Several follow-ups to yesterday's post on the GOP Presidential race...
If New Hampshire actual moves to December then a still unsettled primary season is totally up in the air. I hate to say all bets are off from yesterday's analysis if that occurs, but such a move could substantially reorder the dynamic of the primary process. It's crazy that we still don't know for sure what to expect, less than three months from when the delegate selection process will kick off one way or another.
In other news, this lengthy profile on the collapse of John McCain's campaign is a must read for the true political junkie, including this mind boggling passage:
The fund-raising woes were compounded by the fact that, incredibly, no one at the campaign's Arlington headquarters was monitoring the discrepancy between dollars in and dollars out. "And really," says campaign manager Rick Davis now, in his own defense, "it's pretty typical of a campaign, especially a national campaign, where you're in essence running two campaigns: one that worries about the money coming in and has its own organization and paid staff, and then the spend side. Even the most successful campaigns don't necessarily mingle the two."
Um, no, Rick. Campaigns with half a brain do try to keep at least some correlation between incoming receipts and outgoing expenditures. It's amazing this guy is still CEO of a Presidential campaign.
In less amazing but still interesting news, Jim Geraghty asks: "Has Mitt Romney Become the Candidate For Evangelical Conservatives?"
Lastly, wherever it falls in the primary process, Iowa's caucuses are an unusual beast in a system where most of the high profile battlegrounds are decided by standard primaries. To give you a flavor of what that means for the campaigns, check out this look at Barack Obama's Iowa operation, including this revealing bit:
On a recent evening at the campaign's Des Moines headquarters, about 50 people gathered in a corner for a training session for caucus precinct captains. A campaign staffer diagramed the layout of a typical caucus room, using a blue marker to draw circles and X's on white butcher paper.In the Iowa caucuses, which have none of the electioneering restrictions common to polling places, tricks of the trade include positioning friendly greeters at the front of the room to slap stickers on supporters and guide them to the corner owhere the candidate's followers will be counted; distributing baked treats to keep them there; and deploying "corralers" at the edge of the camp to dissuade waverers from wandering.
Not exactly as simple as poll watching and a reminder of why analysts and pundits put such a high priority on having a good organization to compete in the caucuses. It's even more important for Democrats since while the Republican caucuses are essentially a public show of hands, a candidate who gets less than 15% of the vote at a Democratic caucus location receives no delegates and their supporters have a chance to switch their "vote" to another candidate for the final tally. That's why for the Democratic caucuses, the 2nd choice of caucus-goers matters too.
You mention how New Hampshire may play a larger role, yet you do not mention the candidate that raised the second most money in that state.
You mention how it is important to not be in debt but yet you fail to mention the candidate that held a press conference today that explicitly pointed out his campaign was the only one to both be debt free and have a signifigant amount of money.
You mention how Iowa is a special beast because of its caucus and requires a good organization yet you do not mention the man who has more volunteers there than any other candidate in Iowa, has also raised what just shy of a second place showing in Iowa this past quarter, held a rally in Iowa with more people than all the other candidates had at their debate.
And you are from the state of Washington and yet you fail to mention the candidate that raised the most money in the state this past quarter.
WHy did you not mention any of these candidates? Because they are all Ron Paul and even when he fits your criteria for what it takes to be successful, he must be ignored because... his support is not really real, right?!?!?
Posted by: Travis Pahl on October 17, 2007 09:38 PMIf he makes it to 4th in either the pollster.com or RealClearPolitics poll charts for Iowa and New Hampshire (or any other pre-February 5th state for that matter) I'll include him. Until then, there's no point.
Posted by: Eric Earling on October 17, 2007 09:50 PMLook, here is why Ron Paul is polling so low: the sample is skewed!
Did you know that the polling organizations are using only those who voted in the Republican primary in 2004 as their sample? It seems like this might be a good sample at first, after all, those who voted in the last R primary are likely to vote in this one as well, right?
