Why is Ron Paul still only at 5%????

[Magicman]

He's still only at 5% because libertarian views aren't accepted by a wide number of people.

Have you done canvassing enough to make that call?

Most people haven't heard of Paul and it has nothing to do with 'libertarian' views. It has to do with him not being given much airtime.

Your making an analysis that is impartial because the facts aren't clear that he was given the same opportunity as other candidates.

 

[j650]

I don't think it's any big mystery that Libertarianism isn't widely accepted. If it was, there'd be more libertarians in office. Even in so called "libertarian" leaning state like New Hampshire and Nevada, Paul finished a very distant 2nd and an even more distant 5th. He only garnered 14% in the Nevada caucuses where only Romney went out to campaign and 8% in New Hampshire where he lost to an evangelical christian preacher. Paul has done a little better in the mountain west where libertarianism is slightly more popular, but other than that he hasn't done much and certainly hasn't done enough to convince people that libertarianism is a widely popular ideal. He knows that and that's why he says this is a long term project, a revolution. He's trying to lay some groundwork. Hopefully libertarianism becomes more popular as a result.

 

[icon124]

Stop screaming voter fraud. If the majority of America decided that Ron Paul should be the nominee, there's no way that Diebold could even edit that large number of votes down to 5%. It pisses me off how voter fraud, something so serious of a claim, be thrown around like fact. It isn't fact. There's no evidence other than a few counties that counted votes wrong. Remember NH recounts? Did our percentage point jump 20 points? No.

yeah because there was no court case in Ohio were the computer technician admitted to voter fraud...it's all a dream...don't worry you can stay asleep everything is okay.

 

[Magicman]

Like I said before, you are completely missing on the factual basis that Paul had NO coverage since 2007 when there was a media blackout. Paul receives an abyssmal 1% of media coverage.

You are someone who is informed of Paul but the majority of people who do not follow internet have never heard of him because the media is playing and picking and choosing who they want in. Majority of Americans are not people like you they are people who follow the television word for word. If the media has the power to neglect Paul completely then they can deride any effort of increasing his support with the exception of Paul's supporters trying. I mean they lied about him dropping out, and people think that privitatized firms and candidates that are getting paid millions of dollars by special interest groups wouldn't eliminate competition or cheat then you do not have a clue.

Cheating is human nature; especially those in power and the elite have cheated to get to where they are. I mean even in state conventions the GOP will cheat in order to eliminate Paul delegates. What makes you think that electronic diebold machines, proven easily hackable that they are not pulling in fixed numbers and being used by ONLY 3-5 privatized firms won't pull a fast one on you?

This is proven factually by telling everyone Mccain would win one week in advance pretty much non-stop and during the election would report in every precinct with his victory. The media is playing a game and declaring the victors and Americans love a winner so that boosts the numbers.

It's safe to say that any victories Paul had were completely undermined by the media and establishment.

While any victories Paul gets they wouldn't even mention his name in the press. So say the associated press doesn't cover him that means EVERY newspaper who takes their sources from the Associated Press will then neglect Paul.

You would have a point if he was allocated the same time as the other candidates however our election is anything but a real election. It's theatre.

 

[j650]

Like I said before, you are completely missing on the factual basis that Paul had NO coverage since 2007 when there was a media blackout. Paul receives an abyssmal 1% of media coverage.

You are someone who is informed of Paul but the majority of people who do not follow internet have never heard of him because the media is playing and picking and choosing who they want in. Majority of Americans are not people like you they are people who follow the television word for word.

This is proven factually by telling everyone Mccain would win one week in advance pretty much non-stop and during the election would report in every precinct with his victory. The media is playing a game and declaring the victors and Americans love a winner so that boosts the numbers.

It's safe to say that any victories Paul had were completely undermined by the media and establishment.

While any victories Paul gets they wouldn't even mention his name in the press. So say the associated press doesn't cover him that means EVERY newspaper who takes their sources from the Associated Press will then neglect Paul.

