Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

He always seems to gloss over it when (sympathetic interviewers) ask him things like "You speak the truth, but why does everyone think you're insane?"

A lot of people talk about the media being biased or bad, but I don't think many people realize that it really is biased towards group think. Like, it is. There's no reason to suspect it wouldn't be. Debate isn't eye catching when you thoroughly examine underlying axioms to various questions and then agree that most things just depend, or could be interpreted in different ways.

The classic John Stewart/Crossfire clip comes to mind. Why doesn't Ron Paul sound off about these things the way Jon Stewart did?

Whether you agree with the Libertarian philosophy or not, I think everyone on this board can agree that having a politician in the debate who argues principally from his underlying beliefs, and then extensions of those beliefs, is a very good thing to see on the television set. So this is really the best chance we may ever see for a politician somewhere on the radar of attention to articulate these things.

Of course the obvious answer is that he doesn't want to piss the media off and make it even harder on himself. And I guess he doesn't want to come off as whiney to people who'd think he's just scapegoating. But still, I dunno. It's not like the mainstream media could be much worse for him. If he spoke his mind about the absurdity of the whole process (which I'm only assuming is something he does agree is bad), I feel like he'd do himself more good than bad, and work towards a good cause in the process.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he never really delves into this stuff other than "well they think I'm eccentric, and I'm not really sure why... to me, they're eccentric." I'd like to see him just spit out the truth, and explain why the media and mainstream thought will always be biased against someone whose beliefs aren't based on what's easiest to digest. He seems so willing to tell it like he is, but then seems to turn into a politician when this subject comes up.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

He probably doesn't want to scare voters. People may say they want change, but at most they want moderate change.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
He always seems to gloss over it when (sympathetic interviewers) ask him things like "You speak the truth, but why does everyone think you're insane?"

A lot of people talk about the media being biased or bad, but I don't think many people realize that it really is biased towards group think. Like, it is. There's no reason to suspect it wouldn't be. Debate isn't eye catching when you thoroughly examine underlying axioms to various questions and then agree that most things just depend, or could be interpreted in different ways.

The classic John Stewart/Crossfire clip comes to mind. Why doesn't Ron Paul sound off about these things the way Jon Stewart did?

Whether you agree with the Libertarian philosophy or not, I think everyone on this board can agree that having a politician in the debate who argues principally from his underlying beliefs, and then extensions of those beliefs, is a very good thing to see on the television set. So this is really the best chance we may ever see for a politician somewhere on the radar of attention to articulate these things.

Of course the obvious answer is that he doesn't want to piss the media off and make it even harder on himself. And I guess he doesn't want to come off as whiney to people who'd think he's just scapegoating. But still, I dunno. It's not like the mainstream media could be much worse for him. If he spoke his mind about the absurdity of the whole process (which I'm only assuming is something he does agree is bad), I feel like he'd do himself more good than bad, and work towards a good cause in the process.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he never really delves into this stuff other than "well they think I'm eccentric, and I'm not really sure why... to me, they're eccentric." I'd like to see him just spit out the truth, and explain why the media and mainstream thought will always be biased against someone whose beliefs aren't based on what's easiest to digest. He seems so willing to tell it like he is, but then seems to turn into a politician when this subject comes up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because some of his ideas aren't easy to digest, that doesn't make them good ideas either. He's got some awful positions that, along with his very non-Presidential demeanor, make him look eccentric.

I don't know if the media is biased or not, but when it comes to those in the public who are paying attention, it isn't bias, it's disagreement.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just because some of his ideas aren't easy to digest, that doesn't make them good ideas either. He's got some awful positions that, along with his very non-Presidential demeanor, make him look eccentric.

I don't know if the media is biased or not, but when it comes to those in the public who are paying attention, it isn't bias, it's disagreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is gaining some steam and is 4th in fundraising for Q2 so not all of the informed public is disagreeing with him. Of course the media is biased and favors the frontrunners. Every time he's on tv they dismiss him as "radical" or "long shot" and even tell him he's got no chance to his face.

Some of his positions aren't realistic and some of them seem very practical, but people don't seem to like radical change like he's proposing. The media up to this point has either been ignoring him or denouncing him, but he needs their help to give him good exposure if he has any chance to win, so it's probably best that he remains calm and keeps giving well thought out answers.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

I'd say he is doing a pretty damn good job of balancing the extremist ideas versus staying agreeable and not opening oneself up for attack and slander.


