Hold The Ron Paul Stuff
Aug 16th, 2011 | 27 responses
Where’s Ron Paul in all the Iowa straw poll coverage? You’ll remember he came in a close second.
John Stewart asks, “How did libertarian Ron Paul become the [political equivalent of] the 13th floor in a hotel?”
Watch…
Politico’s Roger Simon agrees Paul got shafted. But Kevin Drum says no, Ron Paul doesn’t deserve any more attention:
Ron Paul isn’t getting any attention because he doesn’t deserve any attention, and Simon knows it. Paul has a small but fervent fan base that hasn’t grown noticeably since he ran and flamed out in 2008, and he has a well-known (but meaningless) ability to fire up this little fan base for assorted minor events like this. That’s his organizational ability and everyone is keenly aware of it. At the presidential level, he deserves about as much respect as Harold Stassen.
Doug Mataconis at OTB goes further:
[N]o candidate is entitled to free media coverage, and no candidate is entitled to be taken seriously by the media. Especially if the odds of them becoming the nominee are roughly equivalent to the odds of Lady Gaga entering the convent… If you look beyond those straw polls to actual candidate polls, Paul is currently averaging 9% nationwide. In the most recent Des Moines Register Poll of Iowa caucus voters, he received the support of 7% of those polled, far below the 27% he managed to garner in the Ames Straw Poll. Given the lack of correlation between the scientific polls and the straw poll with respect to Paul specifically, it seems fairly clear that winning those straw polls doesn’t really mean that he’s any kind of a frontrunner… Ron Paul isn’t going to get the same coverage as Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann, and it’s because, in the end, he’s so far out of step with the GOP base that he isn’t going to get the nomination.
What, dear readers, do you think?
The title of this post is a quote from an August 12 CNN report highlighted in Stewart’s piece.
27 Responses to “Hold The Ron Paul Stuff”
because RP wants to start an unpredictable and massive amount of change.
According to that logic, none of the candidates that are polling less than him should get any attention, but they are.
As I pointed out yesterday, only Romney and the generic Republican poll better than Paul against Obama. Of those, only the generic Republican is ahead of Obama.
Even if the stated reasons are true, it’s an unfortunate sign that the media creates a self fulfilling prophecy in pushing the bandwagon effect.
Ron Paul isn’t going to get the same coverage as Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann, and it’s because, in the end, he’s so far out of step with the GOP base that he isn’t going to get the nomination.
The primaries are supposed to decide who gets the nomination, not the media. If nothing else the media should be noticing how popular Paul’s ideas are with many Republicans.
Maybe the Herd is extra-touchy about the greater need for reform than ever.
What will they be doing four years from now?
Dr. Paul is the only candidate of either party to question the neo-conservative world view; hence the snubs. Paul may do surprisingly well in open primary states where independents and disgruntled Democrats may well cross over to support him. He will be harder to ignore at that point.
Ron Paul only fell short of winning by a few hundred votes. What would have happened if he won? Does he still not deserve any attention?
The problem with the argument presented by Drum and Mataconis is this: if Ron Paul doesn’t deserve any attention, despite his near-win, because he has no chance of becoming president, then why does the stroll poll deserve any attention anyway? If we only care about the results if they confirm what we already know, then what was the point?
Really, I think the coverage of the straw poll, considering it is a fake election, was overblown to begin with. But if you’re going to cover it, you have to cover it fairly. That includes pointing out, without qualification or snickering, that Ron Paul did well.
The straw poll is as reliable as the first house the Three Little Pigs built.
Ron is an enigma to some because he often speaks some uncomfortable truths. But they are mixed in with Utopian/impractical concepts delivered in a desperate high- pitched voice by a non-politician sounding old short guy.
There is also the slight detail that Paul’s votes in these events always come from the same small group of acolytes that travels around trying to overwhelm small events and thus exaggerate their true numbers.
