Suttonplacesouth

Re: Your help desk question

If you received a vandalism warning at User talk:4.242.195.137, and you didn't make any vandalism edits, it's probably a shared IP address and the message wasn't meant for you. Leebo ^T/C 04:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, look at the date. That message was from 2005. Leebo ^T/C 04:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

4.242.195.137 is an IP address, not a "page number". An IP address is a numerical value assigned to a computer so that it can connect with other computers on the Internet. It should be noted though, that IP addresses often change, so you could be assigned an IP address that someone else had used to vandalize. No one is accusing you of anything. Leebo ^T/C 12:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Leebo:

Many thanks!

I doubt I will ever understand how a message from 2005 and not even meant for me, came to be posted on my computer today.

When I opened the message, I became upset over the notion that someone (who doesn’t even know me) was accusing me of something as vulgar, thoughtless, and just plain wrong as “vandalism.” I was stunned by the message and didn’t even think to notice the date.

Thank you for reminding me of the date and for telling me this isn’t even directed toward me. Hopefully, some day this condition will be remedied, and we will all be able to see only our own messages. I do not understand how messages directed at someone else can be viewed by me.

Anyway, I'm trying to read about IPs (on Wikipedia, of course) to see if I can figure it out.

Thanks again.

S-P-S

No problem. This is what I think happened:

1. Someone using this dynamic IP address vandalizes Wikipedia in 2005
2. A user notices and warns him
3. In early September 2007, someone from that IP address edits the talk page (and is reverted because the edit was vulgar)
4. In early October 2007, the IP address is assigned to your computer and the fresh edits and reversion from September 2007 cause the "you have new messages" item to pop up, but there is no new message, just the old one from 2005.
5. You see the message and think it's new because it's the only one on the page.

I think this is what happened because I looked at the history of the talk page. The IP address article discusses dynamic IPs in the section IP address#Static and dynamic IP addresses. Leebo ^T/C 14:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles are not soapboxes

On this edit of yours: If you have some beef with an article, edit the article in an encyclopedic fashion or take up the issue in an appropriate place. Don't sermonize within the article, ever.

Actually you've already brought it up, here. There were some responses to what you wrote, but you haven't yet replied to any of them. -- Hoary (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not again disrupt the article Straw polls for the Republican Party (United States) presidential nomination, 2008 by inserting lengthy ALL-CAPS missives into it, or you will be blocked for disruption. This is your final warning. Read WP:SOAP, please. Thanks. Sandstein (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Article moves, and discussion

Obviously, moving Straw polls for the Republican Party (United States) presidential nomination, 2008 to some title that doesn't mention the Republican Party will be controversial. Don't do it again till you have first suggested it in Talk:Straw polls for the Republican Party (United States) presidential nomination, 2008 and got broad agreement for it. That agreement will take an absolute minimum of three days. If there's opposition to it and you're still sure you're right, you can bring up the matter elsewhere.

It occurs to me that you may not have noticed that every article in en:WP has a link titled Discuss this page. If you have any beef with or radical proposal for the article, click that link and make your point in the article's "talk" (aka "discussion") page. -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hoary:

I went to your page and you said to "post a message below" and I couldn't even figure out how to do that. Everything was in self-contained boxes and couldn't be accessed. There was no place to post anything. I looked at the tabs above, but they all took me back to your site with no place to access a screen. [You said 'below' but below was only lists and conversations.]

Anyway, I am so frustrated I could scream. I found the Republican Party straw poll yesterday and it is simply awful. The "neutral" source links go straight to various Ron Paul web sites, which is unheard of for a "neutral" site.

MANY states have been "colored" for Ron Paul, yet he is only polling at 3 % in most states. Those numbers are bogus and I know how he came up with them. He is using any poll that benefits "his" candidate while tossing all of the much larger and more comprehensive polls. This is the most blatant attempt to promote Ron Paul that I have ever seen.

Anyone who has taken statistics knows exactly what he is doing. And, that the figures he is using are "outlayers" and are supposed to be tossed (or marked with an asterisk), yet he is USING the information that is only correct as far as it goes.

I do not have a candidate at this point, but the caucus races are on-going and he is doing all he can to monkey-wrench them. In truth, this dishonest map should not be allowed up for one more day. And, Ron Paul should not be portrayed as the "top straw poll winner" either. I have access to many straw polls and the author of this page is completely ignoring the polls that he doesn't like (which is most of them). WHY IS HE NOT USING THE INFORMATION THAT IS AVAILABLE? There are plenty of poll results available, yet he is only using a few hand-picked polls. Did you notice that one is repeated every month? The same one? My point is that if he can put up a page for Ron Paul, then why can't I put up pages for eveyone else?? IOW, why is ONE PERSON allowed to be a stinker, and cheat, and how does he get to be protected when someone tries to call him on his dishonesty?

I know that people who come to this site will see this and they will draw conclusions that are completely incorrect. I am afraid they will be mislead and if the Ron Paul people can do this, then why can't ALL candidates set up a similar page, all promoting THEIR candidates?

What is particularly funny is that Ron Paul is a Libertarian, who runs as a Republican because he can't get enough votes by running as a Libertarian.

Additionally, the "Republican Party" name cannot be used except by the Republican Party, so HOW does the author of this page get away with using the name?

He is not using accurate polling numbers. I have been involved with "straw polls" in Washington State and I KNOW where Ron Paul is polling - in the cellar - at the very bottom. I have seen the numbers in person, and on reports, so I was stunned when I saw that he had "awarded" Washington to Ron Paul! This is simply awful.

I wouldn't have the nerve to put up anything that was not absolutely correct, yet this guy is pulling a "stunt" and no one cares. Then, when I try to stop him from doing this, then I'M the goat for "interfering." Well, HE IS LYING BY OMISSION which is lying just the same. The Ron Paul people are pulling every stunt they can (I have no idea why they are so passionate about him) and they are even lying. I have gone to political web sites and his supporters make claims that are out of whole cloth. Certainly the votes in Iowa and New Hampshire prove that he is not going to win anything, but I can't figure out what his people gain by pulling stunts for him. It almost seems like 7th grade - how much can they get away with.

He is also using polls that are NOT Republican Party polls so that is another "lack of credibility" on his site. And WHY does it take 3 days when we are looking at election tampering? When I try to make something "right" I get jumped on and told to "stop it" and yet I am telling the truth! I am stopped in a heartbeat, yet he gets to continue to misinform around the clock. I don't get it. WHY aren't people required to be fair and not biased when they run political sites? I love Wikipedia. I have it as my home page. But my frustration is through the roof. How does he get away with such nonsense?

You said to go to Talk:Straw polls for the Republican Party (United States) presidential nomination, 2008 and write something there. I don't know how to do that. What series of "buttons" do I press to get a screen? Who do I write to? All I know how to do is edit (not that that does any good, since I get "reversed and scolded"). I don't know how to contact anybody until they contact me first. I am trying to make this RIGHT, (I have no horse in this race) and I am threatened to "lose my privileges" - well WHY doesn't he lose his privileges for putting up aberrant figures as though they were gospel, and trying to mislead everyone into thinking that Ron Paul is the top poll getter? Why doesn't he get in trouble for what he is doing? Suttonplacesouth (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for replying. For the most part, I'll put aside your particular objection to this article (and so shan't say if I agree or disagree with you) and instead concentrate on your options for expressing it and getting things done.

