It seemed like it might just be fair. The poll had a captcha system to block spambots (you had to type in an auto-generated password to enter) but ultimately, like Stalin always said, elections aren’t won by who gets the most votes, but by who gets to count them. It seemed like it might just be fair.
The poll had a captcha system to block spambots (you had to type in an auto-generated password to enter) but ultimately, like Stalin always said, elections aren’t won by who gets the most votes, but by who gets to count them.
|
A close look at the snapshot of the AOL poll shows, thankfully, that they are too fucking stupid to rig their own poll. But at least we know for a fact it’s happening, and that they were caught in the act. (CNN and FOX’s RealPolitics rig their polls too, but that’s already been discussed.)
Even though Kucinich got 7,114 votes and Richardson got 5,376, the poll gives Richardson 4% of the total and Kucinich only 3%. Thus, the poll implies 5,376 is more than 7,114! That said, it’s clear the winner of this online poll can be called into question. It wasn’t user chicanery that affected the polls, but the pollster’s abuse of the poll results. The winner of this poll already has a track record of planted post-debate pundits to “interpret” debate performance in favor of Clinton, and using planted questions at public events to prevent actual audience members and real questions from being addressed, given the limited number of questions taken at such rallies and debates. The use of fraudulent polls, as discussed in earlier posts, is a common tactic in psychological operations (PSYOPS), as discussed in this CIA memo regarding the contracting of polling companies, particularly those designed to manipulate opinion rather than gauge it, like Frank Luntz’s operations.
See source article here.