Ron Paul, loser again

For months now the growing thousands of Ron Paul supporters across the country have been saying virtually everywhere they could, including the comments section of this blog by the hundreds, that the media, the polls and the prognosticators were all wrong. There was a conspiracy.

Those Paul supporters were actually correct. The media, the polls and the prognosticators were, indeed, all wrong -- about Barack Obama handily beating Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary. The media that the Paul camp loves to hate was actually dead-on right about Ron Paul. He was a long shot. He misfired again. And he got pretty much the same share of New Hampshire GOP votes as the progressive polls, that Paulunteers also despise as frauds and fixed, unrepresentative statistical snapshots, had indicated he had all along.

As he did in Iowa, Paul, despite raising the most money of any Republican presidential ....

candidate in the fourth quarter -- nearly $20 million -- (and another $600,000 this month) and despite the vociferous support of many young supporters, once again finished in the back of the GOP pack. He was in single digits this time, versus his 10% in the Iowa contest last week when he thumped former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who got a meager 4%. And the zero delegates that Paul got in last Saturday's Wyoming county caucuses.

The 72-year-old, 10-term congressman from Texas with the libertarian ideals and the strict views of the Constitution vied with Giuliani for fourth or fifth place all night with 8% or 9% of the record New Hampshire primary vote. His diverse supporters hoped -- indeed, expected -- that their political passion and heartfelt donations combined with Paul's candor, constitutional clarity and congressional consistency would reach critical mass in New Hampshire and ignite the Ron Paul Revolution. But apparently the match broke.

Despite his enthusiastic supporters. Despite all the hand-painted signs and chants. Despite the long hours handwriting letters to voters in other states. Despite the yard signs that bloomed everywhere like winter dandelions.

Despite his millions of dollars. Despite his growing political infrastructure in other states. Despite his book. Despite the 1,400 meet-up groups nationally. Despite all the positive publicity surrounding his being snubbed by Fox News for the Sunday night debate and his second appearance on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno." (Click here for the Paul-Leno interview transcript.) Despite all of his advertising in the Granite State, which seemed fertile soil for his less-government approach.

Paul lost. Again.

Paul has the money to continue his long-shot campaign. He says he plans no third-party run. But we'll see. Running for president and getting the acclaim of friendly crowds is a heady experience. For now, only Fred Thompson did worse in New Hampshire. And the former Tennessee senator wrote off that cold little place long ago.

For now, for a real change, we're not going to try to explain Ron Paul's candidate's defeat. We're going to leave it to his earnest and vocal supporters in the comments section below. Maybe they know better what went wrong. Please, spare us the rants and blaming secret neo-con conspiracies. Don't claim that fourth or fifth place is really winning. Nobody questions if Paul is a straight-shooter who sticks by his guns and his word. We can all go to his website here for the details of his platform.

Here's your chance to explain in specific detail to a major blog and its thousands of readers why Ron Paul lost so badly in New Hampshire and what he needs to do to realistically resurrect his candidacy for the Republican nomination in the other states coming up so rapidly. In fact, everyone is invited to offer their own analysis. Does Ron Paul's political fate even matter in the larger picture?

The floor -- or the page -- is yours. Let's hear it.

--Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[Russ Neimy]

Ron did fine. I'm still backing him. I'm not young or old. I'm just a normal middle class white guy. Ron is probably just to right (pun intended) for this country...

[Pablo Escobar]

Ron Paul had a poor showing, no doubt about it. All I can say is that this country isn't ready for him yet. He offered change, but TOO much change for the average voter. Someday, a younger, more articulate libertarian candidate who can charm the establishment crowds better Paul will come along. Until then, Paul supporters will probably move to New Hampshire for the Free State Project. Electing a libertarian governor and then getting that governor to run for President sounds like a reasonable goal to me.

But the fact that a plain speaking politician like Paul can get so much money and support shows that the people are hungry for the message. The people will only be more hungry in a few years, by which time a McCain/Clinton administration would have invaded some more countries and curtailed some more civil liberties.

[Marta]

We were nearly completely ignored by the old media. Fox news excluded Dr. Paul. CNN put a blank spot on its pie chart instead of Dr. Paul's name. There was a near total old media blackout in the days leading up to this vote. Considering the circumstances, 8% is outstanding.

[Bob]

It is simply charisma. Ron Paul has the best message of any of the candidates. He is also the only one offering a way to "change," not just invoking the word. His problem is charisma. If he was younger, more handsome, more politically savvy speaker, it wouldn't be a question whether Hillary or Obama are on top today, it would be a question of what America did to get so lucky and how to use this good fortune for our advantage. I long for the day when Americans simply vote the issues presented and not the political rhetoric. Hopefully that day will come soon and on that day Ron Paul will win.

[Mark S. Gonney]

The only loser is the person who wrote this column. Why do I say that? Because I'm a registered Republican and I voted for Ron Paul? No. Because what the smart dumb person who banged out the above article doesn't have the brain power to realize they just called the people in this country who support freedom, liberty and individual rights LOSERS.

The "losers" they refer to are the people in this country who want the values and principles of their elected officials to be consistent with the document that is still considered THE LAW OF THE LAND and to my knowledge has yet to be abolished as the document each president SWEARS to protect and defend.

This is eerily reminiscent of how proud the Neo-Cons felt after George Bush won the presidential election for the 2nd time even after Michael Moore's movie Farenheit 911 was released. They were so proud and mocked and teased Moore and the people who supported his view, but...what happened?

Michael Moore was right, The Neo-Cons were wrong and we are stuck in a trillion dollar overseas quagmire because of it. Did George Bush Win? Yes, but the American people lost. So please, brag, boast, tease, say I TOLD YA SO! and mock the way Ron Paul has energized a segment of people in this country NONE of the candidates from each party side has been able to do. In the end, if the values and principles and truth of what Ron Paul stands for doesn't get into the white house these next four years AMERICA will be the biggest loser.

Peace, Love and the utmost of RESPECT.

If you are against Ron Paul you probably will not approve this message but if no other American can see it...at least you did.

[Matt]

A lot of people still do not have any idea who Ron Paul is. In fact, many voters become aware of candidates based on how well they do in the polls. If Paul was 40 percent in the polls then he would probably get somewhere close to 40 percent of the vote. These polls conducted are huge. People base decisions sometimes on how well a candidate is doing in a poll.
The problem, which Mr. Malcolm obviously doesn't get, is that Paul's supporters are not your usually poll participating supporters. You can't accurately monitor his support right now. Many of his supporters are cynical that he has a chance and are probably not even voting unless they know he has a chance to win. This is very sad and a big reason why people do not vote in the first place.

[Dan Warner]

I don't think it matters if Ron Paul wins. What matters is the movement that seems to have started. Ron Paul supporters are not waking up because Ron has nice hair, wears nice ties, or is a billionaire. They are waking up because of his message. He has awakened a sleeping giant.

The giant may be tired and slow right now, afterall he just woke up from a long sleep, but the message is what is driving it.

I have seen Ron Paul people talking about real issues that seem to have been forgotten. One can argue about which one is right and wrong, but nobody can deny that these ideas are once again alive and well. Young people are being drawn to a conservative message, old people are longing for the way things used to be and can be again.

I think you are going to see lots of people who are NOT discouraged if Ron looses. I think lots of people are considering running for office themselves now to assure that the message doesn't die. We are wondering why Ron Paul is often the only 'NO' vote and think that maybe it's time there are a few more 'NOs' to go along with him.

The giant has awakend, he is moving and he is hungry. Watch out because he may sneak up on you a few years from now and eat you for breakfast...