First, though, you say I am so frustrated I could scream. I'll take you seriously here. Don't write anything. Cool down, then write. After all, if you're in a scream-state, you're not likely to be persuasive; and you presumably value getting things changed above letting off steam.

You say: I went to your page and you said to "post a message below" and I couldn't even figure out how to do that. Everything was in self-contained boxes and couldn't be accessed. There was no place to post anything. In principle, you (or I) write on that page in exactly the same way that you (or I) write to this one. More precisely, you look for the main header nearest the bottom and you click the "[edit]" link next to it. You'll see an edit box; you start a new line and there write "==" and your title and again "==", and then you start a new line and write what you want to write.

You say: You said to go to Talk:Straw polls for the Republican Party (United States) presidential nomination, 2008 and write something there. I don't know how to do that. What series of "buttons" do I press to get a screen? Who do I write to? You just click on "Talk:Straw polls for the Republican Party (United States) presidential nomination, 2008" to get to that page, and then you go through the "main header nearest the bottom" rigmarole that I've just described. When writing on that talk page, you're writing to anybody who's interested in editing that article.

You say Additionally, the "Republican Party" name cannot be used except by the Republican Party, so HOW does the author of this page get away with using the name? Because its content (whether truthful or bogus, or somewhere in between) is about the Republican Party. -- Hoary (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hoary:

Thanks a million for your calm tone and directions. Tomorrow I shall tackle this again and see what I can do.

Politics is my life; I live, eat, breathe, and sleep politics. I have a Political Science degree (magna cum laude).

I am a precinct officer (and have been one since 1964). I work my precinct assiduously.

I write, teach, and preach politics. And, when I find someone who is acting without integrity, I am sickened.

I have a very high view of politics and politicians. Since 1988, I have been a full-time volunteer for the Republican Party. I served as delegate and super-delegate for both Presidents’ Bush, and Deputy Director of our state campaign for President Bush in 1992. Learning to work with the Secret Service was a unique opportunity. In fact, working that closely with a sitting president was an interesting experience. Over the decades, I have held a number of positions (both elected and appointed). I chaired the mayor’s inaugural and then three of his “state of the city” events. I worked as a volunteer coordinator for my congressman; co-chaired a state-wide program to nominate for Boards and Commissions for the governor; and served on an advisory committee for my US senator. My number one duty, through all of this, was to keep my precinct organized.

The political world is really quite small (everyone knows everyone else) and stellar levels of integrity are expected. Also, you never know what the future holds. A man I knew slightly, who lived one village over, needed a ride home when his car was in the garage, so I gave him a ride home, and we became friends. About 12 years later, he became chair of the RNC! Now, I would never have been entrusted as I have been, if my integrity had ever been compromised. And that doesn't just mean your reputation, but also the pride and effort that you invest in even the smallest job. If I did anything underhanded, such as is being done on the web site in question, I would have been discovered, and my name would be Mudd. It has been my experience that folks who aspire to work for politicians had best be like Caesar's wife. The candidate can be a stinker, but his people had better not be. Yes, it may be a double standard, but that's the way things are. Good aides can keep a marginal legislator in line. However, if the pol is the least big fringy, a bad aide can sink his boat. By the same token, I am invested in keeping our processes above board. There is no point in demanding transparency in government, when we have folks who are double-dealing under the table, particularly when they admit that they are supporting the candidate who is benefiting from the deal. Suttonplacesouth (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read

For straw poll results please visit http://www.usastrawpolls.com/. Perhaps you haven't heard of the Texas Straw Poll, please read this article. Also, straw polling is not the same as opinion polling. --STX 00:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with you "coloring" your map of the US with the results of a site that admits it is slanted toward Ron Paul. HOWEVER, the page should not be labeled as a Republican Party poll (which it is not).

The map should be marked as a Ron Paul biased site.

In fact, you have given him New Hampshire, even though the race there is over and he polled AGAIN in the single digits, yet you continue to color it for Ron Paul.

Suttonplacesouth (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of the straw polls used in the article were found by User:John J. Bulten. It would be great if you could find other straw polls because I have tried and I can't find any others. Once you find the polls let me know and I will recolor the map and then the article wouldn't have to be renamed. I thank you for your interest in trying to make this article as accurate as possible.--STX 01:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to do so. I will start on it tomorrow, but, Friday being Friday, I probably won't have much until Monday or Tuesday of next week. Thank a lot. Suttonplacesouth (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Republican Front-runners by state as of January 23, 2008

Texas Map Man:

IS THERE A SPECIAL WAY TO SEND THE BACKGROUND SOURCES FOR MY SYNOPSIS?

I DON’T WANT TO CLUTTER YOUR PAGE with my worksheets, so I need to know how to send “attachment” type information on Wikipedia. (I will begin to assemble it to a grid system if the only way is to deliver it directly.)

[John McCain needs a color and his name added to the map.]

The polls are changing rapidly – 13 days away from super-duper-Tuesday when much of the die will be cast. 19 states on February 5; 24 other races after that date

I am using all the polls I can find; not the (unreliable) polls that the originator was relying on as they were not legitimate samples at the time. Most of the polls that are marked “Republican” on the sheet have no connection with the Republican Party, and should never have been used. Most of those “non-standard” poll results are not holding up to reality. If Republican Party polls had been used, (as I was lead to believe they would have been used by the title of this page), the results would mirror reality. Since they were not used, the current map does not mirror reality. Much is completely changed; not because the voters have changed their minds, but because the polls being used were not representative of the voters at any time. [I aced my college statistics classes; and have always been interested in “what folks think” rather than trying to change them to “my” way of thinking.]

At any rate, there is no doubt that you will have the most dynamic map on Wikipedia.

Most polls are considering the country as a whole (which makes sense, since this is a national race) and there aren’t as many polls reporting with state delineations.

Another thing that I have noticed is that the national maps are showing the numbers of electoral votes, yet we are months away from the general elections; which proves that most reporters (and some map makers) don’t know as much as they think they do about the election process.

For example, rather than the numbers of electoral votes, I have noted the number of delegates that each state receives because those are killer numbers right now. If the candidate can’t get the delegates, he can’t get the nomination, and the electoral votes become moot.

The electoral numbers only matter at the general election and that does not take place until November.

As you know, Thompson is out, but his name still remains on a few states until they are polled without him.

Hunter is also gone, but his name should never have been applied to Texas on the basis of a single popularity “poll” sponsored by Townhall.com and that was not a Republican Party poll. Duncan Hunter was the only candidate who was actually there on the date in question, and who spoke to the crowd, so, out of respect (Republicans tend to be very respectful) the folks who were there gave him a single non-binding vote simply because he was there, and gave a speech. Relying on a single event that was not initiated by the Republican Party, while at the same time completely ignoring 38 Republican Party sanctioned county polls, provided an inaccurate picture of Texas. To demonstrate, I am supplying a more accurate picture of Texas Republicans, as of January 10, 2008. These are the same numbers that are reflective of Republican Party members in Texas. If we are to believe that Duncan Hunter was ever the front runner, how can he now not even be on the board? There has been no information made public that would have caused him to drop from first spot to off the board. In fact, from the day he declared, he was consistently polling anywhere from 0 to 1 % (compared to those who were consistently polling in double digits).

