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

Source link? Direct link.

 

I give up.. You guys are just so emotionally wrapped up and in love with Ron Paul that no amount of reality is ever going to sink in..

 

Mia that is 'likely republican' voters, not all voters..
That is as bad as Gtechs attempt to say Bush is more popular since he's at lets say 35% overall, trying to compare the 35% on the same level as 5%. The numbers are totally different as is where they come from.

Perot's support was not 'likely republican voters' it was overall.

 

I am not
Your point however does not add up. You can not say he only has 5% nationally when it's only republicans who voted last time around being asked on the question. How about people who have not voted before, how about those who are not apart of a party, how about dems he has brought onto his side.

That is the reality, the '5% national' is not reality unless you admit it's only from 'likely republican voters in most of the polls'

How about the fact that until recently Huck didn't 'poll' very well either?...

 

Well, you certainly are choosing your facts selectively. Many of the polls you are citing are badly out of date.

I should clarify, Kerry and Clinton were polling where Paul is or lower in Iowa and/or New Hampshire prior to the primaries. Kerry was actually polling below Al Sharpton at one point.

Do I have to do the December poll average for you? I will, I'm a little busy, but if you're going to dodge providing responsible stats, someone will have to step up.

 

December National Polls

ABC - 12/8/2007 - 3%
ARG - 12/11/2007 - 5%
CBS - 12/7/2007 - 4%
CNN - 12/8/2007 - 6%
Diageo/Hotline - 12/12/2007 - 7%
Fox News - 12/19/2007 - 3%
AP/IPSOS - 12/4/2007 - 3%
NBC/WSJ - 12/16/2007 - 4%
USA Today/Gallup - 12/15/2007 - 3%
Reuters/Zogby - 12/13/2007 - 4%
GWU - 12/11/2007 - 6%​

So that's 11 December National Polls. 4.36%.

 

Proving my point again.. I have yet to see it above 4% ... No matter how you slice it... you just made the same point I did..

 

4.36% is not above 4%?

Again Jeremy, the national polls are insignificant except as a measure of name recognition. I've provided recordings of phone polls here which exclude Paul or bury him under a sub-menu with Tancredo and Hunter.

There are 5 things that matter more than phone polls towards the nomination.

1. Turning out the vote. Iowa is due for a snowstorm on Jan 3rd, and there will be a bowl game that night as well I imagine. Every single turned out voter will count.

2. Momentum. Failures (4th, 5th or lower) in the early primary states of Iowa and NH will bury front runners. One of McCain, Huckabee and Thompson will be in serious trouble and likely out of the running before South Carolina.

3. 50 state campaigns. The only 3 GOP candidates who can mount 50 state campaigns are Paul, Romney and Giuliani, which I have been saying for sometime now will be the top 3 at the RNC.

4. Delegate counts. Winning New Hampshire or Michigan does not provide as many delegates as Texas, California or Florida. Some states have more value. Strategic decisions will make up a large portion of the convention process in Minneapolis.

5. Finances. Poor showings and sentiment of low elect ability will dry up fund raising in Q1 of 2008. This will severely hamper the ability to campaign late, past Super Tuesday, when several states could be the difference in what is shaping up to be a brokered convention (deal making will chose the nominee, because no one will have a majority)

Going into the 2004 primaries, Dean was the front runner. He crashed and burned. McCain and Buchanan won New Hampshire and folded in South Carolina. Regardless of how Paul places, he will not fold until the convention should he not get the nomination, but even now, pollsters like John Zogby are saying he could have an upset as his poll #s don't show the true depth of his support.

I guess we will have to wait for the actual caucuses and primaries to see.

 

Does dp offer math classes? Maybe 4.36% isnt above 4%. Can anyone verify this??? We really need to get to the bottom of this . Last time i remembered(and i could be wrong) my math teacher stated that a larger number amounted to a greater amount of something than a smaller number.

 

Lol, and as previously mentioned, even Zogby himself sees Paul's support is more powerful than the numbers tell. I'm sorry Mia, but I think he knows a bit more about this stuff than your holy self.

 

You need to read the entire thread, not just one out of context quote....

 

The only revolution that is happening is that these nutjobs figured out how to use the internet to spam RP's name everywhere...

 

I'd say dominating the Straw Polls, dominating the 4th Q GOP fund raising, and establishing the most state headquarters means this is more than just spamming the intarwebs.

 

I have installed my custom RP Spam assassin filters to cut down on the flood of pro RP propaganda..

 

I have yet to get a single RP 'spam' yet I have email accounts all over the net, multiple servers, isps, and not one single RP spam.

Makes it very hard to believe the 'spam' crap, plus when you don't even admit that there is more than spam it makes it even harder to believe..

 

You must have missed the sarcastic smiley.. See what happens when you let emotion rule your thoughts with regard to politics...

 

Not at all, you've brought up spam by RP many times before
Plus a sarcastic smiley sure doesn't = much of anything in the form of discussion.

 

personally i think its an inside job. D.C. doesn't want ron paul to be president, just think of what would happen to all those benefits and salary increase they get now! hes going to be cutting a lot of stuff and if he is going to cut the IRS i bet there paying anything they can to bring him down a lot of people will be out of a job and they aren't happy.

 

I received 2 spam emails a couple months ago. What's going to happen now, and the Meet The Press interview laid the groundwork, is that Ron Paul is going to be accused of being all sorts of unsavory things, which is exactly what they did in the smear campaign against Pat Buchanan.

I didn't agree with all of Buchanan's platform, but he was another Patriot, recognizing that Washington is Babylon and it's time to bring some common sense back to the people.

It's a very interesting sidebar, to see if the attacks (which are old technique now) will succeed again vs. the internet. We already saw a smear attack in the NY Times retracted by the Editor because of the outcry online.

As long as the internet stays unregulated, I really like our chances to continue (past this election) to share ideas, information, organize and have a voice in the old media world. They say no one under 30 reads the paper anymore. The establishment will want to get control of this new Guteneberg press.

 

Back to the original topic of this thread:

Has Fox News Excluded Ron Paul?