[stompk]

I'm a 42 yr old contractor, Desert Storm vet, and I am for Ron Paul

I guess all those people out there with the Ron Paul signs in NH just
didn't vote.

Yeah, right.

Every online poll has Ron Paul winning.

There aren't any Hillary or McCain people online?

Do you think Ron Paul will get invited to the next Fox debate?

How about another Money Bomb Paulites. I have $100 bucks I set aside.

What do you say, oh, Jan 15th?

Anybody in. They can't ignore us forever.

Halleluiah!

[Jason V]

Well I must say I am disappointed. I believe the main reasons are that the GOP, in this case NH, PRIMARY voters are about two-third pro-Iraq war.. so naturally the no-nonsense McCain would be your "tough on terror" pick, fools they are. Those that are voting in the primaries for the GOP are for the most part for the war. Paul, as much as I hate to say it, should run third party so that the non-primary goers get their crack at him. As much as the immigration crisis over amnesty-granting Comprehensive Immigration "Reform" was and with McCain taking pictures with Ted Kennedy and to see NH voters seemingly forget this and support him this go 'round just shows how foolish GOP primary voters are, at least in NH. I have come to the conclusion that immigration is so important to me (to SECURE those borders), to reduce the size and scope of government which doesn't seem to mesh with these GOP primary goers that I do not have a party any more. This will be the last time I ever vote again probably after this '08 cycle.

[Joe]

Ron Paul is doing what no one said he would do... he is keeping up falling only slightly behind juliani and ahead of fred thompson. This is truly a vitory for Dr. Paul and with all the support coming in nation-wide we will see of he cant keep this up. But I think Ron Paul is in this for the long haul and will give the others a run for thier money.

[badmedia]

So anything other than 1st was bad? He's at 8-10% and doing better than some of the other candidates. He's still in it, and now as shown with Fox News there is no reason for him to be ignored now.

Hardly a loser. For someone who has been called a long shot candidate, he's done very well in both primaries(that allowed actual voters). Seems the same people who called him a loser before it started, say he has no chance and whatever are the same quick to call him a loser or say he's doing badly.

Besides, shouldn't the real story have been how many more votes the democrats got over the republicans? Maybe that should be a wake up call to all the pro-war republicans, because without ron paul, that difference is even bigger.

[Bill McDuff]

We RP supporters are of course very dissappointed as well as puzzled. Had RP the physical good looks and verbal skills of a Mitt Romney to go along with his message he would now be the front runner. That is tragic and an indictment of the intelligence of the current American voter. The others skew their message based on poll results so therefore cannot be trusted while RP is 100% consistant! We get the government we dererve via our active participation and maybe we deserve disaster. That being said given that EVERYONE expected RP to do far better in NH than Iowa one can only wonder if the RP votes were all counted?

[Jason]

They should have campaigned there harder.

Thats the only thing I can say. We had the volunteers, the money, and the opportunity.

Congrats to the other campaigns for their efforts...

but we aren't out yet, so don't think we are going away because we're not.

[John]

It has become apparent that Ron Paul lost because our country is Pro War, Pro Illegal immigration and Anti Constitution. Very Simple.

[cameron]

I think it boils down to this sad fact. It is not in the human spirit to have courage enough to acknowledge approaching danger. We want to think "it is all going to be all right" or "It can't happen to me". Is there anything that Paul is saying about monitary policy or foriegn "entanglements" or the fact that we SHOULD honor OUR constitution that is somehow...deluded??? Not at all. What the "fickle crowd" doesn't like about Paul is that he is a honest to god prophet (monetary and geopolitical) and he is telling us what we just can't bear to hear...our American dream is being hollowed out and may...even now...be a house of cards waiting to fall. The really scary thing is that Paul may already be too late to save us from ourselves. Better to whistle in the dark.

[Enlightened One]

It's becoming clearer and clearer to me what the real problem is with America today.

It's cities and towns are full of complete imbeciles.

The proof is in the pudding. Hillary Clinton won yesterday because she conjured up some tears at a crucial moment, and the footage was replayed literally thousands of times in the ensuing 24 hours.

American citizens today are led by the hand at every crossroads today and have completely lost the revolutionary spirit that once made this country great.

If the United States goes through with it and elects Billary again, that will be a minimum of 32 years straight with a Bush-Clinton in the White House. Simply ridiculous. WAKE UP PEOPLE !!!

[Daniel]

As a Ron Paul supporter, I have been more attracted to his message of a true Constitutional government, State's rights, no income tax, and economic reforms to save our currency, which as we all know is circling the drain. But I think we have been naive to think that the message is greater than the messenger. Ron Paul just isn't charismatic or assertive enough to persuade people who aren't already sold on his platform.
Also, the recent revelations about the infamous newsletters are heart-breaking to me. I don't want to be associated with those kind of beliefs, even though I don't believe Ron Paul wrote them himself or even agrees with them. But the fact that he allowed himself to be associated, even by proxy, with them does not trumpet the sound judgment we must expect our President to possess.

[Alex]

I have no doubt their will be many Paul supports who were expecting a better showing in NH, but unfortunately changing the mind set of a populace is a demanding and time consuming task.

I have been following the Paul campaign from the outset and what strikes me is less what his numbers are in polls but more the base of support and ideas he is weaving into the political debate.

These are ideas and views are being spread ever wider and I strongly believe will grow (especially in the young who are of course the future). I believe the future direction of the US Economy will add a huge amount of credence to Paul's ideas. If much of Paul's warnings on the economy are born out this could well affect future elections and drive a significant shift in views.

For those who support Paul I urge you to focus less on the results (which were always at best going to help attract new supports and media coverage, not win the nomination) and look at the big picture and the movement and change that has just started to get rolling.

[Ronald Olson]

The reason for Ron Paul's low polling numbers is the message is simply unbelieveable to most americans. Everybody knows you can't solve income tax,foreign policy and government intrusion on our lives. When anyone says the founders wrote a program that insures our way of life would be free so long as we are responsible, the eyes glaze. Unfortunately if we can't make our candidate cool and hip Ron isn't going to be president. Maybe Steve Jobs can throw his star power behind Ron ala Oprah.

[Joey Damario]

Fox News, an arm of the pro-war, pro-neocon elements of government, conspired to ignore Ron Paul's "thumping" of Giuliani and not include him in televised panel debates.

But we are not supposed to call shenanigans? Spare you the claims of a "conspiracy"? How do you think the millions of Ron Paul supporters feel right now about this country and its political and media systems?

The revolution is about to get very, very angry. Better choose a side, LA Times. The internet is bigger than you.

[Chris]

I saddens me that a candidate that everyone admits is honest, a candidate that speaks clearly an evident truth, a candidate who has genuine concern for American lives at home and abroad can not garner the attention of the voters.

This indicates to me that the American public will get what they deserve: a hundred years in Iraq, a worthless dollar, and an America that is reviled by all other nations as a fascist police state with war criminals for leaders.

Good luck America... we had our chance at redemption. His name was Ron Paul.

[Andrew Malcolm]

anyone catch the Hurricanes vs. Bruins last night? Good hockey game and a decent fight in it as well.

[Loser supporter for truth]

You are basing your viewpoint after only 3 primaries? 14 electoral votes? There is a long way to the White House and only losers are you people in the media. Only Dr. Paul has a chance to still run as an independent once all the other posers are out of the way. A brilliant strategy!