Texas Projected winner: Huckabee = 26 % Second: McCain = 24 % Third: Thompson = 12 % Fourth: Romney = 11 % Fifth: Giuliani = 10 % Sixth: Paul = 4 %

If you recall from your college statistics classes, anything that serves as an outlier is not representative and should not have been counted because it is not representative and it is deceptive to report “outliers” as if they were a valid exposition of the public’s voice and mind-set.

That lone Duncan Hunter vote was an outlier. To give outliers credence is to break hearts. The real winners are cheated (because they are not acknowledged), and the real losers are given false hope (because the public is going to believe the manipulated data). There is no more evil trick to pull on folks than to give them false hope. [This is what is happening to the Ron Paul supporters. They were given “false hope” because they were furnished with a tiny slice of manipulated data (for example, numbers from a hustled BBQ that was open to those who don’t give a rip about politics or voting, is given complete credence while 104 Republican straw polls conducted by the Republican party are completely disregarded. No one should be expected to make an “informed decision” based on faulty information, yet the Ron Paul supporters wrote him checks based both on faulty information that was then fueled by false expectations. When the crowing numbers are contrasted, it is clear to note that the reports that were listed are based on 100 % biased reporting [A practice of including 100 % biased polls while rejecting 100 % of the vetted and credible polls]. Someone in his organization should be held up to charges of fraud, and the contributors should be given their money back. Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, and Tom Tancredo got the same numbers as RP, but they didn’t set up leading polls and raise millions from folks who were lead to believe anything other than that their “honest” numbers were in the cellar. Rather, like honorable men, they did the right thing and merely closed down their effort and went away. Why did Ron Paul keep his actual numbers from his supporters? He knew what they were; his staff knew what they were; why did they engage in a deception?

I have no idea where the current crop will land. For the first time in my life, I don’t have a good handle on which candidate is preferred. I am going to my own caucus with no great insight whatsoever. I will, as usual, run my own precinct on caucus night, and because of how divided my own precinct is, I have no idea where the majority of the voters stand. It is kind of cool not knowing.

However, for reasons I don’t understand, McCain has started to move up at an almost exponential rate. From the time I began this exercise he deposed Giuliani in New York, and Romney in another state that I can’t recall at this moment. The current Arizona poll has Giuliani and McCain very close. Also, as New York goes, New Jersey could follow, and then Delaware.

I will mail changes as names change by state (unless you want to do it yourself); I will not mail changes if the numbers change, if the frontrunner stays the same.

Let me know how to mail the background information so you can see where my numbers came from. Of course, if you have better numbers, please let me know what they are. I am going to rely mostly on the sites that are referred to me by other party officials.

Republican Front-runners by state as of January 23, 2008

Giuliani Arizona, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin,

Huckabee Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa*, North Carolina*, Oklahoma, Texas,

McCain California, Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina*, West Virginia

Romney Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan*, Nevada*, North Dakota, Utah, Wyoming*

Thompson Colorado, Montana, South Dakota

I have the sources ready to go, just tell me how to send them.

Thanks Suttonplacesouth (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead the list all the sources here. Just copy and paste the websites. After this I will incorporate the results into the article and the map. Thank you for your work.--STX 22:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Candidate Changes

I was curious to see how the map would look with accurate numbers. I also expect lots of changes after Feb. 5

Fred Thompson has withdrawn, but he still carries three states until there is a newer poll to move those states into another candidate's column.

Since this is "straw polls for the Republican Party" would it be possible for you to pull up (or recreate without too much work) the original map? The one with the actual Republican Party straw poll results?

I thought that it might be instructive if we could compare the list of a year ago with the list today? We could show how close the numbers stayed in a year (or didn't). [Those yellow (Ron Paul) states are pure fantasy, and can't be compared to anything since they are not legitimate.]

I thought was John J. Bulten's page but I read it was your page. Do you know who wrote the first three paragraphs? There are some substantial errors about the Republican Party and I'm surprised that someone who feels comfortable enough to write the text doesn't know very much about how the Party actually operates.

Presidential polls as of January 27, 2008

Many front-runners will change after Super Tuesday, February 5, 2008

State State Dele-gates Caucus Date Leading Candidate % of votes Source of polling numbers Alabama 48 Feb. 5 Huckabee 25% http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=7620916 Alaska 29 Feb. 5 No recent polls na http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/alaska.html Arizona 53 Feb. 5 Giuliani 20% http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1120president-poll1120-ON.html Arkansas 34 Feb. 5 Huckabee 59% http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/arkansas.html California 173 Feb. 5 McCain 22 % http://www.mercurynews.com/traffic/ci_8052092?nclick_check=1 Colorado 46 Feb. 5 Thompson 25 % http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/colorado.html American Research Group Connecticut 30 Feb. 5 McCain 39 % http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/connecticut.html Center for Survey Research & Analysis; University of Connecticut Hartford Courant poll Delaware 18 Feb. 5 Giuliani 37 % http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/delaware.html District of Columbia 19 Feb. 12 No recent polls na http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/district-of-columbia.html Florida 57 Jan. 29 Romney 25 % http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_republican_primary-260.html Georgia 72 Feb. 5 Huckabee 31 % http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/super-duper-tuesday-polls.html Hawaii 20 unk. No recent polls na http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/hawaii.html Idaho 32 May 27 Romney 47 % http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/262876.html Idaho Statesman, Boise Illinois 70 Feb. 5 Giuliani 23% http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/illinois.html Poll Market Shares Corp for Chicago Tribune WGN TV Indiana 57 May/6 No recent polls na Iowa 40 Jan. 3 * Huckabee 34.3 % http://www.iowagop.net/ Kansas 39 Feb. 9 No recent polls na http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/kansas.html Kentucky 45 May 20 Romney 21.2 % http://sos.ky.gov/secdesk/mediacenter/pressreleases/article117.htm Louisiana 47 Jan. 22 * McCain http://www.lagop.com/ Maine 21 Feb. 1 Romney 15 % http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/maine.html Critical Insights Maryland 37 Feb. 12 Giuliani 39 % http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/maryland.html Massachusetts 43 Feb. 5 Romney 48 % http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/massachusetts.html Michigan 60 Jan. 15 Romney 38.9 % http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2007/09/romney_wins_mackinac_poll.html Minnesota 41 Feb. 5 Giuliani 27 % http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/minnesota.html Princeton Survey Research Associates International for Star Tribune Minnesota Poll Mississippi 39 Mar. 11 No recent polls na http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/mississippi.html Missouri 58 Feb. 5 Giuliani 24 % http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/missouri.html Research 2000 for the St Louis Post Dispatch and KMOV TV Montana 25 June 3 Thompson 25 % http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/montana.html Nebraska 33 May 13 No current polls na http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/nebraska.html Nevada 34 Jan. 19 * Romney 51 % http://www.nvgopcaucus.com/ New Hampshire 12 Jan. 8 * McCain 37 % http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_primary-193.html New Jersey 52 Feb. 5 Giuliani 28.7 % http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nj/new_jersey_republican_primary-245.html New Mexico 32 June 3 Giuliani 38 % http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/new-mexico.html POLL ONE YEAR OLD New York 101 Feb. 5 Giuliani 32 % http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/super-duper-tuesday-polls.html North Carolina 69 May 6 Huckabee 33 % http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/north-carolina.html North Dakota 26 Feb. 5 Romney 29 % http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2007/10/27/news/local/141642.txt Ohio 88 Mar. 4 Giuliani 29 % http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/ohio.html Oklahoma 41 Feb. 5 Huckabee 31 % http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/oklahoma.html Oregon 30 May 20 Giuliani 16 % http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/oregon.html Pennsylvania 74 April 22 McCain 30 % http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08018/850178-85.stm Franklin & Marshall College/Philadelphia Daily News/WGAL TV, et al, Keystone Poll Rhode Island 20 Mar. 4 No current polls na http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/rhode-island.html South Carolina 24 Jan. 19 * McCain 33% http://www.scgop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6825 South Dakota 27 June 3 Thompson 25 % http://www.southdakotagop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=5984 Tennessee 55 Feb. 5 No current polls na http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/tennessee.html Texas 140 Mar. 4 Huckabee 26 % http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/texas.html IVR Polls Utah 36 Feb. 5 Romney 65 % http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/utah.html Desert Morning News/KSL TV Poll by Dan Jones & Assoc Vermont 17 Mar. 4 No current polls na http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/vermont.html Virginia 63 Feb. 12 Giuliani 34 % http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/virginia.html Washington 40 Feb. 19 Giuliani 34% http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/washington.html http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/2008presidential_primary.aspx West Virginia 30 May 13 McCain 33 % http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/west-virginia.html Wisconsin 40 Feb. 19 Giuliani 36 % http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/wisconsin.html Wyoming 12** Jan. 5 * Romney 66.7 % http://www.wygop.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=6723