But let's think about what was happening in 2004: GW Bush was running for his second term. He had no significant R opposition for the nomination. The war was not percieved as going badly, and wartime presidents have an advantage. There was no real point in voting in the R nomination, UNLESS YOU WERE A DIEHARD GW BUSH FAN and wanted to make him look popular. Everyone knew he was going to get the R nomination.
In fact, USA today reported that R turnout in the presidential primary was 6.6% of registered Republicans: the lowest on record!
But these same GW Bush die-hards are the samples for the 2007 polls! Is there any wonder why Ron Paul scores low in these polls? They are all ardent war supporters! Few have changed their minds in the last three years.
For the full story, check out this link:
http://the-fifthhorseman.blogspot.com/2007/10/of-yankee-fans-and-ron-paul-polls.html
What this means is that even though Ron Paul is polling around 5% among R's who voted in the primary in 2004, he still has a great chance of winning the Republican nomination!
Thousands of people who were not registered Republicans in 2004 have registered in the interim, and millions will be voting in the well-contested and exciting R primaries and caucuses.
Bottom Line: Sampling error means that the polls are misleading, and understate Ron Paul's support within the NEW Republican Party.
So, Eric, cover Ron Paul now, and look like a far-sighted prognosticator in a few months! :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on October 17, 2007 10:01 PMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDIiQcCyuxU
I still think you are excluding Ron Paul because you don't like his position on the Iraq war. You are trumping up reasons to deny him the publicity that his story deserves.
Catch 22: The media won't cover him, so he doesn't do well in the polls. He doesn't do well in the polls, so the media won't cover him.
Yet the media WILL cover canidates who poll LOWER!
Bloggers are better than MSM journalists. Don't stoop to their tactics.
All we are asking for is a mention. When you write an article on the Republican Presidential race, mention Ron Paul and one relevant statistic about his campaign. That's all a good journalist would do anyway.
It's only fair, and your own market WANTS this coverage! I'm only asking you to do what is in your own interests if you care about increasing your readership. But if you won't do what is in your own rational self-interest, then not even I can help you.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on October 17, 2007 10:09 PMThe man is a candidate in this election, wins online polls, straw polls, raises as much money as other mainstream candidates, has more volunteers on the street than other candidates combined, has more signs than other candidates combined, has more bumperstickers out there than the other candidates combined, has more web traffic than the other candidates, raised more money in your home state than all the other candidates, and is the only candidate that is actually growing the republican party, yet you can not mention him.
I'm sorry but it really appears you are scared.
Posted by: Travis Pahl on October 18, 2007 05:20 AMEric, again, excellent analysis.
Posted by: swatter on October 18, 2007 06:50 AMFor someone trying to get a legit third party by asserting he is above petty politics and offers a real solution, these childish antics don't further McGuthrie's cause.
Posted by: swatter on October 18, 2007 07:37 AMIt's a nice conspiracy theory and all, but it doesn't detract from the fact that the enthusiasm of Ron Paul's supporters doesn't equate to a critical mass of support that can win him the nomination, period. Other than trying to play spoiler with the $5 million in cash on hand by sucking a couple precious percentage points from some other candidate (which is more likely to happen in New Hampshire than anyplace else) he's a total non-factor in the real nomination race. The sooner his supporters accept that the current state of affairs the more credibility they will have.
Posted by: Eric Earling on October 18, 2007 07:43 AMWell, yes, the conspiracy theory is false. However, there is a lot to be said for the notion that people most likely to vote for Paul are among those least likely to be polled. It's unavoidably true. These are people who are more likely to have unlisted or blocked or donotcall'd phone numbers, who are more likely to have only cell phones. They may well be more likely to not be home much.
I agree with you that he can't win. But I don't agree that the polls are necessarily an accurate reflection of that, because I know a lot about polling methodology and Paul supporters, so I know the results are very likely to be skewed against Paul.
Further, I don't even care how far along in the polls you are. To me, responsible coverage of this race mostly ignores the polls, and you are mostly covering ONLY the polls.