[FrancisM]

It's pretty simple...McCain has name recognition the same reason Edwards did so well in Iowa...the difference is that these stupid old people didn't realize that McCain was no longer the McCain 2000 version who was in many was polar to Bush. but is now McCain 2008: the biggest Bush Bot of them all.

Romney spent the CRAP OUT OF NH, in addition he's from a neighboring state, he visited more often because he could day trip from his house.

Huckbee won the iowa caucus, some idiots vote for a winner, regardless how little they actually stand for the party.

Rudy had to make sure he didn't loose to Paul again, plus its hard for his rotating state stratagey to miss a state. he was in Iowa over 40 times, NH over 50. NH voters are not smarter voters, they might have been in the past but with a year/ 5 days they sure showed the rest of the nation that they don't deserve to be first.

Paul got where he did beause he didn't make that many appearances, he relys on his grassroots campaign, and in NH they're spoiled and want to see the candidate not a rep from the candidate.

Thompson is only in it because Romney hasn't said leave yet, Thompson siphons votes from Huckabee, a natural fit for Romney to enjoy Thompson mediocre successes...

It boggles me how someone can say the pundits don't like me the media hates me, and then get endorsements and tout them like nobody's business...McCain will loose. NH does not deserve first in the nation status.

the movement to get rid of this nonsense in primarie and to move to a rotating state schedule is helping make these early contests look like a flash in the pan.

Don't worry, Ron Paul will win.

[Mike]

Sadly the reason is the same for all of America, nobody cares about the facts or the issues, but the face, the race, the sex, or the religion. It's the same reason that the Enquirer and Star outsell the Wall Street Journal, or people would rather see headlines about Spears breakdown over oil topping $100 a barrel.

The American people just don't care.

They pay more attention to a face (Romney), a race (Obama and Oprah), a sex (Hillary), a religion (Huckabee), than either Paul or Kucinich who talk about issues. Has anyone counted how many times any of the above have flip-flopped their messages in their terms? Compare that to Paul who has been saying the same thing, and making the same predictions, for two decades.

Sadly it will probably take a complete depression, people with all those paper dollars in buckets to buy bread, to get them to see the economics of the nation and say "Gee, wasn't there that guy running for President who said this would happen? Maybe we should have voted for him." In the past few decades it always seems that the United States is always too little, too late. In war, in alliances, in freedom, in technology, in business, in everything it does.

With the integrity and want of true, honest-to-God change that Ron Paul is advocating maybe, just maybe, we could be the nation of Theodore Roosevelt again, the one that at it's peak the world looked to, admired, and envied. The youthful nation that brought new ideals, conservation, monetary strength, caring for all the classes but especially for the poor and working class, and a government not controlled by big business.

Vote Ron Paul, and give the United States a chance to be strong again.

[Steve]

I called it weeks ago; they'll use the fixed polls as an "I told you so" after rigging the electronic voting machines and the private vote counts. Freedom is down the toilet; they decide everything. You are just slaves and pawns.

[Jess T.]

VOTE FRAUD. What, you think that's impossible in the corrupt USA, where the filthy rich own the government?

[George T. Miller]

You are basing your viewpoint after only 3 primaries? 14 electoral votes? There is a long way to the White House and only losers are you people in the media. Only Dr. Paul has a chance to still run as an independent once all the other posers are out of the way. A brilliant strategy

[Jim Ostrowski]

Okay.

First, Ron has been marginalized by the MSM forever. When he is covered, it's always qualified by saying he's a long-shot, or "fringe," or a "flake."

Second, even that unflattering coverage disappeared for four days before the election.

Third, a tiny number of "supporters", if they were in fact supporters, engaged in some very obnoxious street tactics just before the primary.

Fourth, the media gushed over Obama as the change candidate when he is no such thing. He’s the status quo candidate--he wants to continue the growth of the federal government that has been occurring at least since 1917.

Fifth, Ron has been the subject of vicious smears all along.

Sixth, he’s played it too nice. He needs to take the gloves off.

Seventh, it's way early to write him off.

Eighth, he's ahead of Rudy after two states have voted. Why not ask what's wrong with Rudy?

[Todd T]

Dr. Paul lost in New Hampshire for a multitude of reasons. Perhaps one of them wouldn't be enough to defeat a candidate, but combined they create a toxic mix for a candidate. 1) Dr. Paul's message attracted his supporters, not so much his charisma. He's message is primo. His delivery is akin to W. Bush. 2) Dr. Paul did not wrap his message in a positive fashion, such as Ronald Reagan did with his smaller government message in the 1980s. People this cycle are searching for optomism -- See Obama's success. 3) Media blackballing didn't help. Fox last night included the delegates earned by Hunter, but not Paul. 4) Paul's message, as he delivered it, does not play well on television soundbytes. Reagan's message was very similar, but Reagan was able to communicate it in a TV-friendly way. Paul has not spent his money on speech/sound byte writers. 5) Paul has fallen into the role that libertarians in this country too often like to play. He's the victim of an establishment. Because he plays like a victim, he is a victim. Perception is reality in politics. And no one wants a victim as their president. 6) Paul's supporters are both what got him this far, but they are also what helped hold him back. Many people were annoyed by the rudeness of his supporters. In a group of 20 supporters at an intersection, it only takes one to be overly annoying to leave observers with a bad impression.

All of these things combined is why Paul is losing and will lose. We Paul supporters never really supported the man. We supported the message. As you can see in the last three days, Huckabee has quoted Paul twice (without giving credit). For the message to continue to have life, Paul's supporters must continue to support Paul. This is how you change a party from the inside. Because in our system of government, you can forget about a third party ever playing anything but spoiler.

[Chris]

You know, maybe if the msm actually did some positive reporting on Ron Paul he would actually do better. I mean seriously, look at Huckabee, he has raised hardly any money and yet the media hypes him up and he wins Iowa. Maybe if the media would give Ron Paul the same respect, he would actually win, but all the slanderous articles and reporting the media does on Ron Paul is not helping him in the primaries and I think the media is happy with the job theyre doing.

[jayhawk10]

Here's the main reason Paul came in fifth in New Hampshire: he opposes the war in Iraq. The vast majority of Republican voters still support the war, while the vast majority of voters who oppose the war find Paul's economic, social and legal views anathema. For a time, it looked like Paul might be able to build an unlikely coalition of libertarians, hard-right populists and anti-war liberals, but the difficulty of bringing such a diverse group of people together into one camp appears to have been beyond the grasp of Paul and his campaign organizers.

[robert]

Gee, what would have happened if he'd been included in the Forum. Don't you think that accounts for something??? you sound really afraid of him, if not downright hateful!

[James Bowery]

My home state is Iowa. My friends there reported zero mass media exposure of Ron Paul -- not even his ads made it to them. If he'd been given at least 10% of the Republican mass media exposure in Iowa and 7% in NH that he would have done far better in both states.

[chris]

I am still very hopeful that this will turn into a movement that will get as big as Ross Perots did(with more substance)
I still dont get how anyone over a 50 IQ would vote for anyone not fixing our debt and spending…Are they blind and deaf??
They say things have to get worse to get better sometimes..
How much worse can we make it and survive?
They say government dosent do anything well…Thats not true..They dumb down society better than anyone.

[Freddie]

No matter what the outcome has been or will be regarding Ron Paul's bid for the presidency, he should be thanked by EVERYONE for energizing so many Americans to become involved in the political process. He has captured the attention of so many young people and given them a lesson in politics and fiscal responsibility unlike any they have ever been exposed to before.

If Ron Paul was given the same attention by the MSM that the other candidates have received, he would be able to get his message out to more Americans. This is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Those of us who have heard Dr. Paul's message will not give up the fight! GO DR. PAUL! and THANK YOU!

