May 7th, 2007

Media Blacklisting Ron Paul

Want further evidence that the mainstream media has its own agenda? That indeed, they may be labeled as conspiratorial?

Ron Paul clearly won last week’s Republican Candidate debate. The post-debate polls showed him as the winner in every category.

But the mainstream media blacklisted him.

In declaring the “winner”, mainstream media organizations are leaving Paul’s name entirely absent—despite the fact that he led every post-debate poll that these media moguls themselves conducted. Smells fishy, don’t you think?

More reading:

111 Responses to “Media Blacklisting Ron Paul”

  1. John
    May 7, 2007 at 1:19 pm #

    Are those post-debate polls taken from sources other than MSNBC?

    Although the word “conspiratorial” (is that a word? ;) ) sets off some internal alarms for me from the get-go, I think that online polls are pretty easily stuffed.

    Maybe the poll is part of its *own* conspiracy. :)

    Ron Paul has a pretty decent Internet following (especially at Digg lately, it seems). For good reason, sure. I think any online poll might be swayed for that reason, though.

  2. Kelly Winterton
    May 7, 2007 at 1:23 pm #

    I don’t need any convincing – I already know that the shadow government (same people who also own the media) pick who they want for the next president. They have not picked Paul. In fact, they are scared of him, so they MUST blacklist him.

    It looks like the chosen candidates for the 2008 election are Obama and Romney. These are the two who the men behind the curtain have picked, and they will see to it that they get all the media exposure. By getting all the media exposure, Americans will become convinced they are the ones we want, whether we actually do want them or not.

    In order to gaurantee that one of these two candidates makes it to the White House, all they now have to do now is tweak the electoral college, black-box voting machines, Supreme Court and exit pollers.

  3. Connor
    May 7, 2007 at 1:24 pm #

    That’s exactly my point, John. A poll is created simply to show who has the most support from that source’s readership (unless they do random sampling).

    So in this case, if Ron Paul clearly won in the MSNBC polls, why would MSNBC not report that? Instead, they feature other candidates as the “strong” ones and “winner”s, leaving out the one person who did the best in the post-debate polls.

    Just goes to show that there are some higher-ups who dislike Ron Paul, a man of principle. He has frequently mentioned how special interest lobbyists walk right by his office and ignore him altogether, because they know that he won’t help them out unless their needs are based upon and sanctioned by the Constitution. Media moguls don’t like men of morality, it would seem.

  4. Dan
    May 7, 2007 at 1:51 pm #

    Connor,

    Clearly for you Ron Paul won the debate, because in your eyes no other candidate even comes close. Obviously he will win a debate from your perspective. That doesn’t mean that he actually won the debate when you consider the perspective of the entire Republican party members.

    This is why Ron Paul will never become president, because he does not do anything to convince regular party members to come to his side. He is a failure at that, and that is an honest assessment. I wish to hear more such candid thoughts from Republicans as Mr. Paul’s, but alas I don’t think we’ll see it. The problem is that he is failing badly at convincing anybody (but the few) that he is worth anything as a presidential candidate.

    This is a two-part problem. One problem is, as you say, the media and the powers that be. They are not interested in someone like Mr. Paul.

    The second part is Mr. Paul himself. There is nothing about him that stands out. This is highly important in a media culture as we have it today. He must find a way to stand out. At this point he is not, and he is thusly ignored.

  5. Connor
    May 7, 2007 at 1:55 pm #

    Dan,

    When I say that he “won” the debate, I am referring only to the fact that he won in the post-debate polls. I’m not talking about who I thought did the best (though in this case, both are the same).

  6. Connor
    May 7, 2007 at 2:13 pm #

    This is why Ron Paul will never become president, because he does not do anything to convince regular party members to come to his side. He is a failure at that, and that is an honest assessment.

    I also disagree with this, Dan. The pre-debate polls showed Paul quite low in the eyes of the readership, while he soared in the post-debate polls.

    Additionally, there was an example in the National ID question that shows Paul’s ability to attract people to his stance. His was a firm opposition to the National ID, which led those who followed him (who previously would have been in support of it) to waiver and think on their toes (since Paul’s answer had such moral clarity and strength). Then, Romney and Giulani amended their answers to specify that they only wanted the ID cards for illegals. Clearly Paul showed strength in his cause and attracted people to his stance by standing for truth.

    Again, the post-debate polls show how well he soared, and his online popularity is evidence that despite the mainstream’s MO of blacklisting him, his message and cause are increasingly becoming popular.

  7. Michael Wagner
    May 7, 2007 at 2:33 pm #

    OK, here’s the straight scoop on Ron Paul:
    First, he’s honest, he says what he means and means what he says. His record proves it.
    Second, he writes his own speeches and doesn’t employ professional writes. What he says comes from him and no one else.
    Third, he has had, for many years, a loyal following of people from around the country. Ever since his first run for the Presidency in 1988, people from every state have followed his career.
    Fourth, when he runs for Congress from Texas, he always wins with a super-majority, 60% plus. This is in spite of the fact that the Republicans tried to get rid of him by redistricting. He won anyway.
    Fifth, his Congressional campaigns are funded in large part by people outside of Texas. People from all 50 states regard him as “their” congressman.
    Sixth, he has been publishing a weekly column for many years and this column is read by thousands. Many people subscribe to this column via email.
    Seventh, he has a very large following among internet-active people, although he is largely unknown to most “couch potatos.” Once the general public get to know him, he will pick up many, many new supporters.
    Eighth, the MSNBC poll represented the largest sample size of any poll I’ve seen this election cycle, around 80,000. Before the debate he had the lowest positive and highest negative ratings. After the debate he had the highest positive and lowest negatives. Obviously, among the 80,000 people who responded he must have struck a cord. If you’ve been reading the comments on his MySpace page and in the 92,000 + blog entries about him, you’d see many comments such as “I didn’t know who he was before the debate, but WOW! Now that I check him out, I will vote for him.” All he needs is to get his name out there.
    Of course, he won’t get any money from the big players. Virtually all his money comes from individuals. So the internet and the debates will be his only exposure to many people, at least until he forces the media to pay attention. Once the snowball starts to roll, get out of the way.

  8. Dan
    May 7, 2007 at 2:33 pm #

    Connor,

    Let me get this straight, you are using an unscientific internet poll to judge how well Ron Paul was received post-debate?

  9. Connor
    May 7, 2007 at 2:40 pm #

    Let me get this straight, you are using an unscientific internet poll to judge how well Ron Paul was received post-debate?

    Yes.

    If and when you can provide a “scientific” poll, I’ll be happy to give it a glance. However, as Michael points out, those who hear Paul’s message become strong supporters and promoters. Given the chance (i.e. sans media blacklisting) his support would skyrocket. Any so-called scientific polling would surely include what Michael termed as “couch potatoes” who haven’t heard of him nor his message, simply because the media won’t give him a chance.

    The owners and managers of the press determine which person, which facts, which version of the facts, and which ideas shall reach the public. (Commission on Freedom of the Press, via Qioty)

  10. Dan
    May 7, 2007 at 2:45 pm #

    Connor,

    Take a look at this scientific poll done post debate. You’ll find that only 2% thought Ron Paul won the debate. 30% thought Giuliani won the debate.

  11. Kelly Winterton
    May 7, 2007 at 2:50 pm #

    Dan, you say:

    This is why Ron Paul will never become president, because he does not do anything to convince regular party members to come to his side. He is a failure at that…

    You make a very interesting point here. In fact, Ron Paul says and does what Republican politicians don’t want him to say and do.

    The powers that be therefore shun him over other candidates who DO say what they want them to say.

    This is why I believe Ron Paul has the wrong letter after his name. He ought to change that “R” to a “C.” His values are more in line with the Constitution Party than the Republican Party.

  12. Connor
    May 7, 2007 at 2:50 pm #

    Take a look at this scientific poll done post debate.

    Interesting. Thank you for that link.

    Leads one to wonder why there’s such a disparity between the two. MSNBC’s only allows you to vote once, so that eliminates suspicion of people submitting multiple times. Very interesting…

  13. Dan
    May 7, 2007 at 2:51 pm #

    Pollster.com has a good analysis of that insta-poll. While critical of the insta-poll, they do not even talk about Ron Paul. In fact, by the way they judge the “victor,” the real victor of the Republican debate was Mitt Romney, because he increased his numbers from pre to post debate.