You would have a point if he was allocated the same time as the other candidates however our election is anything but a real election. It's theatre.

1. Got proof of the 1% of the coverage? And don't give me some stat from the week of January 8th to the present. Paul was eliminated after his tank job in New Hampshire.

2. Got proof of people following the television word for word? If it's a fact, you must be able to back it up.

3. The media pundits are making predictions about who will win. Everyone thought Obama would win New Hampshire and what happened there? They all said, and the polls said, Obama will win. Hillary won. Surely you don't want to take away the pundits' rights to make predictions and practice free speech do you? Hillary was once the Democratic frontrunner. Rudy Giuliani was once the Republican frontrunner. Their general election matchup was inevitable, right? WRONG! The people spoke and gave us different candidates, not the media.

4. What victories did Paul have that were underminded? He didn't win anything!

5. Candidates are allotted time based on poll numbers and fame because they have to be conscious of what people will watch. It's a business and they're trying to make money. Fox News viewers don't want to watch Ron Paul and that's evidenced by Paul's large dissaproval poll numbers. You may not like it, but it's just the way it is. Surely you don't want to take away the press' right to cover whoever and whatever they want, do you? It was up to the people to get Paul up in the polls where he was relevant. There just isn't enough support for libertarianism out there. Huckabee supporters did this and he rose in the polls, got more news coverage, and actually won something. Paul did nothing except raise a lot of money 2 days and those did get coverage. Paul wasn't completely blacked out. I saw him on Meet the Press, The Tonight Show twice, The O'Reilly Factor, etc. Stop blaming everybody else and accept your failures. If you're unwilling to do that, then we'll just keep losing over and over again.

 

[Magicman]

1. Got proof of the 1% of the coverage? And don't give me some stat from the week of January 8th to the present. Paul was eliminated after his tank job in New Hampshire.

2. Got proof of people following the television word for word? If it's a fact, you must be able to back it up.

3. The media pundits are making predictions about who will win. Everyone thought Obama would win New Hampshire and what happened there? They all said, and the polls said, Obama will win. Hillary won. Surely you don't want to take away the pundits' rights to make predictions and practice free speech do you?

4. What victoried did Paul have that were underminded? He didn't win anything!

5. Candidates are allotted time based on poll numbers and fame because they have to be conscious of what people will watch. It's a business and they're trying to make money. Fox News viewers don't want to watch Ron Paul and that's evidenced by Paul's large dissaproval poll numbers. You may not like it, but it's just the way it is. Surely you don't want to take away the press' right to cover whoever and whatever they want, do you? It was up to the people to get Paul up in the polls where he was relevant. There just isn't enough support for libertarianism out there. Huckabee supporters did this and he rose in the polls, got more news coverage, and actually won something. Paul did nothing except raise a lot of money 2 days and those did get coverage. Paul wasn't completely blacked out. I saw him on Meet the Press, The Tonight Show twice, The O'Reilly Factor, etc. Stop blaming everybody else and accept your failures. If you're unwilling to do that, then we'll just keep losing over and over again.

You just proved me right. EVERY source you named was in 2007.

Ron Paul on Meet The Press 12-23-07. That was probably the LAST time he got any fair coverage. Huckabee didn't have that much support from the grassroots compared to Paul yet got a hell of a lot more coverage then Paul by the media.

Where's your proof that Paul WAS put on television ANYTIME during the primaries? You are the one making claims that his Libertarian and NH loss had to do with it.

All the sources you mentioned were NOT in 2008.

Can you actually provide sources where Paul was on tv or his name mentioned?

 

[j650]

The burden of proof is on you to show that Paul only got 1% of the coverage leading up to the primaries. After the primaries started and Paul only got 8% in a libertarian leaning state, he was irrelevant. He wasn't going anywhere in the polls or the actual elections. That Meet the Press interview was 2 weeks before the primaries started. A pretty good timeslot, don't you think? Why would they have him on if there was a media blackout?