[*]next to caucus date = final; however, those states holding presidential primaries will not distribute all delegates until after both caucus and presidential primary

[**]indicates that there has been a reduction in delegates due to unresolved issues between the state party and the RNC

Suttonplacesouth (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Great work on the map, I will incorporate it into the article eventually. Also John J. Bulten did create this page See here and here. --STX 23:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Offer to negotiate, and warning

Hello SPS. I'm sorry I haven't been around to help you understand the direction of the straw polls article. I gather you are disturbed by WP's presentation of unofficial straw polls and Dr. Paul's standing among them. I see that you have done a lot of research and work, and you raise many concerns, and they will not be easy to address quickly because of their length and number. I definitely understand your thoughts about how an apparently biased (e.g., pro-Paul) article should not be permitted to stand for one moment; there's an immediacy to the need and a despair at one's ability to fix it timely. But we must all be patient and not insert our own bias either (e.g., anti-Paul) and thereby pass the immediacy and despair on to someone else. I will be happy to work with you on this article on its talk page, but you will need to learn that our advocacy for bold edits does not include edits which are strongly unbalanced in their POV. Since no one else has listed some of your problematic edits, I will need to do so myself:

• Here you change Paul's straw poll wins from 17 to 0, while leaving other candidates' numbers as is, apparently on the justification that none of Paul's straw poll wins deserved to be counted.
• Here, with edit summary "Ron Paul numbers are not correct in relation to other candidates - giving a skewed (fraudulent) result)", you reduce Paul's numbers unilaterally by a factor of ten, without direct explanation of your math, while retaining other candidates' numbers as is.
• Here you post a large all-caps accusation of skewed map in the article's inline text.
• Here you do it again, for which you received a "final warning" (see "Articles are not soapboxes" above).
• Here you have some heavily POV-slanted language: I suppose you are implying that "preference polls" should be included in the "straw poll" article, but even if so, your presentation of tiering as "top", "close middle", and "far bottom", for instance, is inappropriate, as it refers to a subjective mental grouping among opinion poll results unrelated to this article.
• Here an anonymous user from the IP address of 71.222.23.221 has inserted three lengthy mentions such as the "3,077 Republican Party Straw Polls" of last spring, which is apparently your edit, because you made the same observation in the edit I mentioned in the paragraph just above. Lengthy observations inserted by IPs are not the way to go. The same IP also deleted Paul-related sourced content from Robert Taft without any stated reason.

Particularly, changing wins from 17 to 0, or changing win percentages from 40% to 4%, without sourcing other than one's own views of what the results should be, is considered clear-cut vandalism on WP. You appear to be learning (most everyone goes through initial clashes like these), but neutrality and verifiability must be upheld strongly. Since you have already received a "final warning", I am going to need to state the level-4 warning formally below. It appears to me that, as it stands now, if I reported the IP edit to the vandalism page, an admin would most certainly already have enough reason to institute a 24-hour block to the IP and to your account based on the clear identity of the edits. Since you appear to wish to work these problems out, please don't make biased edits without obtaining consensus from the current group of editors. I think we'll be able to come to reasonable agreement on presentation given enough time and willingness on your part to work through what you've complained about. (However, please discuss content on the article talk page, not this user talk page.) Thank you! The formal warning is below:

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

John J. Bulten (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I regret to report that 71.222.27.3 has inserted the same edits in mainspace after this warning. I am no longer able to refrain from passing this information on to the admins. I'm sorry we couldn't talk it out. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

TALK IT OUT!!!

How can anyone "talk anything out" when you are posting nonsense?

You entitled your page "Straw Polls for the Republican Party."

Yet, you did not use the Republican Parties straw polls!!!

You used Ron Paul's Straw Polls!!!

Why did you not merely change the name of the page, as I asked time after time, so that they reflectd that these were Ron Paul's straw polls???

You have not been fair to the other candidates.

You only used the Ron Paul polls.

You did not do your own research.

You haven't even put John McCain on the map!

What do you mean, "talk it out" when the entire page is a Ron Paul promotion?

Suttonplacesouth (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I began asking you SIX WEEKS ago, to TAKE THIS PAGE DOWN before Super Tuesday. If you cannot understand the notion of "urgency" when dealing with something as finiate as an election, then why do you even get involved, if you are willing to put up biased articles and then (conveniently) do not have time to "repair" what you have done before the primary. It would have taken about 15 minutes to repair the damage. I was even willing to help (look at the map I created above) and I wanted to work with you.

I was lead to believe that if I furnished more accurate information to TX he would change the map. I now see exactly where that offer got me. No where!

So, it is now too late.

You won!

You were able to successfully stall me until after Super Tuesday.

For you to now complain about me takes a huge nerve.

It is I who should be complaining about your lack of candor.

[Yes, I read the Ronald Paul web sites and I am aware of many of the "tactics" used by "his" supporters.

You win!

But, in the end, I win, because truth and honesty will out.

You didn't learn a thing from my messages to you; I was in favor of HONESTY. I wasn't supporting any candidate.

You called that "anti-Paul" bias. How can your supporting a single candidate be OK, but my supporting ALL the candidates be wrong?

When you took states away from the actual winners, that was dishonest.

When you named the page "Straw Polls for the Republican Party" and then REFUSED to use the Parties actual Straw Polls, that was extremely dishonest.

