Paul Wins NV Straw Poll in Absentia, Beats Romney Who Spoke in Person

[Borodog]

So what is wrong with MSNBC's coverage of this development?

DESPITE SHOWING UP IN PERSON, ROMNEY LOSES NEV. STRAW POLL.

The whole article is about the number one loser, not the winner. This reminds me of the straw poll that Dr. Paul came in 4th and the major media reported 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 6th. This is getting pretty absurd. Paul is surging in fundraising, winning outright or placing high in straw polls left and right (i.e. translating his "internet support" into people that actually show up in person to vote), and when he beats live frontrunners without showing up the story is . . . Romney.

Lol.

[Case Closed]

This is getting ridiculous. It's obscene how much power the media has, where they can determine the front runners by giving them mass airtime whenever they feel like.

[Tornado69]

If that doesn't prove to you that the media is gov't controlled/works with government I don't know what to tell ya ... go watch Orwell Rolls in his grave

http://imdb.com/title/tt0410407/

[Phil153]

He's not covered much because no one really cares about someone who has no chance of winning. Compare Paul's coverage with that of any other minor candidate in any other campaign.

Or, make up a media conspiracy/bias. I'll go with Occam.

[Taso]

The reason some of these candidates have no chance of winning is because they don't get any media coverage. Ron Paul has a lot of support, he should have been the focus of that article, not Romney. What conspiracy? Its obvious he isn't getting fair coverage.

Though to be honest, he was the topic of the first 2-3 paragraphs of that news article. Those are the most important in any news article, /\ ftw.

[GoodCallYouWin]

Ron Paul has no chance to win because he doesn't get media coverage.

Ron Paul doesn't get media coverage because he has no chance to win.

but which came first?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
He's not covered much because no one really cares about someone who has no chance of winning. Compare Paul's coverage with that of any other minor candidate in any other campaign.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like McCain?

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's not covered much because no one really cares about someone who has no chance of winning. Compare Paul's coverage with that of any other minor candidate in any other campaign.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like McCain?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good Question.

[iron81]

Neither. The MSM does not decide who the front running candidates are, they report on who the front running candidates are. This is based on who raises the most money and who has the most poll (real polls: ) support. Paul is polling at about 2-3%, which is not good. However, he has done reasonably well in fundraising and several MSM articles about that were posted here.

Paul is getting MSM coverage in the proportion that his support suggests. I understand the point about McCain, but I suspect that has to do with inertia with regard to his early front runner status and his past results in the primary arena. Also, McCain's chances are much better than Paul's.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's not covered much because no one really cares about someone who has no chance of winning. Compare Paul's coverage with that of any other minor candidate in any other campaign.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like McCain?

[/ QUOTE ]
From Wikipedia:
[ QUOTE ]
Time Magazine poll dated January 2007 shows McCain trailing Hillary Clinton by 1%; results also indicate that more Americans are familiar with McCain than any of the other frontrunners, including Republican candidate and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Democratic hopeful Senator Barack Obama.[37] During the 2006 election cycle, McCain attended 346 events and raised more than $10.5 million on behalf of Republican candidates.

[/ QUOTE ]

McCain is a serious candidate and possible running partner with high popularity...Dr Ron Paul is a fringe politician with fringe politics. They're not in the same league. People just don't care that much about Paul.

Why else do you think they're not writing about him?