 

[jake]

The burden of proof is on you to show that Paul only got 1% of the coverage leading up to the primaries. After the primaries started and Paul only got 8% in a libertarian leaning state, he was irrelevant. He wasn't going anywhere in the polls or the actual elections. That Meet the Press interview was 2 weeks before the primaries started. A pretty good timeslot, don't you think? Why would they have him on if there was a media blackout?

1%, 5%.. regardless the coverage of Paul was/is anemic.

 

[Magicman]

The burden of proof is on you to show that Paul only got 1% of the coverage leading up to the primaries. After the primaries started and Paul only got 8% in a libertarian leaning state, he was irrelevant. He wasn't going anywhere in the polls or the actual elections. That Meet the Press interview was 2 weeks before the primaries started. A pretty good timeslot, don't you think? Why would they have him on if there was a media blackout?

That doesn't make sense, you are making the claims that Paul received coverage, so it is up to YOU to prove me wrong and point out where your sources are that he DID receive coverage.

Show the links and the date. Already everything you said was BEFORE 2008.

Put up or shut up cause you are pretending something is happening that isn't really there.

LOL, I love how you are twisting words around in the pretext because you cannot show evidence that this happened in 2008 when I made you realize that all your videos were in 2007.

 

[crazyfingers]

I don't think it's any big mystery that Libertarianism isn't widely accepted. If it was, there'd be more libertarians in office. Even in so called "libertarian" leaning state like New Hampshire and Nevada, Paul finished a very distant 2nd and an even more distant 5th. He only garnered 14% in the Nevada caucuses where only Romney went out to campaign and 8% in New Hampshire where he lost to an evangelical christian preacher. Paul has done a little better in the mountain west where libertarianism is slightly more popular, but other than that he hasn't done much and certainly hasn't done enough to convince people that libertarianism is a widely popular ideal. He knows that and that's why he says this is a long term project, a revolution. He's trying to lay some groundwork. Hopefully libertarianism becomes more popular as a result.

I see what you're saying but I think libertarianism/small government conservatism has the potential to be much more popular than this campaign would lead one to believe. Dr. Paul is a great advocate for the cause but he doesn't know how to sell the message to a mainstream audience. I'm no expert on the matter either but I think it's obvious that (1) he came across (perhaps unfairly) as overly pessimistic and defeatist and (2) he failed to offer viable, incremental solutions.

The point is he wasn't playing to win, so I don't think it's fair to look at this campaign as a barometer for the acceptance of libertarianism as a whole.

 

[j650]

Where's the proof? Was Paul's coverage considerably less than people with similar poll numbers like Bill Richardson? I'm so sick of blaming everyone else for our failures. The media blackout caused us to go from 35% victories to 5% 6th place finishes! Voter fraud cost us the election! Diebold knows! Blah blah blah, SHUTUP! LEARN TO ACCEPT YOUR FAILURES AND TAKE THEM LIKE A MAN! Ron Paul has. He doesn't go spouting off conspiracies and blackouts. We have to do a better job of selling the message. Times have changed since the late 18th century and I don't think some of you realize that. In the past 70-80 years, the role of the federal government has changed significantly. You can't just turn that off with the flip of a switch. A revolution is a long term project just as Ron Paul said.

 

[Magicman]

Being so sick of pretending the media doesn't have to do with it is also negligence on your part.

That's your own ego talking.

 

[j650]

I see what you're saying but I think libertarianism/small government conservatism has the potential to be much more popular than this campaign would lead one to believe. Dr. Paul is a great advocate for the cause but he doesn't know how to sell the message to a mainstream audience. I'm no expert on the matter either but I think it's obvious that (1) he came across (perhaps unfairly) as overly pessimistic and defeatist and (2) he failed to offer viable, incremental solutions.

