| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| New York Times Candidate Exclusion; Presidential Races Exclusionary Rules | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 20 2008, 07:15 PM (240 Views) | |
| mynameis | Jan 20 2008, 07:15 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Internet Jujitsu
|
Thank you for contacting NYTimes.com Currently on the results page, the candidates are ordered by the number of delegates received by each under the Times' delegate allocation standards. For the candidates who have not received any delegates yet, which currently includes Rudy Giuliani, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul and Fred Thompson, we have been using the candidates' ranking in national polls as the factor in deciding who to include, since the page is meant to be both a guide to both the completed contests and the upcoming races. The most recent Times/CBS News poll had Giuliani at 10%, Thompson at 8% and Paul at 5%. Other polls show similar trends -- see: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html If Ron Paul pulls ahead of Thompson or Giuliani in the delegate count, he'll be included on the page in place of them. It's also worth pointing out that Paul and the other candidates in the lower tiers are all included in the individual state. Regards, Robert Peterson NYTimes.com Customer Service www.nytimes./help |
![]() |
|
| look-up | Jan 21 2008, 04:29 PM Post #2 |
|
so now polls are considered more important than real votes? Ron Paul has more votes than Giuliani. I guess that doesn't matter to NYTimes. |
![]() |
|
| exponent | Jan 21 2008, 04:34 PM Post #3 |
|
Yes!
They even explain why
|
![]() |
|
| look-up | Jan 21 2008, 04:36 PM Post #4 |
|
and that seems fair to you? |
![]() |
|
| exponent | Jan 21 2008, 04:44 PM Post #5 |
|
Sure? I mean if they claimed they were showing only history and included polls then it would be unfair, but if they're trying to give a guide to likely candidates it's important to take into account any bias from primaries already complete. You can hardly hold it against them that they clearly admit it? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · The Lounge · Next Topic » |







9:10 AM Jul 11