Is Fox News tampering with the poll results from last night's debate?

Always has been, always will be.

This poll doesn't have enough options. It's leading 1 way. Bad one.

neither is true, Ron Paul supporters have a history of casting early votes to give him large leads that he always seems to lose. If he actually had the support they try to claim, he would have been the nominee in 2008

Actually, I do think that Fox news is a fraud. But I liked watching Newt put Wallace in his place by telling him to ask real questions. The audience reaction of support was priceless. We are tired of the nonsense too. Newt did, however, pull the Reagan card far too much. I won't be voting for him because he is too establishment for me. I just had to give him props for his response.

Yeah, that WAS pretty epic! Wallace is such a smarmy douche...

Actually, they had several good dust-ups last night: Gingrich v. Wallace, Paul v. Santorum, Bachmann v. Pawlenty...Pawlenty got beat up by a girl on national television, THAT'S gotta suck! Bachmann didn't do near as well as I thought she would, she looked like she had the flu or something. She didn't seem like herself, I was really disappointed in her. Mittens successfully stayed "above the fray", but he's gonna have to get his hands dirty sooner or later.

All-in-all it was a pretty good debate, really looking forward to the next one.

Then again all news programs nowadays are.

As in the screenshot at 5am Paul had over 6,500 votes
At 3:30 pm he had 4,000 votes.
where did those votes go?

Another blogger said this (no screenshot)

Ron Paul - 11355 vs. all the rest combined - 12761 as of 3.33AM EST, August 12th, 2011

Liberal? Me? Yeah, right! When's the last time YOU waded into a huge crowd of Democrats and royally pissed them off? Here's how I spent MY weekend (PS: I'm the cameraman):

Fox News likes to pick Republican candidates and ignore Ron Paul because he's not part of their system. They did this in 2008 as well, simply ignoring Ron Paul as number one and moving on to pretend the 2nd in line was the winner. They show complete disdain for Ron Paul and those who supporting him. Unfortunately, a large number of Americans are still gullible entertainment news believers and will probably let them pick the candidates for them again this time around. Obama will probably get a second term.

No they didn't tamper with polls . Changeing is what polls do.

Newt did better than anyone else. Doesn't mean he is the best candidate. You have to consider baggage and other factors to. Of course Paul isn't in my running either.

Newt was great in the debates. He is really a savy politician.

I will say that Newt did very well in the debate last night, but I'm unfortunately not convinced that it was completely sincere. He is/was a Fox News contributor and I'm sure the sparring between him and Wallace was theatrics.

They always do this. Look at how they always shut out Ron Paul.

Fox News is DEFINITELY pumping out Fraudulent info all of the time and every body knows it. They are positively the WORST source of anything even resembling accuracy.

They appear to be two different polls. The first one a WE debate poll...the second s Fox Newsroom Poll.Prob two different audiences....from PM to AM.

Funny...I have been very down on Newt & Mitt since forever...but last nights performance has made me reevaluate .
I think we need a businessman...and proven leader.

They both came off the same website, about 3 hours apart. The first one was on the front page, the second one is buried in the site: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air...

I am just reading what is on the screen...they have the different accreditation's clearly listed at the top. RP has over 6thou on the WE poll...and slightly over 3 thous on the FN poll.

The only crooks I know that could get away with swinging numbers that wild would be the Wis. officials in the Al Franken election.

3 hrs ? Make sense that last nights WE poll would close and they would open a new FN poll for daytime viewers. I look for the logical ...not conspiracy.
You should email them for an explanation. ...but I think is more than apparent when you compare the headings, graphics, and results.

That wasn't a WE poll, that was the poll on the front page of foxnews.com. They took the ad off of it when they buried it in the site. That is Fox's official poll.

Why "close" the poll and start it over again? Because they didn't like the outcome? Either way, it's dirty pool. I don't "look for conspiracy", I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I think 9-11 was committed by some pissed-off Muslims, etc. But I am aware of how the American media lies and manipulates, and I'm only trying to point out that Fox is no different than MSNBC (who omitted Paul's primary numbers entirely back in '08) or CNN (who actually showed gross votes for Paul GO DOWN on Super Tuesday, '08).

I got up this morning and checked the poll. After I got to work, I went to the EXACT SAME website to see what the numbers were. The extreme shift in the numbers can only be attributed to two things: either tampering with the source code (very easily done), or a miracle that completely defies logic and the laws of probability (not so easily done).