The point is he wasn't playing to win, so I don't think it's fair to look at this campaign as a barometer for the acceptance of libertarianism as a whole.

THANK YOU! Finally someone who wants to add something of value instead of just spouting off conspiracies. I agree with you about Ron Paul. He's a great and principled man, but he's obviously not the greatest salesman. His speaking and debate skills are sub par. I agree about viable and realistic solutions. He only spoke of all the problems we had and people always said that he came off as angry and senile. He was excellent in the first debate, but then he got more and more angry as time went on. I don't think he was playing to win either. He was playing to spread a message and hopefully it pays off down the road.

 

[Magicman]

You're completely missing the point and you are extremely negligent.

I'm not saying you are wrong about libertarianism but you are quite ignorant if you are saying the media doesn't play a huge role.

The fact is that YOUR point is impossible to prove when most people are unaware of Paul and it has nothing to do with what you're claiming but mostly to do with the fact that he wasn't a household name.

In order to be a household name there needs to be media presence and quite frankly he wasnt given any in 2008 and little even in 2007 compared to other candidates. If most people expressed their view on Paul then that would be different but the majority of people voting if asked who Paul was they would say, "Who?"

 

[j650]

That doesn't make sense, you are making the claims that Paul received coverage, so it is up to YOU to prove me wrong and point out where your sources are that he DID receive coverage.

Show the links and the date. Already everything you said was BEFORE 2008.

Put up or shut up cause you are pretending something is happening that isn't really there.

LOL, I love how you are twisting words around in the pretext because you cannot show evidence that this happened in 2008 when I made you realize that all your videos were in 2007.

I can only tell you that he was on basically every political show out there- Meet the Press, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Kudlow and Company, The Situation Room, Tucker, Hardball, The O'Reilly Factor, Fox and Friends, Real World with Neil Cavuto, This Week, Face the Nation, Bill Moyer's Journal, Good Morning America, The Tonight Show twice, Real Time with Bill Maher, Mad Money, Morning Joe, and on and on and on. There wasn't a fucking blackout so stop saying that there was! A blackout would mean a complete banning of Ron Paul. How was he on all of these shows if there was a blackout? He had a good opportunity to sell his message and couldn't do it effectively. Now where's your damn proof of the 1% coverage?

 

[j650]

You're completely missing the point and you are extremely negligent.

I'm not saying you are wrong about libertarianism but you are quite ignorant if you are saying the media doesn't play a huge role.

The fact is that YOUR point is impossible to prove when most people are unaware of Paul and it has nothing to do with what you're claiming but mostly to do with the fact that he wasn't a household name.

In order to be a household name there needs to be media presence and quite frankly he wasnt given any in 2008 and little even in 2007 compared to other candidates. If most people expressed their view on Paul then that would be different but the majority of people voting if asked who Paul was they would say, "Who?"

Where's your proof? I said he wasn't given any time in 2008 and that's because he was irrelevant when the primaries came and he didn't do well! You have given no links to back up what you're saying. I'm talking about 2007 leading up the primaries. GIVE ME A DAMN LINK OR STOP SPOUTING OFF LIES!

 

[kigol]

 

[Sandra]

Where's your proof? I said he wasn't given any time in 2008 and that's because he was irrelevant when the primaries came and he didn't do well! You have given no links to back up what you're saying. I'm talking about 2007 leading up the primaries. GIVE ME A DAMN LINK OR STOP SPOUTING OFF LIES!

Does anyone else think that this is a previously banned poster? Writing style? Asks "where's your proof" in EVERY post?

 

[Sandra]

j650 has has no contribution to any discussion in all of his 87 posts. He's just here to flame and divide. Mods?

 

[j650]

I've been here since July. Magic man claimed that Paul only received 1% of the media coverage and that's why Ron Paul lost. I'd just like to see some evidence of this being that he was on nearly every political show on tv.