Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Back last fall I posted some stuff from an acquaintance, Dr. Paul Levinson at Infinite Regress blog site that showed how crowds of people at an early Ron Paul rally were depicted in the press. Instead of the masses of cheering crowds for Ron Paul that were present, what was instead shown was a single stock footage photo of a lone, depraved looking Paul supporter standing in the rain with his sign on the ground. In the same article, one could see that Mitt Romney had massive amounts of folks cheering for him as depicted in the photo. However, in the video footage of this event, there were only two or three signs and two Romney supporters and all the rest of the people shown in the picture were actually Ron Paul supporters who were cropped out to make it appear as though they were Romney supporters. This type of behavior from the press and media is well documented and supported.
In the case of polling, Paul was shown to have support in single digits while at the same time in actual straw polling where people physically turned out to vote, Paul overwhelmingly blew away his competitors in most events and this is well documented and supported as well. In the world of cyber space, another thing happened; Paul supporters were everywhere and cries of stacking the deck in his favor abounded everywhere you turned. Even though the sample audience was far greater, there is still the possibility that this sort of thing could occur. Joseph Stalin once said that it isn’t a matter of who votes but who counts the votes. I happen to think polling can be used in such a manner as well by the manner in which questions are asked, the chosen sample audience, and how the results can be extrapolated. All said, polling can be accurate if done objectively, and it can elicit the desired data one wants just as easily if not done objectively, so in the end, take them with a grain of salt.
A tool I have been using for some time is called Google Trends which compiles the raw statistical web data into a comparative form. If we are to believe that Paul supporters stacked the deck to make it appear that more support was there than actually was then we can look to the raw data to get a more accurate analysis of whether this is true or not. In the case of Google Trends, it is quite clear that Ron Paul had four times as much web traffic all the way until early 2007. In fact, millions of individual IP addresses were logged as part of this data compilation, and yet the press still showed Paul having actual support in single digits. I can physically drive around any given town in America and still see more Ron Paul signs than any other candidate, so how is this possible.
So my question is, how much influence has the media had in suppressing the candidacy of Ron Paul and how much of it was simply a rejection of his views. Outside of just the candidacy of Ron Paul and how the media has treated him, what about how the media manages its coverage of the rest of the candidates, do you believe there is manipulation or influence being exerted to derive a desired candidate of choice?
I am convinced that the media downplayed and even failed to mention Paul's participation in this race outright from the beginning. Countless article after article on Yahoo! News from the AP would have a paragraph update on each candidate's recent activities - Giuliani, Thompson, Edwards, Romney - but not Ron Paul. I frequently would read articles mentioning the poll support of various Republican contenders, that would mention Thompson's 3% but not Paul's 8% support. This is clearly media bias. We also saw the blatant media bias in the early debates where he was given minimal camera time and often only asked 1 question while the others all got at least 3.
However, I will say that Ron Paul has a lot of fatal flaws of his own that hindered his ability to have a bigger impact. First and foremost is his appearance. The man looks less than Presidential, but even more importantly, he doesn't know how to stand up for himself in debates. He also gets "flustered" a la George Bush '04 which makes him look even crazier. He pushes his more unpopular ideas like going back to the gold standard when really he should be focusing on talking about ending the war, ending the Drug War, and how he's going to address health care and reduce taxes. This is what people want to hear and he needs to tailor his libertarian message to suit the day, not keep talking about the 1700's founding fathers and eliminating every possible govt. program.
Most obviously though Paul's message does not fit with the current neocon slant in the GOP. As the old fogies die out this faction of the party will lose its dominating grasp and we will see the GOP return to classic conservatism. Also, we have a much more independent-thinking electorate (the youth) forming, so we may see a major move from GOP to Libertarian party...but until the Libs can shed their kooky image they will remain 3rd class citizens.
If you want to say the media did an injustice to any candidate then I think you need to turn your attention to the other parties that got ZERO coverage. If you are not in the 2 parties you will be ignored. you won't even be allowed in the debates. Ron Paul did get in debates and was largely an under performer. For me I find He and I did not have enough in common for me to support him... But I would fall in on the left with Dennis Kuchinik or Gravel, neither of which have a snowballs chance.
I do think that the media had some effect by ignoring or treating him as an oddball candidate. Having said that, even if the media did give him better coverage, the electorate, in my humble opinion, just would not have been able to grasp some of the ideas that really take some pondering.
Ask a typical voter about McCain or Obama and the depth of their analysis will be:
1) He's a Bush third term
or
2) He stands for change
When you ask if they would like to expand the thought, the answer is usually "no".
As someone about the gold standard and you will just get a blank stare.
I like Ron Paul but find for the people he is a little ahead of his time. The media play a large role in the outcome of these Primaries. For a while there I thought Barack was finished due to all the negative coverage. Now it looks like they are completely ignoring Hillary. I don't know any media that is not biased towards one candidate or another. Fox for instance is totally John McCain, MSNBC depending on which program you watch is either Hillary or Barack. I find CNN although not perfect try to report on all 3 remaining. I do feel that Ron Paul could have helped himself a little more with more paid advertising.
Ron Paul didn't really campaign very well. It was almost too passive and relied too heavily on internet word of mouth to get his message across. But at least he didn't overspend excessively as Obama has. Somewhere in the middle would be good in terms of getting the message across and not being offensive. No presidential campaign should cost 100's of millions of dollars to run.
I realize how sincere the Paul supporters are, and their frustration at getting so little support.
Honestly, I believe that significant discussions about his position on the issues would appeal to no more than perhaps 15-20 million voters, about a 10% vote. The public is evolving more towards "different" federal involvement, not "significantly less" involvement.
I like Ron Paul but find for the people he is a little ahead of his time.
That's funny. Most people say he's too regressive and living in the past. Amazing that anyone would think a candidate who stands for a return to the Constitution would be "ahead of his time" as we approach the 232nd anniversary of our country.
I realize how sincere the Paul supporters are, and their frustration at getting so little support.
Honestly, I believe that significant discussions about his position on the issues would appeal to no more than perhaps 15-20 million voters, about a 10% vote. The public is evolving more towards "different" federal involvement, not "significantly less" involvement.
Ben Franklin and a host of others through the years have said that when the public realizes they can vote themselves the treasury, the Republic will be lost. That's exactly what I see from the Democrats this cycle. Of course, most Republicans prefer to vote the Corporate machine the treasury.
most people in reality want more govt not less regardless of how much they complain about the govt.running as an antiwar republican pretty much guarantees you will lose 3/4+ of the republican primary vote.a high percentage of young voters are going to be much more likely to rally behind a young,liberal,antiwar,biracial,'govt can save the world',guy then an old,antitax,get rid of social programs,'govt is the problem' kind of guy who is also anti war.i like ron paul a lot and a lot more conservative republicans likely would have backed if not for his war/forign policy ideas.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
