U.S. Republican Primary

[nitePhyyre]

Except for drugs, the Ronpaul's positions aren't that different from the average Republican. Except for his particular hate for the gold standard, his financial positions are pretty close to the Republican position. Same with gun rights. Isolationism isn't the flavor du jour for the GOP, but it's not totally out of the ordinary. On several positions where he could presumably distinguish himself, he doesn't bother.

He's no more or less pro-civil liberties than any average politician, really. He's certainly not different enough to make him anything but a Republican that's troublesome for the leadership.

Love of the gold standard, first off. Secondly, ending the Fed is not the mainstream republican position. Ending the Fed and having monetary systems compete against each other is more central to Paul than what the official national standard is. Isolationism is, in fact, completely outside of the ordinary. He even seems to actually be for a free market, not crony capitalism sold as 'free market'.

Hell, Paul has called Reagan "a dramatic failure" and complained that "Reagan's record is disgraceful. He starts wars, breaks the law, supplies terrorists with guns made at taxpayers' expense and lies about it to the American people." If that doesn't put him light years outside the Republican dogma, I don't know what does.

[Zamfir]

I don't think Obama will lose if he's the socialist candidate against the corporatist candidate or the theocratic candidate. I think it's more likely Obama will lose if he's the fascist candidate, which is what he will be if he's running against Paul rather than Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich.

Hard to judge from across the pond, but isn't Obama's brand of fascism rather popular, across widely varying swaths of the American population? It seems a rather moderate kind of fascism, more like brogues stamping on muslim faces mostly, and only as long as necessary or until it gets tiresome.

Are you sure that's less popular than his (also rather moderate) socialism?

[nitePhyyre]

Of course, what jestingrabbit was pointing out, is that Paul becoming nominee would require pissing off a lot of the republican base, because he has been at the back of the pack for almost every primary or caucus. Romney winning won't cause an uproar. Santorum also wouldn't likely leave that many republicans pissed about the process being corrupted. Gingrich would be iffy, but could at least point to some decisive wins he did have, that Paul has not, and is almost certain not to get in the future either. The manner in which he could become nominee would weaken his political position heavily if it were to happen (and I'm sticking with what I said before: snowball's chance in hell of happening as-is).

[/quote]If the non-majority front-runner was LOVED by the people voting for him, I could see a problem. If the back room delegate candidate was hated, I could see a problem. Romney isn't loved though. And Paul isn't at the back of the pack because he is disliked. I just don't see people getting pissed off at losing the ability to ignore Paul. If Paul walks away with the nomination The reaction won't be "Fuck that guy, he's not the one I voted for", nor will it be "Fuck that guy, I hate him and everything he stands for." The reaction will be more "Paul? Who is that guy? Oh well, I'm sure he's still better than that ni##er in the white house."

Definitely a worse chance than Romney. He polls about equally well vs Obama as Santorum, and better than Gingrich. Source.

Paul is more-or-less suffering under a media blackout. Once the MSM stops being able to sweep him under the rug, his numbers will go up.* I believe he is the only one who can say that. I don't see how Romney, Santorum or Gingrich ever hope to raise thier numbers against Obama. What will their strategy be going forward? It isn't like attack ads can make people hate Obama more. I highly doubt the 3 are sitting on some policy silver bullet that will win them the general. How could any of the hope to increase their numbers? All Paul really has to do is get some screen time.

Of course, once Obama starts campaigning, Obama's numbers will go up as well. So none of the 4 could actually win. Still, Paul is the only who would be able to keep the gap at the same point it is now.

More importantly, if Paul were to be in the general, how would that shift the overton window? Would to Dems still be for the War on Drugs if the Republicans weren't?

Hard to judge from across the pond, but isn't Obama's brand of fascism rather popular, across widely varying swaths of the American population? It seems a rather moderate kind of fascism, more like brogues stamping on muslim faces mostly, and only as long as necessary or until it gets tiresome.

Are you sure that's less popular than his (also rather moderate) socialism?

He was elected on a platform of ending all of that fascist type stuff. So no, I don't think so. My $0.02.

*Of course, Paul actually winning the nomination has a snowball's chance in hell.

[Silknor]

@Zamfir: On what basis are you calling Obama either (moderately) fascist or socialist (perhaps you meant to describe him as a moderate practitioner of social democracy)?

