Ron Paul Unfairly Kicked Out of Debates

[DinoDoc]

Why shouldn't Paul be happy to have people not know his views on things, DD? It helps him get votes that way.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why shouldn't Paul be happy to have people not know his views on things, DD? It helps him get votes that way.

Paul's supporters tend to be the most knowledgable about their candidate he just makes very little traction outside the group that follows him closely. That is why it is important for him to be able to get his message out. While you might not agree with his message there are others out there who don't even know who he is that would vote for him if they know more about him.

Besides, if what you say is true, and I take it you are not a supporter of him, then you should want him in the debate so he is "exposed"

[DinoDoc]

Why don't we ask President Dean or Senator Lamont about the value of internet support?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS


Why should people who are not Ron Paul supporters carry his water?

As a matter of principle it is wrong to exclude one of the top three candidates from the party debate especially since he's one of the lead fund raisers. That's the party elites attempting to subvert democracy and force their prefered candidates through.

[-Jrabbit]

Correct. So either boot Thompson or include Paul.
Preferably the latter.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why don't we ask President Dean or Senator Lamont about the value of internet support?

Are you saying Dean should have been excluded from the debates. Because this thread is about exclusion from the debates.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Oerdin


As a matter of principle it is wrong to exclude one of the top three candidates from the party debate especially since he's one of the lead fund raisers.

You really think he's the third top candidate?

(For the record, I probably wouldn't include Thompson in the debate, either)

[Deity Dude]

He's number 1 in funds

Number 5 in Iowa polling ahead of guiliani 9.0% to 7.0%

Number 5 in NH polling ahead of thompson 8.0 vs 2.0.

But in both polls he is within 3 points of 3rd and is therefore considered in a statistical tie for 3rd place in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

So to answer your question: Is the leading fund raiser who is in a statistical tie for 3rd place in both polls one of the top 3 candidates - I would say yes.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
He's number 1 in funds

Number 5 in Iowa polling ahead of guiliani 9.0% to 7.0%

Number 5 in NH polling ahead of thompson 8.0 vs 2.0.

But in both polls he is within 3 points of 3rd and is therefore considered in a statistical tie for 3rd place in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

So to answer your question: Is the leading fund raiser who is in a statistical tie for 3rd place in both polls one of the top 3 candidates - I would say yes.

That would make him in the top five, not top three.

And if you're only looking at polling results in Iowa, shouldn't you look at fund raising in Iowa?

[DanS]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
Paul's supporters tend to be the most knowledgable about their candidate he just makes very little traction outside the group that follows him closely. That is why it is important for him to be able to get his message out.

That's circular logic.

There is something holding his candidacy back, and it ain't Fox News. You have to make the cut somewhere, sometime.

Please note that I've got nothing against Paul. It's interesting having him in the race.

[-Jrabbit]

The very first time I saw him, he was pretty much admitting he was tilting at windmills. To me, it's a big part of his charm.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Edan


That would make him in the top five, not top three.

And if you're only looking at polling results in Iowa, shouldn't you look at fund raising in Iowa?

Well in this case top 5 and tied for 3rd are the same thing. One reason why I would give Paul a little higher rating than a pure tie is that he is tied for 3rd in both polls whereas Thompson is only in one and Guiilianni is only in one. Another reason is that he is the leading fundraiser. The third and final reason, and probably the reason he is being excluded, is that his numbers continue to rise as more and more people actually hear him.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by DanS


That's circular logic.

There is something holding his candidacy back, and it ain't Fox News. You have to make the cut somewhere, sometime.

Please note that I've got nothing against Paul. It's interesting having him in the race.

It's not circular logic. He is not as exposed as the other candidates, therefore he polls lower. The way to get exposure is thru the media, he is being denied this. Even in the debates he was in, he got about 1 question to Romney's or Guiliani's or Huckabee's 6 or 7.

If you are telling me that media exposure and equal time in debates are meaningless - I sure wouldn't want you running my campaign.

[DanS]

Yes it is obviously circular logic. He should get exposure because he doesn't have exposure. That's your argument.

What is the problem internal to his campaign and candidacy that is stopping him from having an impact? His fundraising is top notch, but his communications strategy and/or execution sucks big time.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Deity Dude

He is not as exposed as the other candidates, therefore he polls lower. The way to get exposure is thru the media, he is being denied this. Even in the debates he was in, he got about 1 question to Romney's or Guiliani's or Huckabee's 6 or 7.

A candidate can have all the media exposure in the world, it still won't help if people don't agree with the candidate's position on issues. The fact is that Ron Paul's views are not mainstream in the Republican party. He could get 100% media coverage and he still would never get the nomination. He does not get a lot of coverage because he is not mainstream. People want to hear from the real candidates.