  14. Dan
    May 7, 2007 at 2:58 pm #

    Connor,

    There is an obvious difference between the two. One is a scientific poll calling random Californians who watched the debate and asking them who won, while the other is open to the Internet (which has yet to give a realistic scientific poll). MSNBC has had numerous polls on its website over the years, and most every poll I’ve seen on there has had different results than scientific polls done by professional pollsters. I wish I could remember my polisci class on polling to tell you why there is a difference, but I forget.

    In any case, your point about the media blacklisting Mr. Paul doesn’t have much weight behind it. By your same logic, the media is also blacklisting all the other lower-tier candidates. Should each candidate be offered the same amount of time on screen? Why? Media corporations have strong reasons to focus sharply on the “main” candidates and to ignore the “lesser” candidates. And that is that if they continue to focus too much on the lesser candidates, they just might lose viewers. There is an economic reason. It doesn’t mean it is right or wrong. Their reasoning is self-preservation. It is capitalism at work. We could however revert to good ol’ communism and give everybody equal time on the air…but somehow I think, you, of all people, won’t like that idea too much. ;)

    Like I said, Connor, to this point, Ron Paul has failed to show why he should be heard through the platform of the national media.

  15. NH4RonPaul
    May 7, 2007 at 3:28 pm #

    Trouble is, Ron won most ALL the polls, his website garnered the most hits and there is definite increasing support for him out there. Even ABC had an epiphany…

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3147940&page=1

  16. Dan
    May 7, 2007 at 4:53 pm #

    From the ABC article you link:

    So are the polls missing a Paul boomlet? Is the famously contrarian ob-gyn — a libertarian nicknamed “Dr. No” because of his propensity to vote against anything he believes contradicts the Constitution’s original intent — poised to surge into contention in the GOP field?

    Not likely. What’s more likely, based on Web traffic over the past week, is that Paul supporters have mastered the art of “viral marketing,” using Internet savvy and blog postings to create at least the perception of momentum for his long-shot presidential bid.

  17. Dan
    May 7, 2007 at 4:54 pm #

    Finally, I just want to say that I love watching capitalists deride capitalism at work. Priceless.

  18. shestalou
    May 7, 2007 at 9:36 pm #

    Ron Paul was awesome, I knew who he was but never took him seriously until now, wow I pray to God he is the next President of the United States.

  19. Paul
    May 8, 2007 at 12:20 am #

    Ron Paul will be the next President of the United States.

  20. Chris A
    May 8, 2007 at 12:45 am #

    Time to put your money where your mouths are folks. I donated $50 to Ron’s campaign the other day and will donate $50 a month until this is over. If everyone here matched me and got their friends to match them, Ron could go all the way.

    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

  21. Curtis
    May 8, 2007 at 7:14 am #

    Ron Paul will never be president of the US similar to the way Ralph Nader never became president. Of course Nader wasn’t the member of one of the two corporate parties… but Paul is putting forth a message that the corporate world, and the Jewish Lobby for that matter, would not see as profitable. Our beloved secret combinations will never allow for that.

  22. Mark N.
    May 8, 2007 at 10:32 am #

    Leads one to wonder why there’s such a disparity between the two. MSNBC’s only allows you to vote once…

    The problem with internet polls is that they are “self-selecting”. They are not polls of randomly selected people from all different groupls of people. Internet participants are notoriously libertarian in their thinking. Ron Paul polls high with internet users.

    But there are a whole bunch of people, Republicans and Democrats alike, who really believe that Ron Paul is living in the 19th century. They don’t like the constraints that the Constitution places on government, and they’re thrilled that the vast majority of those in office choose to ignore those constraints.

    We really are living under the Constitution in name only. What our government practices is not what the Constitution preaches.

  23. Connor
    May 8, 2007 at 7:24 pm #

    Here’s more evidence: Yahoo has listed (see the dropdown on the sidebar) the other nine Republican candidates—everybody except for Ron Paul.

  24. Mark N
    May 8, 2007 at 9:42 pm #

    To be fair, Connor, the Yahoo! page you linked to does have Ron Paul’s name in the “Official Campaign Websites” dropdown list at the bottom of the right side of the page.

    He has been eliminated, though, in the pictured list of Republican candidates on the left side of the page, and the “Yahoo! Candidate Pages” Republican dropdown box (as you mentioned) doesn’t list him. Are the “Yahoo!” pages paid for by the candidates? I wonder…

  25. Dan
    May 9, 2007 at 5:15 am #

    Gasp, Connor! You’re right, Yahoo! has blacklisted four Republican candidates. The gall! Yahoo is a private company. It has no reason, nothing that will force it to show everybody. It is capitalism at work. This is the world you want, Connor. ;)

  26. fontor
    May 9, 2007 at 8:52 am #

    I have a set of ideas that I think are really great.

    People in general aren’t agreeing.

    Why aren’t they agreeing with these wonderful and obviously true ideas?

    They must be lazy.
    And the media controls what they see.
    And the media is engaged in a conspiracy to keep my ideas down.

    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    This has been another edition of Meme Theater.

  27. Odd Thomas
    May 11, 2007 at 10:12 pm #

    I know beyond the shadow of a government that every conspiracy theory with modern day gadiantons as secretive power hoarding infromation manipulators is true and I am so glad that my special knowledge puts me beyond the reach of the rest of society and only those with the same conspiratorial theories and thus obvious abhorence of influence or power over others.

  28. Curtis
    May 12, 2007 at 9:55 pm #

    I’d highly recommend Noam Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent” documentary or book version for a great explanation of how we have ended up with the media that we have today.
    I used to be like Odd Thomas until I read Chomsky’s book.

  29. fontor
    May 13, 2007 at 1:47 am #

    Psst… Curtis… satire. I know it’s hard to tell with some folks.

    And I’d recommend Chomsky’s ‘Syntactic Structures’, but that’s just me.

  30. Curtis
    May 13, 2007 at 7:11 am #

    It’s all fun and games until someone gets their eye poked out.

  31. Connor
    May 17, 2007 at 9:50 am #

    This is great.. now they won’t even mention his name!

  32. Cathy
    May 19, 2007 at 7:41 am #

    That’s hilarious, lol!

    Maybe all of this negative publicity they were trying to give him didn’t work out the way they wanted it to.

    In the days since the 2nd debate, I’ve read a number of artlcles online, many from non-supporters, saying that Ron Paul was right. (Google News is a great place to look.)

    I wonder how long it will be before many new supporters find they have to go online to read about him, and at least some of the mainstream media find they need to print more at least quasi positive things in order to compete. (I know, a dream maybe, but it could happen. )

    Here is a somewhat positive article from the Dallas Morning News.

    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8P6BNB00.html

    (They err, I think, though, when they speculate about how much he has in the bank. That is his 1st quarter fundingraising figure, and as is mentioned in the article, he says they got their really boost after the first debate.)

  33. Kelly Winterton
    May 21, 2007 at 10:17 am #

    I just read a very interesting article about the blacklisting of Ron Paul. It is written by Joel Skousen, who, I think, is a nephew to Cleon Skousen. This is the URL.

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911TruthAction/message/32671

    Worth reading.

  34. Connor
    August 6, 2007 at 2:52 pm #

    Here is yet another example… also see here.

  35. Connor
    August 7, 2007 at 1:16 pm #

  36. Dan
    August 16, 2007 at 5:26 am #

    So….I thought Ron Paul was kicking butt in the Republican field. Yet in the Iowa straw poll, he only got 9%. Hmmm…it seems the scientific polling numbers are correct after all.

  37. Connor
    August 16, 2007 at 7:26 am #

    Yet in the Iowa straw poll, he only got 9%. Hmmm…it seems the scientific polling numbers are correct after all.

    The results of the Iowa straw poll are not without their own controversy… He did win the Gaston County straw poll—a poll that didn’t rely on hackable Diebold voting machines.