He openly mentions that he wants the abolish the whole damn thing. He is literally saying: "the [censored] is coming down". And people love him. Now that's not an easy thing to do.



Also as I've stated before, I think Ron Paul is an effect of the internet, not the cause of current libertarian popularity. So if Ron Paul fails, then I expect to see the same thing happen next election, but twice (or more) as strong.


Ultimately: the [censored] IS coming down.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course the media is biased and favors the frontrunners

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point it's not just frontrunners --- it's anyone who has a chance in hell. Paul doesn't.

[ QUOTE ]
Every time he's on tv they dismiss him as "radical" or "long shot" and even tell him he's got no chance to his face

[/ QUOTE ]

Are either of these things untrue?

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course the media is biased and favors the frontrunners

At this point it's not just frontrunners --- it's anyone who has a chance in hell. Paul doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think it's a little early to just write him off. If you look at donors and funds raised from Q1 to Q2 he's obviously making an impact. Not bad for a guy a lot of people have still never heard of. Let's wait at least until the Iowa Straw Poll to see if his internet support can translate into ground support and the end of September to see if his Q3 numbers show a healthy growth.


[ QUOTE ]
Every time he's on tv they dismiss him as "radical" or "long shot" and even tell him he's got no chance to his face

[/ QUOTE ]

Are either of these things untrue?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but what's wrong with just introducing him as Presidential candidate Ron Paul without adding the longshot or radical in front every single time?

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
No, but what's wrong with just introducing him as Presidential candidate Ron Paul without adding the longshot or radical in front every single time?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you be equally upset if he were leading in the polls and they introduced him as "Republican frontrunner" or talked about how he had a lock on the nomination?

All candidates aren't created equally. When you are on the fringe in your beliefs, aren't raising even close to the amount of money as the frontrunners, and are way behind in the polls you should be referred to as a longshot.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course the media is biased and favors the frontrunners

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point it's not just frontrunners --- it's anyone who has a chance in hell. Paul doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Circular logic.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just because some of his ideas aren't easy to digest, that doesn't make them good ideas either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, they might not be good ideas to you, but they are to him. And the point is he holds the ideas anyways, even though he knows they won't play well.

[ QUOTE ]
along with his very non-Presidential demeanor, make him look eccentric.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 4 front runners are a woman, a black man, a mormon, and a short, bald catholic with a lisp.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if the media is biased or not, but when it comes to those in the public who are paying attention, it isn't bias, it's disagreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about the media being biased to like the left or the right. The way the media conducts political debate is absurd. It's just a shouting match of talking points between two people with different underlying beliefs. The media is biased towards the easily digestible belief. Rather than explain honestly what those beliefs are based on, it's easier to say them as if everyone is automatically supposed to agree with your axiom. So then you have politicians whose best strategy is to do the same thing.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

The media does have to make some sort of determination for how much coverage they should give each candidate. They can't cover 25 candidates equally; this would be doing a disservice to the public by crowding out the truly "relevant" candidates (that is, the candidates who would have a chance to win if they were given equal coverage) with "noise" from candidates who would never have a shot no matter how much media attention they got.

I think ideology is one factor among many that determines how viable the media thinks a candidate will be. Paul is at the bottom-end of the field in terms of many other factors, like poll numbers and qualifications. As far as these go, Paul probably ranks just a notch below Dennis Kucinich.

You're right that his ideology has probably hurt him also. But there is some justificiation for this. Paul is much farther out of the mainstream in terms of ideology that Kucinich, and certainly farther out than the 3rd tier conservatives like Huckabee and Brownback.

Do you think that Lyndon LaRouche deserved equal media attention all those times he ran for the Democratic nod? Of course not; his ideology disqualifies him immediately in the minds of 95% of Americans. Why should the media cover someone who would have no chance even if he were the only candidate the media covered?

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
The media does have to make some sort of determination for how much coverage they should give each candidate. They can't cover 25 candidates equally; this would be doing a disservice to the public by crowding out the truly "relevant" candidates (that is, the candidates who would have a chance to win if they were given equal coverage) with "noise" from candidates who would never have a shot no matter how much media attention they got.

