(04-14-2010 01:05 PM)Paul M Wrote: I can agree with "he kind of was". He got limited coverage compared to McCain and Obama. Doing a quick search, I didn't find any stats, but if I were to guess, I doubt he got 10% of the air time of the other two.
And Richardson, Kucinich and Gravel got maybe 10% of what Ron Paul got......
(04-14-2010 01:05 PM)Paul M Wrote: I can agree with "he kind of was". He got limited coverage compared to McCain and Obama. Doing a quick search, I didn't find any stats, but if I were to guess, I doubt he got 10% of the air time of the other two.
(04-14-2010 11:52 AM)GilWinant Wrote: The flat-out truth is that Americans don't like the full package of ideas that libertarians support. They may like one or two things, but they also tend to detest one or two things. That doesn't make for electoral success.
And most people don't detest "one or two things" about your standard fare Democrats and Republicans? Are you freaking kidding me? Keep up with posts like this, and you are going to challenge Robert for the position of board idiot.
There's a big stretch between "I don't like XYZ" and "I detest XYZ". Libertarians take firm stands on lot of polarizing issues that fall into the detest category while most Republicans and Democrats play to their bases using those issues during the primaries and hedge on those issues during the general. The fact that I had to spell that out for you should shame you into silence, but I doubt it will.
So you're telling me that no one detested anything about Bush and the Neo-cons, and that no one detests anythign about Obama's far left agenda, they only dislike them, but people do detest the libertarian platform of fiscal conservatism and civil liberties? Are you really this stupid and out of touch with reality?
What I'm saying is that few people who voted for Bush or McCain detested things they were doing or saying at the time, and few who voted for Gore, Kerry, or Obama detested things they were doing or saying at the time. Voters who find planks in a candidate's platform wholly unacceptable tend to not vote for that candidate. And many people from across the political spectrum find planks of the libertarian platform to be wholly unacceptable. That's why libertarians don't win many elections and have a relatively small political base. That is the reality you are trying to deny.
(04-14-2010 01:05 PM)Paul M Wrote: I can agree with "he kind of was". He got limited coverage compared to McCain and Obama. Doing a quick search, I didn't find any stats, but if I were to guess, I doubt he got 10% of the air time of the other two.
This is internet searches, correct?
No argument that Paul has a hugh grassroots and they are internet savvy. And he has a large online presence. I just don't recall him getting equal airtime to Obama and McCain.
(04-14-2010 01:05 PM)Paul M Wrote: I can agree with "he kind of was". He got limited coverage compared to McCain and Obama. Doing a quick search, I didn't find any stats, but if I were to guess, I doubt he got 10% of the air time of the other two.
(04-14-2010 01:05 PM)Paul M Wrote: I can agree with "he kind of was". He got limited coverage compared to McCain and Obama. Doing a quick search, I didn't find any stats, but if I were to guess, I doubt he got 10% of the air time of the other two.
This is internet searches, correct?
No argument that Paul has a hugh grassroots and they are internet savvy. And he has a large online presence. I just don't recall him getting equal airtime to Obama and McCain.
Why should he have gotten equal airtime to Obama and McCain? He was hardly a viable candidate. He received a reasonable amount of coverage and raised a respectable amount of money, but that translated into a fifth place finish in Iowa, a fifth place finish in New Hampshire, a fifth place finish in South Carolina, and a second place finish in Nevada where he was 38 percentage points behind the first place finisher. What about those results tells journalists that he's newsworthy? If you want to be on the front page, then you've got to do something interesting to get there. Paul didn't. He got a lot of coverage for someone who never had a chance at victory.
(04-14-2010 01:05 PM)Paul M Wrote: I can agree with "he kind of was". He got limited coverage compared to McCain and Obama. Doing a quick search, I didn't find any stats, but if I were to guess, I doubt he got 10% of the air time of the other two.
(04-14-2010 01:05 PM)Paul M Wrote: I can agree with "he kind of was". He got limited coverage compared to McCain and Obama. Doing a quick search, I didn't find any stats, but if I were to guess, I doubt he got 10% of the air time of the other two.
