Yes.
Howard is in DC where most, if not all, major news outlets have a substantial presence.
Simmons is in Boston where most, if not all, major news outlets do not have a substantial presence.
Or, given that I have repeatedly said the media only covered the HU speech to the extent they did because it was a failure, you could see that I was responding to your latter point:
Which, again, they don’t really care about unless something sensational happens. Parsing my comments the way you did makes no sense given that if the media only covers reaching out to Black people if it’s successful, the HU event, which was by almost all accounts a huge failure, would not be covered. That you think coverage is contingent upon that is just showing more of your general ignorance. This whole thread has been about what a colossal fuckup it was. Do you think the Daily Show would be talking about this it the speech went off well? The media goes to these things because there is a high likelihood of failure.
I was questioning your supposition that media loves reaching across the aisle, not that said coverage was dependent upon it being successful. Clearly that is not true given the disparate coverage of the two Paul events, and the coverage of the HU alone. THIS IS NOT THAT COMPLICATED.
Simmons College is in Louisville, Ky. Regardless, there are plenty of news outlet ready to cover such an event if the situation warranted it.
Regardless, my point stands, if not actually is strengthened. It’s easy for political reporters to go see a speech in DC, expensive for them to go to Louisville.
FWIW, Paul says he is considering running for POTUS in 2016. Here’s a neat quote:
So, maybe that is what these ‘outreach’ appearances really are all about?
Anyway, good luck, sucker! Bwa ha ha ha 
Really dude? Nearly every major news outlet has affiliates in KY. Besides, media coverage is typically not measured by the number of people AT the event, but rather the number of people who write and report on it. For example, I don’t think the Daily Show went to HU to see Paul speak, yet they “reported” on it. That the event was in KY vs. DC is largely irrelevant. It’s not as if Louisville is in the middle of nowhere either.
As I said, Rand Paul is running in the same way Ron Paul ran. He is not a legitimate candidate, and his chances of winning are less than 1%. If you think he has a shot, put some money on it.
I’d sooner buy gold 
Might be difficult to cash in my bet on him being elected President at the same time as I make a dash for the border before the Canadians close it.
Dude, I repeat:
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
They’d have LOVED to cover a “Republican successfully reaches out to blacks” event.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
Since the media LOVES to cover these things, I wonder why that wasn’t on the nightly news.
[/QUOTE]
Gee, even the same word emphasized with block caps. I wonder how I could have possibly got the idea that you were responding to that particular sentence of mine? 
Shorter brickbacon: I didn’t say what I said!
[QUOTE=brickbacon; emphasis added by RTFirefly]
Parsing my comments the way you did makes no sense given that if the media only covers reaching out to Black people if it’s successful, the HU event, which was by almost all accounts a huge failure, would not be covered.
[/QUOTE]
That’s because I didn’t say ‘only’, did I?
Pro tip from basic logic: A ==> B doesn’t mean (not A) ==> (not B).
Gotta go do some work; I’ll be back later to continue to suffer fools with great amusement.
Once again you were making assumptions most smart people would not if they were paying attention at all. I was perhaps giving too much credit in that I thought you would not think “success” was a necessary condition for media coverage of a political speech or event, and that you were using the word as part of a hypothetical headline. I was hoping your were just highlighting what a headline might say in a situation like this, and not trying to pretend that that was a standard for how much coverage said event would receive.
But that is my fault. I should not bother giving you any credit. Someone stupid enough to think Romney spoke to the NAACP just to rile up his White base should not be given the benefit of the doubt.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. These are the sort of “impossible to cash in on bets” for suckers.
It seem to me that they want to be the Party of Reagan now.
Really. Is there a NYT correspondent in Louisville? How many political reporters staff the AP offices there? How about Time magazine - how many people are in their Louisville, KY bureau?
The venue is highly relevant as to the news coverage, and arguments to the contrary are :rolleyes: -able. Its why bombs going off in Boston are more newsworty in the US than bombs going off in Manila.
No, but there is an AP reporter and someone from Reuters. And a freelancer can be deployed via a phone call.
Why on earth would you think that? Man, this one’s totally out of left field.
Can’t argue with you there.
In case you missed last month’s news, a former Animal Husbandry major and Yell Leader will have exciting news for us this summer:
Speaking of marginal candidates…
As far as the viability of a Rand Paul Presidential run is concerned, I’ll say this:
-
He’s a much more viable candidate than his father, because unlike his dad, he’s not taking a position contrary to his party on any major issue. Also, Senator v. Representative.
-
I wouldn’t bet on him to win the GOP nomination in 2016, because I think the stars are aligning behind Rubio.
-
But I’d bet on him to place, and wouldn’t be surprised if he does well enough in the primaries that he becomes the early favorite for the 2020 nomination, the guy whose proverbial ‘turn’ it is that year.
God, I hope Perry runs for POTUS again. Herman Cain, too. The Daily Show hasn’t been the same without them.