And again, you also ignore the fact that if this goes to convention, as it very well might, Paul might be a force there (though again, I agree he has no chance at the nomination).
Posted by: pudge on October 18, 2007 11:21 AMEric, are only the phone polls valid? Can all internet polls really be bogus, hijacked, and stuffed? Don't you think that internet polls have built in features to prevent that kind of thing? I'm sure not all, but it's not hard or uncommon, and yet Paul still polls really well when he's included as an option.
Posted by: Amber on October 18, 2007 11:24 AMWhat solid evidence does Paul have to back up such a statement?
Paul appears to me to be a wacky conspiracy theorist whose position regarding the war more resembles Dennis Kucinich and Cindy Sheehan than reasoned conservatives. Hardly worth serious consideration by rational Republicans in my opinion.
And no one is claiming the scientific polls are a conspiracy against paul, just that they do not reflect his true status. I do not think there are any intential skewing against him in the polls, just lots of unintentional skewing.
My main point is that polling has historically been way off of what actual happens in primaries at this point in the process so you should really decide who to cover on other more effective methods such as ground support, money raised, number of donors, cash on hand, etc...
If you do not want to do so and would rather continue to exclude Paul, feel free. Just expect others to laugh at your analysis.
Romney needs it though to seal the deal. We have to know if he can take the punches and who better than McCain/Giuliani to spar with.
Posted by: swatter on October 18, 2007 12:44 PMSounds like a Move-On.org tactic to me, to make fun of someone's name. I don't expect that kind of thing from a good conservative like you.
Is it a reference to McGavick, McCain, or my Scottish heritage?
But if you must, I prefer MacGuthrie, since my middle name is MacClement, NOT McClement. :) I also prefer to be associated with MacGuyver, who is one of my favorite TV characters. After Spock, that is...
Anyway, regarding your claim that Travis and I are trying to "hijack" these threads, I think you are mischaracterizing what we are doing.
Hijacking would be to take the thread off topic, or to exclude other opinions. We have no ability to do the latter, and we are not doing the former since Ron Paul is definitely one of the Republican Presidential candidates. It is reasonable to argue that he is now in 4th place, just ahead of McCain.
Also, my impression was that for bloggers to get lots of replies to their articles was a GOOD thing. It implies interest. I really think we are doing Eric a favor. In fact, I wonder if he excludes Ron Paul from his articles intentionally, because he knows he will get lots of replies if he does that...
If so, I am happy to play along. I like Eric's work, and I am happy if my comments make him look good. I'm also happy to have Ron Paul be a major part of the discussion, and Eric's exclusion of him allows that! :)
I take issue with Travis' calling your action "garbage" and "lame analysis." On the contrary, I find your articles interesting and insightful. I just think they would be MORE insightful, and serve your readers better, if you included Ron Paul.
I really think it is in your own interest as a blogger on this topic to do so...
But if you can't see that, I can't force you.
After all, it is still a relatively free country.
Though if more people don't support Ron Paul, I predict that we will continue to slide in the wrong direction, and towards bigger, more powerful, more out of control, more unconstitutional government.
To paraphrase Ben Franklin, it's a Republic, if we can keep it.
Posted by: Bruce MacClement Guthrie on October 18, 2007 04:29 PMYou guys need to find a brand new candidate somewhere puts enormous distance between himself and MacSmirky MacFlightsuit. Whoever puts the most distance probably has a chance.
Until then, keep it up and wait for the inevitable tidal wave that nobody has seen since the Watergate congressional classes.
Posted by: Big Mac on October 18, 2007 06:08 PMI don't disagree that Paul voters are more likely than others not to be captured in regular polling. That being said, I would argue for the same reasons you cite that this is a demographic that does not actually turn out in primaries well. That's just part of the reason candidates on the fringe of major parties rarely translate their enthusiasm quotient into votes.