Paul is more-or-less suffering under a media blackout. Once the MSM stops being able to sweep him under the rug, his numbers will go up.* I believe he is the only one who can say that. I don't see how Romney, Santorum or Gingrich ever hope to raise thier numbers against Obama. What will their strategy be going forward?

Disagree on both points.

The latest PPP poll has Paul at 31% favorable and 57% unfavorable among Republican primary votes. If the Ronpaul was suffering from a media blackout, you'd expect a high number saying don't know, not unfavorables above 50%. I couldn't find any data for non Republican primary votes, so I don't know if there's more room for growth there.

As for the other Republican candidates, there are two clear ways for their numbers to improve: tack towards the middle in the general or benefit from slower growth/worse jobs reports than you'd get from simply extrapolating the data from the last few months. the Ronpaul, by virtue of pandering less than a typical politician probably doesn't have the former available to him (and I don't see the that latter would apply more strongly for him than other candidates).

I agree though that Paul has effectively no chance at winning the nomination. Extracting a speech, policy concessions, or even a VP/cabinet position for Rand, sure. But someone so unacceptable to Republican primary votes is simply not going to get the support needed.

[Zamfir]

@Zamfir: On what basis are you calling Obama either (moderately) fascist or socialist (perhaps you meant to describe him as a moderate practitioner of social democracy)?

I'm not, Vaniver was. I pointed out that if you want to call wars and drug prohibition 'fascism', it's a very moderate form, and that a platform of being less fascist than Obama doesn't appear to me as a great vote-winner.

Seriously, he seems to strike a very effective balance of gradually building down the war effort from the Bush years, without making it look like losing and with enough dead bodies in his wake to forestall attempts to portray him as weak. It's very skillful manoevring, even if it's cynical.

[Xeio]

Paul is more-or-less suffering under a media blackout. Once the MSM stops being able to sweep him under the rug, his numbers will go up.* I believe he is the only one who can say that. I don't see how Romney, Santorum or Gingrich ever hope to raise thier numbers against Obama. What will their strategy be going forward? It isn't like attack ads can make people hate Obama more. I highly doubt the 3 are sitting on some policy silver bullet that will win them the general. How could any of the hope to increase their numbers? All Paul really has to do is get some screen time.

Why do you think more publicity is always good? He can survive in the current environment because nobody considers him a threat and doesn't attack him for his positions like ending social security/medicare/medicaid. Sure, more good publicity can help, but he has a lot of bad things that people who support him can easily ignore because they can go "but he'll legalize marijuana" or "he'll get us out of wars!".

[Garm]

Sarah Palin polls well among likely GOP voters. 68% favorable, 20% unfavorable. Please, please, please, please, FSM can we please have a brokered convention? Please? Palin as the nominee? That'd be better than Santorum. I'd laugh my balls off.

When I hear Paul talk about states rights I think about Nullification (the idea that state laws can over ride federal laws). It makes me sad that we're still bandying about this concept. Really, the whole GOP primary has made me sad. All of these fucks are ambitious, none of them are fit to run a country.

[Vaniver]

Hard to judge from across the pond, but isn't Obama's brand of fascism rather popular, across widely varying swaths of the American population? It seems a rather moderate kind of fascism, more like brogues stamping on muslim faces mostly, and only as long as necessary or until it gets tiresome.

Are you sure that's less popular than his (also rather moderate) socialism?

I agree that it's popular. I suspect that Obama's support is more readily weakened by contrasting his fascist-leaning positions than by contrasting his socialist-leaning ones, but you're right that he might pull significant conservative support by being more aggressive on foreign policy.

What will their strategy be going forward?

[lutzj]

When I hear Paul talk about states rights I think about Nullification (the idea that state laws can over ride federal laws). It makes me sad that we're still bandying about this concept. Really, the whole GOP primary has made me sad. All of these fucks are ambitious, none of them are fit to run a country.

There's a distinction between states overriding legitimate laws they don't like (the tariffs that sparked the Nullification Crisis under Andrew Jackson, for example) and states overriding laws that the federal government wasn't allowed to enact in the first place under the Constitution . Almost all states'-rights advocates since the Civil War have argued for the latter.

