It's been around a year but has anyone thought about the 2012 election coverage?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by 63dot, Nov 13, 2013.

  1. 63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #1
    I voted Green in the last two presidential elections and there was almost no coverage, but the press ignoring the relatively popular republican Ron Paul was kind of weird:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_WBo4sfmi4

    thoughts?
     
  2. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #2
    I'm trying to forget.

    Thanks for reminding me.

    ;)
     
  3. malman89 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Location:
    Michigan
    #3
    His national party didn't want him, his primaries/debates were nothing spectacular, and he had that bit about his racist newsletters with his signature on them.

    1, 2, 3 strikes you're out.

    I don't mind much of what Ron Paul says or believes in, but with the system we have, that ended everything for him. No conspiracy required.
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    I'm with Charlie Pierce on this. There's a five-minute rule with the Paul family specifically, and their accolytes generally. They may make perfect, wonderful sense on issues for the first five minutes, but after that they go off the rails in a hurry.
     
  5. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #5
    H has never been that popular, he just has more vocal supporters than some of the other candidates so it can seem like he is more popular than he is. It was his third run for president, and he still was a fringe candidate. He never polled super well, all the other candidates that got coverage got that because they were at the least polling well for a little while. He is too extreme for the vast majority of americans so he never had much of a chance. My thoughts are that if anything he got more coverage than he should have given his chances.
     
  6. 63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #6
    Thanks for all your posts. He may very well be just be very popular with a vocal minority. I think some conservatives were so mad with W and his expensive wars and what you are hearing could be conservatives against our interventions overseas. I think left thinking people like me (Greens and or left wing of democratic party) were angry at W but that's to be expected so nothing new to report there.

    Ron Paul's main thing, pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, probably resonates with an anti-war element within the GOP that got drowned out by the hawks of the Bush administration. Our invasion of Iraq was so obviously not tied with 9/11 that it made all types of Americans wonder.
     
  7. AhmedFaisal, Nov 13, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013
  8. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #8
    There doesn't appear to be a close study of Ron Paul's coverage, so I can't really comment on whether the media ignored Paul as a potential Republican candidate.

    One thing to keep in mind is that while Paul occasionally made a great deal of sense during the Republican debates, the side show of Gringrich, Bachmann, and "uh, um, what’s the third one there. Let’s see.... whoops" kept the spotlight away from Paul.

    The Republican party, of course, could have pushed him through and arguably would have had a closer race on the national scale, but inter-party fighting kept that from happening.

    Once Paul became a third-party candidate, he went to the ash heap with Stein, Goode, and Johnston.
     

Share This Page