[chris]

I am still very hopeful that this will turn into a movement that will get as big as Ross Perots did(with more substance)
I still dont get how anyone over a 50 IQ would vote for anyone not fixing our debt and spending…Are they blind and deaf??
They say things have to get worse to get better sometimes..
How much worse can we make it and survive?
They say government dosent do anything well…Thats not true..They dumb down society better than anyone.

[ACUTS]

When push came to shove two things happened.. independents were stilll mesmerized by Obama.. and the conservative ones went with someone they felt could win.. McCain..

some Republicans and indies have always expressed their love for Dr Paul.. not the supporters, but people who like him, think he is a decent man, agree with most of what he is saying and then finish that comment with.. he will not win the nomination. so they go for the second choice. For the people I know who are like that they are leaning towards Romney and Huckabee... and I am sure for many others leaning for McCain.. He is the old straight talker.. the one with name recognition..

I love Dr. Paul... I think he has what it takes.. but I also know if he does not WIN Nevada... come in second or third in Michigan or South Carolina.. he might as hang it up..

and he cannot run as an indy because he will come off as a Romney... wishy washy and changing his mind.. yes circumstances can change that.. strong finishes on feb 5th...more money...but that does not mean the most principled man in the race should change what he has said since the beginning of this race..

I am not running as a third party candidate.. even if I WANT HIM TOO... in fact he should have to begin with..

the odds have been stacked against him.. I love underdogs.. but when FOX refuses to let you in the debate after you met their qualifications.. and they say we just dont have room.. that tells you the party insiders hate you.. the media is scared of you.. and those in power do not want your message heard.. and when it does.. You get slandered... you get made fun of... and you get marginalized..

WELCOME TO POLITICS... maybe he ought to cry like Hillary.. ;-)

[Lou Eastman]

I voted for Ron Paul yesterday. I will vote for Ron Paul in the general election if he wins the Republican nomination, runs as a third-party candidate, or if I have to write him in. I am voting for Ron Paul because he stands for the things that I believe in: liberty and responsibility, both fiscal and social. I won't let anything get in the way of my right to vote my conscience.

This isn't a sport. This is about representation for everyone. There should only be one winner in this race. The smallest minority of all: The individual.

[Tess101]

Thank you Andrew for this write up on Ron Paul. Thank God Ron Paul didn't get 4% like Giuliani did in Iowa. I guess the Foxnews forum didn't help poor old Thompson, but I really believe it may have helped Giuliani. If Foxnews had been smart they would have included Ron Paul, but they don't want the truth about our economy to be told. Ron Paul has done well considering the lack of attention he has gotten by the media, and the out of line jabs, and snickering by the other candidates during debates. Ron Paul taking 5th place in New Hampshire considering the odds have been totally against him all this time by the bias media groups is nothing to sneeze at. I was watching the Glenn Beck show last night as he was speaking with one of the Government Accounting/Audit Officers, and I actually heard Glenn Beck say "Oh, that's what Ron Paul has been talking about all along", my jaw hit the floor, and I realized Glenn Beck is finally understanding Ron Paul's message and the information Ron Paul has written about our economy and the monetary system. If anything folks, just realize Ron Paul is reaching people with his knowledge of the economy and how we have to cut spending, abolish the Fed, the IRS, and Social Security system. The writing is on the wall, and the sheep are waking up. So please don't give up hope. I will not say that foul play was a factor in the counting of votes, but there was a young man in New Hampshire that has claimed his mother worked at a polling precinct and the votes were not counted properly for Ron Paul, so if there is any possibility of fraud I hope it is addressed. Ron Paul and Giuliani were fairly close in votes, so there is a possibility they could actually be tied, remember that. Ron Paul will do well in South Carolina, and I predict he beat Giuliani there, and McCain. Ron Paul has my vote and support, and I will continue to spread his message. Freedom and Liberty will prevail but we have to cut government spending drastically or this country will go under, and it is not that far off in the future. Please know that I am not a doom, and gloom type of person regarding our economy, but I am realistic. Remember the old saying "People don't plan to fail, they fail to Plan" So all you Ron Paul Supporters, and those that know what our country is facing, don't give up, continue to be involved, we must do whatever it takes to make our country strong again, and Ron Paul will continue with his efforts.

[Jake Ripley]

I knew the L.A.Times had already lost most integrity it once had as a actual News Paper but this article is a perfect example of why. It is now a tabloid and nothing more.

[Ben Peckham]

Ron Paul was only 3.6 percentage points behind 3rd in Iowa and 4 points behind third in New Hampshire. Yes it is disappointing but not over. What is most disappointing, however, is that despite Dr. Paul's "candor, constitutional clarity and congressional consistency," and despite that in your own words, "Nobody questions if Paul is a straight-shooter who sticks by his guns and his word." Dr. Paul only garners 10% of the vote. And then you guys get a "nanny nanny boo boo attitude toward paul supporters. Sad. So very Sad. HEY MSM, try being a part of the solution and not the problem.

[Mark]

If Ron Paul doesn't mind voting alone for his principles, neither do I.

I'm convinced that the philosophy of Liberty--where each individual respects the life, liberty, and property of others--can bring us a future of peace and prosperity. This is why I follow it in my daily life.

Of course, I am disappointed that not everyone feels that way towards others. But apparently 8% of those who went to the Republican Primaries in New Hampshire felt that way, heard that supporting Ron Paul was a way to voice those feelings, and got out to vote. A year ago, I thought that only one in a hundred people I met understood the importance of Liberty.

It was definitely worth the time, money and effort I've spent on the Ron Paul campaign to see these ideas being discussed in the national media. I plan to continue using the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential campaign to promote Liberty as long as I can, even if the electorate isn't ready for it yet.

[Mike]

yeah --- i was watching it on CNN so i was watching more of the numbers and less of the % points --- the percentage points never wavered more than 1% ---- but the numbers were way too orderly

it seemed as if 1 person went up 185 votes the next person would go up 140 votes and the next 55 etc.... very little wavering --- as if a machine was getting the total number of votes cast and distributing them according to a pre-determined ratio

it was all way too clean and concise

[Rob231]

Leaving Ron Paul out of the Fox republican debate cost him more credibility then initially recognized. Way more damage then the racial smere piece that hit the media hours before voting.

Fox has a huge following. Why would a boarderline independant/republican even bother with a candidate that doesn't get included in their debates? My money says Ron recieved the least "swing" votes in the largest "swing" state primary because of this.

File it under neo-con conspiriacy, just my honest opinion.

[Scott McDonnell]

All I can say is that it is peculiar that Ron Paul has gotten EXACTLY what he was polling at, when the polling was "likely republican voters" didn't take into account any new voters, voters, switching parties, etc... He got EXACTLY the percentage he was polling at. While the polls were mostly wrong about every other candidate. This happened in Iowa AND New Hampshire. Paul was placed at 8% in NH and 10% in Iowa in the polls and this is EXACTLY what he got.

I'm really not much a conspiracy theorist, but something very odd just occurred not once, but twice. No poll is ever that accurate, and that can be proven simply because they were NOT that accurate about any other candidate.

Not much that can be done about it, though. Claiming fraud is political suicide because those in power have framed it that way (gee, what happens when fraud actually DOES occur? Sounds pretty stupid to set the stage for someone to actually do it, KNOWING no candidate would be stupid enough to call it.)