[Qaanol]

When someone says “States’ Rights” this is what I hear:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

[Ghostbear]

If the non-majority front-runner was LOVED by the people voting for him, I could see a problem. If the back room delegate candidate was hated, I could see a problem. Romney isn't loved though. And Paul isn't at the back of the pack because he is disliked. I just don't see people getting pissed off at losing the ability to ignore Paul. If Paul walks away with the nomination The reaction won't be "Fuck that guy, he's not the one I voted for", nor will it be "Fuck that guy, I hate him and everything he stands for." The reaction will be more "Paul? Who is that guy? Oh well, I'm sure he's still better than that ni##er in the white house."

It's not about how much they like their candidates, it's about how much they feel the candidates have earned the nomination. Paul has been consistently at the bottom of the pack in primaries, with only a handful of exceptions where he's done better than last or second last place. He has the least delegates, I'm 99% sure he has the least number of accumulated votes. He's the candidate that is least likely to win the nomination. People will get annoyed with seeing someone that they have consistently not chosen to be the nominee end up the nominee.

Paul is more-or-less suffering under a media blackout. Once the MSM stops being able to sweep him under the rug, his numbers will go up.

That's not an accurate assessment of Paul's relation with the media at all. For most of the early parts of the campaign, they ignored him because he wasn't polling well (just like they did to Santorum, Gingrich, and Huntsman when they polled poorly). They didn't ignore him because he was Paul, or because of his positions, they ignored him because they didn't think anyone else gave a shit about him. When he started polling well, and the media wanted to cover him, he ignored them. Or walked out of interviews. His media problems are almost entirely self inflicted.

Pointing out that Romney, Santorum or Gingrich will have trouble beating Obama doesn't change that Paul would have an even more difficult time (except for Gingrich, anyway) than them.

There's a distinction between states overriding legitimate laws they don't like (the tariffs that sparked the Nullification Crisis under Andrew Jackson, for example) and states overriding laws that the federal government wasn't allowed to enact in the first place under the Constitution . Almost all states'-rights advocates since the Civil War have argued for the latter.

How do you ensure that only unconstitutional laws get nullified? If you've proven that the law is unconstitutional, then it should have been removed from books by the supreme court. If you haven't proven it, then you're left in a situation of just nullifying if because you think it's unconstitutional, which could very easily be shorthand for "We don't like this law".

[Jonesthe Spy]

I'm sorry, but Paul is not pro civil liberties, he's pro states rights and small government. If states want sodomy laws on the books, he's fine with that. If states want to ban abortions, he's fine with that. He believes that the remedy for someone who has been sexually harassed at work is to quit the job. He's pro guns and pro freedom of speech, but he is not pro civil liberties.

He also doesn't believe that your constitution guarantees a right to privacy. Make of that what you will.

I... don't see how any of this indicates he is not pro-civil liberties? Not saying he is, but this isn't evidence against it.

Real libertarians don't think that it's okay for the government to oppress people as long as the states are doing it instead of the feds. Nor can anyone actually be "pro-civil liberties" unless one believes in equality under the law for everyone.

[CorruptUser]

Nor can anyone actually be "pro-civil liberties" unless one believes in equality under the law for everyone.

What 'equality' means is up for debate. Sodomy laws technically apply to heterosexuals as well (but not de facto), and a heterosexual man can't marry another heterosexual man in most states. Some will argue separate but equal is still equal, which might've held up in court for a few years more if it actual was equal.

And define 'everyone'. By definition, if you are in prison, you don't have the same liberties as someone outside of prison. Unless you want to advocate corporal punishment.

Personally I'm of the belief that being able to hire a better attorney affects the outcome of a civil suit and directly harms the rights of the other person, and so we should socialize the legal process before even considering socializing anything else.

[nitePhyyre]

Paul is more-or-less suffering under a media blackout. Once the MSM stops being able to sweep him under the rug, his numbers will go up.* I believe he is the only one who can say that. I don't see how Romney, Santorum or Gingrich ever hope to raise thier numbers against Obama. What will their strategy be going forward?

The latest PPP poll has Paul at 31% favorable and 57% unfavorable among Republican primary votes. If the Ronpaul was suffering from a media blackout, you'd expect a high number saying don't know, not unfavorables above 50%. I couldn't find any data for non Republican primary votes, so I don't know if there's more room for growth there.

