Can We Use Ron Paul To MEASURE Media Bias? There are two basic hypotheses explaining the profound disparity between Ron Paul’s online popularity and his dismal showing in “scientific” polls: 1) New Media users are profoundly different from the populous in their preferences for President. 2) The Old Media is profoundly biased against the populous’s real preferences for President but the populous is so dependent on the Old Media for information that the populous finds itself effectively unrepresented at election time. What would be a fair test of these two hypotheses? If #2 is correct, an election isn’t an adequate test since it is merely reflects the anti-democratic biases of the Old Media, so we can’t really conclude anything from an election in which a “long shot” candidate is defeated. I would suggest that a real scientific poll wouldn’t ask people about which candidate they prefer, but rather work like a dating service, asking people about their preferences: matching the preferences of the people to the positions of the candidates. By comparing the outcome of this position preference poll to the outcome of the current “scientific” polls of people asked to choose from among candidates, we would see a measure of the degree to which the people were being mislead by the Old Media. To construct the questionnaire properly, see Why the Political Compass is Inherently Vectorist and How to Correct It. The result of comparing “scientific” pick-a-candidate polls to such a match up between the policy positions of candidates and voters would be a measure of how much, and in what policy dimensions (and directions in those dimensions), the media is biased. Comments:2
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 06:15 | # Randall Burns’ assessment of Mitt Romney is ... what’s the word I want? ... What’s the word government press secretaries use when two leaders emerge from talks in which they couldn’t agree on anything and hated each others’ guts? ... “Constructive”? ... No that’s not it ... Oh, “frank,” I think ... Right, “frank.” “The two leaders emerged from ‘frank’ talks today at Camp David ...” OK, well Randall Burns made a ... “frank” ... assessment of Mitt Romney tonight over at Vdare.com:
Let’s just say Romney would not be ... Burns’ first choice ... and leave it at that, shall we? 3
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:16 | # Mitt Romney was non-committal when asked if the anchor-baby phenomenon was a problem that needed mending. Right there, that non-committal response all by itself, disqualifies him from consideration as the candidate. Period. Full stop. End of story. Un point, c’est tout. Fini. Bye-bye, Mitt, and don’t let the swinging door hit you in the butt on the way out, you sad, bought loser you. Also mentioned in the linked entry are the turds Giuliani and Brownback who get everything about immigration wrong every single time, both men bought and paid for of course, owned lock, stock, and barrel by the deadliest most determined enemies Whitedom has had in a hundred thousand years. Tancredo’s, Hunter’s, and Ron Paul’s positions on the problem, as cited at the same link, are all commendable, exactly as one would’ve predicted. 4
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:21 | # Huckabee’s too, according to the linked article, but he’s an unprincipled man who cannot be trusted any more than the typical member of the Bush family. 5
Posted by Dove on Sat, 18 Aug 2007 22:11 | # Please view the latest brief from Ron Paul Online. This week we’re discussing what it means to be a Washington, DC Insider: someone who is a member of the exclusive think tanks, policy organizations, lobby groups, and other groups that influence and decide policy. You and I, the outsiders, are those who are not part of these clubs. The bottom line is that the insiders have political and economic power, and the outsiders don’t. Outsider’s democratic voice amounts to little more than voting on occasion, that day every couple of years where we have our say, and then we are expected to shut up and take it until we have the privilege of voting again. Please welcome our newest author by adding this excellent article to your reading list. We’ve included a Handout (in PDF format) so that you can easily distribute this information via email to your friends, even those who are not yet Dr. Paul supporters. Click here to View the article Post a comment:
Next entry: Jewish porn, Christian virtue, Pagan love ... European nature.
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by Proofreader on Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:11 | #
Ron Paul’s Jewish adviser, Burt Blumert :
In 1988 I was chairman of Ron’s first presidential campaign. Lew has been his friend and associate since 1975, and served as Ron’s chief of staff in Congress.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blumert/blumert123.html
Don’t miss this stuff from another member of his staff, Gary North, and more relevant to the topic of this entry (with some interesting insights as wel into the Council on Foreign Relations and their role in the US presidency) :
When I joined his Congressional staff in June, 1976, he was the most junior Congressman, having been sworn in only two months earlier. The Democrat incumbent had been given a position in the Federal bureaucracy, and he had resigned his office. Paul won the special election.
I wrote his newsletters. I also did research on issues coming before Congress. In my three-person tiny office was Dr. John W. Robbins, a former student of Hans Sennholz in economics and of Gottfried Dietze in political science. In the main office was Bruce Bartlett, who later became one of the leading defenders in Washington of supply-side economics. This was a high-powered staff for a Congressman with two months’ seniority.
Unlike every other Congressman, he had no administrative assistant. That meant he ran a decentralized office. Staffers reported to him, not to some professional screener.
When I joined the staff, little did I suspect that three decades later, he would be a candidate for President, with a campaign bank account with a couple of million (depreciated) dollars in it. There was no Web in 1976. There were no desktop computers other than the Altair, a brand-new gadget for techies.
There was no Alexa Web traffic ranking. To use Alexa, I used Google to search for these names: Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Rudy Giuliani. I then selected the top Google link for each name. One by one, I entered these on http://www.Alexa.com Oddly. enough, I had selected the names in order of their Alexa rankings.
* http://www.RonPaul2008.com 23,60,0
* http://www.MittRomney.com 65,50,0
* http://www.JohnMcCain.com 106,5,00
* http://www.JoinRudy2008.com 108,5,00
Barack Obama’s site ranks 21,000. Hillary Clinton’s is 22,000. John Edwards’s is 59,000.
Ron Paul is #3 in the digital race. Everyone else is an also-ran.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north552.html