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

[Magicman]

Yes maybe a couple of times on a show spread through out year and none in 2008 where it MATTERS the most during primaries but what about Hillary, Obama, Mccain or Romney?

If I am wrong ask most people on the street and see if they know who he is. Do you think libertarian is the first thing that comes to their mind or the fact that they never heard of him. Most Americans simply haven't heard of Ron Paul. Those shows you mentioned speak to a certain audience but not to the nation. See how much free airtime that Hillary or Obama would get even when they make news that is inconsiquential.

Clinton, Obama, Romney have their names in every facet possible. They are put on the top slots on Reuters as main stories EVERY DAY. Their names spammed at you on every corner of the internet.

Talked about on the news EVERYDAY by political pundits and tv shows. GThey do not even need to show up for an interview to have an hour segment about them.

There is a HUGE difference when that is happening and being broadcasted all day long versus someone who is put on for less then a 3 minute program so someone might get a sneak peak once every 2 weeks.

By the way, your still ducking the 2008 consensus of being put on television. Where is it when it mattered the most?

 

[j650]

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

What is your problem? I want to debate real reasons why we failed. Just because I don't sit here blaming everybody else from behind the safety of my computer screen, that means I should be banned? Did we fail because libertarianism isn't popular? What can we do to sell it better? What did Ron Paul do wrong for future candidates to improve on? What did the campaign do wrong? What did the grassroots do wrong? Aren't these viable questions to be asking for next time? We should be trying to come up with realistic solutions instead of putting all the blame on media blackouts and voter fraud conspiracies. For God's sake people, this is why people don't take us seriously and why we never go anywhere!

 

[Sandra]

j650 is a McCain shill. Any discourse with this troll is in waste. He's just here to keep people on the defensive side.

 

[Magicman]

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.

Once again, you twist my words. The original argument was that he WAS NOT PUT ON AT ALL DURING THE PRIMARIES.

The only thing you mentioned was Meet the Press which was a segment and the LAST SEGMENT that was fair but two weeks before the primaries. What about the 24/7 media coverage about Huckabee, Mccain and Romney during that time? What was fair about that?

You listed sources that were outdated then you tell me to prove something that you haven't proved right in the first place.

If I remember correctly the NH primaries anything you heard was about Mccain and that was blasted all day BEFORE he even won.

They would mention the first second and third place finishes for the caucuses but when Paul got second in Nevada THAT was completely ignored.

 

[j650]

j650 is a McCain shill. Any discourse with this troll is in waste. He's just here to keep people on the defensive side.

Now what gives you the idea that I'm a McCain shill? I'm also sick of all of these shill, plant, and troll accusations of everyone who doesn't agree with you. He doesn't think there was a media blackout so he must be a McCain shill. She doesn't believe voter fraud cost Ron Paul the election so she must be an FBI informant. That's absolutely terrible logic and I'm embarrassed that Ron Paul supporters engage in it.

 

[Sandra]

Now what gives you the idea that I'm a McCain shill? I'm also sick of all of these shill, plant, and troll accusations of everyone who doesn't agree with you. He doesn't think there was a media blackout so he must be a McCain shill. She doesn't believe voter fraud cost Ron Paul the election so she must be an FBI informant. That's absolutely terrible logic and I'm embarrassed that Ron Paul supporters engage in it.

Case in point.

 

[haigh]

Rand Paul took up this question here
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/43083

and nailed one of the key reasons why there is a 5% ceiling on Paul’s support. Whenever I pitched Ron Paul to someone favorably disposed to small government and free markets, Rand’s point was always the biggest push back..

A non-interventionist foreign policy is a very new idea to most people. It generates fear. Some of the strongest advocates of this position are hostile to private property and that association is a negative. Recall the anti-war movement against Vietnam was driven by many who were hostile to private property and sympathetic to communism. Long time Republicans have difficulty disassociating these two positions.

Selective quotes from Rand

“In the final analysis, I believe about 5-10% of the Republican Party is ready for a non-interventionist foreign policy and Ron Paul got that vote……….but could not escape the image of helicopters fleeing the embassy in Saigon in 1975. This image still bothers many Republicans and they can't embrace a quick exit from Iraq even if they know in their heart of hearts we need to leave.”

Key to growing Ron Paul’s support will be getting a lot more free market voices beating the drums of non-interventionism.

 

[j650]

Once again, you twist my words. The original argument was that he WAS NOT PUT ON AT ALL DURING THE PRIMARIES.