I don't know how you can defend your pro-Paul bias, when you are claiming that the page is for all Republicans!

I just want political pages to be fair to all!

How can you justify only using only those few Ron Paul polls?

How can you justify using polls that weren't even Republican Polls?

How can you justify placing the word "Republican" on polls that were not Republican polls?

How can you justify "awarding" states to Ron Paul with no proof whatsoever?

How can you justify refusing to use the 3,076 polls that he LOST?

Suttonplacesouth (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:

How in the world can I get a final warning when I haven't had a chance to state my case before a jury of my peers?

How can Bulten try to make this about ME, when the topic is about the basic dishonesty of the page?

The entire page is bogus and I can prove it, but someone has to agree to look at the content of the page, rather than just trying to make this about me.

I want political pages to be scrupulously honest; that should not be cause for "warnings."

There are six problems: (1)the name of the page does not match the content. The map: (2) the map was not accurate to the polls (and still does not match). (3) The polls called for by the title have been discarded because they showed Ron Paul losing. (4) The polls are all from the Ron Paul website. (5) The sources are from Ron Paul. (6) The linked pages that justify are cross-tabbed.

just an onlooker here - you might want to look at this page for ideas about requesting help in resolving conflicts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_resolution#Step_6:_Turn_to_others_for_help

hope that helps. Sssoul (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Very briefly:

1. The name is correct; it is straw polls for the Republican Party 2008 presidential nomination, and it lists straw polls (not phone polls) for the GOP's nomination.
2. The map, by longtime consensus, is intended to reflect the winner of the most recent straw poll in each state. Lately it has gotten a little outdated, but for months that is indeed what it reported accurately, and it can continue to report this accurately without bias.
3. The reason the article does not mention what you believe are "the polls called for by the title" is that they are (apparently) phone polls, not straw polls (thus not called for by the title); and also because you have not indicated a web link or another way of verifying what you say about them. What you say may well be true, but how would anyone else know?
4. Some of the polls are also mentioned on Paul's site (as one would expect), but none of them is taken from his site, and many polls not on his site are included.
5. I would hope that none of the sources are from Paul; would you mention one or two specifically?
6. I don't know what you mean or why such "cross-tabbing" would be a problem. John J. Bulten (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Hi, Suttonplacesouth. I'm afraid I don't have much of a reply yet ... as I said on my talk page, I'll look into the matter this weekend and then comment further. --Iamunknown 05:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much and please keep on trying!

Thank you very much.

Because my life is politics, I sometimes think I speak a different language.

I can see that the entire "Straw Polls for the Republican Party" is manufactured of whole cloth.

Yet, to someone who "does not speak the language" my claim seems fantastic.

I doubt that most folks would even consider doing what Mr. Bulten has done to advance the chances of his candidate; it seems like a tremendous amount of work for a doubtful purpose. Most folks wouldn't consider that anyone would go to such an extreme measure.

And, that is why this page represents something very dangerous.

It is one thing masquerading as another.

You could show this page to 100 people and 99 would probably attest to its authenticity. Most would gloss over because of the content matter. Others might question a point or two. Some might even get into debating a point here and a point there. Then, the author could come back and innocently debate this point or that. He might even seem to agree and make a minor change or two.

Yet, those 99 people would have missed the entire point (that the page itself is bogus). They would be "spinning their wheels" debating content because they would ASSUME that the page was authentic. They would not imagine that anyone would go to the amount of work involved in putting up a completely bogus page.

In fact, the page does not contain a single thing that the title calls for.

He did not include the actual Republican Party Straw Polls. He managed to "avoid" 3,076 straw polls that found "his candidate" as the loser.

He has done something very clever; and it appears that there is no one who can stop him or correct him.

That is what is so incredibly dangerous about this situation.

Please keep trying.

If we cannot stop lies, what is our purpose?

Suttonplacesouth (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi SPS, welcome back. It would greatly help matters if you (1) assume good faith (e.g., stop accusing me of such activity as putting up a bogus page), (2) do your best to keep your comments short and to the point (otherwise very few people are tempted even to read them), (3) provide me some way of verifying the existence of these 3,077 polls, so I know what you have been talking about since Jan, (4) provide me a list of the changes you think would be appropriate, for group discussion, and (5) demonstrate your willingness to work together with me and the other editors to establish consensus on what would be appropriate. Rest assured that we can unite absolutely on the goal of stopping lies. Thank you! John J. Bulten (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Actually, I just realized the import of your list of recent polls above. You are thinking of opinion polls, not straw polls. All the data you mention above is appropriate for the other article, Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2008, which probably is already incorporated there in large part. The straw polls article measures a different phenomenon entirely. I have not taken part in the opinion polls article, so feel free to edit there (without vandalizing of course). But if you have any evidence for real straw polls, I'm looking forward to it. John J. Bulten (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

BOGUS IS AS BOGUS DOES

I knew that if I waited long enough, you would trip yourself up!

YOU SAID:

"But if you have any evidence for real straw polls, I'm looking forward to it. John J. Bulten (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)"

OK, then John J. Bulten, why did you name your page "Straw Polls for the Republican Party" if you didn't believe there were any "real straw polls?"

What in the world have you been using if not the "real" straw polls???

Why didn't you use the "real" straw polls since you MUST believe they exist, or else why would you name the page to include them???

MY STATE went for MITT ROMNEY in the "real" Republican Party Straw Polls (IT WAS LIVE, NOT ON THE PHONE, AND IT WAS CLEARLY MARKED "STRAW POLL" ON THE FRONT PAGE) yet YOU MARKED MY STATE FOR RON PAUL.

The state adjoining state went for FRED THOMPSON yet YOU MARKED IT FOR RON PAUL.

Then there is the matter of John McCain, whom you do not recognize.

I BEGGED YOU to use the actual Republican Party Straw Polls or else CHANGE THE NAME OF THE PAGE; yet you continue to list random "so called polls" DIRECTLY FROM THE RON PAUL web site, that mislead.

In fact, you have can't use the actual Republican Party Straw Poll results because they prove that Ron Paul won ZERO states. Your claim of 19 wins is completely bogus!

More proof?

How did Ron Paul go from the HIGH 30's % in NINETEEN (19) states last fall, down to 5 % in ALL the states now?

Ron Paul DIDN'T WIN A SINGLE STATE IN THE REPUBLICAN STRAW POLLS YET YOU GAVE HIM CREDIT FOR 19 WINS. That makes your entire page (and maybe other pages) fraudulent!

When are you going to admit what you have done?

Suttonplacesouth (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for our consideration stating that the 3,077 polls were "straw polls" and meet the generally accepted definition. Also please reread WP:NPA and WP:AGF. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If your figures were correct ...

Why did Ron Paul not beat John McCain? Why is he losing at the same results that MY figures show? Why is he not winning at the rate that YOUR figures show?

Try to follow this: (yes I know what you are marking time, through diversion)

YOU put up a page and named it "Straw Polls for the Republican Party."

I do research in that area, and when I found your page, I expected to see REPUBLICAN PARTY STRAW POLL RESULTS!!

By your title I expected to find REPUBLICAN PARTY STRAW POLLS.

