How does POLITICO define a "leading candidate" for the 2012 Republican nomination? Winning CPAC twice count?

Question

It's weird how Ron Paul (love him or hate him) won CPAC two years in a row and tied Herman Cain for top of the ballot at the tea party straw poll a few weeks ago, yet outlets like POLITICO basically pretend like he doesn't exist. (Paul also raised about $750,000 in PAC funds in one day about 2 weeks ago)

How is that Palin (who is consistently polling in single digits now), John Huntsman (who Politico keeps bringing to everyone's attention despite the fact no one seems particularly interested in the guy), Huckabee (who is proving once again he can't raise any money), and Pawlenty (another guy that keeps getting lots of talk, but no one seems particularly interested) are constantly mentioned (hell, Rick Santorum even made their short list), but the guy who won CPAC two years in a row gets zero mention?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51009.html

Answer 1

All corporate media sources pretend he doesn't exist. That's the best way to keep him from getting too much support. His lack of name recognition is the power structure's only defense against the champion of the Constitution...

Answer 2

I hear what you're saying and I agree that the way Politico defines "leading candidate" is not ideal or consistent.



But CPAC is not necessarily representative of the demographic in the GOP primary. Mitt Romney won CPAC in 2007, 2008 and 2009. George Allen won in 2006. We know how that turned out.

Answer 3

no longer likely, using fact the vast majority of folk surely have faith that he would not have a huge gamble of triumphing. astonishing now, u.s. desires a transformation, and the Republican'ts and the Democraps only are not handing over. We desperately prefer a third occasion again on the scene, and if its the "astonishing" candidate, he, or she, ought to win the 2012 election. Ron Paul desires to take some good sized steps in the arriving months to coach all of us that he's the "astonishing" candidate.

Answer 4

Well, to be honest, I haven't seen Ron Paul make any indication that he plans to run for President in 2012, despite his popularity among many. He acheived quite a national platform running in 2008, raised his profile for himself and for his views. Certainly, his popularity helped his son get elected to the Senate last year too. He's gained a lot since 2008, I'm not sure if he wanted to be President so much as he wanted the platform for his philosophy, which he largely achieved.

Answer 5

Politico.com serves nothing more than TV's version of MSNBC's Chris Mathews spewing his leg thrills Obama gave him on national TV. To use politico as a media stream of credibility is no different than asking a wild lion to try to be a vegetarian. It's the same reason why i rarely use Fox as a source. Too many libs bash Fox for being the messenger while ignoring the message. So I link lib media streams reporting the exact same things. That shuts them up really quick and leaves them no comebacks and it frustrates them off the grid.

Answer 6

CPAC votes are not particularly indicative of anything.