The only thing you mentioned was Meet the Press which was a segment and the LAST SEGMENT that was fair but two weeks before the primaries. What about the 24/7 media coverage about Huckabee, Mccain and Romney during that time? What was fair about that?

You listed sources that were outdated then you tell me to prove something that you haven't proved right in the first place.

If I remember correctly the NH primaries anything you heard was about Mccain and that was blasted all day BEFORE he even won.

They would mention the first second and third place finishes for the caucuses but when Paul got second in Nevada THAT was completely ignored.

I never said it was fair. I said it's just the way it is. I'm not qute sure what sitting here and blaming them is going to help. I said they get more time and that's because they're a business. They have to be conscious about ratings and advertising and all that. Did you read anything that I wrote previously? Paul probably got the same amount of coverage as people with similar poll numbers.

And I gave you the example of Obama and Hillary in NH which you haven't addressed yet. They were saying Obama would win all week and Hillary won. Your theory is debunked. McCain was mentioned the most because he was leading the polls there. This isn't rocket science for God's sake.

You have a point about Paul not getting mention for 2nd and 3rd place finishes. I agree with you there.

 

[j650]

Case in point.

What's the case in point? Did I say anything to prove your accusation that I'm a McCain shill? Am I a McCain shill just because I disagree with you on this issue? If so, I would hope that you would take a class in logic and reasoning.

 

[j650]

Rand Paul took up this question here
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/43083

and nailed one of the key reasons why there is a 5% ceiling on Paul’s support. Whenever I pitched Ron Paul to someone favorably disposed to small government and free markets, Rand’s point was always the biggest push back..

A non-interventionist foreign policy is a very new idea to most people. It generates fear. Some of the strongest advocates of this position are hostile to private property and that association is a negative. Recall the anti-war movement against Vietnam was driven by many who were hostile to private property and sympathetic to communism. Long time Republicans have difficulty disassociating these two positions.

Selective quotes from Rand

“In the final analysis, I believe about 5-10% of the Republican Party is ready for a non-interventionist foreign policy and Ron Paul got that vote……….but could not escape the image of helicopters fleeing the embassy in Saigon in 1975. This image still bothers many Republicans and they can't embrace a quick exit from Iraq even if they know in their heart of hearts we need to leave.”

Key to growing Ron Paul’s support will be getting a lot more free market voices beating the drums of non-interventionism.

Thank you for posting that. What do you know? Rand Paul, a logical person, thinks that some of Ron Paul's views are not widely accepted. I wonder who said that earlier.

 

[Magicman]

Ron Paul did better then Fred Thompson even and look at how much coverage Fred Thompson gets during the primaries.

Remember when Fred even got on the Fox debate and they EXCLUDED Ron Paul which was very important because it was during the primaries!


Fred Thompson gets more media coverage during Primaries

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXHL6sWJN5g

Fred Thompson Speaks to SC Supporters Primary Day 01-19-08

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI6XXCfPMn4

Fred Thompson campaigns in Spartanburg, SC 01-18-09

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiDFXn4P_ws


Fred Thompson Rejects CNN Highlight Event 1-18-08

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMBTG1Sbt4E


Interview with Fred Thompson in SC - 1/16/08

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEmT7yM638g


Fred Thompson on CNN's Situation Room 01-16-08

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxJKbDNDo_0


Fred Thompson on CNN Morning of 1/16/08

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnTAhRC96KQ

Fred Thompson TV Ad: Consistent Conservative

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7yLds0G5eU


Fred Thompson getting a little testy with Hannity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6o3L7VykwuA


Fred Thompson on Fox and Friends 01-16-08

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgXUsYAQntk

Fox News - Hannity and Colmes - Fred Thompson - 01-14-2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8QBdZ60hnw

Fred Thompson on FNC Newsroom 1/15/08

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBncepOtqhY

Fred Thompson Aiken South Carolina 1/14

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IsXgafxWlc

 

[crazyfingers]

j650 is a McCain shill. Any discourse with this troll is in waste. He's just here to keep people on the defensive side.

What a joke. You think McCain supporters care enough to come here and "troll"? I'm sick of how anyone who actually wants this movement to succeed is dismissed by those who instead want to bury their head in the sand.

The media is corporate-controlled. Most members of the media are liberal. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is a conservative opposed to corporate handouts. So obviously there is no love lost between the two camps. That said, he did get a relatively fair shake (aside from the BS Fox News debate). Unfortunately he did a poor job of conveying the message to the uninformed electorate, so he was unable to build on the momentum.

Personally I want to do what it takes to save this country. If we're just going to keep repeating the same mistakes, this movement is doomed.

