#honestmistake : Video documentation of Ron Pauls omission from the media

[jackschmittusa]

Is a "straw pull" anything like a taffy pull?

As far as RP, the Republican party is the party of the status quo, meaning if you don't change anything, it won't get worse. They have fought against change since the 50s and here comes RP wanting to hit the "juice button" on the blender. Since they hate his foreign policy and economic stances as much as they hate dealing with gays, abortion, birth control, etc. from the left, they do their best to marginalize him. Various elements of the party provide volumes of info and commentary on the other candidates to the media to the point of saturation. Saturation to the point that it is not necessary for the media to work for anything more to fill the scripts and columns. (I don't think there is much interest by the media anymore to actually work to find news. They get more than enough handed to them.)

The Republicans are the party of inertia, true non-progressives, and really dislike people making waves from any position that might be perceived as an authority. RP colors outside of the lines.

 

[airdata]

The only point in bringing up the straw pull is that as documented in the video... media outlets made it out to be a huge accomplishment when Bachmann won a strawpull. Many of them reported the top 3 as being Bachman in first and pawlenty in third... completely ignoring Ron Paul who finished 2nd.

But then when Ron Paul went on to win countless other straw pulls, they got no coverage. It would look pretty bad if on one hand you praise somebody for winning something and on the other hand you say it doesn't matter since the other guy won.

The same is probably true of iowa. In the week or 2 leading up to the iowa primary, Ron Paul was polling in the top 2. Santorum was not on the map. Then they have the vote count moved to a secret location for some reason. Then they declare Romney the winner, then romney/santorum tie, and then finally say santorum won despite votes still being unaccounted for.

From a political strategists point of view, it's probably better to make iowans look inept than to let things play out and let Ron Paul win.

 

[fskimospy]

This is turning into another one of those truther or birther things. Newser maybe? Ron Paul won't win anything because a good number of his positions are enormously unpopular with the electorate.

Or that he's the victim of some grand conspiracy. I'm sure it could be either one.

 

[PokerGuy]

"winning" straw polls doesn't mean a darn thing. Until the guy actually starts winning something that matters, he will be irrelevant. No amount of whining and conspiracy theories from paul bots can fix that fact. He is not, and will not be, relevant.

 

[PokerGuy]

Many of them reported the top 3 as being Bachman in first and pawlenty in third... completely ignoring Ron Paul who finished 2nd.

That's because bachmann and pawlenty were possible nominees. Paul is a known quantity at this point: he's got a bunch of very loyal and vocal supporters, but can't bridge the gap and gain traction among the general population. That's why his finish in some poll don't get reported much (if at all), it's meaningless.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Ron Paul is simply an irrelevancy in the Presidential race. Better to give the time to candidates who might conceivably win.

 

[DAGTA]

Ron Paul would stand a good chance of earning most, if not all, of the popular vote from people that don't vote strictly party line, if he actually got air time. He's not a team player with the establishment, though, so they keep him silent from the sources of news for most US citizens.

It really is as simple as that.

 

[fskimospy]

Ron Paul would stand a good chance of earning most, if not all, of the popular vote from people that don't vote strictly party line, if he actually got air time. He's not a team player with the establishment, though, so they keep him silent from the sources of news for most US citizens.

It really is as simple as that.

No, he really really wouldn't. Do you realize how crazily unpopular his positions are on social security, medicare, etc, etc, etc?

Even if you leave out all the civil rights act, racist newsletters, crazy conspiracy theory, John Birch crap, his actual political positions on crucial issues to the electorate are extremely unpopular

Oh yeah, and he believes in clown college economics. Ron Paul is not electable due to his unpopular opinions, his shady associations, and his poor understanding of monetary policy. A trifecta of awfulness.