posted
Dagonee and I had this little exchange a while back:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fox news still hasn't reported it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fox News reported this Sunday on its web site.
I heard it on each news cast I listened to yesterday. I don't watch TV news, so I don't know when/if it was announced there.
Huckabee is the frontrunner in the earliest primary. There's no conspiracy here, and the constant pretense that there is one is one of the most annoying things about Paul supporters.
I didn't have it in me then to go into full detail of the Iowa debate he was excluded from. Nor did I feel like going through my notebook of all the screenshots of polls where Paul was between 7-5th place at a time he had the third or fourth largest amount of money and was absent from the news poll graphs. I didn't really feel like going into Luntz's treatment of Paul. I certainly didn't feel like going into all the candidate articles I printed up where Paul's name was not included, yet people like Tancredo and Brownback were mentioned.
It was too much. It was too obvious. It was mostly Fox news.
But now...well, I have to say it. We are about a week from our first caucus and Paul's polls are moving up. He was the most individual donations. He has raised a completely unpredicted amount of money the 4th quarter (18+ million) and has the largest grass roots support.
The New Hampshire Republican Party doesn't seem to be behind this decision. It is Fox. I hope this backfires and they are forced to admit him. Hopefully they would not try to influence elections so blatantly for the neocons. Hopefully this is all miscommunication.
quote: ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – According to the New Hampshire State Republican Party and an Associated Press report, Republican presidential candidate and Texas Congressman Ron Paul will be excluded from an upcoming forum of Republican candidates to be broadcast by Fox News on January 6, 2008.
“Given Ron Paul’s support in New Hampshire and his recent historic fundraising success, it is outrageous that Dr. Paul would be excluded,” said Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman Kent Snyder. “Dr. Paul has consistently polled higher in New Hampshire than some of the other candidates who have been invited.”
Snyder continued, “Paul supporters should know that we are continuing to make inquiries with Fox News as to why they have apparently excluded Dr. Paul from this event.”
Sorry for the rant. I have been internetless as we have re-arranged our house. It's late. I'm tired.
posted
Let me know when they post news as to WHY. This is a grim reminder of how much I don't trust the popular media.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:He is a viable candidate who has proven himself worthy to be in the debates and election process.
No, he's not.
Brownback and Tancredo are out of the race. If they include Hunter, who has even a lesser chance than Paul, then they should include Paul, but I don't have a problem with narrowing the gap at this point. Those candidates have had MONTHS to work their way up the ladder, and if they haven't done it yet, I don't think a single debate, when he's been in several of them now, will make a difference. Furthermore, his positions are just too radical for enough people to get on board with.
Frankly I don't think he, Hunter, McCain, or Thompson are viable at this point. I wouldn't be upset if any of them were dropped from the debates, in the same way I'd be sad but not upset if all Democrats except their top three were dropped. I don't think it'll matter much anyway, as Hunter will likely drop out after he comes in last in Iowa (I take that back, he won't even get a high enough percentage to be COUNTED in Iowa).
The only thing that'll boost Paul into a position of viability will be an amazing showing in Iowa, at least third place. It's not impossible, he's in a statistical four way tie with Thompson, McCain and Giuliani, though I'm not sure if even third place will matter when all of them will be crushed by Huckabee and Romney. At a lot of the caucus sites, they might not even get enough people to vote for them for them to even be counted. You have to get at least I think 15% of the people present to vote for you, or you're removed, and your supporters have to join with a different group. With the current polls, only Romney and Huckabee meet that threshhold.
If he comes in a SOLID third, or even a tenuous second place in Iowa, I'd be willing to consider him as a viable candidate, if that translates into a bump in New Hampshire. But let's be honest here, he doesn't poll above six or seven percent in ANY of the early voting states, and he's dominated by guys in the 20's and 30's of percentage points, with established networks of supporters in those states and long entrenched networks elsewhere. Huckabee was late to the game, Paul is trying to buy his way out of the starting gate.
Singling him out is unfair, but let's not pretend he has more of a chance than he really does.
It's neither here nor there, but I'm amazed at recent polling data for Michigan. John McCain on December 6th lead with 21% here, trailed by Romney and Huckabee at 18% and 16% respectively. Somehow McCain took an 11 point nosedive, and has been replaced by a neck and neck Romney/Huckabee race at 21% and 19% respectively. Paul, Thompson and Hunter all hover below 4% by the way.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
UPDATE: The Fox news debate is actually a roundtable he is excluded from. Ron Paul is still on the ABC debate.
I feel a little better. I have come to loath Fox News. Some of the latest polls put him in the top five ahead of Thompson. He is likely to be the top fundraiser.
Last month Zogby hinted Ron Paul could win New Hampshire. I do not see his exclusion as a natural consequence of narrowing the candidates. It seems to me to be an intentional attempt by Fox at suppressing Paul--especially given their past behavior on his presidency.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slight hijack, but does anyone know how many candidate's have doctorates, and why Ron Paul is the only one who seems to have "Dr" thrown in front of his name? (Admittedly as a gynaecologist he was in the medical field, but I'd expect others to be doctors of law or something.)
Posts: 254 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please...The more they limit the number of debaters the more talking points there will be during and after the debates. Fox as a network does not have some conspiracy theory to hold Paul back.
Ron Paul has already promised he will not run as a third party candidate. He is NOT going to get the Republican nomination unless Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson all keel over suddenly.
He is basically the Alan Keyes of 2000 for me. He has raised far more money then Keyes did, but he is essentially running so that what he wants to say is heard.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By every measure he is doing better then Thompson. If they were eliminating candidates based on polls or grass roots support, then Paul should be the one left in and Thompson removed.
Thompson should be eliminated as he has less viability then Paul and he brings nothing dynamic to the table.
Fox does have an agenda against Paul. I think CNN and other news places represent the "unelectable" narrative being applied to Paul, but I ultimately don't think they are doing anything malicious or targeted against Paul. It is just like the Meet the Press interview. I think Russert tried equally hard to play gotacha with Paul as he did to Giulianni.
However, I have read enough of Fox to know they do have an agenda against Paul.
That agenda is anit-democratic from a news source. It also appears to be applied to the democratic party, but I don't follow the democrats enough to say that with full confidence.
I am confident about their agenda against Paul.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lem: By every measure he [Paul] is doing better then Thompson. If they were eliminating candidates based on polls or grass roots support, then Paul should be the one left in and Thompson removed.
Thompson should be eliminated as he has less viability then Paul and he brings nothing dynamic to the table.
Fox does have an agenda against Paul. etc I am confident about their agenda against Paul.
That turns out not to be the case. According to pollster.com, Paul has never out-polled Thompson nationally. Pollster.com has great charts that use curve-fitting with multiple polls, over time, as the data points.
I don't think Paul or Thompson have any viability to speak of, though Paul has slightly more given that he's inching up in polls while Fred peaked awhile ago and is sinking.
I have no idea if Fox has an anti-Paul bias--they have so many biases you need a scorecard to keep up.
posted
It's predictable, and it's not a first, but I still don't like how black and white American politics are. Or I should say red and blue. =_=
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Way to go Paul! It is about time he starts to take off his gloves.
quote:"They are scared of me and don't want my message to get out, but it will," ... "They are propagandists for this war and I challenge them on the notion that they are conservative."
..."They will not win this skirmish[.]"
He is planning a rally the same time as the round table. And if his exclusion from the Iowa debate is any indicator, I bet more people will watch his rally then the FOX news sponsored event.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
