<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1tZDdWf3fIg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Well I believe the issue lies within the traditional American's. How many American's who are going to vote this year actually research the internet about these topics? If alot of American's are the way my dad was, he would have to tv tuned to CNN all day long. I mean you'll hear all day long their opinions about who is and is not electable, they are suppose to be unbiased but that is certainly not the case. Can you imagine what chance Ron Paul would have if it wasn't for the internet, and if we went strictly off what the news say? He would get around 20 votes, all from family members. I could give multiple examples, but one that stuck out just yesterday. John King interviewed Ron Paul and questioned Paul about the former CEO of GM spoke out saying Ron Paul should politely exit the race, and not make his supporters mad so they'll still support the GOP nominee. Paul pretty much said that is the CEO's opinion, but the part of the interview CNN doesn't talk about is the CEO's 4 children are all Ron Paul supporters. They never bring out the positives. If I call it media manipulation, then it's labeled a conspiracy. I think the conspiracy lies within the opposition to Ron Paul.
He speaks from 0:21-1:01 (40 seconds) and from 1:13-2:03 (50 seconds) in the video. That is a total of 90 seconds. Close enough for me...
So in early November, when Ron Paul hadn't broken about 10% support - this after running in 2008 and having excellent name recognition - got 90 seconds in a debate of 8 or 9 people, where at least 5 (Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich) had led the national polls at one time or another. I wonder why no one paid any attention to him? That said, he's gotten far more time in more recent debates as his polling has improved. And its not helped him at all. His popularity peaked in Iowa, and as he's gotten more air time, he's only performed worse. This bizarre notion that "if only anyone paid attention, he'd do better" is nonsense.
according to B-Bob's back of the napkin work, after intro/extro, the moderator talking/questioning, introductions of candidates, and a couple of commercials (did they have commercials?), you'd have maybe 30 solid minutes for the candidates. If you have 9 candidates, then everyone will average to like 200 seconds. It is possible that one has 90 and others have a lot more, but the point is you can't compare 90 seconds to 1 hour. Candidate time was arguably much shorter than an hour, and the GOP has trotted out (at that point) a billion candidates.
I am curious but in that debate that Paul supposedly only got 89 seconds of speaking time how much speaking time did Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum get?
This was the total speaking time for the candidates in that debate: FYI: this is including the 2nd half of the debate which was not televised and they gave more questions to Paul...
Last time I checked, most Americans use the Internet. And I'm sure most Americans have run into a Ron Paul spamming here or there. For Pete's sake, it seems like every Youtube video I try to watch these days has that goddamned 13 minute long Ron Paul ad at the beginning, which is incredibly annoying when I'm watching basketball videos or things having absolutely nothing to do with politics. Secondly, at the end of the day, the media covers new stories. Juicy news, that sort of things. It's the way things work. And what's new to report about Paul? He still has fanatical supporters? He's still saying spouting the same policies that he has for 4 years? He's still not going to win because so much of what he says is anathema to the rank and file of the GOP? Oh wait, the newsletter and his endorsement by crazy people. That's new. Can't be reported on for some reason.
Are you confusing me with ToyCen? I was simply pointing out that, in fact, Paul only got 89 seconds in the one hour televised portion of the debate (which kyle_R seemed to be disputing). I think you have misread the situation here. Paul's peak came after New Hampshire (where he was 2nd and got 23% of the vote), not Iowa. In the week after New Hampshire, several National polls came out showing Paul at 15% or greater. So clearly, when Paul got some media attention after his strong showing there - his numbers went up. So I do think Paul would do better if he got more fair coverage but it isn't the only reason why he isn't rising above that 13-15% nationally. Personally, I think his problem is one of messaging - he hasn't been able to convince to convince GOP voters that: 1. His foreign policy of non-interventionism is good for the US and will make us safer & more prosperous. 2. He is electable and can/will defeat Barack Obama in November. If he were ever able to devise a way to convince GOP voters of the above, he could win the nomination...
This I'll agree with, and I'll respect you for pointing this out. If Paul actually can convince the rank and file of the GOP of that, he'll get the GOP nomination. It's not some media conspiracy against him like ToyCen is so fond of.