I think ideology is one factor among many that determines how viable the media thinks a candidate will be. Paul is at the bottom-end of the field in terms of many other factors, like poll numbers and qualifications. As far as these go, Paul probably ranks just a notch below Dennis Kucinich.

You're right that his ideology has probably hurt him also. But there is some justificiation for this. Paul is much farther out of the mainstream in terms of ideology that Kucinich, and certainly farther out than the 3rd tier conservatives like Huckabee and Brownback.

Do you think that Lyndon LaRouche deserved equal media attention all those times he ran for the Democratic nod? Of course not; his ideology disqualifies him immediately in the minds of 95% of Americans. Why should the media cover someone who would have no chance even if he were the only candidate the media covered?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really talking about media "attention," certainly I agree that you have to focus on the front runners. I'm just talking about the way his ideas are introduced when they do talk about him. People in the media, while they might not share certain "extremist" beliefs, (should) understand what the beliefs are based on. But when someone doesn't fit the talking points of one of the two parties, this throws the audience for a loop, so the interviewer will play along and maintain (either implicitly or explicitly) that these views are insane. So the effect is that the media helps polarize towards the two major parties because that's more entertaining than challenging the audience and making them question certain assumptions.

It's impossible for anyone to win an election if their views aren't mostly the agreed upon talking points for each party. That's just the way it is has to be. The two parties are coalitions of views, so the politicians' goal when he speaks is to resonate with as many, and alienate as few, of his supporters as possible. His beliefs aren't necessarily based logically on other beliefs. And the media panders to this, because it plays well for their purpose of catching people's interest. But it's not honest. Do you agree with this?

Here, I'll link the Jon Stewart clip, cause I don't seem to be getting my point across: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmj6JADOZ-8

The full version is the first one on the playlist to the right.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

Paul Actually has a much higher chance of winning then most people realize. The polling methods used in the polls that report him at 1-3% are very flawed.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
Paul Actually has a much higher chance of winning then most people realize. The polling methods used in the polls that report him at 1-3% are very flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think his chance of winning is?

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
Paul Actually has a much higher chance of winning then most people realize. The polling methods used in the polls that report him at 1-3% are very flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate?

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paul Actually has a much higher chance of winning then most people realize. The polling methods used in the polls that report him at 1-3% are very flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think his chance of winning is?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think his chance of winning is lcoe to 10%. No I wont bet you. I can get better odds on bodog ect.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paul Actually has a much higher chance of winning then most people realize. The polling methods used in the polls that report him at 1-3% are very flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]

I read an article the other day that explained how the polling works.

Basically the only people that get called are registered republicans that have voted consistantly (not missed an election) for awhile. Also they only call LAND LINES. Do you see how this might cut alot of Ron Paul's base out of the equation?

I will search for the link. Hopefully I will be able to find it.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paul Actually has a much higher chance of winning then most people realize. The polling methods used in the polls that report him at 1-3% are very flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]

I read an article the other day that explained how the polling works.

Basically the only people that get called are registered republicans that have voted consistantly (not missed an election) for awhile. Also they only call LAND LINES. Do you see how this might cut alot of Ron Paul's base out of the equation?

I will search for the link. Hopefully I will be able to find it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul's "base" consists of about 0.5% of the American public. Even if they aren't being polled, they aren't going to perceptibly influence his numbers.

I assure you that Paul's chances of being nominated are less than 1 in 100, and I would happily accept a wager at those odds.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/pitkaniemi1.html

Obviously this website is slanted in Pauls's favor, but it can help explain why Paul wins instantanious polls. Wins staw polls. Is more popular on the internet.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul's "base" consists of about 0.5% of the American public.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cite?

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paul Actually has a much higher chance of winning then most people realize. The polling methods used in the polls that report him at 1-3% are very flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]

I read an article the other day that explained how the polling works.

Basically the only people that get called are registered republicans that have voted consistantly (not missed an election) for awhile. Also they only call LAND LINES. Do you see how this might cut alot of Ron Paul's base out of the equation?

I will search for the link. Hopefully I will be able to find it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul's "base" consists of about 0.5% of the American public. Even if they aren't being polled, they aren't going to perceptibly influence his numbers.