Travis -
I never accused anyone of hijacking the comment threads, that was another commenter. As you can see from the variety of my posts, I almost always let the comment threads evolve as they will with no interference.
Posted by: Eric Earling on October 18, 2007 07:51 PMSorry I thought that was you that made the hijacking claim.
As far as Paul supporters being the demographic that deos not come out and vote... I find that hard to beleive. These are the same people that donated more money to Paul than any other GOP candidate in Washington state this past quarter. DO you think they would donate thousands of dollars and then not vote?
This is the same demographic that has spent many hours at a time hanging signs all over town. Attending rallies in the hundreds, driving hours to events, etc... Do you think they would spend all that energy and then not bother voting themselves?
Ron Paul supporters are ruitinely mentioned as the most enthusiastic at every event where all the candidates come. Also they are more numerous at every event. Why do you think the most enthusiastic supporters would be least likely to vote in the primary?
Travis
Posted by: Travis Pahl on October 18, 2007 09:22 PMYour proliferation of articles is entirely of Dave Matthews fame of a half year ago. I quit reading his hot button topics, too.
Posted by: swatter on October 19, 2007 06:24 AMMy degree is in journalism. One of my pet peeves is how many in the media -- and you fall into this camp -- focus too much on the horse race predictions instead of what's actually going on at the moment. The job of the media is to inform us about what's happening, not to try to be "right" about what is going to happen in the future, or push the readers or viewers into specific boxes.
In my opinion, the media in general significantly hurts democracy when it refuses to give coverage to candidates they believe for one reason or another has "no chance." Like when the media refused to give much coverage to Doug Roulstone. Who knows if he might have won if he had gotten a lot of coverage? It's not for you to decide, and no one cares what you think about it, to the extent it affects your coverage. If you want to keep saying in your coverage you think he has no chance, fine, but if it makes you not mention him, or mention him only in passing, on a consistent basis, that's lame. You're just marginalizing yourself here, at best, and at worst, you're adversely affecting the Democratic process.
And realize that this is coming from someone who will vote for almost every other GOP candidate before he'd vote for Paul. I think I'd for Paul ahead of Huckabee, and maybe Giuliani. I'd vote for all the rest, I think, before Paul. So I am not out here supporting Paul. I am supporting the notion that your responsibility, as I see it, after many years of study and experience on the subject, is to report what's going on, which includes recognizing that a huge number of people are interested in what Paul has to say, by actually reporting on what he is saying and doing.
Posted by: pudge on October 19, 2007 09:27 AMWith all due respect, your comment at #21 seems a bit hyperbolic in its accusations.
First, I'm not in the media. I am in that gray netherworld of the blogosphere, but you and I both know I should not be lumped in with the MSM since the same standards and expectations don't apply.
Second, it appears you're buying into some of thinking of the Ron Paul supporters that I'm specifically choosing to include or not include him in assorted posts for potentially nefarious purposes. You should have a better handle on my character at this point than that.
I write about Ron Paul when I think he's relevant to a post. As such, my coverage/analysis of debates and fundraising has included discussion of him, because it's relevant. I'm sorry, but beyond that I don't think there is a convincing case that Ron Paul is a serious contender for the GOP nomination - the topic I'm trying to focus on with a not infinite supply of reader attention.
You'll notice I didn't give Huckabee much attention outside of debate posts until he actually showed something to his campaign by coming in 2nd at Ames. Since then, he's demonstrated very little on the campaign trail outside of the debates and thus will receive less attention in my posts.
Furthermore, while polls are one measure of the seriousness of his candidacy, another is actual campaigning. Romney, McCain, Giuliani, and Thompson are all out publicly on the campaign trail, the former two in particular doing a lot of retail campaigning in states that count. That's important.
One of the first signs I caught that John Kerry was taking off late in the Democratic primary season, just before Iowa in 2004, were reports that he was campaigning hard on the ground, organizing well, and draw increasingly larger crowds at his events. Likewise with Mitt Romney before he jumped to early leads in Iowa and New Hampshire this spring. I see nothing of that with Ron Paul.
