Paul has never had a sustained period where he polled in first or second nationally. Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich and Cain all have. By top story metrics over large periods of time you would expect all of them to get more coverage than paul, provided the media was shoving paul at us. From the data I've seen, he was getting more mentions than cain when they pretty close to equal in the polls (pre florida). Do you think the media also has an anti-Cain bias?

steeeeeeeeellllllhhhhhooooouuuuuuse

The study started in May of this year, and at no point in this year has Gingrich gotten more than 15% or higher than third in a national poll. And aside from PPP polls in which he's consistently polled in better than the RCP national average, he hasn't polled above 11% nationally since March.

lol, Max Raker just begs the question that the media follows the news rather than engineering it at times, which has been shown to be false. I mean did the media really start hyping Cain after he trended upward, or before assisting in Cain's upward trend? Max Raker though ignorantly marches down the same path saying 'everyone who is popular gets media coverage' as though that in itself PROVES there's no bias. no amount of direct proof of media blackouts, or double-standards will make Max Raker realize that candidates often trend upward because the media follows them first, and not the other way around.

This shows Gingrich as the clear 2nd as late as May. And Gingrich never getting higher than 15% this year (like Paul) is probably why he hasn't gotten Romney, Perry, or (now) Cain level coverage over the last few months. Or you know... some sort of infinitely fine tuned anti-newt bias.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tion-1452.html

I'm somewhat in disbelief Cain has risen to the top of the polls. His candidacy and proposals are comical at best.

yeah so one data point has Gingrich at 2nd. this proves that the media follows the news rather than engineering it in politics. ( ) for someone who appeals to empericism, he sure has no shame in promoting and unfalsifiable doctrine. and it's hilariously naive to believe as a null hypothesis that the media treats everyone equally out of some idea of 'journalistic integrity'. he may be good at math but sucks at philosophy. nobody has an angel on their shoulder to tell them to report unbaisedly, and even if they did there's still subjectivity in that. people choose what facts are relevant, and what isn't based on their own subjective interpretation of objectivity. though, I do think rational people would agree that the Iowa straw poll reporting was a clear indication of the media engineering news than the other way around, Max is unwilling to concede that much because he believes dogmatically RP isn't news by virtue of being RP.

I don't think he's serious anyway, just trolling for attention, imo.

Why is it that people regard Gingrich as intelligent?

Max - you obviously don't like Ron Paul. Is this virtue of him being old, not the greatest speaker, creatonist/religious, from the south and has had racist newsletter authored in his name, or is it his libertarian beliefs? If it isn't the latter, would you support a moderate libertarian candidate without these qualities you find undesirable for president (as opposed to Obama or Cain/Romney/etc)?

my trolling scale:

chael sonnen: 10/10
nick rivers: 9/10
max raker: 4/10

max, you don't impress me. try harder.

edit: suzzer: 1/10

second edit: actually, suzzer: 0/10

who cares who or what max supports? just laugh at him for completely ignoring blatant and documented media bias, pretending like it doesn't even exist.

he's not here to have a discussion AK, he's here to troll, and this bit about the media bias makes it pretty obvious.

elitism, imo.

+1

newt gingrich: 3/10
herman cain: niyen/10. ****, herman, get your hands off my keyboard. 5/10

in before suzzer quotes this post and accuses me of making a reducto (sic) ad absurdum argument.

It's pretty crazy to think how somebody like you could be so totally sure of something involving math and graphs. But the key lesson is if you just look at Paul's (or any candidate's) coverage in isolation it is always trivially easy to find fine tuned reasons why they are being treated differently from all the rest. But if you first look at the total coverage of all candidates and then try to see if anything sticks out about Candidate A or B or C you (or well, somebody) will have a very hard time showing anything anomalous with Paul or candidate B etc.

lollllll

this, too, makes it obvious.

the media:ron paul::max raker:me!

in before the ny times puts out a story on my eyebrows being fake.

Well I would find it funny if he supported either establishment party, so it's worth throwing out there. He isn't going anywhere.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=5660

what max raker sees:

yeah, Max has around 1/4 posters on ignore I'm guessing.

true. max has my respect for putting me on ignore, i guess. i am obviously a bit of a troll myself. i'm a troll who's not a politics ******, though.

Newt has definitely gotten more favorable coverage than Ron Paul on FOX. In the debate analysis, they often talk about how well he did.

Ok. But that probably has alot to do with Gingrich being a fox news employee up until recently also.