After 4 years of watching the same small groups of Paul-bots spamming everything they can find but then turning out to perform in the 2-4% range nationally, it seems reasonable to dismiss him as a one-trick pony and deny him the spotlight he craves.
And all of that is even without considering his record of racism and bizarre conspiracy theories.
I should clarify: Paul’s “record of racism” that I refer to involves his by-name association with and endorsement of a newsletter that published blatantly racist material in the 1990s, not the “everyone who criticizes Obama is a racist” version that seems quite popular among some around here lately.
A major reason Paul never seems to expand beyond his fan base is that his fellow Republicans routinely slaughter him in the debates. He has to be the worst debater the libertarian wing of the party has ever put forward: confused, off topic, unable to directly answer even the most easily answerable barbs thrown at him. Anyone from the editorial board of Reason magazine could outperform him on the podium.
that all being said… he should be invited to all of the debates as long as he polls at a reasonable number.
[...] Hold The Ron Paul Stuff (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
And he’s not that much of a libertarian. Check out his socially conservative stands on gay rights and abortion rights.
I think Jon Stewart’s assessment of the situation speaks for itself.
His argument is not that Ron Paul deserves exactly as much attention as Romney, Perry, or Bachman but that there is a huge disconnect between the media’s assessment of Ron Paul’s support and reality. As Jon Stewart clearly showed, the talking heads avoided talking about Ron Paul even as they went out of their way to mention other third-tier candidates (i.e. Fox News: “We haven’t mentioned–and we should–Rick Santorum” and CNN: “Let’s not count our John Huntsman, though”) who have but a fraction of the support that Ron Paul has.
I disagree with you on the facts, Nick. I think it has become obvious that Paul’s support is a mirage, an illusion concocted by a tiny number of supporters who flock to straw polls and who use google alerts to spam blogs and who use physical intimidation at caucuses (first-hand witness), but who do not amount to anything significant in the general electorate.
Add to that the fact that Paul’s long-established record of extremism and his associations with racists and conspiracy theorists makes it impossible for him to ever hope to expand his appeal beyond the ranks of those already enrolled, and it seems proper not to reward his supporters for their attempts to manipulate the media by giving them precisely the out-of-proportion attention that they seek.
As for Stewart, he himself emphasizes that he is a comedian, not a journalist. He wants Paul to get exaggerated attention because Paul’s antics are good comedy. And I also do not think it is proper for Stewart to constantly switch back and forth between “I’m just a comedian, so don’t hold me responsible for acting like a journalist” and “ok, now I’m a serious commentator who should have an impact on the public debate.” He uses “I’m just a comedian” to dodge responsibility all the time, so now he should be stuck with that limitation.
LOL Ron Paul is saner than Rick Santorum, and he beat RS in the straw poll. Yet RS gets more press coverage than the second place finisher(?). What would one say if Paul finished behind Santorum, yet lame stream media trumpeted Paul…
Logan,
I think the problem with your argument is the same as the problem with the other commentators. If it is so easy for a perceived hopeless candidate to manipulate the system to score higher in polls than he should, then why should we pay attention to these polls?
I think you are making an argument for why the straw poll doesn’t matter, which I agree with. For heaven’s sake, you have to pay for a ticket! Why place does a poll like that deserve to have in a democracy? But, if the media is going to pay attention to it, they need to cover it fairly. They can’t say that the poll means Bachmann’s support is strong and at the same time say that it means nothing about Paul. If they dismiss Paul because he is extreme or has not been successful in the past, that has no place in objective election coverage. It is not the media’s place to tell me someone is too extreme to deserve my consideration.
Logan,
I’m not aware of any nationwide poll that shows either Rick Santorum or Jon Huntsman receiving anywhere near as much support as Ron Paul.
In the Ames Straw poll, Santorum polled in 4th place with 1,657 votes while Jon Huntsman polled in 9th place with 69 votes. Both polled behind Ron Paul, who polled in second place with 4,671 votes. Yet Fox News and CNN saw fit to mention Santorum and Huntsman and not Ron Paul.