  38. Dan
    August 16, 2007 at 10:41 am #

    heh, yeah, i forgot about those machines.

    well, i guess we’ll see come January

  39. Kelly Winterton
    August 16, 2007 at 1:56 pm #

    In this morning’s Ogden Standard Examiner newspaper, the assistant editor, (Doug Gibson) authored an article about the Republican candidates. His opinion was that Romney was far and away the front runner, but fully one half of his article was slamming and degrading Ron Paul.

    He wrote that Paul has only a rag-tag bunch of followers who show up at all his appearances, and are unfairly influencing all the polls by voting for him. He claimed that in real life Paul only has less than one percent of polling.

    He described anyone who is in favor of Ron Paul to be in one of 3 camps: a John Bircher, a Bush-hater, or a 9/11 Truther. He described how looney the 9/11 Truth movement was (offering no proof).

  40. Connor
    August 22, 2007 at 8:48 am #

    Kelly,

    In response to Mr. Gibson’s column, I wrote this letter to the editor:

    I’m writing in response to Doug Gibson’s Aug. 16 column, “It’s August 2007, so why not talk about the presidential campaign?”

    I’m led to wonder, by Mr. Gibson’s neo-conservative-flavored invective, if he has read the Constitution recently, or ever. Journalists who call a true constitutionalist (and proven conservative) the “village idiot” show a disdain for this nation’s founding documents, the rule of law and limited government. One wonders why his bias seeps through his words so heavily, but this we may never know.

    I’m glad Mr. Gibson interviewed Rep. Paul in 1988, but I’m sad to see that none of Paul’s ideas (those eternal truths regarding liberty and prosperity) sat well with him.

    And, as a Ron Paul supporter, I find Mr. Gibson’s attempts to paint his other supporters (and myself) as conspiracy nuts and wackos, pretty hollow and dismissive. Instead, he could try to address Rep. Paul’s policies and stances that he seems to feel are “isolationist” and “head-in-the-sand.” Does Mr. Gibson even know what isolationism means? I suggest he read President Washington’s farewell address to understand the proper role of government and true American foreign policy.

    This nation needs more Ron Pauls if it is to be saved from self-destruction.

    This letter to the editor was originally submitted as an email directly to Mr. Gibson. We exchanged a few emails on the subject. Should anybody be interested in reading our conversation, feel free to email me.

  41. Kelly Winterton
    August 22, 2007 at 9:53 am #

    Connor, I saw your letter to the editor in today’s Ogden Standard Examiner. (8/22/07) I would be interested to compare your text to what was printed. I think it came out word-for-word! I’ll have to compare when I get home from work.

  42. Connor
    August 23, 2007 at 7:44 am #

    With all of the straw polls that Rep. Paul has won, one wonders why the mainstream media hasn’t said a word…

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/014853.html

    Yet another example of the conspiratorial omission of certain facts to suit their bias and agenda. Disgusting.

  43. Connor
    September 4, 2007 at 3:03 pm #

    Yet another example of ABC’s silence on Ron Paul. 14 minutes on candidates and the internet, and no mention of Ron Paul, who owns the internet in the political sphere. Nice.

  44. Kelly W.
    January 1, 2008 at 10:39 am #

    Here is another example of media black-listing of Ron Paul. This one concerns Fox News.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/01/politics/animal/main3663961.shtml

  45. Connor
    January 3, 2008 at 11:35 pm #

    And yet another example (of many).

  46. Connor
    January 6, 2008 at 5:02 pm #

    And another.

  47. Kelly W.
    January 6, 2008 at 10:31 pm #

    and another example:

    http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/127/the_candidates

  48. Connor
    January 6, 2008 at 11:12 pm #

    And another. The comments on these sites are always fun to read.

  49. Chris Taylor
    January 16, 2008 at 2:29 pm #

    Take a look at this scientific poll done post debate. You’ll find that only 2% thought Ron Paul won the debate. 30% thought Giuliani won the debate.

    Let me get this straight. You consider a poll off 317 people to be of scientific value? Your kidding right? Your comparing a poll of 80,000 to a poll of 317. Your joking right? seriously did you mean that?

    Do you have any idea how easy it is to manipulate a poll of 317 just by selecting WHO you call (oh you assumes its random just because they say so?) and even if it was random it by definition would be biased. 90% of the population WILL decide who to vote for based on what they see on television. so odds are 90% of who you call WILL NOT have heard of “Ron Paul” at all. and do not kid yourself. IF a person had NOT watched the debate they would still say yes JUST to be included.

    I am still dumbfounded that you would actually honestly compare a poll of 80,000 to a poll of 317.

    ————-

    In any case, your point about the media blacklisting Mr. Paul doesn’t have much weight behind it. By your same logic, the media is also blacklisting all the other lower-tier candidates. Should each candidate be offered the same amount of time on screen? Why? Media corporations have strong reasons to focus sharply on the “main” candidates and to ignore the “lesser” candidates

    YES they should by LAW be required to give ALL valid candidates EQUAL airtime OR be required to give them all NO airtime at all.

    The problem you fail to realize is that the MEDIA is who DECIDES who is a MAIN candidate and who is a LESSER candidate. Simply by inclusion or exclusion from there medium. When 90% of your population WILL decide who to vote for based on what they see on the Television set YES the MEDIA does in fact decide who is MAIN and who is LESSER.

    Between Aug 2006 and Aug 2007 CNN mentioned McCain 85,000 times while mentioning Ron Paul only 4000 times. And thats just comparing to ONE other candidate. Do the math. And they wonder why his numbers are low? THEY MANIPULATE our election process simply by including or excluding candidates which is precisely WHY it should be illegal.

    Either give them ALL equal airtime until THE UNITED STATES CITIZENS DECIDE who is MAIN and LESSER or be embargoed from giving ANY off them ANY airtime.

    80,000 to 317 and you call it scientific. I am still dumbfounded by that.

  50. Connor
    January 29, 2008 at 9:34 am #

    I would live to find out who this person is and have them throw light on the massive campaign to sideline the anti-establishment candidate.

  51. Dan
    January 31, 2008 at 7:09 am #

    Ah I forgot all about this post of yours Connor. Well, now that January has come to a close, let’s see which poll was consistently correct. Was it Connor’s unscientific anonymous Internet poll? Or was it the scientific randomly selected poll?

    If and when you can provide a “scientific” poll, I’ll be happy to give it a glance. However, as Michael points out, those who hear Paul’s message become strong supporters and promoters. Given the chance (i.e. sans media blacklisting) his support would skyrocket. Any so-called scientific polling would surely include what Michael termed as “couch potatoes” who haven’t heard of him nor his message, simply because the media won’t give him a chance.

    Ron Paul has been given opportunity after opportunity during debates to show exactly what he thinks. People have had plenty to hear. And in the end, they rejected him much like they rejected Giuliani. Good for America on both fronts.

    Oh and by the way, I say again, private companies are under no obligation to cover Mr. Paul. They are private companies. They can choose whom they wish to write about. Fox News, for example, has taken it to the extreme and are now being burned for touting their Mr. 9/11 Giuliani. I wonder if they will begin kissing up to Mr. McCain.

    This is capitalism at work, Connor. Don’t complain. This is what you want.

  52. John
    January 31, 2008 at 9:18 am #

    Dan,

    If we’re talking scientific, then let’s at least wait until the primary race is more than 10% done.

    If you’re basing your thesis (everyone is “rejecting” Ron Paul) on 10% I don’t think that’s enough. Not sure how you can say it’s the “end” yet either.

    Stomping around pointing out some sort of victory, even before Super Tuesday, makes you look rather silly. :)

    – John

  53. John
    January 31, 2008 at 9:20 am #

    My guess is that RP won’t do very well in the long-haul, but that’s all it is. A guess.

  54. Sean
    January 31, 2008 at 9:27 am #

    Dan-

    I think your point about the relative coverage of the candidates being due to capitalism is a valid one. A follow-up question then, is why do so many Americans seek their presidential election news primarily from news outlets, rather than learning about the positions of the candidates from the candidates themselves?

  55. Dan
    January 31, 2008 at 9:29 am #

    John,

    Please. There are not enough Ron Paul supporters to place him anywhere close to the Republican nomination (and certainly not enough liberal support to even get enough of the general election voters).