I stand corrected.

It's not about how much they like their candidates, it's about how much they feel the candidates have earned the nomination.

I respectfully disagree. It seems to me people care more about the results than the process. Remember Bush v. Gore?

Paul is more-or-less suffering under a media blackout. Once the MSM stops being able to sweep him under the rug, his numbers will go up.

That's not an accurate assessment of Paul's relation with the media at all. For most of the early parts of the campaign, they ignored him because he wasn't polling well (just like they did to Santorum, Gingrich, and Huntsman when they polled poorly). They didn't ignore him because he was Paul, or because of his positions, they ignored him because they didn't think anyone else gave a shit about him. When he started polling well, and the media wanted to cover him, he ignored them. Or walked out of interviews. His media problems are almost entirely self inflicted.

That's simply not true. He came in first and second in a bunch of the early straw polls. At one point, he won a debate and wasn't even included in the post debate commentary. Go read about his campaign. It is basically a list with Paul coming in first and second over and over and over and over. The only time the media wanted anything to do with him was when they were (deservedly) trying to bury him with the newsletter scandal. So, I guess you are right. Ignoring a campaign unless you can damage it isn't a blackout per se, it's just much, much worse.

Spoiler:

During his previous presidential campaign, it was alleged by many supporters that there was a media blackout and suppression of coverage of Paul.[72] Similar allegations have arisen in the 2012 campaign and received some media coverage.[73] Politico columnist Roger Simon noted on CNN's Reliable Sources that Paul has received considerably less coverage than Michele Bachmann, despite earning a close second to her at the Ames Straw Poll.[74] Simon later noted again in Politico that the media was treating Paul unfairly.[75]

Comedian Jon Stewart similarly complained about the lack of coverage, despite Paul polling much better than candidates who received coverage. Stewart presented a montage of mainstream media clips that showed commentators ignoring, and two CNN correspondents admitting to suppressing, coverage of Paul.[76] Will Wilkinson complained[77] in The Economist that if Paul had won the Ames straw poll, it would have been written off as irrelevant, but since Bachmann had won, it was claimed to boost her campaign. Other commentators noted that Paul has had success at past straw polls but has not turned that into broader success as a reason for the relative lack of media attention.[78]

Paul was asked in a Fox News interview "What are they [the media] afraid of?"[79] He answered "They don't want to discuss my views, because I think they're frightened by me challenging the status quo and the establishment." Later, he continued on Piers Morgan Tonight: "They don't want my views out there—they're too dangerous ... We want freedom, and we're challenging the status quo. We want to end the war, we want a gold standard, and their view is that people just can't handle all this freedom."[80]

During the November 12 CBS/National Journal Debate, Paul was allocated 90 seconds speaking time. Paul's campaign responded, saying, "Congressman Paul was only allocated 90 seconds of speaking in one televised hour. If we are to have an authentic national conversation on issues such as security and defense, we can and must do better to ensure that all voices are heard. CBS News, in their arrogance, may think they can choose the next president. Fortunately, the people of Iowa, New Hampshire, and across America get to vote and not the media elites."[81]

Paul Mulshine a columnist with The Star-Ledger noted that the New York Times admitted to suppressing coverage of Paul. He quoted a column by Times editor Arthur Brisbane that said: "Early in the campaign, The Times decided to remain low key in its coverage of the Ronpaul, the libertarian Texas congressman."[82][83]

The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism found in August 2011 that Paul did in fact receive substantially less coverage than other candidates in the 2012 race.[84][85][86][87] Pew released another study in October 2011 confirming that Paul has been receiving disproportionately low coverage in the media. Paul polled 6.0-9.8% during the study period, but only received 2% of media coverage, the lowest of all candidates. It also noted that Paul's coverage among blogs was the most favorable of all candidates.[88] In January 2012, The Atlantic cited the weekly Pew study. They noted that despite steadily rising in the polls, Paul has been losing his share of press coverage, going from 34% in late-December 2011 to about 3% in mid-January 2012. They also noted a sharp drop in positive coverage and a small rise in negative.[89]

If you are arguing that Paul's media coverage has been commensurate to his poll numbers you are seriously arguing out of looney land. Hell, even the article you linked disagrees with you.