Instead, I found MANY states marked for Ron Paul (which I knew was a LIE immediately). Your "evidence" is a silly compilation of manipulated numbers, based on NO ACTUAL STRAW POLLING and NOTHING from the Republican Party. [Remember, I'm using YOUR words, you could have named your page "Ron Paul's fantasies" and I would have had no complaints.]

You are the one who chose "straw polls" and "Republican Party." Therefore, I expected to find "straw polls" that were gleaned from the Republican Party. I FOUND NEITHER.

Then, when I told you to put up the ACTUAL (OFFICIAL) REPUBLICAN PARTY STRAW POLLS, you refuse, saying that it is necessary for ME to "provide a reliable source for our consideration stating that the 3,077 polls were "straw polls" and meet the generally accepted definition"

YOU CREATED THE PAGE SO THE QUEST FOR INFORMATION IS ON YOUR SHOULDERS. YOU CHOSE TO NAME IT "STRAW POLLS FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND YOUR "VIEWING PUBLIC" HAS EVERY RIGHT TO EXPECT REPUBLICAN PARTY STRAW POLLS ON THIS PAGE. I was merely pointing out your strategic lack of pertinent information.

You appropriated their name (the Republican Party) and you claimed ownership of one of their statistic methods (straw polls) and now you are telling THEM to justify themselves?

YOU are the one who has to justify your LACK of information; they do not have to justify their possession OF THEIR OWN INFORMATION. In fact, you are claiming to examine and rate their information, but you didn’t do either of the things you promised.

Perhaps it is you who does not understand what a straw poll actually is, since you are using BBQ dinners and radio call in shows as “straw polls.” You also seem to have a problem with geographic areas, because you will mark an entire state for RON PAUL when he only wins one county. You IGNORE the other counties and the folks who are winning those counties.

YOU CLAIM THAT THE “RON PAUL” FOLKS ARE BETTER AT REPORTING. HOWEVER, YOUR JOB AS ‘KEEPER OF THE INFORMATION’ MEANS THAT IT IS YOUR JOB TO GET ALL THE INFORMATION. RUNNING OVER TO RON PAUL SITES AND GETTING STUFF TO GIVE TO HIM IS NOT HONEST.

In fact, you are using "old" information that benefits YOUR candidate, and you are cheating other candidates from their actual wins. That is not honest either. Especially when you announce that you favor ONE candidate, and then you use his web site as your ONLY site for information. That isn't very honest.

I will try to explain why the Republican Party straw polls are straw polls, since you don't seem to be clear. (1) There is a title at the top of the ballot that says "STRAW POLL." (2) As I have told you REPEATEDLY, the Republican Party does this routine every four years (the presidential election years, so you don't get confused as to which four years), and they have had a lot of practice.

It is the RNC that determines the credibility of its own polls. Your roll as self-appointed “overseer” is more than a tad presumptuous. The RNC does not have to get your approval of their internal workings. After all YOU are the one who moved in on their territory by setting up a page that claims to have Republican Party polls. Nobody did that but YOU.

N.B.: As I have told you, "I PARTICIPATE IN THESE STRAW POLLS." I know this seems very confusing to you so I will give you a brief overview so you do not confuse these exercises with BBQ dinners. (a) Get a bunch of people together in a room. (b) Pass out pieces of paper or something that can be used as a ballot. (c) Have some pencil supplies around the room, in case someone forgets theirs. (d) Tell the people what they are voting on and let them get to it. (e) The answers can be numbers, or letters, or names, or something fairly simple. As you well know, some people are confused and believe that call-in radio polls (where the same folks can vote for the same person over and over and over again), is an authentic straw poll, but it is not. Some folks believe that buying BBQ dinners (for non-voters, such as children, teens, felons, or foreigners) counts as a straw poll, but it does not. Some folks believe that joining a club constitutes a straw poll, but it does not.

The Republican Party requests that we sign up ahead of time, so they can make certain that we are actually registered Republicans before they provide us with our ballots. They want the results to be as accurate as possible. Yes, some jokers get in, but we are talking about hundreds of thousands of people, and they do a very good job of vetting (also, most of us know each other, and newbies show up like sore thumbs).

The Republican Party officers pass out the ballots to each of us as we sign our names to a registration form. The ballots are blank inside (for privacy) but the outer envelope has our names on them.

After voting, we give the ballots to “security.” My polling place had about six or eight security officers. The ballots were taken to a table with about eight or ten apopinted Republican workers (they try to get one from each campaign; some can't make it) who sort them into matching stacks (folks continue to read the stacks to make sure all the same candidates are in the same pile). Then, they counted them and checked to make sure they had the correct total number of ballots that they passed out. Then they put the results on a big white board. Those totals were recorded in a logbook and signed off. This process took approximately an hour an a half or maybe two hours; I did not care, I was catching up with old friends.

You named your page “Straw Polls for the Republican Party" yet refuse to use the background documents. In fact, you CANNOT use the results of the actual Republican Straw Polls because the results prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Ron Paul lost every race in every state. He may be winning BBQ dinners, but BBQ dinners do not nominate candidates.

THIS IS WHY, FROM DAY ONE, I TOLD YOU TO CHANGE THE NAME OF YOUR PAGE AND REMOVE THAT RIDICULOUS MAP.

Why do ONLY YOU AND THE RON PAUL WEB SITE claim high numbers for him?

CAN YOU NOT TELL FROM THE ACTUAL ELECTIONS THAT ARE GOING ON THAT RON PAUL IS A LOSER?

Anyone who has seen the results of these polls knows that Ron Paul didn’t win anything!!! The results you are using do not stand up to scientific method. They do not stand up to statistic analysis. They do not stand up to any kind of organized research. Why can you not see that the “evidence” he has provided to you, and that you are trying to defend, does not qualify?

How can honestly, with a straight face, REFUSE the actual Republican Party straw poll results, yet use BBQ dinners as a straw poll??

How can you accept MANIPULATED DATA as “true” and then have the nerve to doubt the actual Republican Party straw polls, when YOU named your paper “Straw Polls for the Republican Party? “ How can you name your page for the exact information that you refuse to consider?

That’s like saying that you are going to teach the US Constitution, and then use sheets from an Archie comic book, and if anyone gives you pages from the Constitution, you claim they aren’t valid!!!

As to the pompous notion that YOU will only accept THE DOCUMENTS THAT VERIFY YOUR ORIGINAL TITLE "for consideration" is silly.

You are demanding a "reliable source" but that source can't be more reliable than it already is. The source is the RNC (the Republican National Committee) in Washington DC, and the State Republican Headquarters in each state. You said that you wanted their results, so why aren't you using them????

In fact, how could you even dare to begin this page WITHOUT the original research?

You either started this page without knowing that the Republican Party takes their own straw poll, OR you found out the results and are rejecting them on purpose.

I can’t imagine beginning a page that said “Straw Polls for the Democrat Party” and then not going to the Democrat Party to get their actual polling information. I can’t imagine starting such a page and then trying to find equivalent straw polls. It would be too hard and not accurate. And, that’s what you have; a page that is not accurate.

Because you cannot use the actual Republican results you are running around trying to find something else to you and you are accepting pathetic junk that would never be used in an actual research assignment. In fact, your “proof” is nothing but proof of junk science.

