patrick.net

Neither Giuliani (too NY and socially liberal for social conservatives) nor Thompson (perceived as a DC insider) ever were major contenders, except for their few minutes of fame when they began their campaigns. I don't believe that either ever won a poll, not just professional polls but even straw polls. Paul consistently ranks as a major contender in just about every poll ever made of republican candidates.

But he is not going to win an actual primary.

No non-establishment candidate has won a primary that I can recall.

Leaked email reveals CBS debates deliberately gave less time to Paul, Bachman. He got 89 seconds in a 90 minute debate, despite being among the top Republican contenders in poll after poll.

http://exeter.patch.com/articles/ron-paul-silenced-by-cbs

Paul is stuck at 10-15% because the Media ignores him. If he got half the airtime a Perry or Romney got, he'd probably get double that.

The media also doesn't like three way races. Two sides are easier to report on.

Disagree with Paul on many, many things but he's the best candidate out there, IMHO. He answers questions directly, doesn't need to speak off a card (Perry), and has an easy command of the issues.

Here's the U/Minnesota study on speaking time for the candidates:
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2011/10/equal_time_romney_records_one.php

The extent of the former Massachusetts governor's face time on Tuesday relative to the other candidates on the stage can also be viewed as follows. Romney recorded:

· 194 percent more camera time than Rick Santorum
· 190 percent more than Jon Huntsman
· 171 percent more than Ron Paul
· 157 percent more than Newt Gingrich
· 103 percent more than Michele Bachmann
· 100 percent more than Herman Cain
· 77 percent more than Rick Perry

How much time the Media spends covering the candidates, creates a perception of which one is electable and which is not:

Overall, across the last three debates, Romney has tallied 41 minutes and 9 seconds of speaking time, which is nearly seven minutes more than the next closest candidate, Rick Perry (at 34 minutes, 12 seconds).

Michele Bachmann comes in a distant third with 23 minutes and 59 seconds, followed by Huntsman (21 minutes, 47 seconds), Cain (21 minutes, 6 seconds), Gingrich (20 minutes, 41 seconds), Santorum (20 minutes, 38 seconds), and Paul (18 minutes, 47 seconds).

The fact that Congressman Paul has received less than half the amount of speaking time as Romney (and less than any other candidate) is curious considering the libertarian firebrand has run third or fourth in most polls throughout the last several months.

Interesting, because Huntsman nor Santorum hardly even register in polls.

Kevin,

Precisely right no president gets everything passed by a long shot. Particularly since even Republicans disagree with Paul he would have a hard time getting everything he wants passed.

I like the idea of Ron Paul precisely because the media ignores him. This makes me think that he is the only candidate that is completely independent of corporate/media control. Ok not the only one as former Governor of Louisiana Buddy Roemer is also independent. So independent that he is not taking over $100 from anyone. That is why the media has ignored him. His campaign is centered around getting the money out of politics. They are ignoring him too. But Ron Paul seems independent enough of corporate control and that is the only reason I like him. There is no way we are going to get change in this country by voting for the same old folks with the same old ideas. I abhor many of his ideas but in a lot of ways he is the only sane person on the podium. He is the only one willing to say that executing an American citizen is wrong and unconstitutional.

We have strayed a long way from our roots and now both parties have blood on their hands. We are not going to get our rights back by cowtowing to the same type of mindset.

Once upon a time it was illegal to wiretap citizens without a warrant, it was illegal to hoover up all internet traffic in the USA without warrants, it was illegal for the government to execute a citizen without due process, it was illegal to torture people, it was illegal to hold people in indefinite detention without charges or due process...I could go on and on. What have we let oursleves become?

Government needs the consent of the governerned I did not consent to the above illegal activities by our government and I don't intend to continue to vote for people who shred the constitution. There are choices out there for President that are independent: Ron Paul and Buddy Roemer are two.

MsAnnaNOLA says

I like the idea of Ron Paul precisely because the media ignores him. This makes me think that he is the only candidate that is completely independent of corporate/media control. Ok not the only one as former Governor of Louisiana Buddy Roemer is also independent. So independent that he is not taking over $100 from anyone. That is why the media has ignored him. His campaign is centered around getting the money out of politics. They are ignoring him too. But Ron Paul seems independent enough of corporate control and that is the only reason I like him. There is no way we are going to get change in this country by voting for the same old folks with the same old ideas.

Fanned.

HousingWatcher says

The first: His foreign policy views alienate the right wing.
The second: His domestic policy views alienate the left wing.

So at the end of the day, Ron Paul attracts no more than 10-15% of the population, nowhere near enough to win.

There are much more than 15% independants nowadays.
Both left and right wings are completely bankrupt. There is no reason for any sane one to vote for either of them. On top of this, the right has no single electable candidate.

So, there are the following questions here:

1. Will the main stream be able to force on us another puppet Republican candidate? As it is now Ron Paul actually has a good chance to win against this.

2. Is Obama more electable than Ron Paul? That depends on what will be presented as main questions during the election. I think Obama won't be able to eliminate from the discurse his role in the failure of the health care reform. Neither his foreign policy, which is the same one as it was under Bush. Neither his complete incompetence with the economy. I expect both sane conservatives and sane liberals as well as all independents will prefer Ron Paul in such elections. Only fanatics and racists will vote against him.

3. The final question is: will the financial mafia have guts to simply assassinate
Ron Paul in case they see him electable? I'd say more like 50/50 chances of this.

The truth is: Ron Paul has to position himself as electable. His top priority right now is to tell us what he will do as a President in real world. He needs to explain how he plans to deal with the hostile Congress. He needs to clarify the processes of implementation of his plans, not just the goals. As we know, such processes are more important than the goals.