This is internet searches, correct?
No argument that Paul has a hugh grassroots and they are internet savvy. And he has a large online presence. I just don't recall him getting equal airtime to Obama and McCain.
Why should he have gotten equal airtime to Obama and McCain? He was hardly a viable candidate. He received a reasonable amount of coverage and raised a respectable amount of money, but that translated into a fifth place finish in Iowa, a fifth place finish in New Hampshire, a fifth place finish in South Carolina, and a second place finish in Nevada where he was 38 percentage points behind the first place finisher. What about those results tells journalists that he's newsworthy? If you want to be on the front page, then you've got to do something interesting to get there. Paul didn't. He got a lot of coverage for someone who never had a chance at victory.
I have no argument with this post. I didn't say he should have equal time. I was responding to your earlier post:
Quote:Ron Paul was in the media plenty in 2008. He was all over the radio and news.
Reading your last post, I misunderstood your "plenty" and "all over".
(04-14-2010 11:52 AM)GilWinant Wrote: Ron Paul was in the media plenty in 2008.
Quote:I can agree with "he kind of was". He got limited coverage compared to McCain and Obama. Doing a quick search, I didn't find any stats, but if I were to guess, I doubt he got 10% of the air time of the other two.
Other GOP Presidential Contendors vs. Obama (CNN):
Obama 53% - Romney 45% --- No to Romneycare
Obama 54% - Huckabee 45% --- No to Evangelicals
Obama 55% - Gingrich 43% --- No to failures from the past
Obama 55% - Palin 42% --- No to airheads
(04-14-2010 03:52 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: Other GOP Presidential Contendors vs. Obama (CNN):
Obama 53% - Romney 45% --- No to Romneycare
Obama 54% - Huckabee 45% --- No to Evangelicals
Obama 55% - Gingrich 43% --- No to failures from the past
Obama 55% - Palin 42% --- No to airheads
I think the GOP will reach for a new face in 2012. The question is whether that person will be the sort of moderate who has broad appeal or whether the inmates will run the asylum and nominate someone who represents the fringe of the party.
Quote:CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. March 25-28, 2010. N=935 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3. .
"Suppose the 2012 presidential election were being held today. If Barack Obama runs for reelection, are you more likely to vote for Obama, the Democrat, or for the Republican Party's candidate for president?" If unsure: "As of today, do you lean more to Obama, the Democrat, or to a Republican candidate?"
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. March 19-21, 2010. Nationwide.
.
"Please give me your best guess: If Barack Obama decides to run for reelection, do you think he will win the presidential election in 2012, or do you think he will lose?" N=1,030 adults, MoE ± 3
How easily you mindless liberal forget that Obama was a much longer shot than what Paul is 3 years before election night. Obama was not even on the radar, no less Paul polling against the President.
(This post was last modified: 04-14-2010 05:53 PM by SumOfAllFears.)
I would not vote for Paul in the primary. Now, if he's wins the primary, well, hands down. I just think he's too over the top his stance on defense. Hell, according to the posters' opinions here, I'm a moderate in their criteria. On defense issues? I'm the biggest f'n hawk you'll see.
(04-14-2010 09:04 PM)Rebel Wrote: I would not vote for Paul in the primary. Now, if he's wins the primary, well, hands down. I just think he's too over the top his stance on defense. Hell, according to the posters' opinions here, I'm a moderate in their criteria. On defense issues? I'm the biggest f'n hawk you'll see.
I've seen D*ck Cheney. You have your work cut out for you.
(04-14-2010 05:51 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: How easily you mindless liberal forget that Obama was a much longer shot than what Paul is 3 years before election night. Obama was not even on the radar, no less Paul polling against the President.
I'm not sure what you mean by not on the radar, but he made the keynote address at the 2004 DNC, which put him on the radar. People were talking about the bright young star from Chicago. It didn't take long for people to start talking about a presidential run for him.
