• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

New Iowa Poll Places Ron Paul Firmly in First, with 25%

It isn't media bias that suggests Iowa isn't a very good predicter; it's statistics. As to why Paul is doing so well in Iowa, it's because he has invested far more time and money in the state than anyone else. I was listening to a reporter the other day who's been spending time there and he said that Paul is running TV ads constantly, whereas you rarely saw one for another candidate.

But I'm sure his debate performances and the weak field are also contributing.

I agree that the media, and pundits on both sides of the aisle, generally dismiss him.
 
AdamT said:
It isn't media bias that suggests Iowa isn't a very good predicter; it's statistics.
Click to expand...

The media has never had any issue treating Iowa as a predictive race. It is not about what is the reality, but what the media says is the reality. Whether the person who wins Iowa typically wins the nomination or not, that person still becomes one of the chief contenders for the nomination in the eyes of the media. Naturally, a Ron Paul victory there would change that tendency.
 
Demon of Light said:
The media has never had any issue treating Iowa as a predictive race. It is not about what is the reality, but what the media says is the reality. Whether the person who wins Iowa typically wins the nomination or not, that person still becomes one of the chief contenders for the nomination in the eyes of the media. Naturally, a Ron Paul victory there would change that tendency.
Click to expand...

Making excuses for failing before you fail is hilarious.
 
Dav said:
On the other hand, I'm considering voting for Paul just as a protest vote for the lousy field we ended up with. I wonder how many other people are doing the same?
Click to expand...

I don't think many people are supporting Paul as a protest vote in regards to the lousy GOP field. I think that the overwhelmingly majority of supporters will vote for Paul because they genuinely like his stances and think he is the best candidate.

His support would probably go down a notch if there were really a consistent, likeable conservative in the field.
Click to expand...

There is already one of those in the field. His name is Ron Paul.
 
Redress said:
Making excuses for failing before you fail is hilarious.
Click to expand...

How is that an excuse for potential failure? Saying the media will suddenly not treat the Iowa caucus as a major gauge of the race in the event of a Ron Paul victory is not an excuse for anything. I was pointing out the failed presumption that the media would react the way they normally do to such a victory even if it was a Ron Paul victory.
 
Demon of Light said:
The media has never had any issue treating Iowa as a predictive race. It is not about what is the reality, but what the media says is the reality. Whether the person who wins Iowa typically wins the nomination or not, that person still becomes one of the chief contenders for the nomination in the eyes of the media. Naturally, a Ron Paul victory there would change that tendency.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I think the media generally says that Iowa isn't all that influential. Whoever wins it, they will certainly point out that it didn't do much for Huckabee.
 
Demon of Light said:
How is that an excuse for potential failure? Saying the media will suddenly not treat the Iowa caucus as a major gauge of the race in the event of a Ron Paul victory is not an excuse for anything. I was pointing out the failed presumption that the media would react the way they normally do to such a victory even if it was a Ron Paul victory.
Click to expand...

The first thing that happens after every Iowa Caucus is the media talks about how it is not predictive. Further, you are assuming that they will do something, and based on that presumption, acting the victim. This is typical of Paul supporters. It's not that his views are out of the mainstream, it's not that he presents his ideas poorly, it's not that what he considers important most people do not, it's all the media's fault.
 
The best scenario would be for Paul to have some primary success, get the hopes of the Randroids sky high, have them hugely disappointed when the party will not come near Paul with a ten foot pole and then have RP go rogue and third party.
 
I would hope that if Ron Paul wins Iowa the media will crown him the new "anti-Romney" (as they have with Bachman, Perry, Cain, now Gingrich) and give him a little spotlight. It would really be a shame if they did not. He deserves an opportunity to have his ideas vetted. I think its crazy that alot of people in the media write off Ron Paul as being unelectable while they are willing to take people like Bachman and Cain seriously.
 
nathanj63 said:
I would hope that if Ron Paul wins Iowa the media will crown him the new "anti-Romney" (as they have with Bachman, Perry, Cain, now Gingrich) and give him a little spotlight. It would really be a shame if they did not. He deserves an opportunity to have his ideas vetted. I think its crazy that alot of people in the media write off Ron Paul as being unelectable while they are willing to take people like Bachman and Cain seriously.
Click to expand...

