Politics The Marginalization of Ron Paul (or How Media Plays Favorites)

here's more ron paul propaganda: ron paul beating perry in texas.

there most interesting thing is paul gets more donations than president obama as well as all of the other republican candidates combined from the military. who's pro military now?

 

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Political contributions a year+ before the election and before any aggressive fund-raising by Obama is not very meaningful. I do recall that Obama received more contributions from the military than the war vet McCain last time around; something like 4 or 5 to 1.

Nor I do see the relevance of his contributions by the military over the other Republican candidates or his higher polling numbers than Perry in Texas. So what? How does that make him more electable? Nationwide, according to your polls, he is fourth behind Romney, Bachmann and Perry.

 

...

because by every measurable definition he's a front runner. yet you and the media refuse to acknowledge it. do you know how many gop candidates would be spouting everyday that they got more contributions from the military than all the other candidates combined? they pretend to be the patriotic 'military party'. he had the most military contributions last gop primary as well fyi.

he beat rick perry in polls in texas, polls in the top 2-4 nationwide, 2nd at ames, wins debates.

not electable not electable not electable not electable not electable not electable not electable not electable not electable

actually i'm happy that some members on the left are actually acknowledging this media blackout, because someday there may be a legit non establishment media left winger who has a shot to really turn things around and hopefully what we expose this election wont happen again. it works both ways.

also in ames, bachmann bought 6000 tickets for her supporters and got 4,800 votes. sounds like a ron paul win and another media blackout to me.

 

What measurable definition? How is he the front-runner when he is fourth in the latest polls, behind Romney, Bachmann and Perry?

Gallup provides an interesting analysis of the candidates based on name recognition and positive intensity score (strong favorable opinions of the candidate minus the strongly unfavorable opinions)

​

Paul, with high name recognition (nearly 80%) has the lowest positive intensity score (meaning there is a high number of Republicans/Republican leaning Independents who hold strongly unfavorable opinions of him) among the top tier candidates.​

Perry, down near the bottom in name recognition, will most likely see his positive intensity score go down as he becomes more widely known but I dont see how Paul's intensity score will go up, given that he is widely known and has high negatives.​

 

Samcol,
I don't think there is a contradiction between saying that Paul should get more airtime and is clearly being sabotaged by the media and saying he has no realistic shot at the presidency.
I don't think he has a shot because once the field start to thin out, the pluralities he occasionally gets will not be enough to carry certain states. And I don't think a libertarian candidate has a shot because the reality is that people like most social programs.
But I do think that most candidates, especially the ones with the level of support Paul has, should be given the time of day by the media.

 

That is true...

But I agree with what Jon Stewart said about Ron Paul.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/m...corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier

Isn't the media supposed to be unbiased and fair? This is a very serious problem.

 

What level of support?

I dont want to beat a dead horse, but if I recall from the '08 primaries, Paul received an average of about 5% of the vote across the Republican primaries (probably a bit higher in the handful of states with caucuses rather than primaries).

Even with the impressive level of money he raised from the on-line money bombs, meet-ups, grassroots networking, bus caravans, etc to pay for TV ads, mass mailings, telephone banks, etc --- > for 5% of the Republican primary vote, hardly a significant level of support.

There is nothing to suggest his numbers will be higher this year. In fact, I would expect some of his less ardent supporters from '08 to defect to the de facto Tea Party candidate, Michelle Bachmann, this time around.

I would suggest that any candidate who cant draw more than 5% of primaries voters is a marginal candidate.

IMO, Ron Paul is in this category. What makes him different from other marginal candidates is that his small support base is more vocal and more activists than others. It makes him a potential spoiler in some primaries; it does not make him a top tier candidate.

 

Primaries, especially those 3 years old, are hard to use to judge the real level of support for a candidate. Ron Paul polls better against Obama nationally (only losing by 4 points) than any other Republican candidate other than Romney. Granted, a lot of that are automatic republican votes, but given the fact that he does better than Perry, etc. suggests that there is an appeal there. If he were to come out as the libertarian party candidate, I wouldn't be surprised to see him get some 3 or 4 percent of the vote.

 

We disagree on this one.

I dont see anything that would suggest he is more electable as the Republican candidate this year as opposed to 08.

The mood of the country may have changed, but his base has been co-opted in part by the Tea Party.

He is a potential spoiler, not a potential front-runner.