    Connor, in his youthful adoration of Mr. Paul, made the mistake of trusting Internet polling, highly unscientific and inaccurate, to believe a false hope, that Ron Paul could actually get more support than he has.

    I’m sure he’ll get like 14% in California, and once again beating the hapless Giuliani. He’s not getting much support here in New York (at least in New York City—I’ve seen absolutely little of anything supportive of Ron Paul here).

    Internet polls do not accurately reflect the general population. Heck, if we go by what folks on the Internet want, then John Edwards would be the Democratic candidate of choice. Just take a look at recent (before he withdrew) polls on DailyKos. You’ll find John Edwards polled at like 50%. But his real numbers never really took him above 25%.

    My guess is that RP won’t do very well in the long-haul, but that’s all it is. A guess.

    I don’t have to guess. I can safely make the prediction that Ron Paul will never be president of the United States of America.

  56. Daniel
    January 31, 2008 at 9:30 am #

    Yes, you can get accurate numbers with N=317, if your subjects are drawn from the population randomly.

    And an internet poll of 80,000 is less likely to be representative of the population because the respondents are self-selected. Plus the Paulbots have a nasty and persistent tendency to… you know… freep internet polls. And annoy the living crap out of everyone.

    BTW, you should have expected the Fox blacklisting. When were they ever anything but biased and corrupt?

    An interesting note: Ron Paul doesn’t seem to be spending all that money. Is he planning a third party bid? Is he the new Ralph Nader? Or is he the new Howard Dean. Actually, neither; he’s the new Lyndon LaRouche.

  57. Dan
    January 31, 2008 at 9:32 am #

    Sean,

    Excellent question. The answer is that in the spirit of freedom, Americans are not forced to learn how to think for themselves. They merely do. As such, far too many of them decide for themselves that they would trust news sources as the information on this or that, including what candidates think.

    See, while Americans can think for themselves all they want, they still need to learn how to think for themselves. Since so many do not choose to learn the how, we get a very ignorant mass of people who prefer to be led. Far too easy to be manipulated and bamboozled for my tastes, but that’s the spirit of freedom, the opportunity cost.

  58. John
    January 31, 2008 at 9:50 am #

    Dan,


    Please. There are not enough Ron Paul supporters to place him anywhere close to the Republican nomination (and certainly not enough liberal support to even get enough of the general election voters).

    What are you basing that on? Another internet poll?


    I’m sure he’ll get like 14% in California, and once again beating the hapless Giuliani. He’s not getting much support here in New York (at least in New York City—I’ve seen absolutely little of anything supportive of Ron Paul here).

    Oh so you’ve driven around idly looking for vague signs of support for a candidate. That’s much better than an internet poll. Much more scientific.

    I also think it’s scientific to take a non-random sampling of the US population that only covers about 10% of the total race.

    I don’t have to guess. I can safely make the prediction that Ron Paul will never be president of the United States of America.

    You are guessing. Driving around and offering opinions about internet polls is guessing.

    I don’t think he’ll make it either, but if you’re pretending to critique a “scientific” approach, you best counter it with some hard data rather than a paltry sampling and observations from a sunday drive.

  59. Daniel
    January 31, 2008 at 9:59 am #

    What stage are we at, Dan? I haven’t been paying attention.

    Are we to ‘Stage 3: Bargaining’ yet, or are we still stuck at ‘Stage 2: Anger’?

  60. Sean
    January 31, 2008 at 10:14 am #

    Dan,

    I agree with your assessment. I think the irony is that Ron Paul is attempting to persuade Americans to do exactly that: think for themselves. While many do not agree with all his policies (I’m not sure that I do), the spirit of his campaign will have an effect on Americans and the public awareness. At least I hope it does. Dr. Paul does attract a diverse group of followers, no question. But the reasons behind individuals’ support do not necessarily detract from the message.

    Daniel-

    Interesting comparison to Lyndon LaRouche. But inaccurate, in my opinion. LaRouche has been on the fringe his entire career. Ron Paul has been in the U.S. Congress for a total of nearly 20 years over 3 different spans. LaRouche has been all over the place in his policies and beliefs, while Paul has generally stuck to the same principles.

    I believe Ron Paul’s message is going to continue to have effect going forward. U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake from my home district in Arizona is someone I suspect may have a future carrying the message of freedom and limited government on the national stage. Perhaps he will carry the banner, and be a more “popular” messenger in the future.

  61. Dan
    January 31, 2008 at 12:09 pm #

    John,

    Look at a recent Gallup Poll done nationwide, which has Ron Paul at 4%.

    The results are based on [interviews] with 1,271 Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters with and 1,017 Republican and Republican-leaning voters on January 27 through January 29. Maximum margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

    Selecting 1000 random registered voters has proven over the years to be highly accurate of their overall feelings on candidates. Also, such polling ensures there is no double dipping (which is one of the great problems of anonymous Internet polling). It also samples from a much greater section of the population. Not all Americans are on the Web. Also not all Americans on the Web search for politics. There is no way to control for those variables in an uncontrolled online anonymous poll. As such, those numbers mean nothing.

    and looky here in California, Mr. Paul only gets 2% of the support in the latest poll. I’m sure they are quite a vocal group (as is clear from Connor’s blog—Connor is also a Cali boy).

    Most importantly, these polls are quite close to the actual votes in these first few primaries. Mr. Paul has not delivered, so he will not get any traction within the larger segment of the Republican party. As such, he will not become the Republican nominee. This is, at this point, written in stone.

    I also think it’s scientific to take a non-random sampling of the US population that only covers about 10% of the total race.

    I don’t think you understand the science behind polling. I suggest you do a little research.

  62. John
    January 31, 2008 at 1:44 pm #

    Dan,

    You completely missed my point while at the same time accidentally resolving it.

    Congrats.

  63. Chris Taylor Jr
    January 31, 2008 at 3:49 pm #

    there is a very serious problem with the polls. they ignore the effect of media manipulation of candidate coverage. 90% or more of the population ‘will’ decide who to vote for based on what they see on television. I would be greatly interested in a study of the results of these polls in comparison to the percentage of ‘coverage’ the candidates get in the media. i think any of us NOT reliant ov tv individuals would not be surprised at the results of such a study. even a little bit.

    ron paul does not poll low because he is not like but simply because he is literally just NOT known to the mass majority of the it would be like putting my name as an option in the polls and wondering why i get 0% of the results. its one of those duh! kind of actions. he gets less than 2% of the coverage in media and your confused as to why he polls so low? give me a break. with today’s media those polls are simply self fullfilling prophecies.

  64. Dan
    January 31, 2008 at 7:18 pm #

    Chris,

    You’re still going on the assumption that if everybody but heard Ron Paul, they’d admire him like “V” and walk to that parliament building all in unison in support. Maybe they really don’t like him, Chris. Maybe they really don’t think he works for America.

  65. Chris Taylor Jr
    January 31, 2008 at 8:35 pm #

    NO DAN THATS NOT WHAT I AM FRAKING SAYING

    All I am saying is that if that WERE the case at least the PEOPLE would be the ones deciding and not the 6 CEO’s of the companies that OWN all the media we are presented with.

    YOU have NO moral right and NO factual “backing” to speak otherwise until the people DO know about him and can decide for themselves.

    Right now the poll results have ZERO to do with the will of the people and 100% to do with the will of the media companies. ANYONE who argues otherwise is simply a shill or absolutely ignorant of reality.

    THEY MIGHT “form up” behind him like V for vendetta you say OR they might say We don’t that KOOKY guy and go on there merry way but at least it would be the PEOPLE making that decision!!

    THATS my problem
    THATS my issue
    THATS my stance

    MEDIA COMPANIES should not be deciding these things for us. Media companies should have a choice between TWO options and NO OTHER options.

    Either give ALL candidates fair EQUAL coverage FAIR being critical here. OR give them ZERO coverage NONE AT ALL. Not even uttering or printing there name.

    Manipulating this election process should be a FELONY offense. I think the penalty of felony is highly over used to abuse peoples rights but THIS is one time where it IS a valid use.

  66. Chris Taylor Jr
    January 31, 2008 at 8:41 pm #

    “I don’t think you understand the science behind polling. I suggest you do a little research.”

