Media Blackout? What else is new? The Revolution will not be televised.

I'm just gunna put Mia back on ignore and view his posts on a post-by-post basis. He's got little to say, and of that, nothing that is accurate.

 

Has Fox News Excluded Ron Paul? pt. 3

 

From the little I have read, Fergus Cullen appears to be a stand up guy in this position at least..

 

Just like the Forum.. Ignore it, then it didn't happen..

Nice philosophy.

 

Any and all forums remove threads from time to time, it's not so much a matter of free speech as of course it's a privately owned forum. Inaccurate information is also dangerous, some times false information should be removed.

I followed your links and did not see anything about saying it was not Fox's fault, in fact it appears to be exactly the other way around. Very confused to say the least.

 

I guess you missed the OP's post.

 

I see the op's post, he uses no facts, no sources, he just makes an accusation. Since when are accusations with no backing 'fact'?

 

FOX, ABC to reduce debate fields (From the New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper)

 

Well gee, looks like ol' guerilla knows what he is talking about.

Fergus Cullen, one of the good guys.

This is interesting btw, because w/o party sponsorship, Fox might have to give equal time (under law) to Hunter and Paul.

 

I was watching CNBC this morning and they said that the reason for the limited number of candidates was dues to limited studio space and time. Hence Fox made the ultimate decision to limit invited candidates to those who had double digit numbers only.. Being that Paul has only barely ever managed to crack just around 4% in the polls, this makes more sense to me now.

Personally, I would rather ever network did this.. There have been WAY TOO MANY people on stage in both the Democratic and Republican debates.. It makes the debating long, winded, and you find that while many of the lower tier candidates are there on stage, their talk time is quite limited.

There has to be some kind of limit.. And lets face it, with numbers like Pauls, is it really worth giving him more air time?

 

Mia yet you claimed it was fact that it was not Fox, but now it is Fox?

Plus Huck just started to poll better RP also outpolls Thompson in many cases. He 'cracks' more than 4% depending on the poll on a national level, and higher on many state levels.

---
Lets face it 'likely republican' voters does not show the full support of RP, you know it and I know it.

Is not giving equal time and shutting out a candidate really the correct way to do things? I guess all the money he raised doesn't show any support, all the straw polls, everything else, we just need to rely on 'likely republican' voters that doesn't mean much of anything.

 

No, I did not claim that.. A member of the Ron Paul Forums Claimed it. I just posted the link.

So... Again, I am just telling you what I heard.. It was on CNBC early this morning.. They claimed Fox said they had limited space and had to make some hard decisions..

Now, I agree, that Paul should probably be up there, but given the confines of time and space and the stipulation of double digit numbers only, if you are going to include Paul, you are going to have to also include about 50 other people running...

 

Sorry incorrect, you tried to use an accusation as the 'truth'

Incorrect, he has the highest fund raising numbers this quarter, he also polls higher than '50' others. If he was polling 1% with no financial support, nothing else showing support I could see your point. The facts however do not show that, if you rely on 'likely republican' voters he still has more support than the '50' small candidates, even still that is not even close to an accurate number of his support.

 

er.. Whatever...

Let me try this one more time...

Money gathering claims have nothing to do with the reasons for or against inviting someone to debate..

Around 7:30AM or so, I had CNBC on... They stated that Fox said they had limited space and time and as such set a guideline of double digit polling numbers, saying that "only those with double digits" are invited, due to the "limited space"...

No matter how you try to slice it... The reality is, Paul's numbers are just not at those levels.. They may certainly get there, but they are not there, nor have they ever been there.

I'm not arguing with you.. I think he should be up there.. I just wanted to point out that I do not believe this wild goofy notion that this is some how a Fox News conspiracy.. That is after all what this thread is about , is it not?

"Media Blackout"??? "What else is new"???

I know it does not seem fair, but compare this to everything else in life, would you really want someone who did not meet certain requirements to be on the same level as you in a job, as your kid in sports.... I mean let's say you scored 35 out of 30 on a test.. Should the guy that scored 4 out of 35 get an A too?

Sometimes there are limits... To call it a media blackout of Ron Paul is just silly...

That's my point.. That is all..

 

I understand your point

It is simple though, 'likely republican' voters does not show the full support no matter how you slice it.

Just because this is Fox's reason does not change the facts, of course they were going to come out with a 'cough' reason.

RP polls higher than Thompson in many cases even in 'likely republican' numbers, yet Thompson is there and not RP. Kind of blows that stance of Fox's out of the water IMHO.

 

Thank you

Understood.. and again, I am not arguing with you... There may be double digit support, but it is just not there now...

I guess you do not understand my point then at all... I had no idea you subscribed to the conspiracy play book...

Really, where? "likely Republican"... I think reality trumps probability when it comes to real polling data...

The truth is Thompson polls above 10 percent on average, usually closer to 11% the last few weeks..

Thompson - 11 (double digit)
Paul - 3 (single digit)

Thompson is there because he meets the requirements.. Paul will not be there because he does not.. (cough)....

 

Limited space is a stupid and lame excuse. Just get a bigger venue if the puny van can't accommodate all the major candidates (and yes, Ron Paul is a major candidate whether you personally want to admit it or not).

People who aren't following this story aren't stupid. When Ron Paul finishes 3rd or 4th in Iowa (ahead of 1-2 people that FOX has invited) and appears in the ABC debate the day before, they are going to wonder why FOX didn't see fit to include him in the forum 2 days before the vote in NH.

I hope the NH GOP pulls their support if FOX doesn't capitulate and make proper arrangements.

 

Gee, why then wasn't Duncan Hunter invited? What about Tom Tancredo? Both with similar polling numbers to that of Paul..

Here are some more single digit candidates NOT INVITED???

Mark Klein
William Koenig
Michael Charles
Richard Michael
Keith Sprankle
Vern Wuensche

Hell, what about Alan Keyes? Hell, he even debated on September 17 and December 12. Why was he not invited?

You know, you guys are right.. this is a Fox News Conspiracy.. An absolute media black out...

I should note that Tancredo dropped out about a week or so ago... But he is still polling around the same as Paul.. Go figure.. Perhaps he still should have been invited?

 

None of those people are polling the same as Paul on 'likely republican' support, none of them bring in even close to the money Paul has brought in, none have anywhere near the support Paul has. To even try that as an argument is extremely weak.

I still see you subscribe to the 'likely republican' data is the only data to go by. How about all those new republicans who never voted before because they were too young. If 80% of them vote for Paul his numbers would be much higher than the 'polls' but because the polls only include 'likely' republican they will not be counted.

How about independants, dems who crossed over? You can not take 'likely' republican as the final number. RP also is polling much higher than the 3% you listed in most cases, plus much higher in many states

No matter how you slice it 'cough'

 

One would think that the Republican party would be interested in a candidate who brings crossover voters, because the goal is to win the general election.

Selecting another war hawk will merely sweep the Dems into office. Much of the nation no longer has a stomach for the war.