Why would they do that when no other candidate has had that done for him?

Also note that Cain is more electable on a national stage than Paul.
 
AdamT said:
I don't know, I think the media generally says that Iowa isn't all that influential. Whoever wins it, they will certainly point out that it didn't do much for Huckabee.
Click to expand...

Redress said:
The first thing that happens after every Iowa Caucus is the media talks about how it is not predictive.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between hedging and attempting to demean a victory. While the media frequently talk about it not being predictive or malign the way these early states are given such focus, it is a phenomena they gladly contribute to perpetuating. How many times did people criticize Giuliani for ignoring those early states? On one hand the media says these states are meaningless yet in their reporting they frequently imply that they are deeply significant to the outcome of the election. So far that has worked out well for the establishment that controls the media, because various other tools in place to control the outcomes of elections have yet to allow anyone undesirable to sneak in with a victory that upsets the perception.

Further, you are assuming that they will do something, and based on that presumption, acting the victim. This is typical of Paul supporters. It's not that his views are out of the mainstream, it's not that he presents his ideas poorly, it's not that what he considers important most people do not, it's all the media's fault.
Click to expand...

I have never suggested these things do not limit him in some respect, but that he has other qualities making him desirable and those qualities you mention are not quite the detriment that the media claims. He went from 1% nationally back at the beginning of the 2008 campaign to regularly getting around 10% nationally this time. Even as the numbers change the arguments from the media show little to no change. Also, at times their efforts to suppress Ron Paul border on the blatantly absurd. Like Fox News reporting the Nevada caucus results and neglecting to put up Paul's image or mention his name between Romney and McCain when announcing the results. This 89 seconds bit more recently on CBS is another example of the rather blatant way the media has gone about trying to keep voters from paying attention to Ron Paul.

You can keep regurgitating the establishmentarian talking points you have been indoctrinated with, but you cannot do much to argue against the clear and persistent pattern of suppressing coverage of Ron Paul.
 
He is desirable to about 10 % of the population of the US. 10 % is it. It is constant. It is not the media's fault he is a fringe element candidate.
 
Redress said:
The first thing that happens after every Iowa Caucus is the media talks about how it is not predictive.
Click to expand...

Good points. A caucus is not necessarily predictive. Those who are organized and encouraged to show up at a caucus do not necessarily constitute a representative sample of voters. As a result, the outcome of a caucus may have little or no value as far as the primary process is concerned, even if it gives a candidate temporary bragging rights.

In the end, Paul's candidacy will again very likely fail for the reasons it has in the past (views out of step with the general public, lack of ability to align support to those views, lack of willingness to adjust views given failure to align support for those views, etc.). The media will not be the cause of his very likely failure.
 
Well, If he wins Iowa then Bachmann, and Santorum will drop. If it somehow carries to NH (or even a close second) then everyone but Cain (southern states) & Romney will drop. I think Cain will drop unexpectedly somewhere and Romney will be devastated losing his home-turf which will show weakness. The not-romney crowd will be like "Hey, Paul just won two important states and he is the only not-romney left who has a chance (media buzz).". Thus it will be a showdown between the two and hope Paul comes out the winner. In debates going head to head Paul truimphs both Cain & Romney repeatedly so that should help too.

That how it plays out in my mind.
 
Last edited:
jasonxe said:
Well, If he wins Iowa then Bachmann, and Santorum will drop. If it somehow carries to NH (or even a close second) then everyone but Cain (southern states) & Romney will drop. I think Cain will drop unexpectedly somewhere and Romney will be devastated losing his home-turf which will show weakness. The not-romney crowd will be like "Hey, Paul just won two important states and he is the only not-romney left who has a chance (media buzz).". Thus it will be a showdown between the two and hope Paul comes out the winner. In debates going head to head Paul truimphs both Cain & Romney repeatedly so that should help too.

