Quote:
Originally Posted by charlie g
The Huckabee comparison is a bad one. He pandered to a large block of voters who only vote for the bible. The first candidate that made an effort for the christian right was going to get a huge bump as they were looking for someone to represent their views. Fox News got on his wagon and his name recognition skyrocketed.
As for the Iowa numbers, Paul was polling 2-3% a couple of months ago and even right before most polls had his support around 5-6%. The register just happened to be the one that was more accurate. Without splitting hairs, he was close enough to the pack in Iowa and he is polling close enough in NH for him to be included in the debate. Fox was wrong to censor his views.
I am not sure he is getting all bad press from Fox's snub. He is getting a shot on Leno again tonight and I have read many articles the last few days that I would consider good press arising from Fox's decision. Maybe some will write him off as the kook's candidate, but some may go to his website to find out more. Either way, he is getting an opportunity to be heard even tho Fox has dubbed him immaterial to the election.
And according to Fox news, there is no room for true conservatives in the party. If he does eventually run as an independent the consequences may not be immaterial as you suggest. Many people are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils and have decided that evil is just plain evil. In my opinion, there is NO distinguishable difference in the other candidates and it does not matter which of them win. But if the losing party adopts some of the issues important to his supporters then his candidacy will mean something as the platform changes.
|
None of this addresses the question of what Paul has done to generate press.
So, what has Paul done to DESERVE more press? The best press he got was the money bomb which I believe was the result of grassroots support and didn't even come from Paul himself.
What evidence at all is there that FOX didn't include Paul in the debate "because of his views". The only person who said that was Paul himself. He's a bit biased about it. Don't ya think? 3.3% nationwide! Duncan Hunter is not in the debate either. Was he excluded because of his views? Duncan Hunter wasn't in the ABC debate either but Paul was. So does that mean Hunter and Paul were excluded for their views? Which views of Hunter's got him banned from the FOX and ABC debates?
Paul's average poll result was 7.3% before Iowa. He finished at 10%. I just don't see that as really surprising or even worthy of discussion. Who really cares that the 5th place candidate beat the average of the pre-election polls by 2.5% but still finished in 5th? The average Ron paul supporter seemed to think he was going to finish 3rd in Iowa.
The point about Huckabee is that he is a candidate who really HAS gained ground and generated momentum. He "really has gained ground." Paul is at less than 4% nationwide. He hasn't. He is the 5th or 6th candidate with no evidence that he will do better in the long run.
Well, I'm not suggesting that paul's candidacy would be immaterial in the general election. He would do well enough to effect the outcome but enough to win.