Jon Stuart uncovers MSM fear of the best candidate POTUS

[funky_fresh]

Such a shame that this country's big business and foreign lobbyists continue to fund the spoon feeding of the masses. The republicrats want nothing more than to continue the two party sham and keep us all believing that D differs from R. Even the hero of the left recognizes this ridiculousness. Watch John Stuart as he breaks this bullshiite from both Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mo...--the-top-tier

Lord help us from these right/left wing loonies.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle28857.htm

[soulster]

Ron Paul's a Republican, right? Or, is he a libertarian? last time I looked, libertarians are in bed with republicans.

Remind me of how many filibusters the republicans did last year and the year before. Remind me which party threatened to cause the federal government to go into default. Which party has vowed to bring down the current democratic president at all costs?

Spare me your propaganda.

[ms_m]

Interesting take on Stewart's commentary but he wasn't advocating for the best candidate, he was advocating what "he felt" was unfair.

I think he may have a point but I also think the media has a point as well.

Ron Paul's chances of becoming President of the US are slim to none. After Stewart's rant the other day, I did some checking and ran across an interesting analysis of Paul's 2008 presidential race performance.

United States presidential election, 2008:
• Ron Paul/With Multiple VP candidates - 42,426 [[0.03%)

He won 0.03% of the total vote

I also found this

Percentage of Ron Paul Votes [[2008)

0.7993741 New Hampshire 4
0.7624688 Idaho 4
0.4739113 South Dakota 3
0.4645284 Washington 11
0.3769193 North Dakota 3
0.3725045 Pennsylvania 21
0.3609405 Michigan 17
0.3455322 Montana 3
0.296046 Oregon 7
0.2901108 Vermont 3
0.2458186 District of Columbia 3
0.2377231 Tennessee 11
0.2362665 Maryland 10
0.1911311 New York 31
0.1876662 Maine 4

TOTAL ELECTORAL VOTES 135

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jsorens/rpvotes.pdf

The numbers in the last column were added by me. They represent electoral votes for each of those states. [[he didn't win those electoral votes)
http://www.fec.gov/pages/elecvote.htm

The percentages [[first column) are the amount of votes he picked up in the last election....explain how he can improve his performance even with media coverage to win electoral votes in any of the 15 states above....even if I give him the benefit of the doubt and say he can win all 15 [[which is pure fantasy) he still comes up short 135 electoral votes.

Why would a media outlet spend a lot of time on a candidate that doesn't have a chance at winning? Ron Paul has been around long enough to have name recognition so if anyone is truly interested, they can look up what he believes and advocates....for instance.....


Introduction to Logic

We close with a final point, though this one is directed at Ron Paul supporters. Recently, we’ve received a barrage of e-mail containing variations on this theme: "Am I to assume that by making no mention of Rep. Ron Paul in your synopses of GOP candidates, you found his statements meritorious?" The similarities between the messages led to a bit of searching, and we found what we suspect is the cause: A post at DailyPaul.com alleges that because the author found no instances where we called out Paul for misstatements, "FactCheck.org shows that Ron Paul is truthful."

We realize that DailyPaul.com is not officially affiliated with Paul’s campaign. But the error is egregious enough that it merits discussion. Here’s the basic argument from

DailyPaul:

1. If FactCheck.org writes about a candidate, then that candidate makes some inaccurate claims.
2. FactCheck.org has not written about Ron Paul.

3. Therefore Ron Paul does not make inaccurate claims.
That argument might sound appealing, but, in fact, it is a logical fallacy [[philosophers call this one "denying the antecedent"). Consider a different argument that has exactly the same logical structure:

1. If it is Thursday, then I have to go to work.
2. It is not Thursday.
3. Therefore I do not have to go to work.

We wouldn’t recommend trying that argument out on your boss – unless, of course, you have a job that requires you to work only on Thursdays. And that’s the problem with the DailyPaul.com argument. It works only to the extent that you assume that we write about every single inaccurate claim uttered by every single political candidate. We don’t. We just hadn’t gotten around to mentioning many Ron Paul flubs.
We’ve corrected that oversight now.
-by Joe Miller

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/wrong-paul/


I would welcome an intelligent , adult debate on the merits of a Ron Paul presidency but the minute it turns childish and name calling, I'm out.

[StuBass1]

Help me Funky_Fresh...I've fallen and I can't get up!

Ron Paul is an extremist...

Ron Paul would END any social safety nets...

Ron Paul has a litany of racist associations...

Ron Paul is not the least bit concerned about Iran developing nuclear weapons...

Ron Paul would have us waiting at our border for the attacks which would ultimately come...

Ron Paul would remove any role we have in international affairs...leaving the United Nations [[with 3/4 of whoms members hate us) as the primary arbitor of international affairs.