I'm largely an opinion writer. I have to make judgments about what I write about and what I don't. My experience taking part in and observing both GOP politics and assorted campaigns is that while Ron Paul does have an enthusiastic following, he's not actually having much in the way of a substantive impact on the race. Yes, some people are interested in hearing from the man. Yet what evidence is there that these people are likely Republican primary voters? What evidence is there that he has a campaign that is actually trying to harness the support he does have into something that can actually win, place, or show in any of the pre-February 5th primaries?
All that has nothing to do with what I think of the man. For instance, I have a reasonably good opinion of Duncan Hunter (though I disagree with him on a few issues) but never mention him in Presidential posts outside of debates because his campaign is going nowhere.
Now, you can like my assessment or not. I've obviously decided based on the information I've seen that Ron Paul is not a serious candidate for the Republican nomination, so I'm not going to spend much time on him other than noting the effect he might be having on candidates who are serious contenders. But please don't over-analyze what I do by presuming I'm specifically trying to refuse to cover a candidate as part of a broader story. My whole point is that I haven't seen anything to suggest he's more than a secondary player in the story to begin with.
Also, let's be totally honest. You can believe what you want about Roulstone's campaign, and he is a good guy. But that electoral effort was badly flawed in a lot of ways. He never achieved critical mass to make his campaign truly competitive, which the resulting press coverage reflected. Is that fair? Maybe. Maybe not. But the press or bloggers don’t have to cover everyone. They cover who looks like a real story. That's why Mitt Romney is getting coverage now when for a number of reasons he could be otherwise be mired in the 2nd tier at this point. Likewise, the press could easily not have covered Darcy Burner's campaign the way it did if she hadn't actually been successful rallying the Democratic base to her cause in the 2006 cycle.
All that to say, thanks for your thoughts, but I don't agree.
Posted by: Eric Earling on October 19, 2007 06:53 PMin 22 you state, "my coverage/analysis of debates and fundraising has included discussion of [Paul]" But the whole reason we keep questioning you is because you have left him out of the last three analysis.
You also claim that pudge is wrongly assuming you are " specifically choosing to include or not include him in assorted posts for potentially nefarious purposes" But when you specifically talk about q3 fundraising and leave out Paul who is won in our state in fundraising and is in the top 2 or 3 in key states and has more on hand than even some of the MSM top tier candidates, it is hard to think of other excuses.
You also claim, "while polls are one measure of the seriousness of his candidacy, another is actual campaigning" If you are not aware of Pauls campaigning then you are not paying attention. The man is speakig to hundreds an thousands of people every day. He has been constantly on the road raising money and exciting the thousands of volunteers out there. You state that you have not seen him campaigning hard? Not drawing large crowds? Try youtube it is all there for you to see. The man has been drawing larger crowds than any other GOP candidate. has more volunteers than any other GOP candidate. The MSM has not reported this so you will have to look for those signs of campaigning but they are there.
You ask, "Yes, some people are interested in hearing from the man. Yet what evidence is there that these people are likely Republican primary voters? What evidence is there that he has a campaign that is actually trying to harness the support he does have into something that can actually win,"
Well the fact that his supporters are so enthusiastic is proof that they are VERY LIKELY to be primary voters. do you honestly think people will work so hard to get his name out there, donate thousands of dollars and then not bother voting?
As for showing he is serious, if he was any other candidate you would treat his 5.4 million he had a 19 days ago as serious. He has raised another 1.3 million since then already. He is starting to spend that on radio ads and TV ads in NH, IA, SC, and NV.
But rather than list more and more facts about how his campaign is serious and why not you tell me what you need to see to treat it as a serious campaign.
You say you have made your mind because you have not seen anything to suggest he deserves more consideration. But based on what you are claiming about his campaign, I am getting the impression you have not really looked into his campaign at all. Please look into it. Youtube would probably be the best place to start. I really think you will be surprised by how big his campaign is while being minimized in the MSM.