Is it just coincidental? Happened in the last couple of debates, they are going down the line, asking candidates the same question and skip completely over Paul. It's not until the crowd recognizes it, and the moderator goes back to Paul. In the debate last Monday with Brian Williams, Paul would've only gotten 3 questions if he hadn't had spoken up and asked if he could join in on that debate question. There's a sound bite of Santorum and Paul discussing this a few months ago after a debate, like 8 candidates on the stage and all got the chance to speak except Paul. Have you not seen the backlash about this on youtube? Alot of people speak out about this, Not just ToyCen428.
lol if so many american's use the internet, does the majority of the GOP voters not search the net? Paul can match up against Obama just as good as anyone in the GOP race. And his foreign policy makes sense, if you really listen to him speak without any premeditated feelings. What I thought was interesting, he responded to Obama's speech a couple days ago at a college, where Obama encouraged and offered to provide help if a university can come up with ways to make it easier for college kids to pay off their debt. Paul's response is one you won't hear anyone else respond by saying all Obama is talking about doing is transferring the debt to the taxpayers. Obama has no money, The country has no money. We're in debt up to our ears. Found the video: <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DDTd4byn_fI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
You are seriously going to argue over two seconds when Paul clearly got a A LOT less time overall than the other candidates in that debate? See my above post for speaking time the candidates got overall...
Look, I support Paul on many issues and will vote for him. And obviously I agree with you that Paul is very electable as he does the best with Independents among all the GOP candidates. What can't be denied is that GOP voters are not sold on his non-interventionist foreign policy and they don't think he is electable. I know this from seeing the cross-tabs from many polls. Please go and look at them yourself if you don't believe me. Also, the vast majority of GOP voters are 45 and older. A lot of these people don't use the internet so Paul has to effectively communicate his message through debates and television advertisements in order to get their vote. There are certain foreign policy issues he hasn't explained well in the debates and it has cost him votes. And he hasn't created and aired a good foreign policy ad yet to convince people he is strong on national defense. All I am saying is that I wish him and his campaign did a few things better....
That was his peak and so far, over the course of two runs, his ceiling. And it cannot be replicated in a state unlike NH. NH is a state where independents are allowed to vote in the GOP primary and it is a state that is majority independent, which is very unusual. If you look at the internals you'll see it wasn't GOP voters that gave him his boost; it was independents and some Democrats. No disrespect but the first would be impossible as it is anathema to the GOP. He'd have as much luck convincing them that voting straight ticket Democrat would be best for the US and will make us safer & more prosperous (which in fact it would, but I digress). As for the second, the GOP would fear a Paul presidency even more than an Obama one. Partly they would fear it because his core issues are not just a little different than the GOP platform, they are the opposite of it; partly they would fear it because it would represent such a threat to the status quo (yeah okay, I'll throw you guys that little bone); but mostly they would fear it because a Paul presidency would be a disaster for the country. And on that last point they could not be more right. Paul does not suffer from a lack of airtime or a failure to get his message out. His message is out. It's been out. He has stitched together a very eclectic coalition that includes: 1. Social libertarians, liberals all, who are by and large square against fiscal libertarianism, 2. Fiscal libertarians, conservatives all, who are by and large square against social libertarianism, 3. Anti-war activists (god bless them, truly), 4. Crazy people/conspiracy theorists like ToyCen, 5. And people that are 'mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore.' These are the people that believe in the silly syllogism that since (a) things suck and (b) Ron Paul says they suck, (c) Ron Paul will make them not suck. This ragtag coalition, all added up, never busts through a 20% ceiling in the country. Never ever never. And none of these 5-20% of the electorate seem to quite understand how dangerous pure libertarianism is. I'd love it if you'd give my prior posts over the last couple pages on what would really happen if Paul was elected and had his way and give me at least a brief rejoinder. But hear me now and believe me later: most Democrats don't want Ron Paul to be president, most Republicans don't want Ron Paul to be president and most independents don't want Ron Paul to be president. This isn't entirely because the majority of us are brainwashed or in the thrall of corporate interests; it is mostly because it would be a disaster from which this country would truly never recover. Thank goodness then that there is, quite literally, no chance of that ever happening.
Me too, but I'm not sure if I want them to rule the day when it comes to education, food and drug safety, health care, fires, natural disaster relief, police, highways, clean air and water, and on and on. I'm all for peace and legalized drugs, gambling and prostitution, but that's a pretty crappy trade off if you ask me. Seems like there must be an easier way to accomplish the 3 or 4 good ideas Paul has than letting every other thing go to hell.