Ron Paul has NO chance of any party nominating him for the Presidency...THANK GOD...

[funky_fresh]

last time I looked, libertarians are in bed with republicans.

When and where was it you looked?

Spare me your conjecture.

[smark21]

I read this at a political blog and I think it sums up Ron Paul's political appeal best: His support is miles deep and an inch wide. He has a fervent band of supporters who will give him money and push him on the internet, but he has no broad based appeal. Outside of his congressional district in Texas, he appeals to political junkies of a certain ideological bent, and that's about it.

In 1984, he ran as the Presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party and got about 1% of the vote.

[funky_fresh]

M,

I wold love to have an intelligent, adult debate with you on Ron Paul but you have to at least know what the hell you are talking about. Lets start with the FACT that Ron Paul dropped out of the Presidential Race on June of 2008. That means, he was no longer seeking the nomination of the Republican party and therefore was no longer running for President.


Your cut and paste that you call "Percentage of Ron Paul Votes [[2008) " was in fact nothing of the sort and totally and completely misrepresented. The document that you cut and pasted from was written by a Libertarian to try and show what states supported Paul the most done by using algorithms to show how Ron Pausl outperformed against his predictions.

Once we control for all these factors, where did Ron Paul do best? One factor we have not been
able to control for is the strength or efficacy of the Ron Paul organization. Presumably this is the
“omitted variable” that explains most of the remaining variation across states. We can figure out where
Ron Paul’s organization must have been strongest by looking at those states that significantly
underperform or overperform the baseline model. The mechanics of this operation are as follows. First,
we substitute our estimated coefficients into the regression equation, thus:
Then we substitute for each of the independent variables [[caucus, turnout, clinched, candidates)
the particular value for each state. The resulting ln[[Paul vote) figure is the predicted value of the log of
Ron Paul’s vote share for each state. We can subtract this predicted value from the actual value, and the
difference is the amount by which Ron Paul outperformed what we would expect, given primary or
caucus format, turnout, timing [[whether McCain had clinched or not), and number of candidates on the
ballot, all factors outside Paul’s control. High values of [[actual vote – predicted vote) indicate that Paul
did better in those states than we would expect; low values mean he did worse. Therefore, high values
presumably indicate that Paul had a better, more effective organization.
Table II ranks the states by the number of log points by which Paul outperformed his predicted
performance in each state.
Table II: Paul’s Unexplained Performance by State
Overperformance
0.7993741
0.7624688
0.4739113
0.4645284
0.3769193
0.3725045
0.3609405
0.3455322
0.296046
0.2901108
0.2458186
0.2377231
0.2362665
0.1911311
0.1876662
State
New Hampshire
Idaho
South Dakota
Washington
North Dakota
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Montana
Oregon
Vermont
District of
Columbia
Tennessee
Maryland
New York
Maine
0.1718122
0.1714756
0.1538725
0.1459794
0.123376
0.075878
0.0525227
0.0177805
0.0128961
0.001461
-0.0221498
-0.0315268
-0.0460235
-0.0604255
-0.0773115
-0.1129332
-0.1456997
-0.1672701
-0.1790915
-0.231692
-0.2629383
-0.2664576
-0.2991312
-0.3194487
-0.3745465
-0.4054149
-0.4389548
-0.444923
-0.4810518
-0.5319622
-0.6164439
-1.052599
California
New Mexico
Alaska
Nebraska
Rhode Island
Illinois
Missouri
Minnesota
Nevada
Arkansas
New Jersey
Ohio
Wisconsin
Texas
Virginia
Arizona
South Carolina
Delaware
Iowa
Oklahoma
Connecticut
Florida
Kansas
Indiana
Georgia
North Carolina
Utah
Kentucky
Alabama
Massachusetts
Colorado
Mississippi
So we can now answer the question: In which state did Ron Paul’s organization do best? The
answer is New Hampshire. New Hampshire was the most pro-Ron Paul state, although Idaho ran a close
second. The other states are well behind. At the other end of the spectrum, Paul did really badly in
Mississippi. We can only deduce that voters and activists in Mississippi strongly disliked or ignored Dr.
Paul’s antiwar, libertarian message. Colorado, Massachusetts, Alabama, Kentucky, Utah, and North
Carolina were also pretty poor states for him.

Here are indeed the facts M

Although he suspended his campaign, he appeared on the ballot in Montana[16] and Louisiana[17] in the 2008 general election. He was also listed in some states as a write-in candidate. He received nearly 20,000 votes, giving him the eighth highest popular vote total in the election.[18]


You should really try and find a job with Fox or MSNBC. Per Stuarts video you would fit right in with all the no fact checking and come up wistuff out of my rump.

KNow the man before you yalk abouy. him


Stu, I will get to you tomorrow.