 

[Sandra]

Magicman, I don't think it matters as far as proof you give this troll he will refute, then again ask for proof.

 

[Sandra]

What a joke. You think McCain supporters care enough to come here and "troll"? I'm sick of how anyone who actually wants this movement to succeed is dismissed by those who instead want to bury their head in the sand.

The media is corporate-controlled. Most members of the media are liberal. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is a conservative opposed to corporate handouts. So obviously there is no love lost between the two camps. That said, he did get a relatively fair shake (aside from the BS Fox News debate). Unfortunately he did a poor job of conveying the message to the uninformed electorate, so he was unable to build on the momentum.

Personally I want to do what it takes to save this country. If we're just going to keep repeating the same mistakes, this movement is doomed.

j650 is refuting the notion that RP was blacked out. He says we're into conspiracy if we believe it.

 

[IllMortalD]

j650 Are you seriously trying to say that Ron Paul was given adequate time on the MSM? Or that with vote fraud confirmed in the past the we should ignore any possibility of it now? It helps our movement to find out why we did as bad as we did, but the problem is that you have such a disdain for those "other" supporters that you feel are too extreme you write off any possible explanation that might fall into any fraud or conspiracy. Just say If there was fraud happening or actual suppression by the MSM would you be helping to fight it or would you be helping them get it done by convincing others in the movement not to do anything about it or to ignore any signs. If you really want to help stop fighting with others and put up some ways to help the movement.

 

[mczerone]

Case in point.

You, madam, are in the wrong here. j650, while being slightly inflammatory with the OP, who was just as inflammatory back. But you come out of nowhere shouting 'troll', which is a very "it takes one to call one" term, and claiming that j650 added nothing, when he wanted clarification and had numerous lengthy, meaningful posts.

j650: It's about when you turn on the nightly news, and catch the "Election Coverage", to see stories about Rudy, Mitt's 5 sons, Bill Clinton, McCain's Media Relations advisor, Obama's Pastor, and a singular mention of Huckabee as an also-ran. It's that Jon Stewart nearly championed Ron when he was on his show, then David Frum went on and whispered into Stewart's ear that Paul's racist. Stewart hasn't mentioned Ron Paul since Frum's appearance.

This was all pre-super Tuesday. The Major Media outlets would not accept surrogates, nor would they run any fluff pieces where Paul was a co-feature. They had him on, a couple of times, just so people can be persuaded that their was 'fair' coverage, because he had appearances on any given show.

There are coverage monitoring groups, and it was MagicMan's responsibility to give some proof to his specific claim of "1%", or at least that the coverage was significantly less than even the most modest poll numbers showed as his support.

 

[Magicman]

Right, I just proved that one of the media's underlings gets a lot more coverage and did far worse then Paul. Fred Thompson who joined the debates far ahead and was pushed a lot more by the media had little to offer.

They claim that blaming the media is a copout when the real reality is that it's a cop-out to pretend that Paul was given a fair chance.

The reality is that he was screwed and media coverage had everything to do with it. Noone can make a pure analysis of what went wrong unless he was given that opportunity first. That's why claiming it was because he's a libertarian is ducking the elephant in the room.

 

[j650]

Thank you mczerone. I've agreed time after time that the coverage isn't equal for all candidates. And I've said that the news stations are run by businesses who are selling a product. Just like any other business, they want to make money. Are they going to do that and please their viewers by showing Ron Paul or Fred Thompson? It's not fair. Most of the media is biased as someone else said. But you have to admit that Ron Paul didn't do a whole lot in the polls or the primaries to warrant a lot of coverage on the nightly news. If he had won New Hampshire, believe me, he would have been covered greatly. It would have been a gigantic political upset. Paul had a good amount of time in interviews on political shows which I have mentioned to get his message across.

I'm just saying that there are plenty of other reasons why we failed than just the biased media. Rand Paul hit on one, the campaign was full of rookies, some of the grassroots probably turned people off with hosilte in your face attitudes, and Ron Paul wasn't the best salesman for the message. There are many others and I just hope we would discuss these that we can actually control instead of sitting here and blaming everyone else and calling each other shills and trolls for not agreeing.

 

[Magicman]

You, madam, are in the wrong here. j650, while being slightly inflammatory with the OP, who was just as inflammatory back. But you come out of nowhere shouting 'troll', which is a very "it takes one to call one" term, and claiming that j650 added nothing, when he wanted clarification and had numerous lengthy, meaningful posts.

j650: It's about when you turn on the nightly news, and catch the "Election Coverage", to see stories about Rudy, Mitt's 5 sons, Bill Clinton, McCain's Media Relations advisor, Obama's Pastor, and a singular mention of Huckabee as an also-ran. It's that Jon Stewart nearly championed Ron when he was on his show, then David Frum went on and whispered into Stewart's ear that Paul's racist. Stewart hasn't mentioned Ron Paul since Frum's appearance.

