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

[j555]

[ 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.

[Borodog]

[ 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

[bdk3clash]

[ 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.

[ALawPoker]

[ 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.

[NickMPK]

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?

[ALawPoker]

[ 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.

[The4Aces]

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.

[lehighguy]

Because the only other candidate with no money who became successful over the internet lost because of a mild screech on television. I would hate to think what a crossfire style situation would do.