[bentheimmigrant]

You do realise that the GOP straw polls are famous for Paul voters flooding the venues, right?

[nitePhyyre]

From the first paragraph after the fold:

Paul appeared in the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) straw poll. Paul won the poll, defeating Mitt Romney, who had won it the previous three years.

If Romney won for 3 years running, IDK how 'famous' they are at it. I will agree that he has a core of rabid fans.

If the argument has been that Paul was ignored by the MSM because they didn't believe in the legitimacy of the poll numbers, that would be an argument not out of looney tunes land. It wasn't.

[Ghostbear]

It's not about how much they like their candidates, it's about how much they feel the candidates have earned the nomination.

I respectfully disagree. It seems to me people care more about the results than the process. Remember Bush v. Gore?

People were pissed off about the fact that process distorted what seemed like the "most fair" outcome. What they weren't, however, was pissed off on a large scale because Nader lost. Bush winning in 2000 doesn't work as a counter-argument, because the people that were angry about it felt that Bush hadn't earned the victory, having lost the popular vote, having benefited from his brother being governor of Florida, and having the good luck to have a supreme court with a conservative tilt. Go forward to 2004: people weren't as pissed when Kerry could have won if he had done slightly better in Ohio, because he had lost convincingly throughout the rest of the nation, and him winning through a flipped Ohio would have been more of an aberration than him losing.

That's simply not true. He came in first and second in a bunch of the early straw polls. At one point, he won a debate and wasn't even included in the post debate commentary. Go read about his campaign. It is basically a list with Paul coming in first and second over and over and over and over. The only time the media wanted anything to do with him was when they were (deservedly) trying to bury him with the newsletter scandal. So, I guess you are right. Ignoring a campaign unless you can damage it isn't a blackout per se, it's just much, much worse.

My post was about how he hasn't fostered any positive relations with the media. Part of running a national campaign is knowing how to work with the press, how to get them to want to run stories and articles and time with you. Instead of doing that though, Paul spends half a year complaining about how they ignored him, then when they actually stop ignoring him and pay attention* he proceeds to ignore them. When he gets questions he doesn't like, he takes his microphone off and leaves. That's an attitude that's going to make the media say "fuck this guy, he's just a curmudgeonly old man that doesn't want our coverage anyway". Hence, self-inflicted.

* Due to him rising in polls in an actual state that's about to have a vote that actually matters. Unlike straw polls; straw polls are mostly a measure of enthusiasm, so seeing Paul win a straw poll is not a surprise at all, since it's already well known his supporters are very energetic about him. State and national polls matter far more at creating and defining narrative. And look! Paul's good showings in state and national polls in your link coincide with his increasing media attention that he promptly told to bugger off.

[Vaniver]

When he gets questions he doesn't like, he takes his microphone off and leaves. That's an attitude that's going to make the media say "fuck this guy, he's just a curmudgeonly old man that doesn't want our coverage anyway". Hence, self-inflicted.

I don't know which specific incident you're referring to, but my understanding is that reporters are aware that they have editorial control over interviews, and on occasion have asked someone the same question multiple times, hoping to get a response they think they can use well (or to get the other person to leave in a huff). For Paul with CNN, it looks like they just ask the same question on different days.

[Ghostbear]

I don't know which specific incident you're referring to, but my understanding is that reporters are aware that they have editorial control over interviews, and on occasion have asked someone the same question multiple times, hoping to get a response they think they can use well (or to get the other person to leave in a huff). For Paul with CNN, it looks like they just ask the same question on different days.

I was talking about the CNN case (link). And yeah, I mean, as a person, I don't blame him at all for deciding "fuck this". As a candidate however, it doesn't speak well of him or the team he has gathered together to run his campaign. If Obama or Romney pulled a stunt like that, they'd get eviscerated for it. Part of running a national campaign is knowing (or hiring people that do know) how to use the media to your advantage. How to work with them, how to make it so that they want to cover you. Learning how to convey to them that "this line of questioning is over, and you won't change that" without also pissing them off. That is why I'm calling it self-inflicted.

