He would be a "shoe-in" for the Presidency if he gets the "Colbert Bump" just a few months leading up to the election.

It's not fear. I think it's that they believe they were falling all over each other to interview him 2008, so as to promote their own stations. They (the media) would get a lot of coverage on U-tube and in turn a lot more voters.

This was actually stated by a pundit on one of the cable networks. He claimed that the media built him up with their coverage to gain ratings.

This time, I think the special interests have passed a law requiring the "controlled media" to tone down the coverage, because all he ends up doing is taking away votes from one of the 2 who actually have a chance.

You don't need cable. Just go to thedailyshow.com and you can watch the complete episode and there are several archived. They also have a forum.

Interesting. How do you see progressives definition of liberty & freedom?

"If you give up a little bit of your liberties, you give up 100% of the principle." Ron Paul 25Aug11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYy7t36F2IA 4:45

"The general principle [if elected] is to protect liberty & to get people to understand what it is and where it comes from. Believing if you understand it, everything else falls in place. Whether it's monetary policy, economic policy, property rights, defense of one's self, contracts,........[that these liberties do not come from the government]

The other thing is in combination with obeying the Oath of Office, which is obeying the Constitution. Even though I don't consider the Constitution perfect, I consider the principle of the rule of law very important, and that we shouldn't ignore the Constitution when we disagree with it."

Ron Paul 25Aug11 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYy7t36F2IA 10:41

"Not very" would be my summary. Mostly criticizes him for being a pussy towards the Republicans.

Lol... that probably the best description of what happened here. The media covering the "should the media cover rp more" led him to getting more attention than he probably deserved. Not that the media has ever ignored him...

here's a funny clip

http://www.hulu.com/watch/268845/the...our#s-p3-sr-i1

I kind of agree with this. We (RP supporters) should have just lightly beat the drum and stuck the bias (aka Stewarts piece) in our back pockets. As is we kind of blew our proverbial 'media bias nut' and possibly rendered ourselves (closer to) impotent when it comes to playing this card in a better spot down the line.

^Funny clip. "I thought we could but it turns out the other guys are *******s."

I think it is dangerous to assume that there is going to be a spot down the line. After the first few primaries, if paul comes in 4th or 5th and shows no signs of being able to win the nomination, all you guys can do is yell "its the medias fault" but nobody (even less than the people paying attention now) will be listening to paul/paul supporters by then.

Well we know he'll probably stick it out to the end so yeah we'd have to assume he doesn't tank early. But it's going to be a long campaign and I don't see RP as having a base that erodes easily. He's only going to add people it's just a matter of how much when obv. Basically I just don't think the 'not fair' bump is going to matter like it could based on timing.

Then again it could play out in Iowa in Feb all over again. If RP wins Iowa does it matter?

i hope he runs as a third party candidate if he doesn't lucksack the repub nom or get murdered

He will still have his supporters, but we aren't talking about what his supporters are going to do. We are talking about how much coverage he gets and how much non supporters are going to hear about him

I don't think it is a matter of fact he is going to add people. If it becomes close between say romney and perry some people that previously would have voted for paul may decide to vote for one of the 2 main candidates if they really hate the other one.

In terms of media coverage, of course. They will be asking, if RP is a candidate that can win a a national nomination process. Irrational supporters will forget the obvious fact that Iowa winners often have gone on to lose the nomination by a huge margin and he still likely won't be a favorite even if he wins iowa...but for a non serious candidate like rp winning iowa would be by far his biggest achievement on a national stage, and very likely a bigger achievement than he will ever actually accomplish.

that is literally what he just said....

So max will you ever comment on the empirical evidence showing Ron Paul was getting less coverage? (the graph of news stories about presidential coverage)

You keep saying he wasnt getting less but you have been presented with evidence while not showing any to support your claim

No it isn't. He said rp supporters should have played the "media is ignoring us card" later. I am saying there probably isn't going to be a later. It is very hard to claim that the media is unfairly ignoring somebody coming in 4th or 5th in every state. Just play the card now, when people start counting the votes the argument that paul should be getting more attention is going to be harder to sensibly make.

I haven't seen any empirical evidence

I am saying he is not getting less total coverage (minutes being talked about etc) than he deserves. And he certainly was not getting less coverage because of media fear/conspiracy to silence an old crackpot that much of the country doesn't want to hear about anyway.

Bodog odds:

US Presidential Election - Republican Nominee

Rick Perry 5/4
Mitt Romney 2/1
Sarah Palin 10/1
Jon Hunstman 12/1
Ron Paul 12/1
Michele Bachmann 14/1
Rudy Giuliani 25/1
Herman Cain 40/1
Newt Gingrich 40/1
Gary Johnson 50/1
Rick Santorum 50/1

RP was 20/1 on Aug 16th. Link

****'s gettin real

Huntsman 12/1??? lol

good afternoon mr max. since you enjoy throwing out "facts" such as this, allow me to correct you (i acknowledge that you will subsequently not acknowledge you were wrong, but thats ok)

democrats: 6 of 10 winners went on to win nomination. 1 of 10 lost to "uncommitted" by 9%. the other 3 lost by 73%, 13%, and 9%.

republicans: 6 of 9 winners went on to win nomination. other 3 lost by 21%, 18%, 2%

12 out of 19 won nomination - that's ~60% if my mathemagics serves me correctly. of the 7 losers, i'd call 3 or 4 a blowout

i look forward to you correcting your "obvious facts"

the new pawlenty obviously

.

lol

So ~20% of candidates that win Iowa get blown out, according to you. So if your point is I shouldn't have said "often" that is fine. (Granted if paul wins iowa he has a much higher chance of not winning the nomination than an average iowa winner because romney not trying in iowa, paul not polling in the top 2 nationally etc) Other than that I'm not sure what point you are trying to make (if any?). A candidate can win Iowa and still never be the favorite to win the nomination.... seems like an obvious fact.

my point is that you like to spread misinformation and refuse to do research or backup what you're saying

"obvious fact that Iowa winners often have gone on to lose the nomination by a huge margin" != "20% lose nomination, and about half of those by a huge margin"

but i hear you're really smart, so i'm sure you already know that