Ron Paul the pro-internet gambling candidate is now TOP TIER

[BuddyBear]

That must be why people do them.

Polls of any sort, assuming that they are large enough (and you'd be surprised on how small they need to be) and unbiased, have meaning to them. It's statistics 101.

A straw poll has no (statistical) meaning whatsoever.....the opinion polls that you read about it in papers employ scientific and quantitative techniques (i.e. Zogby Poll, Gallup Poll, etc...) are more reliable and should be trusted (if done properly of course) because they use a sampling technique known as random sampling. Because random sampling means that every individual in the population of interest has an equal opportunity of being selected you can generalize the results onto that target population. It's true that with random sampling, a small sample size is sufficient to draw meaningful conclusion due to the Central Limit Theorm.

A straw poll is highly unscientific and has no basis in making prediction or generilization. Put it this way, it's like trying to generalize from NFLX onto the NFL. Just does not work.

Straw polling violates a number of key principles of sampling. First, and most important, you have self-selection which is a major violation. That is members of the target population participate in the poll at their convenience. This can create what is known as selection bias (i.e. are those who do participate in the poll different than those who don't...in this case probably yes) and similarly it also creates problems with what is known as non-response bias (i.e. are those who don't participate in the poll different than those who do...in this case probably yes). Second, not all candidates were included in this poll so I am not really sure how anyone can possibly conclude and generalize these results onto the actual primary where all candidates will be represented. Finally, some candidates were picking up the fees for voters (i.e. Romney) for their vote. Sorry but this really taints such results. It is hard to see how anyone could take these results seriously....I can't believe Tommy Thompson dropped out of the result based on how he fared in a straw poll.....unbelievable.

The corporate media, as usual, should be ashamed of themselves for reporting the results of the straw poll with such vigor and excitement. The results mean absolutely nothing scientifically.

[BuddyBear]

And by the way, I've enjoyed Ron Paul's candidacy. His ability to speak earnestly about foreign policy issues is refreshing. He is a huge upgrade compared to the other Republican candidates. He has been the most consistent and genuine candidate they have gonig for them. All the other Republican religious zealots could learn a thing or two from him. The corporate media should be ashamed of themselves for marginializing him...

However, I have some issues with his domestic policy but clearly he is the best Republican candidate and probably the 3rd best overall (Kucinch, Gravel, Paul, etc.....). He's also one of the few not controlled by the Israeli Lobby....

[tacomax]

A straw poll has no (statistical) meaning whatsoever.....

It depends on how you define a "straw poll".

The Ames Straw Poll (the name of it dictates that it's a straw poll) has a 3 out of 4 record so far in terms of the Iowa caucus. Like I said, a poll - "straw" or otherwise - has statistical meaning if it is an unbiased poll.

[SBR_John]

I saw Paul on CNBC. I like him but he has as much chance to be the next US president as JJ Gold. When he said we could save money by eliminating the Dept of Homeland Security I wrote him off.

He's a smart guy, maybe too smart.

[Dandy Lion]

When he said we could save money by eliminating the Dept of Homeland Security I wrote him off.

Why write him off? Do you think that any group seriously planning violent action in the United States would have the slightest concern about Homeland Security?

Homeland Security is a vehicle for shifting taxpayer money to people and organizations and companies that supply all of the new technology that is supposedly going to keep us safe. Horseshit.

There is no organized terrorist group planning massive attacks against the United States. If there was, they would have happened long ago. If anyone is planning to stage "terrorist" attacks against the US, it will be the same Americans who staged 911 and then set up "Homeland Security".

If it appears that control of the White House and the Congress is going to be lost to people who will end the "War on Terror", you may have another staged attack. Maybe a declaration of an emergency with Bush to serve another term. But that would require another attack and people are wise to controlled demolitions by now, so it would have to be something else.

I'm tending towards a "find" of nuclear weapons in one or two places, possibly with "Made in Iran" stamped on them, or someplace else that has a lot of oil and needs to be bombed for a while and then a chance to kill a lot of our troops for a few years. How about Alberta? No, those inbred redneck mofos would probably welcome US troops.

Maybe Mohammed Atta's brother, Jimmy Atta, will absently mindedly leave the bomb in his luggage in some van, along with his passport, a picture of Osama bin Laden, and a best wishes card from whoever that crackpot is who is president of Iran.

[BuddyBear]

It depends on how you define a "straw poll".

The Ames Straw Poll (the name of it dictates that it's a straw poll) has a 3 out of 4 record so far in terms of the Iowa caucus. Like I said, a poll - "straw" or otherwise - has statistical meaning if it is an unbiased poll.

It does not matter how you define it. Anyway you look at it, straw polls are useless and highly unscientific and not even worth the price of the paper they are written on. A straw poll is simply a counting technique for those who choose to participate. The fact that they have predicted 3 of the past 4 winners is merely coincidence and should not be taken as a sign of any sort of accuracy. If anything 75% is somewhat low. Most sample surveys, if done properly, should tell you the exact outcome within a predetermined margin of error. I am having a hard time believing that someone would take the results of a straw poll seriously?

This is basic stats 101.....

[JoshW]

He has no chance, but is good to seem him get some coverage. Keeps libertarian ideas in the debate.