Paul hasn't appeared to make any changes for his media problem. In fact, by all accounts his doubled down on his "the media ignores me" rhetoric. When given attention from the media, he either ignored it (mentioned earlier, link to save searching), or does stuff like with the CNN interview. He should be figuring out why he has a media problem, and working to solve it. I won't deny that part of it, and almost certainly the initial lack of it, is due to his non-mainstream views, but his actions indicate a non-desire to actually see proper coverage. Some candidates get lucky and just have a natural media appeal to them (Obama in 2008 comes to mind. And Palin as well), but not every person that has gotten widespread media coverage has that, and even for those that do have that natural appeal, the smart ones are going to have people working to make it work even more to their advantage. Paul doesn't appear to be doing that.

[nitePhyyre]

It's not about how much they like their candidates, it's about how much they feel the candidates have earned the nomination.

I respectfully disagree. It seems to me people care more about the results than the process. Remember Bush v. Gore?

Bush winning in 2000 doesn't work as a counter-argument, because the people that were angry about it felt that Bush hadn't earned the victory, having lost the popular vote, having benefited from his brother being governor of Florida, and having the good luck to have a supreme court with a conservative tilt.

Yes, and with all those aberrations how many Bush supporters became detractors? Not many. Which is why I say people care more about the results than the process.

My post was about how he hasn't fostered any positive relations with the media. Part of running a national campaign is knowing how to work with the press, how to get them to want to run stories and articles and time with you. Instead of doing that though, Paul spends half a year complaining about how they ignored him, then when they actually stop ignoring him and pay attention* he proceeds to ignore them. When he gets questions he doesn't like, he takes his microphone off and leaves. That's an attitude that's going to make the media say "fuck this guy, he's just a curmudgeonly old man that doesn't want our coverage anyway". Hence, self-inflicted.

Ahh, so the news ignored him in 2010-2011 because they knew he would be a curmudgeonly old man in response to a scandal in late 2011-2012. Yeah, that makes sense.

Oh, and if your post was about how Paul hasn't fostered any positive relations with the media, you should have, you know, mentioned it a some point in your post. Instead you brought up nonexistent 'low poll numbers'. Twice.

[Ghostbear]

Yes, and with all those aberrations how many Bush supporters became detractors? Not many. Which is why I say people care more about the results than the process.

Yes, because he still won 47.9% of the popular vote and would have had 246 electoral votes without Florida. He was "close enough" that the outrage wasn't universal. This is analogous to if Santorum ends up getting the republican nomination instead of Romney. He'd almost certainly have to win a floor battle at the convention, but the fact that he'll have been in a not-that-distant second place will be enough to prevent overwhelming outrage. Paul, on the other hand, hasn't won any of the 50 states. He's gotten the smallest share of the popular vote. His delegate total is dwarfed by even Gingrich. He frequently comes in 3rd or 4th place in primaries, and even in caucuses -- his strong point -- he has only won one of them, and that was the Virgin Islands; a territory, not a state. There is no means under which people can say "Paul as the nominee would be a fairly accurate reflection of the will of the republican electorate".

Ahh, so the news ignored him in 2010-2011 because they knew he would be a curmudgeonly old man in response to a scandal in late 2011-2012. Yeah, that makes sense.

Oh, and if your post was about how Paul hasn't fostered any positive relations with the media, you should have, you know, mentioned it a some point in your post. Instead you brought up nonexistent 'low poll numbers'. Twice.

Maybe if instead of being snarky, you actually read my whole argument? The stories I brought up were meant to illustrate how he has done a terrible job fostering good relations or interest with the media. How, when he finally got his wish of media coverage, he didn't want to deal with them anymore. They didn't cover him 2010-2011 because he got less than 2% of the delegates in 2008, because he frequently got less than 10% of the votes in a state, because he didn't win any states. The only strong numbers he was able to show was in straw polls, but the straw polls diverged from his national or state polling numbers; since straw polls are more a factor of supporter enthusiasm than overall support, and his supporters were already known to be enthusiastic, it did nothing to make him less of a long-shot.

The poll numbers factor in: the media isn't going to want to cover the people at the bottom of the pack. It's up to him to make them want to cover him anyway, despite being at the bottom of the pack. When he wasn't at the bottom of the pack (because his poll numbers had risen) he got media coverage, but he then did everything he could to get rid of it.