It is YOU who are copying junk (manipulated data) from Ron Paul's website onto a page that you are claim contains Republican Party straw polls.

And it is YOU who have rejected the results of the actual (official) Republican Party straw polls.

If you had accepted their results, the numbers would PROVE that Ron Paul is not wanted by more than about 7% of the people AT MOST, which is what the actual races are showing.

In fact, you probably threw them away, BECAUSE THEY PROVED THAT RON PAUL WAS NOT WINNING ANYTHING!!!!

As for having to "justify" the actual Republican Party's straw polls; that makes no sense at all. You have refused to use the results because they put a stop to your agenda.

If your figures were correct, why did Ron Paul not beat John McCain? Why is he losing at the same results as MY figures show? Why is he not winning at the rate that YOUR figures show?

Suttonplacesouth (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! I see from your edit to Erin Burnett and your apparent edit as 71.222.22.172 that you are trying to learn a bit more about how WP works, but as you realize it does take awhile to learn how to present facts neutrally and properly weighted. I agree that I made a mistake in permitting the original statement that the polls were conducted by the GOP when that was not always the case, but that error has been long corrected now.

In addressing your concerns I would like to start by asking you to read Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2008. You can see that that article properly weights the opinion poll results toward McCain and the other candidates. For example, the first poll you list above as Alabama, Huckabee 25%, http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=7620916, is properly listed at that article in the Alabama section under its correct date, January 7-10, 2008, with the full results starting with Huckabee 25%. In other words, the polls you are presenting from reliable sources have already been dealt with by Wikipedians in their proper places. Most Wikipedians have judged that they are "opinion polls", not straw polls, and have placed them in that article or similar places. If you understand this, then please indicate a webpage (just one or two) which describes something as a physically balloted straw poll and which has not been included in either the straw poll article or the opinion poll article, and we can continue the discussion. If you don't have a webpage poll, please provide a webpage which lists a phone number of a GOP official whom you know to have conducted a physically balloted straw poll, and then we can independently verify whether they have a reliable report of such a poll or of 3077 such polls. Thank you! (I notice that you asked to place this quest on my shoulders, but according to the core verification policy, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." I have performed proper diligence in seeking straw poll info for this article and have not come across an independent verification of your assertions, so I am not able at this time to take responsibility for finding such a verification of another person's claims, as I do not know how to do so.) JJB 19:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I should add that you may also be referring, by your latest description, to the preference polling methods conducted in some states at the same time as the primary and the delegate selection. However, these polls began on Jan 3 and are still ongoing, so I don't believe they are the same as the "3077 polls" you previously mentioned. These are currently reported in separate articles for each state, such as at Iowa Republican caucuses, 2008. I am open to considering a link to these polls, which might be argued to fall within the scope of this article as well, though they are usually called preference polls rather than straw polls. However, because they are significantly different from the type of straw poll described in the article, their results should not be statistically combined with those in the current article. Further, they are usually reported by the GOP only on the statewide and not on the individual-poll basis, so they cannot be mixed with individual polls as if of the same weight. But these are changes which I may be able to work toward in the future. JJB 19:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. As requested, please indicate a webpage which describes something as a physically balloted straw poll and which has not been included in either the straw poll article or the opinion poll article, or else please provide a webpage which lists a phone number of a GOP official whom you know to have conducted an unlisted physically balloted straw poll. JJB 13:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

YOU MUST BE JOKING!!!

It is up to YOU to contact the proper GOP members to get those figures; it is not up to me to do your homework. And, since there are 50 states, and some districts and territories, I suggest you get started soon. It would be embarrassing to go all through the entire election cycle WITHOUT THE OFFICIAL RESULTS wouldn't it?

I would also ask that you STOP lecturing me "on the ways of wiki" since TRUTH is a value that I place in high regard and so should wiki!

It has been your intent to deceive since day one [DOES NOT HAVING JOHN MCCAIN NOT EVEN HAVING A SPACE ON YOUR MAP OF OFFICIAL REPUBLICAN RESULTS MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU???]

Then there is the FACT that you failed to identify the "one and only official" REPUBLICAN STRAW POLL as anything other than what it was; "the one and only official Republican Straw Poll!"

A SINGLE STRAW POLL WAS CONDUCTED BY THE GOP IN ALL STATES AND TERRITORIES AND DISTRICTS AT THE EXACT SAME TIME AND WITH THE EXACT SAME NAME, so quit trying to call the "one and only official" Republican Straw Poll an "opinion" poll and quit trying to pretend that the Ron Paul sourced and manipulated polls (such as a phone poll by the goofball Lew Rockwell) as any sort of "official" REPUBLICAN result.

There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between a REPUBLICAN STRAW POLL (conducted by the Republican Party) and any other polls that are conducted by other groups and merely labeled "Republican" as in the fact that some of the participants may be Republicans, or that some of the candidates might be Republicans. Example: I am a Republican and I can conduct a poll; likewise, I can conduct a poll of Republican candidates; likewise, I can conduct a poll of Republican voters. However, none of those conditions makes my poll the “official” Republican Straw Poll as conducted by the Republican Party!!!!!! And, if I posted a poll in Wikipedia (or anywhere else) I would be certain that everyone knew that my poll was not an official "Republican" poll, but was merely a Republican conducting the poll or that the candidates were Republicans, or that the participants were Republicans. I would NEVER have attempted to pretend that there was anything about my poll that was in any way connected with the Republican Party. [But then, I am an experienced pollster.]

ANOTHER HUGE PROBLEM WAS THE FACT THAT YOU DID NOT DO YOUR OWN POLLING!!! YOU DID NOT DO YOUR OWN AUTHENTICATING (or you would have immediately realized that the polls were classic garbage, that could not be used and could never be defended! If you were an experienced pollster, you would have immediately rejected any poll that could not be authenticated. You aren’t even able to figure a margin of error! You were not able to use the polls in any credible fashion; YOU MERELY "COPIED" RESULTS FROM THE RON PAUL WEBSITE!!! [As an experienced pollster, I would never accept dubious quality polls (such as call-in radio station polls) or give any credence to their authenticity by actually using their information and then defending manipulated data. You map was classic GIGO! You may play word games but I do not.

Clearly, you do not have a background in Political Science (as my degree is) because you have ZERO experience or understanding of POLLING!!! You do not seem to be able to separate actual party polling from popular polling from call-in polls, from honor polls from polls that are conducted by the party for their own internal information. That is your problem, not mine. You seem to have a great need to confuse terms in order to try to defend your position. You have also taken credit for "straightening out" something that has not been straightened out. (All errors should be corrected within a day or two of putting up a page and learning that of extreme errors, but we all know what your agenda was, and it was never to apply the actual figures. I would have been happy to work on obtaining all of those numbers but, that was never your goal! We all know what your goal was, and you can go along pretending all you like; but know that I am not fooled!

MAY I REMIND YOU THAT FOR MONTHS, YOU DIDN'T EVEN HAVE JOHN McCAIN'S NAME ON YOUR MISLEADING MAP?? Does that FACT not prove that your information and your sources were problematic?