I don't know what to say, honestly. It seems so unlikely that Ron Paul only got 8% in NH of all places. Especially when it was next to impossible for a reporter there NOT to run into a Ron Paul supporter. And from the reports, there clearly must have been more than 18,000 signs for Ron Paul in NH. But, what evidence do we have of anything nefarious? Nothing, because electronic voting equipment was used. No paper trail. No proof. Before a single Republican starts slamming anyone for having a problem with that, they really should stop and think. No matter how much you hate Ron Paul, it is becoming very clear that NO Republican is going to win in November. The dems have been pushing Huckabee, the dems have been outraising us, etc... If the election is being rigged, it will NOT be in ANY republicans favor. THAT you can be sure of.

[James]

Ron Paul seemed tailor made for New Hampshire. I will say that I expected him to do a little better than he did. I think the voters of New Hampshire are educated but that only goes so far. Ron Paul simply doesn’t have the name recognition that the other candidates have. On the flip side, Ron Paul is still showing growth. It’s only the beginning (I hope). His grass-roots followers are a serious and educated bunch. Despite his low percentages at the polls, I find it fascinating to watch his growing crowds of supporters. His signs are absolutely everywhere. No other candidate has such devoted supporters. Dr. Paul is a true American and he has reinvigorated my hope for this country.

[ACUTS]

anyways He should at least stay until feb 5th and see what happens.. and if anything he is acting like a Nader like counter balance to the conservative side.. pushing the right farther right in many aspects and he has made an impact all the candidates.. you see them saying Ron Paulish things.. which is good.. but its just talk with them unfortunately.. anyways it sucks, but oh well.. elts see what happens.. and to not say 8 percent and fifth place is dissapointing would be intellectually dishonest with ones self. He needed third...

[Barry Clifton]

It's pretty obvious why Dr. Paul is not doing better. He is not promising to provide anybody with anything for free. He believes that freedom is defined by lack of government intrusion, not freedom from need. Nearly all Americans have come to believe that the federal government is responsible for their health care, their retirement, and many other things the government has no Constitutional authority to provide. The reason he is not getting more votes is mainly because he isn't paying the going price for them.

[RP Supporter]

Loser again? He hasn't lost one yet. Guiliani lost the first one, Thompson lost this one.

The losers will be the american people if we end up with a socialist or a warmonger in the whitehouse.

[Christopher]

I thank you for your article about the Paul defeat. It is true that while his supporters including me where waiting to see what New Hampshire would bring we thought he would do much better then he did. You are also right that forth and fifth place is not winning but I think that Paul's defeat is a one, two combo. First he has not gotten nearly as much air time as the other candidates (Republican or Democrat) and the masses have yet to be informed and second his supporters can be just a bit over the top and I think that puts a lot of people off. I like the man for his stick view of the constitution. A lot of what he says is scary to most but think how people in this brave new country felt when the founders where making it. Who know what is going to happen between now and election day but I must say it is kind of fun to see someone like him who has what it takes to buck the system. Thanks again. atlasdaddy.

[Joshua T]

Paul lost because America and the people of New Hampshire reject his message. Americans like part of what he says, but abhor other aspects of his platform. I support Paul and gave him money and believed all that talk that he had lots of supporters who were not included in polls, but the fact is that he has a very vocal, active, and visible group of supporters, but is not supported by the wider American public. Americans did consider him and his positions and rejected him. It's sad, because he's right and Americans are heading down a dangerous path, but it is what it is. He's out and the Paul supporters have to decide where to go. He's not going to win enough delegates to make a difference if the convention is brokered, so our 8-10% should now throw our support behind a winner. I like Obama on foreign policy and Huckabee on the fair tax (I live in GA where we can vote in either primary).

[Jerm!]

"The media that the Paul camp loves to hate was actually dead-on right about Ron Paul."

Of course they were right about Paul, they could have been wrong though; If they had not purposefully excluded him from all coverage, if they had not said from the beginning thay he was a no shot candidate maybe more of the morons in this country who are voting for a Prom King now instead of a president would have realized that the stuff he is saying is not crazy. How crazy is it to try and control crazy spending. How crazy is it to try and fix Social Security? In 20 years SS will consume the entire budget of the US.
The war is another $500,000,000,000 per year that we don't need to spend.
Easily swayed sheep. We Americans will do whatever we need to do to feel like we're the best, like we're not even partially responsible for the hatred people feel towards us, we're in the right and anyone who opposes us is in the wrong. That is how my five year old niece acts.

Good Job America, you deserve what you get.

[wags]

Defeat or victory - does it matter? What is defeat? What is victory? First off I have been a huge fan and supporter of Dr. Ron Paul long before he began this campaign. I will vote for him in the North Carolina primary whether he has a chance to receive the nomination or not. Why? It is simple, I vote my consience. Although I am a registered Republican I did not vote for Bush in 2004 (nor Kerry - same clothe as far as I was concerned). I voted for the libertarian candidate. Whether the majority of my fellow citizens can see and understand all the issues that face our country and determine the proper course is irrelevant. What is relevant is placing the issues before the people and prepare them for what lies ahead.
So America, I see and I believe Dr. Paul sees a huge storm on the horizon. The waves of this storm were stirred up by Washington power brokers and for the immediate benefit of the investment and banking classes of the West. So what will be the consequences that nobody wants to hear. First an end to Pax Americana our military has been and will be ground up. (North Carolina's armored brigade is currently gearing up for its second tour in Iraq). We can not maintain the Empire forever. Second a collapse of our currency, which will result in very hard times for those who do not transfer their assest out of the Federal Reserve Note. (Note: in the past five years the FRN has dropped over 30%) Such collapse will result in the insolvency or "fire sale" of American based financial institutions. In the panic of the day, the people will demand a saviour - they will get a tyrant. Victory for me is simply to inform as many who are willing to listen that the storm approaches and there is a way to survive the storm if we keep our wits about us. Hey but who really wants to hear this stuff where is the fun it.

[Eric]

It seems as though the current administration has done a good job of convincing Americans that we need to be in the middle east to remain safe. Ron Paul and John McCain couldn't be more opposite. I think it comes down to Iraq. People see John McCain as a fearless leader because of his POW status (which I respect but don't see how that prepares you for a presidency; nor does repeating 9-11,9-11,9-11) I don't see it as they do; but then again, I'm sure there were some Germans who weren't entirely convinced that Hitler was their best choice either.

[TAMMY]

2 things happened.
1. The media cites these small telephone polls, people are told who the winner is going to be, then they go out and vote that way. it's a self fulfilling prophecy.
2. 81% of NH voting is Diebold, proved in Ohio to be vastly inaccurate.

[Paul]

This really isn't tough to explain, Ron Paul is just not that popular. I wish he was, but he isn't. We can no longer say he doesn't get media coverage - because he gets plenty. He has more money than anyone on the Rep side, so we can't say he can't afford to get his name out there. The polls are spot on, so we can't say that the polling is biased.

Here's one thing that doesn't help - and honestly bothers me as a Paul supporter... Ron Paul supporters. This is not a case of ‘he who yells loudest wins.’ Was Fox wrong to exclude him from the debate? YES. Was the response from RP supporters wrong? YES. He had a lot of positive results come out of that - i.e. the Tonight Show appearance.

Glen Beck said he felt threatened. Rudy Giuliani was chased from a ferry. They have shouted over candidates at their rallies. We shout at Bill Clinton until he calls us "nuts." These are not appropriate actions.