I also think he should be glad he is not getting more media coverage. His negatives would only go up even more (already higher than anyone other than Palin) given that he often comes across as a looney fanatic without any prodding by the media.

Just my opinion.

 

Historically, Paul has done well in straw polls (or other unofficial polls), but his supporters stay home when it counts

 

Nader got nearly 3% of the vote in 2000. Marginal but with the impact to be a spoiler.

While not comparing the two, Paul is in that marginal category.

Ross Perot got nearly 20% in 19922. That is whole different level of credible.

 

If Al Gore and Nader had faced off in the democratic primaries, the democrats would have won in 2000. That is the genius of the Tea Party to stay in the GOP primary instead of trying to create a third party that will fracture the base.

 

yup, that what paul said when he ran as a libertarian. the cards are totally stacked against you because all your time/money is spent getting on ballots instead of campaigning. the only reason perot was fairly successful was because of all the money he had to work with.

2 party system sucks.

 

i still believe ron paul is the only republican who can beat obama. in this poll, he even wins the independents over obama. however, his biggest hurdle is still breaking through the media blackout and winning the GOP primary. the opposition to the wars is what makes him popular to independents who may have voted for obama in the last election imo.

edit: sorry i can't even begin to figure out how to clean up this post in the new tfp...

 

I recently saw a story (cant find it now) on the demographics of Ron Paul supporters -- young, white, male. It might explain his support among the troops, but this is not the demographics of a candidate with a broad base of support and certainly does not reflect the demographics of most Independent voters, who btw, disagree with Paul on the most significant issues - debt reduction (tax increases v spending cuts), social security/medicare, women's rights, government as regulator, and most recently, his claim that FEMA, as a disaster preparedness/response/relief agency, is unconstitutional and should be eliminated.

It looks to me that Perry is the one who is surging since he entered the race.

 

America is more stupid than I thought and deserves what it gets if they vote for Perry. The only reason you and others think he is 'surging' is because that is what the media has told you.

But, again, if the media keeps repeating that Ron Paul is the frontrunner, that Ron Paul has the best chance against Obama, that Ron Paul is doing the best in their biased polls, and the talking heads keep praising Ron Pauls ideas, he would be doing a lot better than without the support of the media.

And yes, FEMA is probably not needed. We have the National Guard in every state, we have Red Cross volunteers (which people should donate their FEMA tax dollar savings to), we have state governments and local and state police, we have hospitals that 'should' be capable of handling tens of thousands of patients (yet this is untested), we have power company and tree trimming workers that migrate from neighboring states, and we have the weather channel, the national weather service, and local news to warn people. For long term housing for displaced people, there are different ways to deal with that problem.

But, people need to be better prepared as well.

 

How do they do polls? How many people choose to do polls? What type of person completes these polls?

I am impossible to reach for a poll, along with a large majority of people in the younger age groups.

The question is, why does the MSM dedicate so much coverage certain candidates compared to others? Is the media delivering the news that their consumers and viewer 'demographic' like, instead of a 'fair and balanced' approach to politics?

Even in that article, the writer's opinion on FEMA comes through, and not questioning what Ron Paul's idea is for what should be done instead of FEMA (or would nothing change if FEMA went away). Part of that is that the voters don't demand that candidates provide a CBO type of estimate of what their ideas will save or cost. And what the world will look like if that policy gets enacted.

 

What I think and what the media says has nothing to do with the validity of polls.

Well designed polls (as opposed to web polls) are statistically selected representative samples of the public and then corrected for bias. Such polls have a small margin of errors and are a relatively good, measure of public opinion at a point in time.

During the tortuously long primary season, polls and the level of fundraising are the best measures we have of assessing public support. Paul is a great fundraiser, but his problem still is the fact that his base is so demographically narrow as opposed to Romney or Perry and he has never demonstrated that he can draw voters beyond his base, where the others have.

In the end, presidential public opinion polls dont really matter given that the president is not elected by popular vote.

The National Guard, state/local police and first responders, and the Red Cross (and other NGOs)all have a role in disaster mitigation and response but none are in a position to coordinate an overall response, which is FEMA's primarily role and responsibility, drawing upon all of those resources. The level at which states have resources capable of responding varies by state, and natural disasters do not respect state borders which is why a federal coordinating agency is necessary.

For Paul to suggest that FEMA is unconstitutional is baseless and to suggest a federal coordinating agency is unnecessary is irresponsible.