Scientific polls proven Incorrect ? Ron Paul is first place?

are the "scientific" polls incorrect ? here is my argument 1 -Ron Paul's donations will probably be equal to or greater than both guiliani and Romney this quarter (if romney doesnt inject another 17 million of his own money into the campaign)- 2-Avg donation for for Ron paul are $60.00 avg donation for giuliani its $490 and average donation for romney is $650.00 3-so for every average donation guiliani gets Ron Paul gets 8 and for every avg donation Romney gets Ron paul gets 10! 4 - Straw poll results are showing results to support the above also -Ron Paul is coming out on top most of the time on very big margins 3 Questions what are the scientific polls missing when these polls are made so that there is such an obvious discrepency ? And do you think these polls will be corrected any time soon ? also do you agree that the scientific polls have been proven wrong by this example ? in this article it states romneys and guilianis donation avgs http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=rudy+giuliani+average+donation&fr=slv8-adbe&SpellState=n-507578775_q-Bix%2FPCRxzPqOJFfZyU5LGgAAAA%40%40&u=www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/14/america/web-0414donate.php&w=rudy+giuliani+average+donation+donations&d=NxYC_fL9P13o&icp=1&.intl=us http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/ if you have a different site please give it a link in your answer so people can verify you are telling the truth

Public Comments

1. The polls ask people whom they will vote for. That is why Paul is way behind. The polls don't care about donations, and avg donations. Your man does not have a message that resonates with the voters, therefore he is behind in polls and will be lucky to receive 3% of popular vote.
2. You all must be on his payroll..you sound alike on everything
3. The Straw Polls clearly are not the Internet polls, it show Paul has massive support (not just a few spammers on the net). Paul's cash flow also is in first place, clearly again he is in the lead here. The problem is most of us Republicans, Conservatives, and Anti-War people under 40 don't keep land lines (cell phone only). Those of us who do often have Internet phones. Lastly we know technology and get ourselves on the "do not call lists." Combining those factors we simply are not getting polled because of outdated polling methods.
4. I can only speak for myself. I would definitely vote for Paul if he receives the nomination. I am a registered Democrat and have been since the last election but Paul is closer to the ideal for an elected leader then any of the candidates in my party and certainly any other republicans. Obama is not bad and if the election were between him and some Republican other then Paul I would probably support Obama. Most of the people I know fall into 2 categories. Either they have no idea who Paul is or they support him strongly. I have yet to meet someone familiar with his platform and voting record who doesn't support him. I think the polls are less then perfect and the media is struggling to reinforce the idea that Paul has no chance. But I also think that we should never underestimate the tremendous power the media wields in politics. They reach hundreds of millions of people every day and if they say over and over that Paul is a nut with no chance then many will believe them.
5. The difference between the two types are that the straw polls allow anyone to vote (even those who can't vote legally) and scientific polls don't. Most of Paul's supporters are not old enough to vote.
6. I'm not sure what the scientific polls do wrong, but every election cycle they miss something. If you remember back to 91, Bill Clinton was on the fringe at this point in the election. Then they counted the votes in New Hampshire...
7. Nicholes..., great post! Ron Paul, 1st choice. Barack Obama, 2nd choice I hope I have the opportunity to vote for one of these two candidates. Wes Clark, V.P.
8. Polls have never truely been 'scientific' but more of a gauge for those within 'camps' to see how there guy/girl are faring amoung posible voters..... plus or minus 6% As it pertains to Ron Paul, I think that he is the only Republican that is running that even sounds like a real Republican..... I'm a progressive liberal and the only thing that will keep me from voting for Ron is that he wants to eliminate the IRS and the Dept of Education..... The amount of money that a candidate makes in donations that the so-called media likes to tout as a gold star for said candidate is not and should not be a factor at all in elections! It (money from corporate donors) dirties our democracy and soils the motivation of those that would like to lead us! The only polls that come out as even close to being legit are the exit polls on election day, why? because as people walk out of a polling place they are more likely to admit who they voted for truthfully than when being asked over the phone who they might vote for in the near future...... In 2000 Al Gore's exit polling was about 50% to Bush's 48% in Florida (when averaged out) and well..... we all know how that turned out These so-called 'scientific' polls will remain this way as long as the media is corporate owned. They (corporate media) like anyone/anything else has it's own agenda, which is profit! They (media) wants desperately the guy that will allow them the most profit thru any means. Example: The guy running the FCC (A Bush appointee) wants to de-regualte the media to the point that a guy like Rupert Murdoch's (an Australian) "News Corp" could conceivably be the sole owner of all media in the USA...... All the polls do is potentially offer an excuse for the media to hoist up the guy they most want in the White House!