    The thought is mutual. Answer me this in scientific terms Dan. If you toss a virtually UNKNOWN candidate on a poll list what does your SCIENTIFIC GUT tell you is going to be the result of that little twist on the poll statistics for that nearly unknown candidate?

  67. Dan
    January 31, 2008 at 8:46 pm #

    Chris,

    Either give ALL candidates fair EQUAL coverage FAIR being critical here. OR give them ZERO coverage NONE AT ALL. Not even uttering or printing there name.

    Are you advocating for a totalitarian state where private corporations are forced to make things equal to all? Capitalism is UNFAIR dude. Capitalism is ironically Darwinism at its most ferocious. It is cruel and harsh, dude. You kill or be killed. I’m sorry, but that’s the way it is.

    Manipulating this election process should be a FELONY offense. I think the penalty of felony is highly over used to abuse peoples rights but THIS is one time where it IS a valid use.

    Manipulation is covered under free speech. Fox News in fact uses that excuse blatantly. They revel in the fact that they manipulate, and they know they can do it because that’s what America allows. This is what you get in Capitalism. When left to their own devices, men choose out of their own free will their own survival over that of the other. And that means that it ends up being unfair and unjust. But that’s life. It sucks, and then you die.

    All I am saying is that if that WERE the case at least the PEOPLE would be the ones deciding and not the 6 CEO’s of the companies that OWN all the media we are presented with.

    Private corporations have absolutely no obligation to give Mr. Paul the same airtime as anybody else they choose. Mr. Paul has all the opportunities to go across this nation and let his voice be heard. He’s done it before with little effect. He has more effect this time round because we’re all so disaffected with the system, it is so corrupt and broken. But alas, Mr. Paul cannot compete well with the better financed, and better connected politicians.

    THEY MIGHT “form up” behind him like V for vendetta you say OR they might say We don’t that KOOKY guy and go on there merry way but at least it would be the PEOPLE making that decision!!

    People still make their own decision. That’s the whole ironic point of “V” actually. Fascinatingly, “V” had one mere exposure on television. Ironically, he forced it upon the people. But the people, inundated with the false preaching of the other over and over and over again chose to follow “V.” The people of America, those who view the private corporations’ television shows, have had several opportunities to hear Mr. Paul’s own words. Polls and voting results show that Americans rejected his message, and continue to reject it.

    I’ve listened to Mr. Paul’s words. On Iraq, he is perfect. On everything else, he’s a loon. That’s what I feel, and that is what I will project to others. He’s no Guy Fawkes, no matter how much money he made on November 5.

  68. Dan
    January 31, 2008 at 8:48 pm #

    Chris,

    If you toss a virtually UNKNOWN candidate on a poll list what does your SCIENTIFIC GUT tell you is going to be the result of that little twist on the poll statistics for that nearly unknown candidate?

    I’m not sure I understand how your scenario undermines the science of polling. Please elaborate.

  69. Chris Taylor Jr
    January 31, 2008 at 9:34 pm #

    What is there not to understand Dan. If you put a virtually UNKNOWN name on the poll WHY would you not CLEARLY be able to predict in advance of the poll what the result will be for that virtually unknown name?

    AGAIN put Chris Taylor Jr on the National poll. Would you actually be surprised when I got a nearly 0% on it ? I can tell you with 100% certainty that is what the result will be. Its what I call a “Duh!” fact.

    Thats not science thats self fulfilling prophecies. its propaganda and manipulation. NOTHING to do with unbiased science.

    As for Ron Paul others stances. I do not care. The problem I have is the people are NOT being given the chance to decide for themselves (factoring in that they will decide who to vote for based on the TV right or wrong thats the way it is)

    We are NOT SUPPOSED to be living in a capitalist nation dan. We are supposed to be living in a constitutional republic.

    Your “free speech” is so flawed I refuse to accept your lack to the intelligence to recognize it for the CRAP it is.

    So if I order someone to KILL someone its ok because thats free speech? its not the SPEECH that is the problem Dan its the RESULTS that are the problem. HOW you achieve those results is not relevant. Election Manipulation is Election Manipulation.

    The Airwaves are PUBLIC PROPERTY. they are granted the PRIVILEGE to use that property, They have NO intrinsic rights to it. (at least there not supposed to but we see how well thats going)

    With RIGHTS come RESPONSIBILITIES. you can not ABUSE your responsibilities and then HIDE behind the flag of “free speech” and RIGHTS to justify your actions. The fact that you can type a coherent sentence tells me your more than intelligent enough to KNOW THIS. Free speech means fox can express that they support this or that candidate. It does not mean they can manipulate the information to PREVENT US from making an informed decision. Last I checked thats called FRAUD.

    BUT on the issue of Ron Pauls other stances. When exactly did advocating FOLLOWING THE LAW become a “loony” stance. PLEASE enlighten me on that one. I mean I just can not understand that on any level. Clarify Please…

  70. Dan
    February 1, 2008 at 9:18 am #

    Chris,

    If you put a virtually UNKNOWN name on the poll WHY would you not CLEARLY be able to predict in advance of the poll what the result will be for that virtually unknown name?

    Oh, I most certainly can predict in advance exactly what would occur. But I’m still wondering how your point undermines the science of polling.

    Thats not science thats self fulfilling prophecies. its propaganda and manipulation. NOTHING to do with unbiased science.

    Chris, it is hard for me not to say that you do not understand the political system very well. You wish it to be a particular way and then rail against it, raging against the machine, when it isn’t the way you wish it to be.

    The problem I have is the people are NOT being given the chance to decide for themselves (factoring in that they will decide who to vote for based on the TV right or wrong thats the way it is)

    You keep bringing up “given the chance.” Just what do you mean by that? Mr. Paul has every opportunity to build up his own network, his own corporation, and his own television stations to get his own name and ideology out there. He has all the opportunity to do so. There is nothing to stop him. You keep implying that television corporations have some obligation to give him equal airtime. They do not.

    Your “free speech” is so flawed I refuse to accept your lack to the intelligence to recognize it for the CRAP it is.

    You would do well to actually refute it with actual evidence instead of the lame name-calling.

    So if I order someone to KILL someone its ok because thats free speech?

    Talk about a flawed response so lacking intelligence…

    With RIGHTS come RESPONSIBILITIES. you can not ABUSE your responsibilities and then HIDE behind the flag of “free speech” and RIGHTS to justify your actions.

    Sure you can. There is no law against it. Sure, morally and ethically you should behave a certain way, but you don’t HAVE to. No one forces you to.

    It does not mean they can manipulate the information to PREVENT US from making an informed decision. Last I checked thats called FRAUD.

    You’re right, but in a court case, they use exactly this rationale and they are winning. Just sayin’

  71. Chris Taylor
    February 1, 2008 at 9:41 am #

    Your “free speech” is so flawed I refuse to accept your lack to the intelligence to recognize it for the CRAP it is.

    You would do well to actually refute it with actual evidence instead of the lame name-calling.

    That was a typo your should be YOU and to should not be there. IE I am saying I refuse to believe you lack the intelligence. was NOT meant as an insult.

    Your replies otherwise though just appear to sound like your trolling. Its clear I am getting no where and so choose to waste no more time trying.

  72. Dan
    February 1, 2008 at 9:49 am #

    Chris,

    That is a very weak way to get out of the debate. Trolling? please. I guess you’re admitting you lost this debate and wish to move on. Fair enough.

  73. Connor
    February 1, 2008 at 1:09 pm #

    More news you won’t hear from the MSM: Ron Paul was the biggest fundraiser for the fourth quarter of 2007.

  74. Chris Taylor
    February 1, 2008 at 2:15 pm #

    Dan when you are ready to have a debate I will gladly jump back in. Till then I am wasting my time. Calling what you were doing a debate is also very weak.

  75. Connor
    February 3, 2008 at 7:35 pm #

    Here’s an article illustrating how the media uses its bias to shape public perception and influence the outcome of the race. An excerpt:

    It all goes to show that these “debates” are media productions that have little to do with an actual examination of differences between the candidates. In effect, the media are trying to pick the candidates and narrow down the race. While few people, relatively speaking, actually watch the debates on the cable channels, the exchanges which are manufactured by the nature of the questions that are addressed to certain candidates get picked up by many other media outlets, leading to a public perception that the “frontrunners” being quoted are the only “serious” ones left in the race.