I assure you that Paul's chances of being nominated are less than 1 in 100, and I would happily accept a wager at those odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will put up $100 against you. We can find an escrow. Winner gets accured intrest also.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paul Actually has a much higher chance of winning then most people realize. The polling methods used in the polls that report him at 1-3% are very flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]

I read an article the other day that explained how the polling works.

Basically the only people that get called are registered republicans that have voted consistantly (not missed an election) for awhile. Also they only call LAND LINES. Do you see how this might cut alot of Ron Paul's base out of the equation?

I will search for the link. Hopefully I will be able to find it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul's "base" consists of about 0.5% of the American public. Even if they aren't being polled, they aren't going to perceptibly influence his numbers.

I assure you that Paul's chances of being nominated are less than 1 in 100, and I would happily accept a wager at those odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will put up $100 against you. We can find an escrow. Winner gets accured intrest also.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I am willing to accept this bet, but I am not willing to put $10K in escrow for a year.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paul Actually has a much higher chance of winning then most people realize. The polling methods used in the polls that report him at 1-3% are very flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]

I read an article the other day that explained how the polling works.

Basically the only people that get called are registered republicans that have voted consistantly (not missed an election) for awhile. Also they only call LAND LINES. Do you see how this might cut alot of Ron Paul's base out of the equation?

I will search for the link. Hopefully I will be able to find it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul's "base" consists of about 0.5% of the American public. Even if they aren't being polled, they aren't going to perceptibly influence his numbers.

I assure you that Paul's chances of being nominated are less than 1 in 100, and I would happily accept a wager at those odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will put up $100 against you. We can find an escrow. Winner gets accured intrest also.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I am willing to accept this bet, but I am not willing to put $10K in escrow for a year.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you really are not willing to accept it? And just decided to run your mouth earlier? Why wouldnt you escrow where winner gets accured intrest?

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I assure you that Paul's chances of being nominated are less than 1 in 100, and I would happily accept a wager at those odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will put up $100 against you. We can find an escrow. Winner gets accured intrest also.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I am willing to accept this bet, but I am not willing to put $10K in escrow for a year.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you really are not willing to accept it? And just decided to run your mouth earlier? Why wouldnt you escrow where winner gets accured intrest?

[/ QUOTE ]

Becuase I would have to move money out of funds that earn much better than whatever the escrow account interest rate is for only a 1% return on my investment.

I'm not going to make a bet that causes me to lose money even if I win just to prove a point on an internet forum.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

Ok. So what would be acceptable terms for you?

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course the media is biased and favors the frontrunners

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point it's not just frontrunners --- it's anyone who has a chance in hell. Paul doesn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

The sportsbooks seem to disagree with you. I've seen him anywhere from 15-1 to 7-1 against. My wife mentioned seeing 5-1 against, but I haven't been able to find that.

sportsbook.com has him at 15-1.

http://www.sportsbook.com/sportsbook/livelines.php

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paul Actually has a much higher chance of winning then most people realize. The polling methods used in the polls that report him at 1-3% are very flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]

I read an article the other day that explained how the polling works.

Basically the only people that get called are registered republicans that have voted consistantly (not missed an election) for awhile. Also they only call LAND LINES. Do you see how this might cut alot of Ron Paul's base out of the equation?

I will search for the link. Hopefully I will be able to find it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul's "base" consists of about 0.5% of the American public. Even if they aren't being polled, they aren't going to perceptibly influence his numbers.

I assure you that Paul's chances of being nominated are less than 1 in 100, and I would happily accept a wager at those odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, how much action do you want?

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ok. So what would be acceptable terms for you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell you what, since you offered to put money up and I am certain enough that Paul is not going to win that I will give you $100 if he is nominated. You don't have to wager anything. But I'm not backing it up with anything other than my forum reputation.

No, I won't make this offer to anyone else.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Paul Actually has a much higher chance of winning then most people realize. The polling methods used in the polls that report him at 1-3% are very flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]

I read an article the other day that explained how the polling works.

Basically the only people that get called are registered republicans that have voted consistantly (not missed an election) for awhile. Also they only call LAND LINES. Do you see how this might cut alot of Ron Paul's base out of the equation?

I will search for the link. Hopefully I will be able to find it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul's "base" consists of about 0.5% of the American public. Even if they aren't being polled, they aren't going to perceptibly influence his numbers.