IN FACT, I PARTICIPATED IN THE "OFFICIAL" REPUBLICAN STRAW POLL SO I KNOW WHAT THE BALLOTS LOOKED LIKE (they came in very large flat envelopes with lots of pates attached, with descriptions of each candidate described by their own campaigns, AND WERE ONLY DISTRIBUTED TO REPUBLICAN ACTIVISTS WHO REGISTERED THROUGH THEIR COUNTRY HEADQUARTERS, AND THEN SHOWED UP AT AN ASSIGNED AREA, AT AN ASSIGNED TIME, AND SHOWED ID!! The FACT that you didn’t participate in the very poll that you are attempting to write about is troubling to me! How can you claim to write about that which THOUSANDS OF OTHERS PARTICIPATED IN WITHOUT INTERVIEWING ANY OF THEM??

(If I were writing about something, and someone emailed me that they had participated in that which I was writing about, I would be very excited to talk to that person!!!) INSTEAD\ OF ASKING ME QUESTIONS, YOU HAVE DENIED THE TRUTH AND TRIED TO EXPLAIN AWAY YOUR FALSE INFORMATION!!! Those are not the deeds of a true researcher!

I ALSO SAW THE ACTUAL, OFFICIAL, "REPUBLICAN STRAW POLL VOTE RESULTS" SO I KNOW THAT THE MAP YOU PRESENTED WAS HOG-WASH FROM DAY ONE. THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE STATE THAT WAS ACCURATE AS YOU PRESENTED IT!! NOT A SINGLE ONE!!

Republicans from Maine to California to Hawaii to Alaska and all places in between and including the Philippines and Puerto Rico all took the same poll at the same time; the fact that you did not take it, and didn’t even know about it, was proof to me that you didn't what you were talking about. You had never even seen the "official" Republican Straw Poll ballots AND YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY INTEREST IN WHAT WAS IN THOSE RETURNED BALLOTS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T FAVOR "YOUR CANDIDATE" SO YOU IGNORED THEM, OR PRETENDED LIKE THE REAL VOTE DIDN'T EVEN EXIST!!

RATHER THAN CONTACTING THE PROPER GOP SOURCES, you used the Ron Paul Website for your sources, and you used the Ron Paul ballot results and then claimed they were the "Republican Straw Poll Ballots" didn't you? IF YOU HAD USED THE ACTUAL REPUBLICAN STRAW POLL, YOU WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT JOHN McCAIN WAS GOING TO BE THE NOMINEE!! Oh, that's right, you don't believe in actual REPUBLICAN STRAW POLLS do you? You prefer to mis-label, or pretend that I don't know what I am talking about; anything to avoid the FACT that you did not use the proper source for the title of your page!!!!

And yet, you were willing to use all sorts of oddball methods of vote counting (you even used BBQ dinners purchased by Ron Paul supporters as "ballots"). Other times, you used memberships in a luncheon club as "ballots." Another time, you used Ron Paul boors who crashed a Young Republican Christmas party as "ballots." The proof of your vile attempt at chicanery was proven in Minneapolis in September! I knew it would be, and it was!

You used Ron Paul's silly little efforts at manipulating a few county or state fair results and attached the word "Republican" to those votes, and then called them "Republican Straw Polls" even though the ACTUAL REPUBLICAN STRAW POLLS SHOWED THAT RON PAUL WAS AT ZERO OR IN SINGLE DIGITS (somewhere between 0 and 3%) on every single state ballot. You even used the results of a single "manipulated" county and claimed it represented the entire state, when, in fact, the entire state did not go for Ron Paul AT ALL!!!!

In the ACTUAL REPUBLICAN POLLS, Ron Paul was down on the bottom with the other fringe candidates! I knew that you were making up numbers; it was all clear to anyone who had a lick of common sense, or was experienced in politics. Aside from the "official" Republican Straw Poll ballots that I saw the results of, I also ATTEND HUNDREDS OF REPUBLICAN MEETINGS AND EVENTS EVERY YEAR, AND MAKE THOUSANDS OF POLITICAL PHONE EVERY YEAR, AND I KNEW (from anecdotes, and from my own polling) THAT RON PAUL HAD ZERO FOLLOWING IN MOST COUNTIES AND A HANDFUL IN ONLY A FEW!!!! [Note to Ron Paul supporters, obnoxious does not equal confidence, and noise does not equal a majority. Any parent knows of these technique; most children try them at some time or other.]

I also knew that you were promoting false figures because YOU DIDN'T EVEN HAVE JOHN McCAIN ON YOUR MAP!! YOU ONLY ADDED HIM LATER ON WHEN YOU KNEW HOW FOOLISH YOU LOOKED for not having the nominee on the map! I have been around politics for a long time and I have seen fringe people try to PUSH their candidate and I knew that false figures never stand because when the voters got to the polls, the truth comes out!! So, what did your year of falsehoods gain you? I know that some supporters are just waking up to the fact that they gave MILLIONS of their own money to that silly, old, lying, bragging, falsifying, (effeminate) fruitcake in Texas. He has ALL of your money and you have nothing! Most Ron Paul supporters have also BURNED BRIDGES at their local Republican groups and are nowhere to be seen. And, if any have the nerve to show up, they are notified as being traitors for working with the Democrats to ruin the Republican nominee!! Ron Paul supporters PLEDGED TO RECLAIM THE REPUBLICAN PARTY but one cannot "reclaim" that which one never laid claim to in the first place. Ron Paul supporters are being shunned by local Republican Party organizations; recant or move on. We will not forgive what you did to John McCain!

Since your information was meant to benefit Ron Paul only, what good did your false information do? Oh, that's right, you were responsible for MILLIONS MORE BEING DONATED TO RON PAUL didn't you? Does (or did) Ron Paul pay a commission for false information that caused his coffers to swell? I can't think of any other reason for anyone to publish (and then defend) false and mislabeled information.

Suttonplacesouth (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

AND ANOTHER THING!!!

The map I threw up on January 24, to counter act the ridiculous Ron Paul numbers you were using, shows John McCain as the winner!!!

WELL, JOHN MCCAIN WON THE ACTUAL REPUBLICAN STRAW POLL (ballots cast by Republican activists and former delegates) AND HE WON THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION!!!

THAT IS THE ULTIMATE PROOF THAT MY CLAIMS WERE CORRECT AND YOURS WERE NONSENSE.

Marilyn vos Savant once wrote that the most powerful concept was TRUTH!!! She said that truth was the most powerful concept BECAUSE there isn't a thing anyone can do about it!!!

She was right! And, I was right! And your scheme failed! [If I owned Wikipedia, you would be punished for lying, but I don't, so you will get away with it, yet again. But, I will continue to write the truth, and the truth always wins out in the end.]

Suttonplacesouth (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Straw polls for the Republican Party 2008 presidential nomination

An article that you have been involved in editing, Straw polls for the Republican Party 2008 presidential nomination, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straw polls for the Democratic Party 2008 presidential nomination. Thank you. Burzmali (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on political straw polls

The article Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election and its associated pages were deleted as of 9 Nov 2008, and the deletions are now being reviewed. Because of your prior involvement, please comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election. Thank you for your consideration! 20 involved editors are being notified. JJB 19:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)