Suit yourself. I don't blame you for your distrust of the news media...I am myself. I just plainly see a difference in the two.
Send your shots, and info to the various GOP candidates...if you are right the crap will surely fly.
I just don't see it.

Newts dead in the water, was before he even started but I watched MSNBC for a change yesterday and boy do they ever screw with fictitious poll results, I'll watch FOX tonight and see what they screwed with.

I usually watch Fox, but I'll switch to CNN or MSNBC every now and then because I get bored with being lied to by the same people all the time. I have to admit, MSNBC is a lot harder to watch since I gave up smoking weed.

Don't think it was a fraud. Gingrich was totally on last night--and when he is, he is dynamite. It also doesn't surprise me that Paul started in the first place--he made some very good points early on--but that he slid later; he is wonderful, but his uncompromisingly anti-defense turns off a lot of people. Newt also started off with a very impressive, numbers laden discussion of Reagan era tax cutting, which got no applause and clearly didn't connect; he won the debate, however, with his blast of the super committee as a dumb idea and explained why, as someone who once ran the House, it wouldn't work and what should be done. Newt is a genius; he is this generation's John Adams; but, like Adams, he has a bristly temper and is so intellectual that he doesn't always connect emotionally--but he did last night and, because of that, set himself on a different level from everyone else there. Regarding the others, MB & MR did a great job and I am not surprised they followed right behind Gingrich and the ever-popular Paul. Cain did well because of his message; Santorum was a bit weak; Huntsman was clearly the smarmy Obama Republican put there to bleed votes from Romney; and Pawlenty was just nasty--never a wise idea. I am not at all surprised at the results.

It's not the fact that Paul fell out of first place, or that he fell out of first place to Gingrich; it's the sudden shift in numbers in a small amount of time. Overcoming a 50-point deficit in less than 3 hours?

Reminds me of when Franken was running for Senate and in a dead-heat with the GOP guy (I forget his name, Norman-something). They kept "finding" ballots that had been "lost" or "misplaced", and all the lost/misplaced ballots were marked for...Franken. I mean, it really defies the laws of probability, and there is a "history" between Paul and Fox news.

Understand your concern. However, I can see it as a result of those that voted during the debate and those that voted after the commentary and the post-debate interviews--favorable to Gingrich not so much for Paul. Just on debate success, and having nothing to do with any particular issue, it was pretty clear to me (as someone who has run for office and worked on many campaigns) that Newt really won and that it was later in the debate that he won it. Paul also scored early points but did not do so well later in the debate. I also do not see the advantage to Fox of cooking the results--Newscorp is already in enough trouble that they would not be looking for more.

Check it out...two different polls. One is WE debate poll...the other newsroom poll. I also think Newt excelled last night...LOL...so I voted for him while I was on the link.
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air...

One of RP's appeals across party lines is his position on drugs.

Oh, I like Paul for a lot of things and the fact that he is totally unafraid to air his views--including drugs where he agrees with the position of Milton Friedman and George Schultz. But Newt was on fire last night.

Milton Friedman is an awesome man!

He was right in so many ways.

"However, I can see it as a result of those that voted during the debate and those that voted after the commentary and the post-debate interviews--favorable to Gingrich not so much for Paul." It's funny, because I switched the channel after I noticed how terribly crooked their post debate coverage was. It would make sense that people would base their votes on Fox News commentary over the actual debate though.

Well, I suspect the interviews were influential to Fox watchers as well. Paul was more professorial than presidential on the interviews. Newt looked and acted like the guy that took Congress back for the Republicans--made people remember he has already been a national leader.

Here is a map of the poll results. Ron Paul made a miraculous come back:
http://www.topix.com/issue/fo...

Thank you!

I have just run across the other Fox Poll that you posted and see that the results now have Ron Paul less than a percentage point behind Gingrich.

There is a "View Results" tab to the right for the poll:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air...

Paul is back in the lead now.

Fox must've gotten a lot of irate phone calls and realized the gig is up. Trying to mend what's left of their credibility...

Why is the second results page illegible to the point that the vote tallys cannot be read? Is the poll not one that goes on and on for some time? Do you have Fox Derangement Syndrome?

The first one I did at home when I got up, the second one was done at work with a very old and crappy laptop. Here you go:

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air...

It now has Ron Paul in the lead.