Newsletter
Poll: Will Obama = Freedom?
In the letter below, Allen Wastler, Managing Editor of CNBC admits that in his opinion, Ron Paul's poll results are fake. He alone is the one that can decide the validity of the online votes. Mr. Wastler, How did Ron Paul raise 5 million dollars in the third quarter? Was it 10 people hacking bank accounts? Let's Flashback to the Fox Republican debate in September. Sean Hannity came out after their cell phone poll and smeared Dr. Paul by saying his winning was also clearly a fake result. The truth about the Fox cell phone poll was that it only allowed one phone number per vote. Mr. Wastler, was it hackers disrupting cell phones around the country causing random phones to dial into a Presidential poll? What Mr. Wastler and CNBC do not understand is the steam rolling exponential growth of the Ron Paul campaign.
Mr. Wastler's assertion that Ron Paul supporters ruined the CNBC internet poll simply by voting for their candidate of choise is ludicrous. With the decline and mistrust of the mainstream media and the growth of alternative news, Mr. Wastler should be less afraid of Ron Paul supporters and more afraid of his declining readership. When your livelihood is derived from internet readership and you censor the most popular presidential candidate on the web, it seems obvious Mr. Wastler does not understand the basics of his profession.
Let Mr. Wastler Know how you feel about his censorship of Dr. Paul. - politicalcapital@cnbc.com .
Let CNBC know how you feel about Allen Wastler's censorship. - https://register.cnbc.com/email/EmailSupport.jsp
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 basked 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
News