[ms_m]

I read the entire paper Funky Fresh. I was aware the author supported Dr Paul which is why I chose to use his data.
The question remains, how does he get to 270 electoral votes to become President?

[ms_m]

It occurred to me, even if MSM covers Ron Paul, it would make things worse not better for his chances.

Take a look at the coverage of Romney, Bachmann and Perry. They are digging deep into past statements and history. They would do the same to Ron Paul. Many of his associations with groups that have been classified as hate groups taint his image. More exposure would intensify that perception.

The interesting thing about this to me, based on his voting record, he is against programs that would benefit many different groups, races, creeds, religions, ages and genders. Benefit being the operative word. He prefers to leave it up to "free markets" to improve the lives of Americans. Yet, history has shown, big business as a general rule, places more emphasis on personal gain and profits than the well being of Americans. How would Ron Paul or any of his supporters convince the average voter otherwise?

Unregulated financial institutions, which were a result of the repeal of Glass/Steagall under Clinton, caused the collapse of our current economy. How would less regulations prevent another collapse?

How would a free market help to stem the tide of discrimination? Prior to the civil rights act, businesses were relatively free to do as they please in terms of who could enter and who could not. Under that particular free market system, many of these businesses survived. Why would it be any different now?

Funky Fresh, throwing flames at me or anyone, does not answer any of these questions. If you want voters to take a second look at Ron Paul, these questions need to be answered in an intelligent and thoughtful way. Not with rhetoric and idealism but with concrete steps.

I asked the question, what nation has ever had a totally free market system that has worked and survived. I'll ask that question of you. Show non believers of Ron Paul a successful example of his theories and ideas. Once Ron Paul and or his supporters can do that, you may have a chance at more thoughtful attention from MSM and voters.

[ms_m]

One last thought and question. Ron Paul and his supporters believe a " free" society would change this country for the better. MSM media has exercised their freedom not to cover Ron Paul. Yet his supporters imply Ron Paul's freedom is being suppressed because of the lack of coverage. Whose freedom should prevail and why?

[Doug-Morgan]

Have to disagree with you there, Ms_M. Opinion shows are one thing, but I ask news shows to report the news, and I do have to agree that The Congressman's campaign IS news, and should be reported on until such time as his poll numbers begin to drop. Congresswoman Bachman and Governor Perry probably don't have a realistic shot at the nomination either, but they get extensive coverage. Although I don't agree with him, Congressman Paul is a lot more intelligent than the other two combined and should be treated as a viable candidate until such time as he is not. At least through the first primaries.

[ms_m]

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

How far do you think they should drop Doug?

CNN has him polling at the same levels as two people who haven't even declared. He looks good in USA Today but I don't read them and don't know if they cover him or not.

Statistically speaking, his chances are almsot non existent and I recently read, he even feels he can't win the nomination or the ultimate prize but wants to stay on the scene to promote his ideas. I could say something about that but I'll leave it alone.

Obviously if he starts to pick up more momentum they will begin to cover him or if he goes more extreme he will definitely make news but he only seems to do that when talking to extreme groups or radio that are outside the mainstream.

No one is stopping Ron Paul from exercising his right to speak. They are limiting his access to MSM but they do that all the time in other areas with other things and people. There are a lot of things I would love to see MSM cover, they don't so I find alternative sources.

But when all is said and done, this is my bottom line. I would love to see Ron Paul win the nomination. The contrast between him and President Obama would make me smile. So if Ron Paul supporters can make that happen and can convince MSM to cover him, more power to them.

P.S. When I say looks good in USA Today I mean his numbers are higher. Just wanted to clarify that.

[ms_m]

As far as Perry's chances, who the heck can really say? It's all about who has a better shot at 270 electoral votes.

The Republican Party really backed themselves in a corner with the TP. Romney is toast in the south, that means he would have to win the same states as the POTUS won in 2008. But if he wins the nomination there is always a chance one of the remaining candidates will stay in anyway and that will split the vote. So that brings us back to, which GOP candidate has a better shot at 270? That's a heck of a problem for the GOP, can't say I feel sorry for them. shrugs

[ms_m]

One more thing Doug. Huntsman is really dialing back on catering to the TP. Now consensus says he can't win the nomination that way. There is also a school of thought, he's positioning himself for 2016 but there is another that says it's a bold move that can truly make him stand above the crowd. I've always believed he had a better shot against the POTUS than anyone out there. Can't say I'm pulling for him because of it but the strategy might work. Sanity just may win in the end. shrugs

[smark21]

One Ron Paul supporter is taking things into his hands, placing an ad in Texas looking for women who have sex with Rick Perry.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/w...perry_women_ad

[ms_m]

Oh dear, did you see the counterattack?

[soulster]

Thinking Ron Paul has any serious chance of winning POTUS is a waste of time.

Spare me your conjecture.

...whatever.