  76. Daniel
    February 4, 2008 at 12:52 am #

    Ron Paul’s support is flatlining at about 6%.

    It’s a conspiracy… involving 94% of the population. Everyone’s in on it, man!

  77. Dan
    February 6, 2008 at 3:31 am #

    So it seems Mr. Paul only got 4% of the vote in California. It seems the scientific polling is quite accurate. And the Internet anonymous polling is not.

  78. Chris Taylor
    February 6, 2008 at 8:04 am #

    Daniel. When you consider that 6 media companies OWN over 90% of all Radio Stations TV Networks and newspapers and many publishers and film companies.

    When you also consider that more than 90% of the population WILL decide who to vote for based on what they see read or hear in media. Its not so much laziness but convenience. People just do not consider that the Media would manipulate them on this level and to this extent.

    When you consider that these 6 media companies bend over backwards to make certain Ron Paul is nearly ERASED from there networks.

    Modifying graphs to exclude him. Displaying Results in such a way as to exclude him. EDITING THERE OWN LIVE PROGRAMS on Re Air to EXCLUDE HIM. For the Nevada event for the FIRST time one network only showed the top TWO results on there screen. for the past 6 elections they showed THREE. At the beginning of THIS ONE they also showed 3 but not the TOP THREE they showed 1 2 and 4 for some reason. Wanna take a guess who was in 3rd ?

    Later when they could not hide it so easily they reduced it too TWO faces 1 and 2 (guess who was third)

    LATER in the day they reduced it to ONE SINGLE IMAGE. Take guess who was in Second?

    Are you GETTING the picture yet Daniel.

    Internet polling with the way our nation currently works will NEVER be inline with Real World Polling. The reason is quite simple. When you do an internet poll is ALWAYS includes the ENTIRE population of the internet. its as simple as “click” a url.

    SO why does this not translate into RL polls? well because that INTERNET population is still resident in a physical world. When they hold a poll in say california MYSELF in Pennsylvania have NO means with which to go and VOTE in it. Getting the picture yet?

    The nature of the internet is that a “following” of people can organize and concentrate there energy and numbers. This is much harder to impossible to do In the real world. Again geography.

    Internet Polls attract Educated Followers. When I say educated I mean people who have done there own alternative research. IE they tried to discover information for themselves.

    Real World polls on the other hand are decided by the MEDIA not the INTERNET.

    Just look at what happened to Gooliani. He “removed” himself from the media envelope in the hopes of biding his time till Florida. LOOK at what that small media black out (voluntary) did to his campaign.

    90+% of the population WILL decide who they vote for based on what is in the MEDIA. when HUNDREDS of companies own the media this is not such a big deal. When 6 Companies own all the media this becomes a problem.

    Short of rousing of some kind or a major event MEDIA OPINION will be reflected in Real World Polls.

    In Theory Ron Paul SHOULD be polling at least HALF what he is polling now. The fact that his support is spread nationwide and is pretty heavy is the ONLY reason he is even showing UP in the polls.

    To FURTHER explain this Daniel. If you participated in a real world POLL and one of the options was Chris Taylor Jr of Pennsylvania. Would you vote for me?

    for 99.9999% of people ABSOLUTELY NOT. Now am I disliked? Bad On Issues? NO what I am is COMPLETELY UNKNOWN. Do you vote for an UNKNOWN?

    OR do you vote for the best candidate THAT YOUR FAMILIAR WITH.?

    See where this is going now Daniel? (dan would do well to read this as well)

    The PEOPLE are not deciding who to vote for from the available candidates. They Are deciding who to vote for from the preprepared list PRESENTED to them in Media.

    When 90+% vote this way and 6 companies control more thn 90% of the media ……

    The media can EASILY manipulate an election SIMPLY by exclusion. If your not in the media your for all intents and purposes NON EXISTENT to the Majority of the population.

    His numbers are not low because people do not like him. THEY ARE LOW BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE LITERALLY UNAWARE OF HIM.

    Its not a conspiracy of 94% of the population Its the Concentrated Decision of 6 Media Companies. Ron Paul is NOT GOOD for there business model. Period. So they Exclude him at all costs.

    Sadly its probably going to work too. I still hope. I will fight till my last breath but it does not look like we have “enough” people on the internet to be able to use it to reach critical mass.

    We have a family business in Southern NJ. We see bout 800-1200 people a DAY through out doors on a busy day 400 on an average day with about 40% repeat customers.

    I got permission and ran a “survey” one day. I set up two counters with a simple question. Do you recognize the name Ron Paul? one counter for yes one for no.

    Oddly enough MOST of the people participated (I had it right at the exit so they could just whack there selection on the way out I think I got something like 99% participation which is REALLY odd I might have to run MORE “simple” yes no surveys like this)

    I got 687 whacks that day. Take a Guess at what the dispisition was. NOTE I did not ask if they would VOTE for him I simply asked do you recognize the name Ron Paul.

    I got 686 NO’s and 1 YES and that 1 yes was MINE.

    Next time I am going to set up an even more pointed survey. I am going to ask Would you vote for Ron Paul? and then have three answers. Yes No and “Who the hell is Ron Paul?”

    How much you want to wager which will be the most popular answer.

    The problem is not lack of support. NO SUPPORT IS FEASIBLE when your a COMPLETE UNKNOWN because of Media Exclusion.

    Go Figure. and you WONDER why he polls so low. Its not that they are inaccurate. Its that they are RIGGED from day one. They are accurate so long as you LIMIT them to just the Candidates who are portrayed in the media. You Notice he got a few 2nd and 3rd place finishes yesterday. Guess how much media attention thats going to garner. I am going to see into the future now and predict ZERO or pretty damned close to it.

  79. Dan
    February 6, 2008 at 8:39 am #

    Chris,

    You really do not understand how politics works, and more specifically polling. The fact that Ron Paul gets excluded from participation does NOT negate the actual scientific poll. It still is a fairly accurate statistical representation of the population as a whole. You think that Ron Paul should be given more prominent visibility because that somehow will make his numbers better because, in your eyes, people have to believe Ron Paul will be the better candidate IF ONLY they saw him more. This is a completely side issue to the scientific value of a poll. A poll is merely a representation of a candidate’s likability and influence. Whether that candidate has been given the chance to be known has absolutely no bearing on the value of the poll itself.

  80. Chris Taylor
    February 6, 2008 at 9:06 am #

    More drivel from Dan. How did I know nothing would change.

    YOU somehow believe (fairy dust ??) that EXCLUSION from peoples minds does not REFLECT in polling. What fantasy world do you live in dan.

    ONE AGAIN you REFUSE to intelligently Acknowledge my example. If you out MY NAME on a poll WHAT will the results be and WHY.

    ONCE AGAIN you argue facts NOT in contest here. I don’t care how accurate the polls are or how scientific they are. MEANINGLESS data. but you keep bringing it up.

    Real Polls are ABSOLUTELY accurate. Just not for the reasons you seem to believe.

    When the media manipulates the information the public gets those polls are rendered scientifically IRRELEVANT and WORTHLESS because they are NO LONGER serving there INTENDED PURPOSE.

    NO a poll is NOT a measure of a candidates LIKABILITY of INFLUENCE.

    In order to decide if you LIKE someone you have to be AWARE OF THEM dan.

    YOU CAN NOT decide if you like someone who you do not even KNOW EXISTS. Period. Full Stop End of Discussion.

    DISCUSS THAT issue or just shut up.

    A poll ONLY determines the likability and influence of THE CANDIDATES THAT ARE IN YOUR REALM OF PERCEPTION.

    AGAIN you refuse to acknowledge. PUT MY NAME ON A POLL and TELL ME what the results will be.

    If you can determine the answer in advance then its NOT a valid poll its simple a confirmation of denial or preset conditions.

    When it comes to Obama Clinton Romney Huckabee McCain YES the polls are telling you something bout likability and influence.

    When it comes to Ron Paul the polls results are MEANINGLESS because NO ONE KNOWS WHO THE FRACK HE IS.

    WHAT part of this is failing to register in your brain dan. YOU CAN NOT POLL about an UNKNOWN.

