Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 07-16-2007, 12:18 PM
NickMPK NickMPK is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,626
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-16-2007, 01:16 PM
ALawPoker ALawPoker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,646
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-16-2007, 01:20 PM
The4Aces The4Aces is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,350
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-16-2007, 01:55 PM
NickMPK NickMPK is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,626
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-16-2007, 02:11 PM
Dan. Dan. is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The European Phenom
Posts: 3,836
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-16-2007, 02:23 PM
The4Aces The4Aces is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,350
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-16-2007, 02:25 PM
The4Aces The4Aces is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,350
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-16-2007, 02:31 PM
NickMPK NickMPK is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,626
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-16-2007, 02:31 PM
The4Aces The4Aces is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,350
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-16-2007, 02:32 PM
Brainwalter Brainwalter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bragging about beats.
Posts: 4,336
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.