Travis
Yes, you are.
... you and I both know I should not be lumped in with the MSM ...
I didn't say or imply "MSM."
... since the same standards and expectations don't apply.
To me they do. I've been in mainstream journalism, and I've been doing online stuff like that at SP since long before Sound Politics existed. I hold both to the same standards.
Second, it appears you're buying into some of thinking of the Ron Paul supporters that I'm specifically choosing to include or not include him in assorted posts for potentially nefarious purposes.
No. I never implied it was nefarious. I apologize for anything I said that you felt did imply that, though looking back I can't see what that would have been.
You'll notice I didn't give Huckabee much attention outside of debate posts until he actually showed something to his campaign by coming in 2nd at Ames.
Yes, thank you, that is a great example of where I think you are just not making sense. I think Paul's chances of winning are about as good as Huckabee's, yet you gave him coverage as though he had a significantly greater chance than Paul.
Furthermore, while polls are one measure of the seriousness of his candidacy, another is actual campaigning. Romney, McCain, Giuliani, and Thompson are all out publicly on the campaign trail, the former two in particular doing a lot of retail campaigning in states that count. That's important.
Shrug. Edwards is out a lot, is relatively high in the polls, has plenty of money, and is getting lots of coverage ... and has no chance at the nomination, unless Hillary dies. I am just not buying your reasons, at all.
I'm largely an opinion writer.
Yes, but that's not good enough. You are also framing a discussion for the other users of this site.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't give a damn about the horse race. I don't give a damn about the polls, not at this stage. What I care about is the discussion the party is having. THAT is what matters right now, and Paul IS having a serious and significant impact on that discussion.
Why should you or anyone else give a damn about the horse race right now? Why not just sit back and listen to the candidates and think and talk about the issues? What's the real goal here? I am not accusing you of ulterior or nefarious motives: I am accusing you of blinding yourself to what's really interesting and important, by focusing on what's "hot."
Yes, some people are interested in hearing from the man. Yet what evidence is there that these people are likely Republican primary voters?
Our current discussion aside: the chances of them participating in the primary would be much greater if those people didn't feel like they were being pushed back against by the rest of the party ...
Also, let's be totally honest. You can believe what you want about Roulstone's campaign, and he is a good guy. But that electoral effort was badly flawed in a lot of ways.
Oh, I am not saying otherwise. Nevertheless, he is a good candidate and with a responsible press covering the race he would have fared a lot better. Many Republicans had never HEARD of Roulstone come election day, except seeing his name on a sign; and while Roulstone's campaign is certainly to blame for that, so is the media. Some people may say it is not their job to give him publicity, but those people are wrong.
But the press or bloggers don't have to cover everyone. They cover who looks like a real story.
Yes, because they are irresponsible.
Again, I've been doing this a long time, and I have strong and well-based opinions on this matter. I categorically reject that the relative news blackout on Roulstone was anything less than severe irresponsiblity by the local media.
Likewise, the press could easily not have covered Darcy Burner's campaign the way it did if she hadn't actually been successful rallying the Democratic base to her cause in the 2006 cycle.
That only makes any sense for a press that completely lacks any initiative, imagination, or self-incentive to tell people what is going on, and is only capable of sitting and waiting for stories to fall into their laps. Those are the kinds of reporters that, when I was in the journalism business, made me resent journalism more than anything else.
I think the most productive thing to do at this point is agree to disagree. You have a pet peeve with the media writ large I sympathize with to a point but that I don't concur with in full, including with how your applying it to my work at SP.
Moreover, we're simply not going to agree on Ron Paul's chances and the market for the totality of his views within the GOP. You think he stands about as good a chance as Huckabee. I think Paul stands way less chance than Huckabee, whose own chances I peg at near zero.
You also say Paul is having a significant impact on the policy debate (to the degree there is much of one occurring in this primary). I can't agree. I simply don't see it.