I assure you that Paul's chances of being nominated are less than 1 in 100, and I would happily accept a wager at those odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, how much action do you want?

[/ QUOTE ]

hes already shown that he is not really willing to bet. Just running his mouth.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I assure you that Paul's chances of being nominated are less than 1 in 100, and I would happily accept a wager at those odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will put up $100 against you. We can find an escrow. Winner gets accured intrest also.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I am willing to accept this bet, but I am not willing to put $10K in escrow for a year.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you really are not willing to accept it? And just decided to run your mouth earlier? Why wouldnt you escrow where winner gets accured intrest?

[/ QUOTE ]

Becuase I would have to move money out of funds that earn much better than whatever the escrow account interest rate is for only a 1% return on my investment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Leave the $10k in escrow invested in the same instrument you would move it out of. Problem solved.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]

Leave the $10k in escrow invested in the same instrument you would move it out of. Problem solved.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I don't understand how escrow works. I've never used it.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

We both agree on an escrow companey. We send them our money. In many cases we can tell them what to do with the money until the bet is over. IE. We tell them to put it ina high yield savings account. Invest it in the stock market. ect.

What ever is there when the bet is over. The winner gets that amount.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course the media is biased and favors the frontrunners

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point it's not just frontrunners --- it's anyone who has a chance in hell. Paul doesn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

The sportsbooks seem to disagree with you. I've seen him anywhere from 15-1 to 7-1 against. My wife mentioned seeing 5-1 against, but I haven't been able to find that.

sportsbook.com has him at 15-1.

http://www.sportsbook.com/sportsbook/livelines.php

[/ QUOTE ]
Speaking strictly objectively here, these odds aren't reflective of any actual market-derived price. Sportsbook.com and other online bookmakers make money off of these because they pay out much lower than the actual odds. You can't take the other side of the bet at 1:15, for example.

I'd guess the best source would the be the political futures markets bookmaker places, about which I know nothing. Maybe someone else can chime in.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
We both agree on an escrow companey. We send them our money. In many cases we can tell them what to do with the money until the bet is over. IE. We tell them to put it ina high yield savings account. Invest it in the stock market. ect.

What ever is there when the bet is over. The winner gets that amount.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, sorry, but that's way too much work for a 1% return.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course the media is biased and favors the frontrunners

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point it's not just frontrunners --- it's anyone who has a chance in hell. Paul doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Circular logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say both of those things. I'm not saying Paul is going to win or even has a good chance to win. But the man quadrupled his Q1 donations in Q2 and distanced himself from the 2nd tier. The problem is he's an even greater distance from the 1st tier. How far that distance is I'd like to wait to judge. Those national polls aren't a good indicator at this point as they are all name recognition. Fred Thompson is 2nd and he hasn't said anything to give you an example. This is why Paul needs a strong 2nd at the Iowa Straw Poll to give him more coverage in the media. If he tanks there, then I don't like his chances at all.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We both agree on an escrow companey. We send them our money. In many cases we can tell them what to do with the money until the bet is over. IE. We tell them to put it ina high yield savings account. Invest it in the stock market. ect.

What ever is there when the bet is over. The winner gets that amount.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, sorry, but that's way too much work for a 1% return.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats what happens when u do 100:1 bets.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say he is doing a pretty damn good job of balancing the extremist ideas versus staying agreeable and not opening oneself up for attack and slander.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point. IMO he comes off as much less "cooky" than Michael Badnarik, for example, even though they're saying the same thing.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course the media is biased and favors the frontrunners

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point it's not just frontrunners --- it's anyone who has a chance in hell. Paul doesn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

The sportsbooks seem to disagree with you. I've seen him anywhere from 15-1 to 7-1 against. My wife mentioned seeing 5-1 against, but I haven't been able to find that.

sportsbook.com has him at 15-1.

http://www.sportsbook.com/sportsbook/livelines.php

[/ QUOTE ]
Speaking strictly objectively here, these odds aren't reflective of any actual market-derived price. Sportsbook.com and other online bookmakers make money off of these because they pay out much lower than the actual odds. You can't take the other side of the bet at 1:15, for example.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point, though. It doesn't matter that the actual odds are higher than 7:1 (or whatever) against; the point is that these odds are being continually adjusted downwards, because the 200:1, and then 100:1 odds against Paul previously were clearly bad lines.

