in one location, and receive 7000-plus votes in an online poll? Think about it sir. Attendance at a rally requires people to actually get off their couch, drive to a location, stand around outside, and listen to a man speak. An online poll requires the click of a mouse. It’s not our fault, as supporters or consumers that other candidates can’t get their base of support to show up, let alone click a button.
"The next day, our email basked was flooded with Ron Paul support messages."
Perhaps we are real!
"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."
You refuse to look at the facts sir, and you contradict yourself. If we are an organized “few,” how is it your basket was flooded with e-mail? Why do you insist that we are throwing the results when we simply did what was asked of us and voted? Are you asking us not participate Mr. Wastler? Would you rather we not consume your product?
I am one man. I raised my hand one time, but I’ll think twice before offering it up just to have someone cut it off.
