http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...on_paul_41

On the front page of Drudge right now.

Paul would be a shoo-in if the MSM were honest.

(04-14-2010 10:56 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Paul would be a shoo-in if the MSM were honest.

Ron Paul can't get his own party's nomination and is largely unelectable outside of his congressional district. That's not the media's fault.

(04-14-2010 11:05 AM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(04-14-2010 10:56 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Paul would be a shoo-in if the MSM were honest.

Ron Paul can't get his own party's nomination and is largely unelectable outside of his congressional district. That's not the media's fault.

So I guess you think Rasmussen only polled people in his district for this poll? He can't get his own party's bid because the media won't give him any air time.

He'd eviscerate Obama with concrete philosophy which shakes Obama's positions to their very foundation across the platform. It would be the first real debate I'd have the ability to see. Not just a "I want alot more government" vs "I want slightly less government" pseudo-debate.

He'd pull in the blue dogs. He'd pull in the anti-war liberals. He'd pull in the anti-drug war liberals. He'd get all the Libertarians. He'd get 2 out of 3 conservatives (there's ALOT of neocons). He'd have the largest share of independents seen since Reagan over Carter.

Ron Paul defeating Obama would completely make up for Goldwater losing to LBJ.

(04-14-2010 11:15 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-14-2010 11:05 AM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(04-14-2010 10:56 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Paul would be a shoo-in if the MSM were honest.

Ron Paul can't get his own party's nomination and is largely unelectable outside of his congressional district. That's not the media's fault.

So I guess you think Rasmussen only polled people in his district for this poll? He can't get his own party's bid because the media won't give him any air time.

People like libertarian ideas from a distance, but they've consistently rejected them from up close. Many libertarians and libertarian sympathizers like to think there's grand conspiracy that keeps their ideas suppressed, but reality shows us that libertarian candidates tank over and over and over and over at the ballot box. Ron Paul rasied just shy of $35 million in his primary campaign, and it got him nowhere. He couldn't win anything. Sorry libertarians, but voters just don't like the message.

(04-14-2010 11:30 AM)GilWinant Wrote:  People like libertarian ideas from a distance, but they've consistently rejected them from up close. Many libertarians and libertarian sympathizers like to think there's grand conspiracy that keeps their ideas suppressed, but reality shows us that libertarian candidates tank over and over and over and over at the ballot box. Ron Paul rasied just shy of $35 million in his primary campaign, and it got him nowhere. He couldn't win anything. Sorry libertarians, but voters just don't like the message.

So long as the mainstream media has a self-interest in the two party system that perpetuates a system of bigger government and more special interest deals (and if you don't think it does, you should look up who owns the media and what sort of campaign funds they dole out), it will continue to ignore other contingents.

Hell, if you're a third party, you can't even get on the damn ballot in some states. We go around the world "promoting Democracy" when we do a pretty awful job of it here.

(04-14-2010 09:45 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...on_paul_41

On the front page of Drudge right now.

I like Paul, but I just thought of something. Could he find enough people that think like him to fill his cabinet, or to make a difference.

(04-14-2010 11:44 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(04-14-2010 11:30 AM)GilWinant Wrote:  People like libertarian ideas from a distance, but they've consistently rejected them from up close. Many libertarians and libertarian sympathizers like to think there's grand conspiracy that keeps their ideas suppressed, but reality shows us that libertarian candidates tank over and over and over and over at the ballot box. Ron Paul rasied just shy of $35 million in his primary campaign, and it got him nowhere. He couldn't win anything. Sorry libertarians, but voters just don't like the message.

So long as the mainstream media has a self-interest in the two party system that perpetuates a system of bigger government and more special interest deals (and if you don't think it does, you should look up who owns the media and what sort of campaign funds they dole out), it will continue to ignore other contingents.

Hell, if you're a third party, you can't even get on the damn ballot in some states. We go around the world "promoting Democracy" when we do a pretty awful job of it here.

Ron Paul was in the media plenty in 2008. His problem is that most people didn't find him or his ideas to be credible. He's raised plenty of cash from his supporters to put out ads and zip around primary states, so he had the resources that candidates need. 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.