I like Ron Paul a lot. I have donated to his campaign and attended rallies - things I have never done before in my life. I like his message of less government. It's some of my fellow Paulites that I'm not too sure about. To me, it seems that every single bit of bad news is met with talk of "it's a conspiracy." Every negative word spoken against Ron Paul is met with an attitude of "Let's get 'em." I'll say that if I weren't so enamored with the good Doctor, this might turn me off too.

[wags]

Defeat or victory - does it matter? What is defeat? What is victory? First off I have been a huge fan and supporter of Dr. Ron Paul long before he began this campaign. I will vote for him in the North Carolina primary whether he has a chance to receive the nomination or not. Why? It is simple, I vote my consience. Although I am a registered Republican I did not vote for Bush in 2004 (nor Kerry - same clothe as far as I was concerned). I voted for the libertarian candidate. Whether the majority of my fellow citizens can see and understand all the issues that face our country and determine the proper course is irrelevant. What is relevant is placing the issues before the people and prepare them for what lies ahead.
So America, I see and I believe Dr. Paul sees a huge storm on the horizon. The waves of this storm were stirred up by Washington power brokers and for the immediate benefit of the investment and banking classes of the West. So what will be the consequences that nobody wants to hear. First an end to Pax Americana our military has been and will be ground up. (North Carolina's armored brigade is currently gearing up for its second tour in Iraq). We can not maintain the Empire forever. Second a collapse of our currency, which will result in very hard times for those who do not transfer their assest out of the Federal Reserve Note. (Note: in the past five years the FRN has dropped over 30%) Such collapse will result in the insolvency or "fire sale" of American based financial institutions. In the panic of the day, the people will demand a saviour - they will get a tyrant. Victory for me is simply to inform as many who are willing to listen that the storm approaches and there is a way to survive the storm if we keep our wits about us. Hey but who really wants to hear this stuff where is the fun it.

[Ray]

Let's face it, the MSM still matters. If they repeat hundreds of times that Ron Paul has no chance and is a "kook," people will start to believe it and be turned off no matter how much they might have agreed with the message (anti-war NH voted for "100-years in Iraq" McCain instead?). Sad to say, but the FOXNews snub also probably made a big difference. He fell from 14% to 8% in that time frame. Congrats big media, you win again, but America loses.

[HoosierComrade]

Perhaps ironically, this election is proving once again that you can't buy elections with money. Money helps with logistics, and can gain eyeballs, but that's of little use when 92% of the eyeballs reject the message. We lost, and the Intrade prediction markets corroborate my suspicion that if there was going to be a Ron Paul Revolution, it would have started in New Hampshire.

But it's about more than just the election, Mr. Malcolm. When I donated to Dr. Paul's campaign, I felt like I was granted an opportunity to step onto that debate stage with Rudy Giuliani and counter his cornball quasi-patriotism with a traditional American federalist's perspective. I felt like I was giving a much-needed middle finger to the party I am registered to. I suspected that his age, lack of polish, and refusal to engage in even the most basic and honest focusing of message would do him in.

And they did, particularly when in the Saturday NH debate, he was handed a golden opportunity to call all of the other candidates out on their illegal immigration flip-flopping. He could have driven home the point that he's the consistent candidate on border security. But instead, he used it as an opportunity to go on another tirade about the monetary system.

I felt like a kid whose stuffed animal was dropped by the claw machine a moment too soon.

So where to, now? I don't think I'm alone among Republicans who are patiently awaiting a 5th of November that they really will remember (the day after the 2008 general election). If they lose as hard in congress as I suspect they will, there's going to be an opportunity for us to be allowed back in the tent. Since the neocons will abandon the party as soon as it's out of power, there will probably be some extra room. I call Bill Kristol's spot!

[Lewis Thomas]

No Thanks, Nice way to try and bait all The Ron Paul supporters so you can have all those hits to your blog.

The one thing you don't seem to understand is that this isn't just about Ron Paul. Sure he is there, the mouth piece for freedom for us in this election, but this is about a movement. This is an awakening.

It is just sad that you can't see that us "kooks" and "loosers" are just trying to be the voice of true freedom from government oppression.

This isn't about politics. This isn't about win or loose, guy.

Wake up

[Darryl Schmitz]

Great observations, Andrew. It has been very disappointing. I was very convinced that there would be stronger turnout by Paul supporters, and with fewer votes cast on the Republican side than the Democratic side, the opportunity was there. He improved on his poll numbers in Iowa, but fell right within the poll's prediction in New Hampshire. We will have to see if he fares any better in Michigan. Thanks again, I appreciate your invitation for comments and analysis.

[David Hinkemeyer]

You are going to accuse us of hypocracy because you have had a single poll right in the last 6 months of campaigning? Not to mention that those numbers won't release until just a couple days before the primary. And - who would have expected so many interdependence to vote democrat. Nobody is calling for conspiracy or anything - so show a little compassion and perspective on the issue.

[Dirk]

We're in it for the long haul. We didn't do as well in New Hampshire as we had hoped, but we are just getting started. He will climb steadily.

Here is a timeline of events in our original fight for freedom.

Declaration of Independence adopted (7/4/1776)
Declaration of Independence signed (8/2/1776)
Arrival of 30,000 British troops in New York harbor
British win the Battle of Long Island (Battle of Brooklyn) (8/27-30/1776)
British occupy New York City (9/15/1776)
British win the Battle of Harlem Heights (9/16/1776)
Benedict Arnold defeated at Lake Champlain (10/11/1776)
American retreat at the Battle of White Plains (10/28/1776)
British capture Fort Washington, NY and Fort Lee, NJ (11/16/1776)

[TerdFerguson]

Ron Paul never had a chance. He was fighting an unwinnable battle against a media who constantly either ignored him or when they did give him airtime, went out of their way to distort his views or put him down. Sadly, Foxnews' indefensible decision to exclude him from the debate worked. Prior to that debate he was polling at 14% in NH and afterwards 8%, exactly where he finished. Who's going to vote for a guy when all you hear about him on tv is that he's a longshot, someone who doesn't belong, and a kook? Sadly, most americans don't have or take the time to really research the issues on each candidate but instead base their voting decisions on what they get from the media. In the end, Ron Paul was never going to win this election anyway. His legacy was always going to be paving the way for the next "Ron Paul."

[Scott McDonnell]

Ahh... missed the last part. Well, I think Ron Paul needs to either fire his incompetent staff or hire better new ones. He needs to stop relying so heavily on the grassroots. They can only get you so far, and then a real campaign has to kick in.

Of course, the interesting thing is how badly Rudy is doing, yet the MSM will STILL consider him a front-runner, give him tons of air time, and run guard for his "strategy" of waiting for Super Tuesday. How about the fact that Thompson is doing so bad? Do we really expect the media to stop calling HIM "Top Tier?" Are they going to ignore these two candidates now? Will we start hearing them only be referred to as long-shots (actually I have heard this even ONCE in regards to McCain, Giuliani, OR Thompson. Yet all indicators have pointed to that... only Ron Paul is given this status from the very beginning, before the race EVEN began.)

I fully expect the media to continue to report on Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain taking a dump, while completely ignoring Ron Paul, who beat Giuliani in Iowa and Fred in NH.

Ron Paul probably CAN'T bounce back, because unlike McCain when he was down (or Huckabee when he was a nobody) he won't be given the chance by the media. Nothing he can do from here on out will garner even a sentence in an article or news report.

And you wonder why we think there is a conspiracy of the media?