    AT BEST poll with Ron Paul gives you nothing more than “how many people” are aware he even exists and EVEN THAT is not valid sine there ARE some people WHO DO know he exists but still support another candidate.

    A BETTER poll would be to RELEASE one of these polls with this ADDED question at the bottom. Are you aware of who Ron Paul is? as the last question in the poll. I would bet my next years wages that over 90% would answer NO to that question.

    It would be like me finding some random obscure person out in the middle of NO WHERE.

    I run a NATIONAL poll and say do you like this guy or do you like Oprah (or any other well know person)

    TAKE A FRAKING GUESS how that ones gonna end up. Yet you would call that scientifically valid.

    The problem is that IT IS scientifically valid. but NOT for the reasons YOU want to put forth.

    It valid as a poll of WHO KNOWS “joe smoe” from the middle of no where (answer NO ONE) versus WHO KNOWS Oprah or whoever.

    THATS what its a poll for. YOU would say its a poll of who the people LIKE better which is MORONIC because NO ONE KNOWS Joe Smoe and therfore almost NO ONE is going to pick his name. NOT because they do not like him but because they have NO GOD DAMNED CLUE who he is so they are NOT going to pick him.

    WHAT IS so hard about this concept for you to understand?

  81. Dan
    February 6, 2008 at 9:10 am #

    Can we please clean up the language. Using the Lord’s name in vain is actually one of the Ten Commandments. Plus the s-word is a swear word not worthy of a debate.

    As for the rest, sorry dude, but America does not want Ron Paul. That is what it comes down to.

  82. Connor
    February 6, 2008 at 9:13 am #

    Chris, I cleaned up the language in your comment. I know Dan invokes feelings of frustration and ire in most, but that does not excuse your choice of words. Please keep it civil.

  83. Yin
    February 6, 2008 at 9:55 am #

    Chris,

    Your comments become tedious to read with your abundant overuse of capital letters. You may want to tone it down a little. Just a thought. :)

  84. Chris Taylor
    February 6, 2008 at 12:42 pm #

    Sorry Connor :-( Yin. I give up at this point. There is nothing more for me to say. There is nothing that comes out of Dan’s mouth that can not be answered in totality by simply rereading one of the posts I or someone else have already made. Dan’s just refuses to read them. My “Caps” is my way of venting some level of emotion into emotionless letters on the screen. The angrier I get the more I use them :-(

    He is simply of the mind that he has any clue what all of America wants and nothing is going to change that.

    He is either 100% a troll or 100% nailed hook line and sinker by major media propaganda.

    Since he ignores pure plain simple logic in this one sided argument (a debate it is NOT) I am leaning toward pure Troll.

    Dan if the lord were looking over you he would stare on in pity as he remembers you DO have free will to do as you please just as these media companies have free will to do as they please.

    I think he probably cries when he see’s such a good nation go to ruin over the greed of a few individuals.

  85. Kelly W.
    February 6, 2008 at 1:20 pm #

    I still think Ron Paul would do better as a third-party candidate. Heaven knows we need a third party right now.

  86. Dan
    February 6, 2008 at 1:42 pm #

    Chris,

    Dan if the lord were looking over you he would stare on in pity as he remembers you DO have free will to do as you please just as these media companies have free will to do as they please.

    Ah because you so know the mind of the Lord.

    And yet again you resort to the lame “he must be a troll” escape.

  87. Dan
    February 6, 2008 at 1:44 pm #

    Kelly,

    Heaven knows we need a third party right now.

    I very much agree. In fact, I’d love to get rid of the electoral college and go to a proportional representation system that favors multiple parties.

    Unfortunately the creation of a viable third party does little to stem the tide of corruption in the world of politics. (Just look at any democracy in the world that has more than two parties).

  88. Chris Taylor
    February 6, 2008 at 2:08 pm #

    Dan as far as I am concerned your lord is a figment of your imagination. But when I read about a “god” who desires much good for his people and endows them with Free Will, Sentience, and Intelligence I can “imagine” how he would feel seeing us today dwindling to nothing under the thumbs of a few powerful.

    According to your own bible he created man in his own image. This means its a pretty good guess he “thinks” something like us or more accurately we “think” a lot like him. SO YES I can take a guess as to the mind of the lord.

    You also ignored that I started my statement with “I think” not “I know” another classic troll maneuver.

    And yet again you take the TROLL tactic of resisting anything EXCEPT the subject at hand. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck …..

    Stop acting like a troll and a lame one at that and I will stop treating you like one. You have yet to intelligently retort a single thing I have said. Last time I looked up the definition of troll ….

    As for running third party. Ron Paul knows as well as many of us that at the beginning he had ZERO chance as an independent. Not a SLIM to none chance like he has now but NO chance whatsoever. Alas the system is “rigged” this way.

    Even now with his support sadly dwindling I think he would be suicidal to go third party. Until we are bringing in at LEAST 5 mill a month and getting more than 10% of the vote at each primary and caucus I do not think he has a shot as an Indy.

    Remember EVERY SINGLE TIME almost that the media speaks to him they intentionally TAINT any attempt to go Indy. (they KNOW they can force him to so they want to TAINT such a move in advance DO YOU PEOPLE now see how LONG TERM these media companies plan in advance?

    So until he has ENOUGH financial backing and enough of a following to Push through the “back blast” that “WILL” occur in the media when he tries to go indy It would be dangerous to do so.

  89. Dan
    February 6, 2008 at 2:27 pm #

    Chris,

    You also ignored that I started my statement with “I think” not “I know” another classic troll maneuver.

    Silly me, I believe I read the following from you:

    Dan if the lord were looking over you he would stare on in pity as he remembers you DO have free will to do as you please just as these media companies have free will to do as they please.

    I think he probably cries when he see’s such a good nation go to ruin over the greed of a few individuals.

    So you DIDN’T start your statement with “I think.” huh…and I’m the troll? Puhlease grow up Chris and stop being such a geek.

  90. Chris Taylor Jr
    February 6, 2008 at 5:40 pm #

    Classic troll. STILL have not even attempted to logical dispute a single statement I have made.

  91. Connor
    February 6, 2008 at 6:44 pm #

    Okay, gents. Side arguments are now over – any further unrelated, back-and-forth comments will be deleted.

  92. Chris Taylor Jr
    February 7, 2008 at 12:29 am #

    Thank you connor. I would love to limit this to the manipulation of the election by media company exclusion of candidates ie black listing Ron Paul !

    Anyone notice how many 3rd and even 1 or 2 second place finishes he got yesterday and not a SINGLE mention so far in Media about it? Cute ehh.

  93. Daniel
    February 7, 2008 at 4:16 am #

    Have you tried Google? I entered ron paul super tuesday, and I got back about 8,000 articles. Some were quite positive, though whether they were positive enough for you, I’m not sure.

    Not a single mention? I mean, come on.

  94. Dan
    February 7, 2008 at 6:51 am #

    Daniel,

    You have to realize something. Chris is being persecuted here. His dear leader is the most persecuted individual since Jeezus. If only more people heard the Glorious Message of the Messenger Ron Paul. Truly they would all sing his praises. Curse those dratted dastardly evil media!

  95. Daniel
    February 7, 2008 at 8:16 am #

    I know, if only the media had given him a fair go.

    It’s strange to watch the cycle of youthful hope and embittered alienation working even as we speak.

    1. Person feels mistrustful of society
    2. Person supports third-tier candidate to fix society’s problems
    3. Most people don’t support third-tier candidate
    4. Person blames society for this
    5. Back to 1, only more so.

    Lather, rinse, repeat.

  96. Chris Taylor Jr
    February 7, 2008 at 4:42 pm #

    Well Some errors Daniel

    3. Most people don’t support third-tier candidate

    Well you assume they were given the choice. With virtually zero (compared to others) media exposure AGAIN people are UNAWARE he even exists so its not “most people” its 6 Media Companies. No one has yet to “ask” the people on a fasir playing field. When that happens and the people THEN reject him THEN you will have some validity with that statement.

    4. Person blames society for this

    No I just blame the 6 Media Companies that are manipulating the information.

    5. Back to 1, only more so. Go See 3 and 4

    Google mentions NOTHING. you shows me NO mentions. I guess you do not quite understand the concepts between GET and PUSH.

    Main Stream Media IE what 90% of the population bases there decisions on is PUSH media. You do not ask for any information its SENT to you ie PUSHED.

    What you did was called a GET. you SPECIFICALLY ASKED for and SEARCHED for information. So of course you got some results.

    the 90% of the population that depends on the PUSH model will “never” see any of the results on your google REQUEST ie GET information.

    When we complain about media black listing we referring to the media attention that MATTERS ie what 90% of the nation will see and be inunundated with.

    Once again here is th test for this. Walk down a street and ASK people “What do you think of Ron Paul?” and see how many of your replies is “Ron Paul Who?” or “Who is Ron Paul?”

    Polls really don’t have any relevance is your polling population does not even know all the people on the poll UNLESS your poll is to determine just that IE who knows about who.

    In that case Ron Paul would win every poll if you consider the LEAST awareness a win :-)

    Stop using the internet. No more google. No more connorboyack.com no more anything on the internet. Restrict your information sources to JUST Radio TV and News papers. Come back here in a week and tell me how many times you saw Ron Paul mentioned compared to the other candidates (IF you see him mentioned more times than you have fingers on one hand I will be impressed)

    With such little exposure its amazing that he does as well as he is doing.,

  97. Daniel
    February 7, 2008 at 5:57 pm #

    Intuitively, it makes sense that people who have heard of Ron Paul tend to support him more. But here’s the rub: in head to head match-ups against Democrats, people who know about Ron Paul tend to support him at the same rates as people who don’t. A Rasmussen poll:

    “Among all voters, Clinton attracts 48% support. Among the voters who have never heard of Ron Paul or don’t know enough to have an opinion, guess what. Clinton attracts the exact same total–48% of the vote. So whether or not people have heard of Ron Paul as the challenger, support for Clinton doesn’t change.

    “Among the 51% who have heard of Ron Paul but don’t have a Very Favorable opinion of him, Clinton attracts 49% of the vote.

    “The only noticeable difference to be found is among that very small slice of the electorate that has a Very Favorable opinion of Paul. Seven percent (7%) of the nation’s voters fit this description and they prefer the Texas Congressman over the Democratic frontrunner by a 70% to 27% margin.”

    Now if only the media could make everyone have a Very Favorable opinion of Mr Paul, you’d be in business. That’s not within their capability, nor is it their job.

    I should also add that, among people who know about Mr Paul because they have had the living crap annoyed out of them by Ron Paul supporters, support approaches zero.

    I do agree, however, that it’s amazing that he’s doing as well as he is.

  98. Chris Taylor Jr
    February 7, 2008 at 9:04 pm #

    How can such a poll be meaningful when his access to mass media is nearly zero? I just do not understand that.

    I mean if he got equal and fair airtime as the other candidates and he THEN resulted in 7% support OK I could see the people just don’t want him.

    But to not want someone you have to at least be aware of them. the online annoyed by RP folks are an incredibly small group of people. I mean really small.

  99. Daniel
    February 8, 2008 at 1:00 am #

    Well, from what I can tell, they asked people “Have you heard of RP?” From that, they got two groups, yes or no.

    Then they asked both groups, “Between HRC and RP, who would you vote for?” Support for RP didn’t go up significantly, even with people who did know about him.

    It probably doesn’t mean that people don’t like RP or anything — it may have more to do with Clinton’s negative ratings. But it does suggest that even if the media decided to plug him, it might not lead to increased support.

  100. Chris Taylor
    February 8, 2008 at 10:16 am #

    Well thats a whole bag or worms. By “KNOW Ron Paul” what did they mean? If they “knew” Ron Paul on the little bit that the media displays about him (such as the slander run with the old news letters) then sure what do you expect.

    I contest that overall from a general audience unless they have used the internet to gather information openly then such a question is hugely tainted.

    So to me it does not suggest this. Its one of the interesting things about polls. You can get almost any result you want on just how you “word” or “present” the questions.

    So I guess there is a different to me in how we define “know” Ron Paul. Since he is almost completely excluded from the media any such polling results are automatically tainted.

    The only way to get any kind of reasonable or remotely accurate results would be to even the playing field and then run the poll again. Problem is Mass Media is not likely to cooperate in that kind of manner :-(

  101. Daniel
    February 8, 2008 at 6:30 pm #

    I give you facts, and all I get in return is squiggle.

    Yes, fine, Chris, if reality were totally different, we might be able to get the results you want.

  102. Chris Taylor
    February 10, 2008 at 7:53 pm #

    I am sorry daniel you either gave no fact OR you gave facts that are not applicable. Thats like you and I conversing over apples and you say Oranges are Orange. My response would obviously be “so what?”

    You present “information” (no source no way of knowing if its fact I took your word that it was legitimate.

    I presented the flaws that I saw in such information.

    Then there is also the silly notion that plagues this nation of people not wanting to “throw” away there votes on a candidate they do not think has a shot.

    Voting for someone you do not want or like is by definition “throwing away” your vote.

  103. Jay
    February 16, 2008 at 9:04 am #

    I have two good friends who work for Ron Paul in two different states. One is the state chairman for RP in one state, but she’s told me stuff in confidence because they are still trying to figure out a strategy to deal with it because the media is helping in the coverup–or at least in refusing to disclose the information.

    My LDS friend in Washington has been and still is busy every day in charge of counting verifying and inputting data from the recent primaries where Huckabee challenged the results. She said that the results have been virtually the same for every precinct. Without exception, Ron Paul has won every precinct and Huck second place and McCain finished in last place. She is frustrated and disillusioned with the system and the failure to honestly report the results. My friend, the state chairman, said this is happening in many of the states but not to expect to hear it in the news.

    Now, I know there are a few here who are too proud to accept RP’s legitimacy, but these are two women who I’d trust like my own mother and I have zero doubt that what they are telling me is true.

  104. Daniel
    February 16, 2008 at 4:45 pm #

    Without exception, Ron Paul has won every precinct and Huck second place and McCain finished in last place.

    Can we now agree that paranoid delusion and Ron-Paul-devotion are essentially the same thing? It’s just a matter of degree.

    Are any psychologists collecting this data? There’s a PhD thesis to be done on the Ron Paul phenomenon, perhaps several.

  105. Jay
    February 16, 2008 at 6:58 pm #

    That was a statement from a person who actually counted votes and entered data. She was there, you weren’t. She wasn’t making it up. I know that’s difficult for you to handle, but truth sometimes is. I figured that it would be tough for some of you to swallow. Good try.

    Jay

  106. Daniel
    February 17, 2008 at 4:53 am #

    True, I wasn’t there, but then she wasn’t there to count every precinct either. How would she know? Urban legends grow as they sweep through populations, and you’ve swallowed one whole. You wouldn’t be the first. I’ve believed a few ULs myself!

    We need to think critically. Hearsay is not good evidence. And why would Washington (of all places) show such a unanimous first place result without getting picked up on any polls? It beggars belief.

    On the other hand, a simpler explanation is that your friend is mistaken, and she told you something that you really want to believe. You seem to have trouble relinquishing this belief. Try.

  107. Dan
    February 17, 2008 at 6:30 am #

    Cognitive dissonance.

  108. Chris Taylor
    February 18, 2008 at 11:07 am #

    alas occam’s razor does not usually apply when intelligence is involved. IE occam’s razor ignores manipulation and intent. The SIMPLEST answer being right assumes honesty and natural courses

    also I can see voter turn out being pretty LOW in DC meaning RP would do better since avid RP supporters WILL turn out to vote.

  109. Jay
    February 18, 2008 at 4:42 pm #

    You’re funny. I know this would be too much for you to believe. It’s okay. I didn’t expect you to believe the truth, anyway.

    Jay

  110. Daniel
    February 18, 2008 at 10:22 pm #

    If you have a better source than “Someone told me,” I’d love to hear it.

  111. DeAngela Osborne
    September 11, 2011 at 8:13 am #

    Petition for MSNBC to stop the media blackout. I respect anybody’s choice for president, but this should not be ok under any circumstances. The media should not lead the people, the people should lead the media.

    http://www.change.org/petitions/the-media-should-not-lead-the-people-the-people-should-lead-the-media

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.