I do agree with your complaints about ballot access, but I don't agree that the implication that the media kept Ron Paul from gaining traction. He was all over the radio and news.

(04-14-2010 11:50 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  I like Paul, but I just thought of something. Could he find enough people that think like him to fill his cabinet, or to make a difference.

There are far more true fiscal conservatives out there then you might think. They get overshadowed by the core of the GOP only being fiscally conservative when it suits them, but there are many who are in line with Paul on fiscal issues that simply aren't outspoken like him.

(04-14-2010 11:52 AM)GilWinant Wrote:  Ron Paul was in the media plenty in 2008.

Once again, your memory is faulty.

(04-14-2010 09:45 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...on_paul_41

On the front page of Drudge right now.

First, Rasmussen again? Lets see. In a CNN poll Paul gets 8% of the vote in a list of a lot of Republican names Gingrich, Palin, Romney, Huckabee Gingrich, etc. Granted, this isn't the same question(ie. matchup between the 2) but looking at the results of matchups between other Republicans in the CNN poll(Romney was closest between Romney, Palin and Gingrich) and Paul's lack of standing in overall poll seems to indicate that poll mught be just slightly off(as the CNN might as well) so somewhere in between seems like a good bet-like 5%-6% difference in favor of Obama.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images.../rel7d.pdf

(04-14-2010 12:32 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-14-2010 11:52 AM)GilWinant Wrote:  Ron Paul was in the media plenty in 2008.

Once again, your memory is faulty.

He kind of was. After he talked about legalization of marijuana and hemp and how he did not agree with the war in Iraq during a debate, you couldn't turn away from him. From Hannity saying that he didn't like his stance on Iraq, to Maddow saying how much she loved the thought of drug legalization; he was on TV all the time.

(04-14-2010 12:50 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-14-2010 12:32 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-14-2010 11:52 AM)GilWinant Wrote:  Ron Paul was in the media plenty in 2008.

Once again, your memory is faulty.

He kind of was. After he talked about legalization of marijuana and hemp and how he did not agree with the war in Iraq during a debate, you couldn't turn away from him. From Hannity saying that he didn't like his stance on Iraq, to Maddow saying how much she loved the thought of drug legalization; he was on TV all the time.

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.

(04-14-2010 01:18 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(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.

(04-14-2010 01:30 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(04-14-2010 01:18 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(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?

I like Paul and would vote for him in a heartbeat. But I don't think he'd win a presidential election. It wouldn't even be close.

First, without getting into specifics, he'd have to moderate some of his positions to get a wider chunk of the mainstream. "Scale back" finds a wide audience. "Completely repeal and eliminate" makes people nervous. I'm not saying the positions are right or wrong here, I'm strictly looking at his actual, realistic chances with the broad public.

Secondly, his age will become a factor much like it did for McCain. At this point, it'd be better for Paul to pass the torch to a younger, more charismatic politician who holds the same ideals.

Thirdly, back in the 1980s I believe, the story goes as follows: Ron Paul sponsored a series of newsletters where various writers would contribute. Anyhow, a couple of the anonymous contributors inserted racially charged comments. Almost like a blog before it's time. Paul lent his name to the newsletters and was a bit irresponsible in letting these comments slip by without keeping tabs on what was going into these newsletters, but he's not a racist and doesn't endorse those viewpoints. However, you can bet this would be distorted and pounced upon if Paul presented a serious challenge to the White House. As we've seen countless times, the race card can be effectively thrown without any regard to the actual truth and background of the situation.

All that said, I fully respect Paul for being one of the sole, vocal Congressmen sticking to his true small government ideals, and openly deriding the GOP (with full use of the term "neocons") during the debates in 2008 and not always toeing the party line. Good man.

(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......

The media pays attention to the front runners.

(04-14-2010 01:43 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(04-14-2010 01:30 PM)GilWinant Wrote:  

(04-14-2010 01:18 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(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?

You just can't argue with the logic of a leftist. After all they do suffer a mental disorder.