If people decide not to make a big deal of the results of the Ames Straw Poll on the grounds that it is not representative of Republican voters nationwide, then I can certainly understand that argument. But when cable news networks mention the 4th and 9th place finishers while neglecting to mention the 2nd place finisher, it’s hard to argue that there is not some kind of bias going on.
Well, the part about Paul that rankles me is the crank behavior that constantly is exhibited about fiat money and the Federal Reserve System. Despite how Paul appears to believe so often, few things really can be blamed on fiat money or the Federal Reserve System, instead of nearly everything, as Paul often seems to believe.
Nick, the wealth of data confirming that Ron Paul is NOT a viable candidate for President is overwhelming. Thus, it is not the fact that he receives no attention that needs explaining. Perhaps it is a legitimate complaint that Huntsman and Santorum do receive attention out-of-proportion to any evidence of their viability, but I don’t know for certain that such evidence of viability does not exist. Evidence of Paul’s NON-viability not only exists, but is overwhelming.
Also, it might be that the freaky behavior of Paul’s supporters at any mention of his name may be acting as a deterrent towards anyone commenting about him.
But I don’t think the straw poll indicates anything about anything.
LP, you give up the fight before it has begun. You are thinking too sensibly and logically; let’s do it and fight about it later. I don’t think any reasonable person, even Allen, would disagree that Obama’s current road trip is campaigning. Palin’s would be harder to prove.
Logan Penza said:
I don’t have any great way of measuring ‘viability’. I can only report the data that I am aware of am point out arguments that are inconsistent with the data.
Last month, Rasmussen Reports released the results of a host of surveys asking Likely Voters to choose between Obama and potential Republican opponents. The results were as follows:
Obama: 42%
Romney: 43%
Obama: 41%
Paul: 37%
Obama: 44%
Giuliani: 39%
Obama: 44%
Perry: 39%
Obama: 46%
Bachmann: 39%
Rasmussen Reports went on to add:
In other words, among voters who are ‘likely’ to vote in the 2012 general election, Ron Paul actually polls quite well against Obama relative to other Republican candidates.
Nick, I am using Paul’s demonstrated failure to back up his performance in staged events like straw polls with anything even close to the same level in actual open contests. Comparison polls done in the absence of an actual nomination and election contest are just as meaningless as a straw poll, because they are “cheap talk” by respondents.
I am also relying on the fact that Paul is demonstrably crazy, as proven by his long-time association with conspiracy theorists. Unless you could guarantee that the equally nutty Dennis Kucinich was his opponent, the fact is that Ron Paul is not and will never be a viable candidate for President of the United States.
My response is here:
http://themoderatevoice.com/119867/media-mainstream-embracing-disappointingly-ignorant-advocates/
Logan Penza said:
Logan, are you sure you really want to wade into the “guilt by association” argument?
As I recall, polls showed that Republicans were more likely to believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks (a theory than has long since been disproven). Polls also showed that Republicans were more likely to believe that Obama is not an American citizen (a claim that has hopefullly been laid to rest with the release of Obama’s birth certificate).
Rather relying upon “guilt by association” arguments against Republicans or Democrats or any particular group or politician that one doesn’t care for, wouldn’t it be better to judge them based upon their ideas?
You might argue that the Ames Straw Poll is essentially meaningless (an argument that adelinesdad agreed with above). Unfortunately, the media cannot claim to have taken the same high road that you have. For weeks, they have gone on and on about how important the Ames Straw Poll is. And now that the results are in, the media is going on ad nauseum about how important Bachmann’s straw poll win is to her while largely ignoring the fact that Ron Paul finished less than 1% behind her.
Fox News’ congratulations to 4th place finisher Rick Santorum and CNN’s shout out to 9th place finisher Jon Huntsman (while neglecting to mention Ron Paul’s 2nd place finish) just goes to show how ludicrious the media coverage disparity has become.
[...] Hold The Ron Paul Stuff (themoderatevoice.com) Share this:Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]