Why do Ron Paul supporters think that online polls mean anything?

Do they not understand that one man can set up a macro on even just one or several computers and flood the poll with votes for Ron Paul? I did a little test, I used this program below: http://www.download.com/Easy-Macro-Recorder/3000-2094_4-10695515.html?tag=lst-0-1 I recorded the actions needed to vote for John Cox on the poll at iowagop.net, and I then set it to replay over and over again. Surely enough I was able to move up his numbers (by hundreths of a percent, but progress regardless as other names stood still), indicating that in fact you can vote on this poll multiple times (either that or support for John Cox suddenly took off at the same time I did this test). Regardless of how fast I set the replay, in no way could I keep up with the rate at which Ron Paul's percentage was increasing. In regards to jayztttight's post. Maybe I am an idiot, and maybe macro isn't the term, but I see it plastered all over the programs like the one I used, so I assumed that was the term.

Public Comments

1. Macros can be set up for only ONE vote per ONE computer by tracking the IP address. Why are you so quick to discount Ron Paul?
2. All of Ron Paul's supporters spend their time posting on Y! Answers, trying to gin up some support. It ain't working.
3. One man can set up a macro, or even just one or several computers, and flood the poll with voters of McNasty (as McPain was called in school) and Hitlery Clinton too.
4. Ron Paul is a fluke. He has a small following that manipulates the polls. I watched the MSNBC Poll after the first debate. It was pretty evenly spread until the last 10 minutes when the numbers suddenly jumped some 40% in Ron Paul's favor. There is a way to get around the cookies that control number of votes per computer. It can be done by using a dynamic IP address or by manipulating your cookies. Ron Paul will not get the actual body count at the polls that he is getting online. I believe he is aware of the cheating and sponsors it. Why is he running as a republican anyway? He is a pawn placed to disrupt the actual votes in the republican party. I would not doubt if he runs as an independent and splits the republican vote so Hillary can win the White house. Something is fishy here... If the online polls are not rigged then how come none of the telephone or other land based polls ever show him higher than 2% where the online polls demonstrate 40% or higher? I even saw one where he was listed at 50%. The numbers just don't add up.
5. His problem is that he's a libertarian and is running as a republican..as a conservative I don't think he should be running as a republican..we believe in a strong military..he doesn't..He will not get my vote
6. Same reason the liberal media set so much by the polls before the election in 2004. To them Kerry had the election in his pocket, but in fact we see he did not.
7. I support Ron Paul with me being Libertarian, but I have to agree that online polls mean nothing. But, it just isnt Ron Paul supporters that use online polls to justify themselves, that can go for any party and Presidental candidate. But hey at least we got your attention. Micro: Thanks for the poll, voted who cares. Try this poll: http://www.hekkuli.org/~hekkuli/flash/gaytest.swf
8. Ron Paul supporters are passionate about the issues.. and actually want to make a difference.. I don't put a lot of credit on online polls or use them.. everytime I have made a statement for why I support him its based on where he stands on the issues... The same thing happened when people supported someone other than Bush a few years back.. then we were all "crazy"... It's funny after fighting a useless war where thousands of innocent people have died, being basically sold out to rich corporations and the patriot act.. whose crazy now.. I suggest the people complaining get a brain and this time actually vote for a canidate that won't just make you faulty promises..
9. Most of us can hardly afford one computer, than to have multiple computers for the purpose to flood polls just to make Ron Paul look good. Online polls represent the people because anyone (whether they are for corporate interests or not, can vote), mainland line polls are subject to tester bias because they can omit any name that they want and call any demographic they want also. Find a good single IP address online poll that has all the names of the candidates listed and you will see who is out in front: And his name is Dr. Ron Paul; not because people are buying up $500 computers so they can vote for him more than once, but because he just makes sense to the average American. I've taken enough statistic classes in school to know which poll is most valid, and that poll is the online poll. Mainland line polls are subject to human tester bias.
10. No, they don't understand it. They don't understand much about any of it, at least it seems they don't. They keep trying to blame the media for his lack of national support. I guess they expect the media to pay extra special attention to a candidate who can't get above 2% in any national poll you can find. And if they don't by God then it's a conspiracy against him. Sometimes I feel sorry for them. Reality is not their strong suit, Paul has about as much chance as Bugs Bunny at being elected to the Presidency.
11. What no one here has mentioned is that most on line users of these polls are kids, many are not even of voting age. So, those polls don't really reflect the majority of voters. They really don't mean much.
12. Maybe they're just hoping for a better America. Why do you ask, do you WANT to see Paul fail? Can't you see it? The other candidates are disasters waiting to happen - this is not the time for foolish pessimism.
13. Even if online polls don't mean anything, warm bodies do. I just watched the straw poll on CSPAN. Looked to me like a nice "flood" of Ron Paul supporters there. Laura Ingraham made a derogatory remark when his people came in and another one when they left. She called them "idiots" when they came in, but I didn't catch what she called them when they left. She was totally out of line, no matter who she was talking about. It will be rebroadcast at 2 AM eastern time.
14. If you are so smart, and want to prove this, why not pick a poll, and obliterate it. Then do it 10 more times. Make it show that David Duke won the poll each time, or some other impossible to support loser (mention his/her name here first). That would prove that these polls can be altered by a large enough degree to show as such, and even then, they are meaningless. Until then, for anyone that uses this line of attack, tin foil is your friend - usually the simplest answer is the correct one. Maybe people on the internet are inherently more inquisitive and knowledgeable than people that just watch TV for their news. I'm 37 btw.
15. if that were truly th case , the news would have already picked that up. Not only that, but google( yes i said it)employees seem to be backing the man now as well. I think its legitimate this time around compared to what happened in 06 with the democrats and their bs propoganda. You might want to put a whole lot more thought behind your analogy before offering up another bogus scenario. Thanks 35 here