What if POTUS candidate was so good that he didn't need MSM coverage to be popular? Reason for elections is to change/replace candidates who got too comfortable. MSM never changes. to look for new candidates on MSM is like to look for new food in the same old toilet. MSM likes to drag out presidential elections for a year because it's profitable for them. and so now to elect a good president we have to donate to their money bombs because they're so close to winning only need a little bit of your money to pay their way in... So if they need money to get their message out, and therefor overshadow someone who did NOT collect enough money, let me ask you... and you still wholeheartedly support your candidate on MSM? or do you only support him because you fear an even worse man will get elected if you don't vote? I think your pesimism that "unless a candidate is on the MSM he can not win" is an international disease and you should take part in fighting it: look - there is pvsi.net that does not need your money, nor to sell you anything, and then there are these geniuses on the media circus, media which you KNOW has deceived you in the past, and yet you still support those prostitutes? I understand Ron Paul could be an icon for truth and constitution, but can we just get on with liberating America from special interest controlled MSM?