I’ve been following Ron Paul for awhile. Very interesting fellow with very interesting ideas. He has an amazing following, obviously consisting of a younger, computer-savvy generation.
I was reading some random blog complaining about how CNBC did an after-debate poll online to see who won. Ron Paul was ahead with somewhere around 75% of the vote, and then CNBC took the poll down. Cue the outrage and conspiracy theories from the Paulies (yes, they have a term), and the obligatory YouTube videos and other memes. Now you have to take all that with a grain of salt, but then I found CNBC’s official response…
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.
Managing Editor, CNBC.com
The hypocrisy of the statement is almost hidden by it’s candy irony shell. Never do they claim that people had figured out how to vote multiple times. Nowhere do they prove that there was some giant “Let’s stuff CNBC’s poll” conspiracy that was planned before the debate. All that happened was that Ron Paul’s supporters showed up to actually support him, and the other candidates’ supporters didn’t.
Last I heard, that was how voting works. One vote per person, until the time is up. If you don’t show up and vote, your vote doesn’t count. There’s not supposed to be some administrative body that decides that too many of one person’s supporters have shown up, and turn them away because they’re not “real” votes.
The truly criminal part of this whole situation is that later on in the evening, on live news, they cite results from the online poll, and don’t mention Ron Paul at all. Now, if Allen was truly being objective as he implies, they would have thrown out the entire poll, not just the results he didn’t like.
It appears that Ron Paul has found a following the likes of Apple’s or Colbert’s cults. In fact, if this writer’s strike ends before the elections, I’m sure Paul will be doing Colbert’s show again.
It’s rather fascinating… Paul has all these supporters, yet he barely acknowledges them, only mentioning them when the press asks. I have a feeling he keeps his distance from them because he doesn’t really know what they might be capable of, and is worried that they might do something against election laws. I think that is a smart position, but unnecessary. We’ll see what the Paulies are really capable of come January.