[Gigi Bowman]

Because New Hampshire has sent a message....."Live Free or Die" No Longer Valid

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_gigi_bow_080108_new_hampshire_has_se.htm

[Zachariah Wiedeman]

**** The only way to waste your vote is cast it for someone you don't think is the best candidate. ****

I've spoken with hundreds and hundreds of people who think Ron Paul is th best but don't think he can win, so they're voting AGAINST someone else. THESE people are wasting their votes! Their second choice is NOT going to win or lose by one vote, so not only is their vote STILL not winning an election for anybody, but now they have violated their INTEGRITY and put their vote where it doesn't represent their beliefs.

I never thought the polls were wrong. They DO have a very profound effect though: For a come-from-behind candidate, they scare people out of supporting him because they don't want to "waste their vote." Once the race starts, if you're not front-runner status - you're sunk!

Mike Huckabee is a rare exception to this because he was shrewd enough to send out a targeted email to millions of Iowa Evangelicals - you're most likely voters to vote on principals and with integrity.

It is 100% an issue of integrity. Elections are about so much more than selecting the winners - they are about sending a MESSAGE to the rest of the nation what you want!

I guarantee you that Ron Paul could have EASILY finished 3rd place in Iowa and New Hampshire if people weren't fooled by the mainstream media into throwing their vote away for somebody else. A solid third place finish could have propelled Ron Paul's race and status forward so much that it could have pushed him into front-runner status - and once that happened, it would have ignited hope and made more people start paying attention.

[Mitch]

Not all of us Paul supporters thought there was a conspiracy to stack the polls against him. I just thought the news was biased toward Guliani, McCain and Romney from the start. Those three polled the highest in initial polls because they already had more name recognition among the public and guess what.... since they got so much more air time and editorial mention than the rest of the candidates, it stayed that way.

[Tony]

Well, two reasons. The slightly less important one is that on the eve of the primary, the subject of the Ron Newsletters was brought up. For the third time. With more impact because he's gotten more of the national spotlight now than the two times it has been brought up before.

The second and more telling problem is that no one likes the truth. As the old addage goes, it hurts. Americans don't like hurting. We don't like being told that we are not as great as we thought, and we don't like being told exactly what the problem is. We would rather be ignorant and blissful. No one's going to enjoy being told this.

We know a lot of the problems this country is facing, but we don't really talk about it. We never solve for the long term. It's easier to fix things just enough so that we don't have to face uncomfortable truths for another day, or month, or year. It's easier to complain than it is to do. Things like "empire building" are done by people in the other party. We will not face that doing nothing to stop the fall of our nation is to assist in that fall. We don't want to hear that physical injury is not nearly as bad as a dwindling sense of freedom. We were all vocal about how Bush II was taking away our rights except he never would have been able to do so before we became this nation that feared for our safety more than we loved our ideals. We didn't become that nation on 9/11. We were already there in Somalia when Osama Bin Laden saw that the American Tiger had become paper.

And finally, I think many Ron Paul supporters got a wake up call when they finally understood some of the ideas that Paul is proposing. They are hard, they are uncomfortable. They are probably the correct ideas, but they aren't comfortable, and they certaintly aren't politically correct. Ron Paul has told us to pull our head out of the sand and see that we are in real danger and close to the point of no return. I think more than a few found that they prefer the sand.

Then there are those like myself. We knew what Ron was saying all along. We knew that it wasn't pretty and it wasn't easy. We see in Ron Paul a man who has the fortitude and principles to actually solve our problems, to be incorruptible in a corrupt system. We agree with a lot of what he says because we are already there. If you read the constitution, read the thoughts of our founders and look at our country today, you know our founders are spinning in their graves. You'll wonder how this country came from the Consitution. Our founders had a vision and 200 years later it is dying. Most people don't want to see it. It's hard to face. Global Warming is easier to swallow and that's an inconvenient truth. The truth of our nation is that we are on quicksand, we are sinking. We have been played for years by politicians who have bribed us into complacency with our own money, spin doctors who have told us what we should believe is right. No one seems to be able to think past their own convenience.

So there's the reason Ron isn't doing well as I see it. I'm still voting for him. I've been waiting for a long time to stand behind someone who believes as he does and I'm not going to waste what will probably be my last chance to vote for an honest man.

[Jimi]

I can barely read your article. Your grammar is horrible.

[rob]

Wow, your boss must be so proud of you:

"The media, the polls and the prognosticators were, indeed, all wrong -- about Barack Obama handily beating Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary. "

I think I'll just ignore the rest of the article after that.

[Timur Rozenfeld]

I think there are very few libertarians out there but the movement is growing. There was nothing like this before so this is a big move forward. A movement does take time to grow so you may not see it now, but the affects can already be seen with Huckabee parroting Paul on economics and the other candidates are now referring to the Constitution more and more.

Also, Ron Paul needs to be more aggressive in his debates, like he was on the Laura Ingraham show. He kicked her ass on the show, but he doesn't usually show the same kind of aggression in the debates. This is important because it shows his strength.

His official ads are not as good as the ads made for him on UTube. He should be using those. They are far more effective. I also don't think he is spending nearly as much of the money as he should be.

[don cooper]

Andrew Malcolm is the conspiracy or whatever you want to call it. To imply that the lack of media coverage for Paul didn't affect his performance is so surreal it must be a conspiracy. What a moron. What happened to objective journalism. Reporting the news not making it?

[Ryan W.]

I would guess that there are several things going on here:

1. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, but the media does have a tendency to select their anointed candidates early in the primary process and give them a lot more of the spotlight. I don't think it's an organized effort, nor is it always successful (Huckabee and McCain both are examples of comebacks in this regard), but it does happen.

2. I'm a huge supporter of Paul's ideas, but his brand of democracy is often not sound-bite friendly. A lot of his ideas can easily be misinterpreted or misunderstood if not taken in context or followed by a lengthy explanation, something most people aren't likely to sit through or try and really understand. A lot of Paul's ideas and statements sound too radical at first glance and many tune him out at that point.

3. He doesn't really fit today's Republican party. I agree with his stance that his views are more in line with the traditional views of the Republican party, but after the last seven years, most Dems and Independents hear Republican and tune the rest out, and a lot of the Republicans who are left in the party are likely to be supporters of the war in Iraq, which Paul voted against, as well as other neo-con positions that he opposes. Either way, I think the fact that he's often the only one on stage in debates saying something completely different helps with some voters, but obviously doesn't help with enough.

4. He's spent most of his political career as an outsider and while the money poured in, he just didn't get the needed support from the party to sway a lot of people.

What can he do at this point to save his campaign? I honestly don't know. It's not looking good...

[Liza]

Women voters-- it's all about repackaging the message toward women voters. Paul took 11% of the male vote, but only 4% of the female vote.

Up until now, the grassroots for the Paul campaign has been dominated by men. This is all well and good, except that some of the appeals toward voters made by this coalition have aspects that are frightening to some women: references to "V for Vendetta," talk of "Revolution" and cries of "freedom!" may very well cause some women to shy away.

I propose that the Paul campaign (both official and *especially* grassroots) needs to work on a softer touch. More emphasis on freedom leading to more opportunities for self and families. More emphasis on sound money securing a stable economy devoid of the painful recessions that accompany fiat currency. More emphasis on personal responsibility for home and family, and a trust in mothers' ability to know what's best for their children.

In short, less William Wallace, more Donna Reed.

[Justin]

It really doesn't matter. Republicans have no chance of winning the general election anyway because of Bush's track record and the current economic situation. The sad thing is, I don't even know what a Republican or Democrat is anymore. They certainly all seem to support an overblown, supersized beauracracy.

[missourimike]

He lost badly in New Hampshire because most of the voters there still support the war in Iraq.