Also, how, exactly, do you describe the low poll numbers as "nonexistent"? You can point to some states where he has polled well, definitely, but overall, his polling numbers have been low, best seen through how he has polled nationally. Throughout 2011, he was almost always polling in the single digits. He only consistently broke through that barrier in January 2012, and that was after he had already spitted the media's attempt to cover him. He hasn't come first in any of the national polls listed, going as far back as November 2008. His poll numbers are low, have been low, and will continue to be low.

[nitePhyyre]

Before I bother responding let's be clear: Are you arguing that Paul's media coverage has been commensurate to his poll numbers?

[Ghostbear]

No, I'm saying that it's due to multiple things all at once. That he doesn't have a natural media appeal (he's an old white guy running against a field of slightly-less-old white guys). That he haven't appeared to make any proper attempt to work with the media to get around his lack of natural appeal. That, yes, he has generally had poor polling numbers. That he has many views that are far outside of the mainstream. That those views can frequently be difficult to align on the left-right political axis. That he's had disappointing results in the primaries (both 2008 and 2012) and only somewhat less disappointing results in the caucuses. That the only time he appeared to be the leading challenger to Romney, he got a bunch of media coverage and, more or less, told them to bugger off. That there has almost never been any credible case where someone could say "Paul is going to win at least the plurality, if not majority, of the delegates and become the republican nominee".

You can't attribute it all to one thing, but the events that are under his control to change (without compromising his core beliefs) he has handled poorly, and has not made any attempt as far as I can tell to rectify them.

[LaserGuy]

Romney is apparently taking some flak for a telling a "humorous" anecdote about how his father shut down an auto factory in Michigan. Apparently people in the Rust Belt are still a little sensitive about stories relating to job losses.

[LtNOWIS]

No, I'm saying that it's due to multiple things all at once. That he doesn't have a natural media appeal (he's an old white guy running against a field of slightly-less-old white guys). That he haven't appeared to make any proper attempt to work with the media to get around his lack of natural appeal. That, yes, he has generally had poor polling numbers. That he has many views that are far outside of the mainstream. That those views can frequently be difficult to align on the left-right political axis. That he's had disappointing results in the primaries (both 2008 and 2012) and only somewhat less disappointing results in the caucuses. That the only time he appeared to be the leading challenger to Romney, he got a bunch of media coverage and, more or less, told them to bugger off. That there has almost never been any credible case where someone could say "Paul is going to win at least the plurality, if not majority, of the delegates and become the republican nominee".

You can't attribute it all to one thing, but the events that are under his control to change (without compromising his core beliefs) he has handled poorly, and has not made any attempt as far as I can tell to rectify them.

And the most obvious reason: many of Paul's political views are anathema to either the "base" or "establishment" of the GOP. Therefore he has no real chance of gaining enough support to be the nominee. Therefore he isn't really important or worth listening to in the eyes of hte media.

If you ignored demographics, background, polls, and campaign ability and just had a slate of political positions instead of actual people, Paul would still be immediately dismissed as a fringe kook by any rational evaluator of modern American politics. No serious commentator ever thought Paul had a real shot at the nomination due to his beliefs, and any attention they ever paid to him as a serious candidate was pro forma.

[sardia]

Romney is apparently taking some flak for a telling a "humorous" anecdote about how his father shut down an auto factory in Michigan. Apparently people in the Rust Belt are still a little sensitive about stories relating to job losses.

That's not gonna cut it as "bad" for Romney at this point. We're gonna need news on the level of general election crushing like Romney killed a hooker or was caught in bed with a boy.
Anyway, yea, Romney is an out of touch rich son of a bitch. =.=

[lutzj]

Romney is apparently taking some flak for a telling a "humorous" anecdote about how his father shut down an auto factory in Michigan. Apparently people in the Rust Belt are still a little sensitive about stories relating to job losses.

That's not gonna cut it as "bad" for Romney at this point. We're gonna need news on the level of general election crushing like Romney killed a hooker or was caught in bed with a boy.
Anyway, yea, Romney is an out of touch rich son of a bitch. =.=

To be fair, he wasn't discussing the ceteris paribus closing-down of a Michigan factory, but the relocation of a factory from Michigan to Wisconsin, with Wisconsin voters. It's probably not a very bright thing to say on the campaign trail, and obviously people in Michigan are going to hate reminders that they routinely make their own state less competitive, but the actual act in question probably resulted in a net increase in employment for the US.