Furthermore, there is upward market pressure exerted on lines like these. The lines have to be low enough to be +EV for the bookmaker, but high enough to entice bettors into betting. Bookmakers competing against each other for bets also raise the lines.

So, while the bookmakers hope to make money because the lines are longer than 7:1 (or whatever) against, the actual odds (ideally) aren't too far off from that. Certainly the same order of magnitude.

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course the media is biased and favors the frontrunners

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point it's not just frontrunners --- it's anyone who has a chance in hell. Paul doesn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

The sportsbooks seem to disagree with you. I've seen him anywhere from 15-1 to 7-1 against. My wife mentioned seeing 5-1 against, but I haven't been able to find that.

sportsbook.com has him at 15-1.

http://www.sportsbook.com/sportsbook/livelines.php

[/ QUOTE ]
Speaking strictly objectively here, these odds aren't reflective of any actual market-derived price. Sportsbook.com and other online bookmakers make money off of these because they pay out much lower than the actual odds. You can't take the other side of the bet at 1:15, for example.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point, though. It doesn't matter that the actual odds are higher than 7:1 (or whatever) against; the point is that these odds are being continually adjusted downwards, because the 200:1, and then 100:1 odds against Paul previously were clearly bad lines.

Furthermore, there is upward market pressure exerted on lines like these. The lines have to be low enough to be +EV for the bookmaker, but high enough to entice bettors into betting. Bookmakers competing against each other for bets also raise the lines.

So, while the bookmakers hope to make money because the lines are longer than 7:1 (or whatever) against, the actual odds (ideally) aren't too far off from that. Certainly the same order of magnitude.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get real man. Those lines are complete crap and you know it. There's absolutely no way that Ron Paul is 7:1, or even close to that. The only reason the odds are like that is cause people are dumb (ZOMG I bet 100 and win 700!!) Do you think those ridiculous WSOP prop bets that have Ivey at 20:1 to win the ME are accurate as well? Like someone else said, if people could bet the other side, there is no way the lines would be that low cause sharps would hit up Paul losing for 1:7 all day. The fact that you would even mention a 7:1 line shows that you're not trying to make an intellectually honest argument about Paul's actual chances of winning.

For a somewhat accurate picture of Paul's odds according to the market, go to tradesports.com, where Paul is about 35:1 just to win the Republican nomination. He's not even listed on the exchange for overall winner (must be because the establishment controls tradesports)

Re: Why doesn\'t Ron Paul speak the truth re: the bias against him
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course the media is biased and favors the frontrunners

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point it's not just frontrunners --- it's anyone who has a chance in hell. Paul doesn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

The sportsbooks seem to disagree with you. I've seen him anywhere from 15-1 to 7-1 against. My wife mentioned seeing 5-1 against, but I haven't been able to find that.

sportsbook.com has him at 15-1.

http://www.sportsbook.com/sportsbook/livelines.php

[/ QUOTE ]
Speaking strictly objectively here, these odds aren't reflective of any actual market-derived price. Sportsbook.com and other online bookmakers make money off of these because they pay out much lower than the actual odds. You can't take the other side of the bet at 1:15, for example.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point, though. It doesn't matter that the actual odds are higher than 7:1 (or whatever) against; the point is that these odds are being continually adjusted downwards, because the 200:1, and then 100:1 odds against Paul previously were clearly bad lines.

Furthermore, there is upward market pressure exerted on lines like these. The lines have to be low enough to be +EV for the bookmaker, but high enough to entice bettors into betting. Bookmakers competing against each other for bets also raise the lines.

So, while the bookmakers hope to make money because the lines are longer than 7:1 (or whatever) against, the actual odds (ideally) aren't too far off from that. Certainly the same order of magnitude.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get real man. Those lines are complete crap and you know it. There's absolutely no way that Ron Paul is 7:1, or even close to that. The only reason the odds are like that is cause people are dumb (ZOMG I bet 100 and win 700!!) Do you think those ridiculous WSOP prop bets that have Ivey at 20:1 to win the ME are accurate as well? Like someone else said, if people could bet the other side, there is no way the lines would be that low cause sharps would hit up Paul losing for 1:7 all day. The fact that you would even mention a 7:1 line shows that you're not trying to make an intellectually honest argument about Paul's actual chances of winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read my post again until you understand it.