nitePhyyre wrote: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.