[Ghostbear]

And the most obvious reason: many of Paul's political views are anathema to either the "base" or "establishment" of the GOP. Therefore he has no real chance of gaining enough support to be the nominee. Therefore he isn't really important or worth listening to in the eyes of hte media.

Of course, but that accounts for his initial lack of coverage. There's still a lot a candidate can do to fix that, and he hasn't appeared to even try. He was able to get the media interested in him before Iowa when he led in the polls after all, so his less conventional views aren't the whole story. Yet when he did get that coverage, he did practically everything he could to make it go away. That is not the actions of someone that understands how to use the media to his advantage, it's the actions of someone who is bitter over past actions and letting it cloud his judgement. Which is very human, but not very impressive for a candidate to do.

That's not gonna cut it as "bad" for Romney at this point. We're gonna need news on the level of general election crushing like Romney killed a hooker or was caught in bed with a boy.

Anything that helps reinforce his aura of "rich guy that doesn't understand not-being-rich" is bad for him. Whether it fairly or unfairly adds to that aura is another matter, but it does him no favors for November.

[sardia]

Fox news and the conservatives are already changing the definition of out of touch rich guy into hard working common man job creator that cannot be questioned.

[lutzj]

Fox news and the conservatives are already changing the definition of out of touch rich guy into hard working common man job creator that cannot be questioned.

Those two definitions aren't mutually exclusive.

[Diadem]

So, Santorum drops the n-word on Obama. He catches himself halfway, and no doubt his team will try to spin it, but I can't see what else he was going to say.

Surprisingly, none of the big media corporations are writing about this. Not sure why.

[bentheimmigrant]

Let's be fair... he may have been going for "negro".

[CorruptUser]

Speaking of the n-word, since the Klan used to refer to Hispanics as "Brown-n-words", East Asians as "Yellow-n-words", and Jews as "White-n-word", can those groups get any type of n-word privilege?

[Diadem]

Let's be fair... he may have been going for "negro".

True, but that is only slightly less offensive. Another suggestion I heard was "niggardly", though that doesn't fit the sentence very well, and if he was going to say that, why would he stop halfway?

Speaking of the n-word, since the Klan used to refer to Hispanics as "Brown-n-words", East Asians as "Yellow-n-words", and Jews as "White-n-word", can those groups get any type of n-word privilege?

There's no such thing as n-word privilege really. For every single vulgar word out there, there are instances when its use is offensive, and instances when it isn't. The thing with the word nigger is that it's almost always offensive. But there are exceptions. And it's a universal rule that when you say things that also apply to you it's always less offensive. That however does not mean that any use by a white person is automatically offensive, or any use by a black person is automatically not offensive. It's just that use by a black person is less likely to be found offensive. But there are still plenty of situations where it would be offensive, and indeed plenty of people think the liberal use of the n-word by some black subcultures is rather poor taste. And there are still situations where a white person can use it without being offensive. Heck I used it once in this post.

But this rule applies to all potentially offensive words. And not even words. Also jokes, stereotypes, everything basically.

[Роберт]

I honestly can't figure out what Santorum was trying to say. Anti-war, government Negro doesn't really make sense.

[Griffin]

The statement, no matter which word you put at the end, is not uncommonly hear in certain areas of the South to my understanding.

[Garm]

So let's see

• Newt - Running because he's trying to sell books
• Romney - Running because he like money
• Santorum - Running because he doesn't like black people or women
• Paul - Running because he doesn't like people

Sound about right?

/tongueincheek

[Dark567]

[*]Romney - Running because he likes power

I have to imagine its actually this. If your someone like Romney, there are better ways to make money.

[Garm]

[*]Romney - Running because he likes power

I have to imagine its actually this. If your someone like Romney, there are better ways to make money.

That's actually bringing thoughtful analysis to the list, something I was avoiding.

[Jave D]

So, Santorum drops the n-word on Obama. He catches himself halfway, and no doubt his team will try to spin it, but I can't see what else he was going to say.

Surprisingly, none of the big media corporations are writing about this. Not sure why.

Probably because the media is all owned and run by the liberals! Especially those dirty liberal Christ-killing je- just horrible liberals. Wink wink.