Things I have learned with Ron Paul's Presidential run

[HaloGuardian]

1. Libertarianism will never be a popular philosophy. People have flat out rejected it. I don't think it ever was popular (My opinion is the libertarian founding fathers were in the minority and the other founders of them were big government people anyways)

2. The mainstream media blackout and distortions is more extreme than I thought. They would intentionally not mention Ron Paul. It was obvious at times when he should have been mentioned (I didn't hear 1 lick about Paul's people colluding in West Virginia to get 3 delegates to vote for Huckabee on the 2nd ballot, it was all about McCains people. The delegate count in West Virginia is Huckabee 15 Paul 3 Everyone else 0). Paul did very well last night in the northwest (2nd in Montana, 3rd in North Dakota and Alaska, 15% and 4th in Minnesota) and I think he'll do pretty well in the upcoming Washington and Oregon primaries. You hear no mention of it. Paul has at least 45 delegates but the MSM says he has less than 15. Sure he won't win but he gets less coverage than Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity who have 0 delegates, and their boy Romney is doing piss poor.

3. I thought by now I'd know if Paul would run 3rd party (most likely Libertarian) by now but I really don't have a clue. He's still trying to collect delegates and hope for the best at a brokered Republican convention.

I may come back and add more later. :rrod:

[TheZenMan]

Well, at least you're not cynical.

[Roguesqd23]

the one thing I learned about Ron was that his people that liked him and supported him are nuts. I have never seen so many campain signs put up all over the place than Pauls. I see them on the side of the freeway than Thangs picture of the tagging on the side of the road. I went to WA back in Oct. and saw about 20+ sings on the same damn road.

Did you really think the guy was going to get a fair shake when it came to the election. 1% of the vote is nothing and deserves no mention. He had no chance from the start.

[MsThang]

You don't think he only has 1% of the vote because of the blackout that HG mentioned?

I've heard mention of Paul a few times on NPR, but only a handful. If he got the same coverage, he'd have more than 1%.

[Roguesqd23]

Paul just does not have the appeal to me. He reminds me of Ross Perot

[outsider]

Where did you get this 1% figure?

Ron Paul has polled consistently better than many of the other candidates that got a lot of press. He has constantly polled in the top 4 though he is omitted or listed as other.

[Roguesqd23]

even if he is in the top 4 who cares. you know there was no way he would ever win. Sad but true.

[Roguesqd23]

Ok Ron Paul got 8% of the Caucus here in CO. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#CO. Still not enough to play.

here is by state for him
I was wrong about the 1%.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/candidates/#302

[outsider]

even if he is in the top 4 who cares. you know there was no way he would ever win. Sad but true.

Yes because of the media blackout on him. That's the only thing that seperated him from other candidates who did worse than him is he never got coverage.

[HaloGuardian]

I really wish that was the case but I don't think it is. Sure he would have done marginally better but it would have been a wash.