Is the mainstream media biased against Ron Paul?

[David S]

Ron Paul wins most of the internet polls. He won 17 of 36 straw polls and both of Fox News' text message polls. Yet the mainstream media rarely mentions him.

This article in MSNBC is a classic example: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/14/410525.aspx The article reports that Ron Paul won the GOP straw poll following the Conservative Leadership Conference with 33% of the vote. Romney came in second with 16%. From there the article goes on to talk about Romney, not Ron Paul. And the title of the article is not "Paul wins straw poll." Its "Romney loses straw poll."

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Internet polls, straw polls, and text message polls don't mean jack sh!t so no. As far as real polls go the most I've ever seen him at is 2%.

[David S]

Internet polls, straw polls, and text message polls don't mean jack sh!t so no. As far as real polls go the most I've ever seen him at is 2%.

Given that the article I linked to is about the straw poll, wouldn't it make sense to discuss the winner rather than the loser?

[opebo]

Not really.  They're biased against anyone remotely left-wing, like maybe Edwards.  Paul doesn't really threaten the people that own them.

[MODU]

Not any more so as they are against Huckabee, Brownback, Hunter, Richardson, Biden, etc.

[Eraserhead]

Internet polls, straw polls, and text message polls don't mean jack sh!t so no. As far as real polls go the most I've ever seen him at is 2%.

Gallup just put a new poll out today. He is up to 5%.

[MODU]

For how many things that I disagree with Paul on (primarily his extremes on some of the issues), I don't think I would have an issue with him as President.  I just don't see myself voting for him in a primary though (if VA had an open primary for independents to vote for anyone).

[Democratic Hawk]

Ron Paul belongs here:



Rather than here:



Dave

[David S]

Not any more so as they are against Huckabee, Brownback, Hunter, Richardson, Biden, etc.

The difference with the republicans you mentioned is that they are not doing well in any polls.
They didn't win the Fox news text message polls or very many internet polls. And in head to head competition with Ron Paul in straw polls they all lose badly.

Ron Paul's Head-to-Head Records (Win-Lose-Tie):
Ron Paul v. Rudy Giuliani 31-5-0
Ron Paul v. Mitt Romney 24-12-0
Ron Paul v. Fred Thompson 21-14-0
Ron Paul v. John McCain 32-3-0
Ron Paul v. Mike Huckabee 30-4-1
Ron Paul v. Sam Brownback 32-2-1
Ron Paul v. Tom Tancredo 33-1-0
Ron Paul v. Duncan Hunter 32-2-0

source:http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You do realize what a "straw poll" is, right?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Nothing compared to their bias against Gore, Dean, and Kerry.

[David S]

You do realize what a "straw poll" is, right?

The only polls that count are the primaries and the general election. But if you want to gage a candidates popularity prior to that then you need some other poll. The internet polls, straw polls and fox news text message polls usually follow a debate and the people who participate are usually people who saw the debate and were interested enough to take the poll. The mainstream polls usually telephone "likely voters" who are deemed to be representative of the overall population. Many of those folks did not see the debate and never heard of Ron Paul.

[MODU]

Not any more so as they are against Huckabee, Brownback, Hunter, Richardson, Biden, etc.

The difference with the republicans you mentioned is that they are not doing well in any polls.
They didn't win the Fox news text message polls or very many internet polls. And in head to head competition with Ron Paul in straw polls they all lose badly.

Ron Paul's Head-to-Head Records (Win-Lose-Tie):
Ron Paul v. Rudy Giuliani 31-5-0
Ron Paul v. Mitt Romney 24-12-0
Ron Paul v. Fred Thompson 21-14-0
Ron Paul v. John McCain 32-3-0
Ron Paul v. Mike Huckabee 30-4-1
Ron Paul v. Sam Brownback 32-2-1
Ron Paul v. Tom Tancredo 33-1-0
Ron Paul v. Duncan Hunter 32-2-0

source:http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

Not anything against Paul here, but internet polls and text messaging polls are tough to take seriously since they are not very scientific.  My belief would be the same if it were Rudy, McCain, or Romney leading the results as well.

[NDN]

Of course they're biased. Half the polls they make, they don't even include him! And when they do, they frequently downplay (or in some cases throw out) the results if he does even remotely well. And need I say anything about their coverage of the debates? IMO the media elites are just another special interest group in bed with the "front runners" in both parties which they not-so-subtly promote constantly.

[7,052,770]

the media is biased toward him for not exposing his ridiculous platform...

[David S]

the media is biased toward him for not exposing his ridiculous platform...

Peace, freedom and a belief in the constitution. Yes those are ridiculous ideas or at least they are to some Brits, which is why we kicked them the hell out of our country 200 years ago.

If you want socialism, tyranny and unending wars then Ron Paul is not your guy.

[Reluctant Republican]

the media is biased toward him for not exposing his ridiculous platform...

Peace, freedom and a belief in the constitution. Yes those are ridiculous ideas or at least they are to some Brits, which is why we kicked them the hell out of our country 200 years ago.

If you want socialism, tyranny and unending wars then Ron Paul is not your guy.