Honestly, you've said before you're more of a libertarian or have some strong libertarian roots. That's fine, but I think it colors your acceptance of Ron Paul. My experience within the GOP is that while there is a vocal minority in the party that embraces a notable chunk of his views, most don't.
You seem to want everyone to stop covering the horse race and just have one big grand policy debate. Nice idea. Isn't going to happen.
In that paradigm, candidates otherwise polling low in the single digits have find ways to make themselves newsworthy. Mitt Romney has. Bill Richardson has. Huckabee has too with his Ames showing and his poll numbers putting him in reach of 2nd in Iowa. In contrast, Chris Dodd really hasn't. Neither has Joe Biden, Tom Tancredo, etc. And aside from the enthusiasm of his supporters on the Internet, Ron Paul hasn't really done anything either...other than serving as a foil for other candidates at a couple debates.
So, we're simply not going to agree.
It costs you almost nothing to cater to this segment of your market.
One line, with one fact, in an article of several paragraphs is all that would be required to do this.
No lying, or compromising your journalistic integrity would be required. Just the facts, m'am!
The costs to you are VERY low. The benefits are non-zero, and greatly exceed the costs.
Why not?
Why aren't you doing what is in your own rational self-interest? I really want to know! :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on October 20, 2007 10:24 AMI simply don't see how you could possibly not see it.
And to the extent there is not a debate happening in the primary season, it is because people like you don't care about policy debates, but instead waste your and everyone else's time on meaningless crap. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's the way it is. Almost everything you discuss when it comes to the primary season is vapid and useless. It has almost nothing to do with who would actually be the best Republican candidate for President, which is, of course, the POINT of the primary season.
Honestly, you've said before you're more of a libertarian or have some strong libertarian roots. That's fine, but I think it colors your acceptance of Ron Paul.
Yes, that is because you are completely ignorant of my motives, despite me stating them clearly. I have also railed in the past against ignoring candidates like Ross Perot and Ralph Nader, neither of which I liked, who were having an impact on the race and might've had a chance to have more of an impact if they got more media exposure.
Since you are now playing analyze-our-opponents'-motives, I'll say that you simply enjoy the horse race. You want to be and like being an insider, you enjoy the political game, and you want to be thought of as someone who has a keen mind for how campaigns are and should be run. You're talking about these meaningless and vapid and useless things because to you, it is on the one hand entertainment, and on the other hand what you aspire for.
Am I close?
My experience within the GOP is that while there is a vocal minority in the party that embraces a notable chunk of his views, most don't.
Of course most don't. That is a meaningless statement. I never contended otherwise, and have, in fact, explicitly stated that many times.
You seem to want everyone to stop covering the horse race and just have one big grand policy debate. Nice idea. Isn't going to happen.
Hm. I am saying it is a problem. You respond "it's not going to change." Are you familiar with the term "nonresponsive"?
I am saying it is not OK. Saying that's the way it is doesn't make it OK, and is therefore nonresponsive.
Maybe you're just trying to say I am fool to want something other than "the way it is," to try to change it, to ask other people to want something different and better?
In that paradigm, candidates otherwise polling low in the single digits have find ways to make themselves newsworthy.
Yes, because the media is stupid, the candidates have to do stupid things. I am well aware of this fact. It doesn't make it a good thing, and it doesn't justify being stupid.
Mitt Romney has. Bill Richardson has. Huckabee has too with his Ames showing and his poll numbers putting him in reach of 2nd in Iowa.
You are being hypocritical again. Don't even pretend that if Ron Paul looked like he might get 2nd in Iowa, you would think that he was newsworthy. You would respond, "he has no chance to win the nomination," and continue to ignore him. Huckabee has no chance whatsoever to win the nomination.
In contrast, Chris Dodd really hasn't.
Yes, in fact, he has. Maybe you are unaware of his promised filibuster of the FISA bill.
Posted by: pudge on October 21, 2007 10:01 PM