This was all pre-super Tuesday. The Major Media outlets would not accept surrogates, nor would they run any fluff pieces where Paul was a co-feature. They had him on, a couple of times, just so people can be persuaded that their was 'fair' coverage, because he had appearances on any given show.

There are coverage monitoring groups, and it was MagicMan's responsibility to give some proof to his specific claim of "1%", or at least that the coverage was significantly less than even the most modest poll numbers showed as his support.

They were saying the same thing in July as they were now.

Ignored by Sunday Newspapers, Mainstream Media
Internet Buzz, Appearances on Dennis Miller and the Daily Show Spur Little Additional Mainstream Media Coverage
By C.M. Paulson, published Jun 04, 2007
Rating: 4.3 of 5Currently 4.30/512345 Font Font
PITTSBURGH -- Although Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul continues to generate internet buzz and coverage via less traditional media outlets, the mainstream media maintains its lack of Dr. Paul's campaign.

A survey of Sunday newspapers (conducted via Google News and the Pittsburgh newspapers) shows that Dr. Paul has received little or no coverage from the mainstream news outlets this weekend.

A Sunday Google News search shows only two references to Ron Paul, with both of these being Letters to the Editor to small New York newspapers (The Binghamton Press & Sun Bulletin and the Elmira Star Gazette). All other weekend Google News stories regarding Ron Paul were either spoofs, such as "Ron Paul Avatar Elected US President in Second Life," or editorials written by online news organizations.

Reading through the Pittsburgh newspapers (as a sample of what Americans were reading about in their Sunday papers) provided a similar picture. The somewhat liberal Pittsburgh Post-Gazette provided editorials regarding Barack Obama and President George Bush. The more conservative Pittsburgh Tribune-Review editorial section offered even more election coverage, with extensive pieces about Hillary Clinton, Fred Thompson, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson. Most of these pieces were not positive, but they were coverage nonetheless. (The Tribune-Review did run an editorial piece in Monday's paper titled "Why pummel Ron Paul," which discusses how some Republicans are looking to exclude Dr. Paul from debates because they disagree with his political beliefs and straight-talking attitude).

National coverage of Ron Paul was also lacking. An AP article titled "New Hampshire GOP battle each other," discusses New Hampshire Republicans preparing for Tuesday's debate, with no mention of Dr. Paul. Typically conservative Fox News offers only two articles regarding Ron Paul, with one of these being Dr. Paul's candidacy announcement and the other discussing how Dr. Paul's campaign hopes to use the internet to further his cause. ABC News ran a June 2 story regarding Dr. Paul's online popularity, but that was the only mainstream media coverage that Ron Paul's campaign received over the weekend.

This lack of mainstream media coverage has prompted an online, grassroots campaign working to promote Ron Paul's candidacy (refer to articles Presidential Candidate Ron Paul Gains Internet Popularity and Analysis: Is Ron Paul Internet Buzz Real or Spam?) Blogs and bulletin boards around the net have been devoted to discussing Ron Paul's views on the issues and Ron Paul has been one of the most searched for phrases on blog site Technorati.com.

This internet buzz has prompted other media sources to talk with Ron Paul. Dr. Paul has recently been interviewed by talk show hosts Bill Maher and Dennis Miller and is scheduled to visit Jon Stewart's popular The Daily Show on June 4.

Link to "Ron Paul Avatar Elected US President in Second Life"
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i19691

Link to "New Hampshire GOP battle each other"
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...CANS?SITE=AZTUS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Link to "Ron Paul's Online Rise"
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/blogs/news_blog/070509/ron_pauls_online_rise.htm

Link to "'08 Dark Horse Running Strong ... On Cyberspace"
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/story?id=3239034&page=1

 

[PaulineDisciple]

Although I believe that voter fraud may have something to do will Ron Paul's low numbers, I think that it has more to do with how uneducated the populace are. The government has used the mandatory government youth propaganda camps (public schools) to achieve what they could have never achieved without these camps. So much of the blame goes on the parents that handed their children over to the state to raise them up in the nurture and admonition of the state. If you can't see this fact, you will never be able to solve this problem long term. This is why my main focus is on abolishing the public school system because a government controlled education system is the biggest and best weapon against a free people and the first weapon that needs to be removed from a tyrannical government's hands.