To be fair to Harry, I think he was talking about Paul's desire to abolish things like the department of Education and the like, which I can imagine a Liberal would have a bit of a problem with. Still, for Libertarians such as ourselves, Paul’s platform is music to our ears. I personally think Paul is a bit extreme on some issues, but I support him because he’s an honest, logical man who would also end the war faster then any of the “frontrunners“- Republican or Democratic. He’d also get the debt under control, or at least make more of an effort in doing so then any of our recent past presidents, and that is the other big issue to me. 

And the Brits are cool. Not as much as the Germans though, ha ha.

[David S]

the media is biased toward him for not exposing his ridiculous platform...

Peace, freedom and a belief in the constitution. Yes those are ridiculous ideas or at least they are to some Brits, which is why we kicked them the hell out of our country 200 years ago.

If you want socialism, tyranny and unending wars then Ron Paul is not your guy.

To be fair to Harry, I think he was talking about Paul's desire to abolish things like the department of Education and the like, which I can imagine a Liberal would have a bit of a problem with. Still, for Libertarians such as ourselves, Paul’s platform is music to our ears. I personally think Paul is a bit extreme on some issues, but I support him because he’s an honest, logical man who would also end the war faster then any of the “frontrunners“- Republican or Democratic. He’d also get the debt under control, or at least make more of an effort in doing so then any of our recent past presidents, and that is the other big issue to me. 

And the Brits are cool. Not as much as the Germans though, ha ha.

Well first I don't mean to be insulting to the Brits, or for that matter even to Harry. But I do like to rattle his cage from time to time when he makes some outrageous comment.

With regard to the Department of education - before 1980 it did not exist and most education was handled by the states or local  communities. But were our schools worse off or better off then? Before that American students were among the best in the world, but today they rank much lower. Before 1980 school shootings were very rare, but today they are common. When I started college back in  1967 tuition was $180 per term, but now it is much higher even when inflation is considered. So before the feds got involved education was cheaper, better and schools were safer. Furthermore there is no constitutional basis for federal involvement in education so under the 10th amendment they should not be in it all. So how crazy is it to advocate eliminating the dept?

[DanielX]

the media is biased toward him for not exposing his ridiculous platform...

His domestic policy is probably the most rational of all the ones being proposed in either party. His foreign policy, OTOH, is a bit on the loopy side.

[David S]

the media is biased toward him for not exposing his ridiculous platform...

His domestic policy is probably the most rational of all the ones being proposed in either party. His foreign policy, OTOH, is a bit on the loopy side.

Several of the other Republicans have proposed using nuclear weapons against Iran, a country that has not done anything to us.
Obama has suggested he might attack Pakistan, a country that has been somewhat helpful to us and which by the way has nuclear weapons.
Hillary says she would remove most of the troops from Iraq but leave a small force behind. But she doesn't say what she will do when that small force comes under heavy attack. She will either have to beat a speedy retreat while under attack or send  more troops back in for reinforcement or leave them there to be slaughtered.

Ron Paul would remove all the troops as quickly as is safely possible. He would also encourage peaceful trade relations with all nations but entangling alliances with none, and no empire building. This is exactly what the founders recommended.

So who is loopy?

[ag]

They are biased in his favor: they pretend he is actually running for presidential nomination, which is, clearly, an exaggeration.

[Inverted Things]

Yes. The mainstream media is just mind-bogglingly awful across the board.

Somehow, the mainstream media breaks the primary candidates into tiers. So, why isn't Ron Paul considered first-tier? Because Americans have never heard of him. Why have Americans never heard of him? Because the media ignores non first-tier candidates, and thus creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes. The mainstream media is just mind-bogglingly awful across the board.

Somehow, the mainstream media breaks the primary candidates into tiers. So, why isn't Ron Paul considered first-tier? Because Americans have never heard of him. Why have Americans never heard of him? Because the media ignores non first-tier candidates, and thus creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Hmmm, you probably haven't driven on 494 lately. Because anyone who saw those overpass bridges the last time I did knows who he is (and that apparently he has some "Revolution"). And that's not the only bridges I've seen those signs on.

Paul is also the ONLY candidate I have yet to see lawn signs for.

[Inverted Things]

Yes. The mainstream media is just mind-bogglingly awful across the board.

Somehow, the mainstream media breaks the primary candidates into tiers. So, why isn't Ron Paul considered first-tier? Because Americans have never heard of him. Why have Americans never heard of him? Because the media ignores non first-tier candidates, and thus creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Hmmm, you probably haven't driven on 494 lately. Because anyone who saw those overpass bridges the last time I did knows who he is (and that apparently he has some "Revolution"). And that's not the only bridges I've seen those signs on.

Paul is also the ONLY candidate I have yet to see lawn signs for.

I live in a very very liberal neighborhood (the joke is that the democrats hold their primary is the school gymnasium while the republicans use the attached closet), and I don't drive much. So, I haven't seen any lawn signs or overpass signs.

[David S]

Yes. The mainstream media is just mind-bogglingly awful across the board.

Somehow, the mainstream media breaks the primary candidates into tiers. So, why isn't Ron Paul considered first-tier? Because Americans have never heard of him. Why have Americans never heard of him? Because the media ignores non first-tier candidates, and thus creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Hmmm, you probably haven't driven on 494 lately. Because anyone who saw those overpass bridges the last time I did knows who he is (and that apparently he has some "Revolution"). And that's not the only bridges I've seen those signs on.

Paul is also the ONLY candidate I have yet to see lawn signs for.

I'm surprised the political signs are going up already. I haven't seen any here.