That how it plays out in my mind.
Click to expand...

He is almost certain to not win Iowa, and I doubt any one will drop before Florida maybe.
 
The also-rans aren't going to drop out any time soon. They're following the Palin/Huckabee/Gingrich model: pretend to be a player and then cash in your chips as a conservative TV/radio personality.
 
Redress said:
So in an imaginary hypothetical that probably won't happen, he might, maybe, a year from now, maybe possibly only come in third out of three candidates. You are so right, he is much more popular than I thought...
Click to expand...

Just don't even bother Redress. These people will go through any lengths to maintain their delusion that Ron Paul is somehow mainstream enough to get more than a small token chunk of the vote. Just let him lose like he always does and laugh at all the conspiracy theories claiming it's all the media's fault once he does.
 
Dav said:
Just don't even bother Redress. These people will go through any lengths to maintain their delusion that Ron Paul is somehow mainstream enough to get more than a small token chunk of the vote. Just let him lose like he always does and laugh at all the conspiracy theories claiming it's all the media's fault once he does.
Click to expand...

Im pretty sure some people will but I stopped caring. I'm happy he got the attention he deserved last debate and hopefully he gets nominated. As far as redress, he never liked Ron Paul so whenever you see something pro-paul, except him to come in. The only conspiracy I currently thinking about is whether or not Redress is Dick Morris. :D j/p



Although I already proved in the past that there was media bias against him so no need to dwell on it anymore. Better to move on from now and correct common misconceptions about him.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
The also-rans aren't going to drop out any time soon. They're following the Palin/Huckabee/Gingrich model: pretend to be a player and then cash in your chips as a conservative TV/radio personality.
Click to expand...

Bachmann is already a rep. Cain is already successful in several areas. Mittens is rich by any standard. Huntsman has been successful in government before and will likely have some advisory capacity in any GOP administration. Paul is a Senator already and isnt in it for the money. Santorum, meh dunno but possible. So, in reality you have maybe Santorum possibly cashing in. Your post lacks something in the way of credibility, kinda like your lean.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Bachmann is already a rep. Cain is already successful in several areas. Mittens is rich by any standard. Huntsman has been successful in government before and will likely have some advisory capacity in any GOP administration. Paul is a Senator already and isnt in it for the money. Santorum, meh dunno but possible. So, in reality you have maybe Santorum possibly cashing in. Your post lacks something in the way of credibility, kinda like your lean.
Click to expand...

Cash in was probably a bad choice of words. I think it has more to do with ego than an actual monetary motive, though for some I think it's both.
 
There is no reason to show any respect for Ron Paul or his followers because he is merely the next election spoiler.

He is no different that R. Ross Perot, who was really just a spoiler against H. Bush Sr, giving the election to Clinton. Ron Paul is no different that Ralph Nader, who gave the election to W. Bush Jr.

95% of Ron Paul's attacks are against the Republican Party, Republican stances and Republican officials. Many if not most of Paul's supporters bitterly declare that if Ron Paul doesn't get the Republican nomination they would never vote for any of the other Republican candidates - meaning the reality is that Ron Paul and his supporters are in reality-effect campaigning for President Obama. Loyal to no one but himself, as a Libertarian he turned on the Libertarian candidate for president and as a Republican his campaign is built upon attacking Republicans.

Ron Paul is just the next guy to tap into angry white men - this time on the far right - in a campaign of he's against everything so anger filled white men define him as their anger guru. Thus other than some will name Gary Johnson, Ron Paul supporters are adament that of the billions of people on earth and so many candidates, only Ron Paul can save an otherwise doomed USA. His is not a campaign, it is a religion and he is the one and only high priest.

Ron Paul is a dispicable ancient old man who built a campaign around angry middle and lower class white men. Fortunately this will be his last failed campaign in his lifetime.

Send him more money, though. He needs to buy more even gold for himself to try to buy his way into heaven.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom