Why the Ames Result is Ideal

[Harry96]

I probably would've preferred for Ron to have come out on top. But other than that, what happened is the ideal result.

If Ron had won by a wide margin, the media could've dismissed it as his "small number of supporters (physically) spamming another poll."

And, if he had lost by a wide margin, they could've dismissed him as not being a front-runner.

But, with him statistically tying with Bachmann, they can't dismiss the poll without snatching the significance of her win away from her -- nor can they admit that her win is meaningful without acknowledging that Ron's result is just as meaningful.

Okay, they can -- and are. But it seems to be blowing up in their faces. EVERYONE seems to be talking about this blackout. By covering Bachmann incessantly and repeatedly calling her "top tier" as a result of her win, and asserting that the front-runners are now her, Perry and Romney, the blatant bias is out in the open where everyone has to look at it. If her win in Ames makes her top tier, than how does Ron's result -- 0.9% behind her -- not also make him top tier, especially since he's only 1.2% behind her in the national polls as of today, and has raised more money than her? There is NO fair, objective criterion by which anyone can say that Bachmann is a front-runner but Ron isn't.

The same is true of the blathering about Pawlenty. The media repeatedly said during their grossly excessive coverage of his exit that he was always considered a top tier front runner. Really?! By who? The 2% of the people in the public who supported him in the polls?

The front-runners are whoever the media says they are, regardless of how little real support they have. And the "fringe" candidates are whoever the media says they are, regardless of how much support they have.

Ron is against everything the establishment profits from, everything they use to perpetually rob and enslave us, and the media is their propaganda and opinion-making arm.

But their influence is dying due to the Internet. I don't know how this will all play out. But, again, the Ames result is ideal: now EVERYONE who's paying attention can see the blatant bias. Even people who disagree with Ron's politics are talking about it. The jig is up.

Again, I don't know how all of this will play out. But the media's narrative that the only front-runners are Bachmann, Perry and Romney is obviously ridiculous to everyone who's paying attention, and they're going to have a hard time maintaining it through the fall. This is going to be a lot of fun to watch.

 

[Agorism]

I think it was a disaster losing by 152 votes, and I think we'd still be being ignored had we won.

But I will say Drudge helped us out huge, and we've been able to make the best of a bad situation. The Daily show coverage was spectacular.

 

[Restore-America-NOW]

I think it was a disaster losing by 152 votes, and I think we'd still be being ignored had we won.

But I will say Drudge helped us out huge, and we've been able to make the best of a bad situation. The Daily show coverage was spectacular.

Why was it a disaster? Look how they simply threw our CPAC win into a corner and dismissed it, they would've done the same here.

 

[Agorism]

Why was it a disaster? Look how they simply threw our CPAC win into a corner and dismissed it, they would've done the same here.

Because Intrade now has Bachmann close to 50% chance of winning Iowa.

Had we had 153 more votes, we'd be in a position of domination, and the Bachmann campaign would be a media after thought.

 

[eaglesfan48]

Either way, it was a very strong showing and the media coverage last night was amazing with The Daily Show, Drudge, and Piers Morgan

 

[Karsten]

I have to agree that it was NOT ideal. Losing by a nose always sucks. However, look at the bright side. It's WAY better than the 2007 result. I'm pretty sure, back then, we'd take a close second to 5th place anytime. And, look at what we were still able to accomplish in the 07-08 cycle with the marches and moneybombs, the first tea parties, etc, etc. We're way bigger this time and we will either win the nomination or have a greater impact than any of us even imagine right now.

 

[economics102]

Up until seeing the Jon Stewart clip I would have argued that a win is ideal. But the truth is that the media, not the politicians, are enemy #1 -- if we fail to win this election, it's going to be because of the MSM. And in the aftermath of this situation, the media has inadvertently handed us a giant wedge that we may be able to use to drive a massive crack into their phony election coverage facade.

The MSM has overplayed their hand, gotten too bold, and in doing so they've not only exposed their ill intentions, they've turned a lot of heads, both within our movement and outside of it -- people who WERE simply focused on campaigning and are now instead setting their sights on overthrowing the Royal Media class. If we're waging a more impressive political campaign then we did in 2007, I suspect we'd wage a more successful campaign against the MSM as well.

 

[Harry96]

My point was that the media is going to ignore Ron no matter what, so a statistical tie with Bachmann probably puts the incredible bias out in front of everyone where they have to look at it better than would have any other result.

 

[ValidusCustodiae]

Another aspect of this I don't see mentioned here is the fact that such a result will have the inevitable effect of pushing us supporters even harder. If the results were reversed, there would be slightly more laurel resting going on and less actual campaigning. Stated differently, Ron Paul's supporters now know they can achieve victory in the Iowa Caucuses, but to do so will require every ounce of our effort, and then some.

 

[ApathyCuredRP]

In my opinion, the Jon Stewart video is the greatest asset yet to attack the "we like him, but he can not win argument". If someone you know is on the fence, and does not want to "waste their vote"... just have them watch that video.

 

[invisible]

I agree with the OP, and made virtually the exact same argument immediately after the straw poll results were announced in the thread that got moved to hot topics. It is now indisputable that Ron Paul is a top tier frontrunner, and the results of the straw poll cannot be dismissed.

 

[Agorism]

We're in danger of being completely marginalized when we could have been the front runner.

Can we turn Dailyshow snippets and good drudge coverage into something.

....ya. We're doing a good job, but I still think we missed a chance.

 

[TER]

It was sad to found out he didn't win, especially when it was so close. But the Lord works in mysterious ways and in ways we might not understand. Ron Paul has now been seen as a victim, a voice who is by design being systematically silenced even as he speaks common sense and truth. He has now been seen as one of the people standing up to the System. Juan Williams might be right when he says that we live 'in the age of Ron Paul'.

The Ames results have led us to where we are now, and it is where we should be. We must have confidence in the wisdom of God and in His power over all evil. No amount of darkness can overcome the light of truth. When this light is shared amongst the people of this world and multiplied, the light will always overtake the darkness, for the darkness is nothing but the lack of light. It is of no substance.

If we fight for the light, we must be confident that we will find victory in the end.

This is a new phase in the life of this movement.

May the Lord continue to shine His face upon our nation!

 

[TER]

As the only anti-war candidate, we should use this greatly to his advantage. The only concern being of course that if the country goes extremely anti-war, we might find another 'event' happen. But he should stress strong on national defensive in protecting our borders and our defensive capabilities, shutting down many of the bases initially and then more within a certain amount of time. He should stress that these will save us TRILLIONS of dollars and help to keep solvent our entitlement systems and safety net organizations. He should stress how these printing of dollars are making the things in the stores more expensive. He should put it plainly, so that a single working mother of three who does not have the luxury of time to study up on Austrian economics can understand it and agree with him. It is time the message become focused to a core principled themes.

For most of what I wrote above, he has been doing already, and he should continue doing so. I just wanted to blabber because I am so excited with how things are quickly developing!

 

[rp08orbust]

We're doing a good job, but I still think we missed a chance.

You missed a chance. If you had helped promote threads like this instead of calling them "ridiculous", we might have had the extra 153 votes.

Sorry, I'm in the foulest mood of my life. I'll probably be a dickhead for a while.

 

[parocks]

You missed a chance. If you had helped promote threads like this instead of calling them "ridiculous", we might have had the extra 153 votes.

Sorry, I'm in the foulest mood of my life. I'll probably be a dickhead for a while.

Cool, I'd want to hear everything you have to say, because you have been showing hero skills.

 

[parocks]

"The front-runners are whoever the media says they are, regardless of how little real support they have."

From a dispassionate perspective - It appears that the meaning of the term "front runner" has slightly shifted. Historically, "front runner" meant who was in front.
Currently, "front runner" means who the liberals in the media would like to win. They like Jon Huntsman. His most recent job was in the Obama Administration.
The media would prefer that there not even be a Republican Party, so they hope that Republicans might want to vote for a Democrat in the Republican Primary.
His poll numbers of 2% are weak, but he's still pretty much a Democrat, so they still want him to be the Republican nominee, so they still call him a front runner. It appears that everyone the media likes is being rejected by actual voters, but they still hope that by talking only about the candidates they like, people won't find out about the ones that the people are actually voting for.

 

[realtonygoodwin]

I probably would've preferred for Ron to have come out on top. But other than that, what happened is the ideal result.

If Ron had won by a wide margin, the media could've dismissed it as his "small number of supporters (physically) spamming another poll."

And, if he had lost by a wide margin, they could've dismissed him as not being a front-runner.

But, with him statistically tying with Bachmann, they can't dismiss the poll without snatching the significance of her win away from her -- nor can they admit that her win is meaningful without acknowledging that Ron's result is just as meaningful.

Okay, they can -- and are. But it seems to be blowing up in their faces. EVERYONE seems to be talking about this blackout. By covering Bachmann incessantly and repeatedly calling her "top tier" as a result of her win, and asserting that the front-runners are now her, Perry and Romney, the blatant bias is out in the open where everyone has to look at it. If her win in Ames makes her top tier, than how does Ron's result -- 0.9% behind her -- not also make him top tier, especially since he's only 1.2% behind her in the national polls as of today, and has raised more money than her? There is NO fair, objective criterion by which anyone can say that Bachmann is a front-runner but Ron isn't.

The same is true of the blathering about Pawlenty. The media repeatedly said during their grossly excessive coverage of his exit that he was always considered a top tier front runner. Really?! By who? The 2% of the people in the public who supported him in the polls?

The front-runners are whoever the media says they are, regardless of how little real support they have. And the "fringe" candidates are whoever the media says they are, regardless of how much support they have.

Ron is against everything the establishment profits from, everything they use to perpetually rob and enslave us, and the media is their propaganda and opinion-making arm.

But their influence is dying due to the Internet. I don't know how this will all play out. But, again, the Ames result is ideal: now EVERYONE who's paying attention can see the blatant bias. Even people who disagree with Ron's politics are talking about it. The jig is up.

Again, I don't know how all of this will play out. But the media's narrative that the only front-runners are Bachmann, Perry and Romney is obviously ridiculous to everyone who's paying attention, and they're going to have a hard time maintaining it through the fall. This is going to be a lot of fun to watch.

+rep x1000

 

[Karsten]

Sometimes a narrow loss causes the losing side to come back strong and win. How many times have we seen this theme in books and movies?

 

[canadian4ronpaul]

I probably would've preferred for Ron to have come out on top. But other than that, what happened is the ideal result.

If Ron had won by a wide margin, the media could've dismissed it as his "small number of supporters (physically) spamming another poll."

And, if he had lost by a wide margin, they could've dismissed him as not being a front-runner.

But, with him statistically tying with Bachmann, they can't dismiss the poll without snatching the significance of her win away from her -- nor can they admit that her win is meaningful without acknowledging that Ron's result is just as meaningful.

Okay, they can -- and are. But it seems to be blowing up in their faces. EVERYONE seems to be talking about this blackout. By covering Bachmann incessantly and repeatedly calling her "top tier" as a result of her win, and asserting that the front-runners are now her, Perry and Romney, the blatant bias is out in the open where everyone has to look at it. If her win in Ames makes her top tier, than how does Ron's result -- 0.9% behind her -- not also make him top tier, especially since he's only 1.2% behind her in the national polls as of today, and has raised more money than her? There is NO fair, objective criterion by which anyone can say that Bachmann is a front-runner but Ron isn't.

The same is true of the blathering about Pawlenty. The media repeatedly said during their grossly excessive coverage of his exit that he was always considered a top tier front runner. Really?! By who? The 2% of the people in the public who supported him in the polls?

The front-runners are whoever the media says they are, regardless of how little real support they have. And the "fringe" candidates are whoever the media says they are, regardless of how much support they have.

Ron is against everything the establishment profits from, everything they use to perpetually rob and enslave us, and the media is their propaganda and opinion-making arm.

But their influence is dying due to the Internet. I don't know how this will all play out. But, again, the Ames result is ideal: now EVERYONE who's paying attention can see the blatant bias. Even people who disagree with Ron's politics are talking about it. The jig is up.

Again, I don't know how all of this will play out. But the media's narrative that the only front-runners are Bachmann, Perry and Romney is obviously ridiculous to everyone who's paying attention, and they're going to have a hard time maintaining it through the fall. This is going to be a lot of fun to watch.

i completely agree with every word you just wrote. exposing the media bias at this point is crucial to our future success. now we have tons of rock solid evidence. "bachmann wins, pawlenty distant third" wtf is that shit? what about ron paul within 1 percent behind bachmann? if americans want to fight the establishment and bring REAL change to the country, they need to know which candidate the media is trying to destroy