Ron Paul's reduced government message also discourages many who think if he's elected, they will lose their jobs due to downsizing or elimination.

Traditional voters want a feel good platform with a charismatic personality to deliver it.

Ron Paul supporters should spend more face time with undecideds. It's called talking - not blogging. Zealous supporters at some RP rallies have hurt the campaign by their aggressiveness. They soon get labeled as nutjobs, etc.

Ron Paul needs to groom his supporters - set the agenda, rules of conduct, etc. It can't be a free-for-all because that is apparently not working.

His message is compelling but he needs to work on it's delivery. And time is running out.

[peter nickel]

It is only the beginning. There will be others after Ron Paul.
People are waking up.

[Dawn]

Yikes, you don't recognize a grassroots movement takes time to boil to the top...where were you educated???

Go Ron Paul

[lastnymleft]

Exit polls showed that people were concerned about the war, and about the economy. Dr Paul has superior positions on both those issues, so should have been a no-brainer, had he been fairly portrayed in the media, and given fair time.

But those people that identified war as an issue that they were very worried about went and voted for McCain, the candidate that the MSM had been pumping up in the last few weeks (along with Huckabee; after Romney and Giuliani failed). So why would all these people that are so concerned about the war go and vote for one of the most pro-war, same-old, same-old candidates?

Clearly, the sheeple have an "any means to an end" mentality. They have been convinced that the "surge" is working, and have ignored all that has led up to this point, and have backed a candidate that would also have no qualms launching more war, killing another half a million (AT LEAST!) Arabs, or Persians, for the next 100+ years, bankrupting America along the way.

My respect for the non-thinking voters of America has hit a new low.

For Dr Paul, and his grassroots following, nothing changes. Support continues to grow, organically, day by day. Once people are woken up to the message of Dr Paul, no-one ever turns away. Hence the passionate devotees.

We will continue to promote the message, right through to November. We will not accept Dr Paul not going right through. Having the nomination would make things easier, but freedom doesn't come free, or easy, and we are prepared to pay the price.

[Ken Allen]

Thank you Andrew for your opinion. Fortunately for you, your opinion is sponsored and propogated by a major news source. Americans as a group are naieve enough to assume that the opinions expressed by the Andrew Malcolms are the acceepted opinion nationwide simply because LA Times is attached. Americans as a group have been led to believe that its not necessary to develope their own opinion, but just to accept the opinion of major media sources. The truth is, if americans really knew what the true freedom of the consistution looked like, Ron Paul would be doing wonderfully. Unfortunately, the Andrew Malcolms never post articles about "THE ANDREW JACKSON OF THE 21st CENTURY" or "THE ONLY COSISTENT CANDIDATE" or "THE NEW FOUNDING FATHER". Instead, they only paint an "Evil or Really Evil" picture as the only choices. I fear that America is a decade away from pure socalism, all because "people do not think"

[Lewis]

It saddens me that you report Ron Paul: Loser again. A man that champions the constituion and possibly America's greatest cure to apathy. Yet he's still a loser in your eye's Mr. Malcolm. Isn't he. What pure glee that your speedily wrote your words of salt for the proverbial wound.

I'm from London, England and have been following the 2008 presidential elections avidly. The America elections affect the whole world and the Foreign Policy of America is almost directly related to the UK. Some could even say there scripted by the same folk. I'd go one step further and say that they are 100%. It's the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilaterial Commission and the meetings in the dark of the Bilderbergers that determine when we go to war in the name of corparate nationlism. It will also be these groups that determine who's in the Oval office.

If, Mr. Malcolm, you find such joy from the fact that your countrymen will die for the greed of a global elite, i say your the loser.
If, Mr Malcolm, you find such joy from the rapid destruction of the constitution and the transfer of rights to large multi-nationals, i say your the loser.
If, Mr Malcolm, you enojy living in a world where the most unqualified and un-intellegent peoeel rule, i say your the loser.
If, Mr Malcolm, your so blind to the trasversities of the western governments and the exploitation of fragile developing countries, i say your the loser.

It a dark time when the man with a heart for his neighbour, regardless of creed, race and religion is a loser in this world. Labelled weak in a world where evil and criminality is praised and profits; where the just and charitable man is slandered and discredited.

I hope that one day mankind will see the errors in our ways and rebuild our cultures with love and forgiveness, rather than profit and fear.

[Leland Thomas Faegre]

Although Dr. Paul has diagnosed their symptoms; the patients will ignore their condition until it is too late to begin treatment. The end of the nation-state is nigh...

[Buddy Whittenburg]

I donated $300 to Ron Paul's campaign. Ron Paul has always been a long shot in my eyes. I never really thought (I hoped!) that the majority of the US would buy change like that right off of the ticket. Too many people fear change - that's why it happens so slowly.

What you don't understand is that the "Ron Paul Revolution" isn't even about Ron Paul. It's about injecting fiscal conservatism and personal liberties into the federal government and rallying those that stand for the same principals. That is the reason I donated to the campaign.

I only hope that next election, after our outrageous spending has had a chance to bite us, a fiscal conservative - probably less extreme than Paul can win with our votes. The problem is that there are no other conservatives running right now that believe in personal liberty. So I will stay on the Paul ship until it sinks. I will undoubtedly have to perform the wretched practice of "lesser of two evils" voting this election.

Also, 10% isn't half bad considering where we started.

[Cabert]

Personally I think FOX succeeded in hurting the campaign with their exclusion of Paul on their forum. I think the media who continue to start every Ron Paul article with "He's not gonna win" has hurt the campaign. However that doesn't mean the campaign has stopped. Win or lose I will stand by who I think is best equipped to get the country back on track. That would be Ron Paul.

[G.S.]

When exactly did voting for a candidate turn into a baseball game?

I think we can all agree it's all become slightly irrational and tiresome.

[Bill]

I don't think it's all that surprising why Ron Paul does badly today. The dictum that our republic will last only until the people learn they can vote largess for themselves out of the public treasury comes to mind, along with the ever-sloping civic literacy in our country. The average American, including - judging from his bio - Mr. Malcolm, will tell you that America is a democracy. It is not, and was never meant to be so. America is a republic, and the differences between the two forms of government are night and day. The ideas that this country were founded upon have become obscured by half-digested truths, misrepresentation, and an overall failure of education. The Founding Fathers would not recognize their countrymen today. I'm not bitter about that, but it is frustrating to see the culmination of Greek and Roman ideas go down the same path of self-destruction over and over. Ah well, from the crooked timber of man, nothing straight was ever fashioned.

[Roland Tena]

While a Ron Paul supporter, I have never been under the illusion that he would actually capture more than a minority of voters. But his campaign has been a success in that it is only due to him that fidelity to the Constitution, fiscal responsibility and non-aggression have been part of the debate as much as they have. As an awareness-raising campaign, Ron Paul 2008 has succeeded beyond what his supporters expected 6 months ago.
Sadly, I feel that by the time a plurality of Americans recognise the wisdom of Dr Paul, it will be too late. Recession is in the air like a cold breeze, even as 41% of Federal revenue feeds the war machine. The leaves are starting to fall.

[Tom deSabla]

Yes, we are a little bit disappointed, but not discouraged.

Still, if he "lost so badly" then where are the calls for Fred Thompson to drop out? He got only 2% to Paul's 8%. Giuliani only got 9% - should he give up too?

I'm sure you know that there is no replacing front page media coverage with money.

There is no amount of Paul's money big enough to buy front page news and pics like what every other candidate has gotten in the last 3 weeks. Examples include pics of Huckabee playing the bass (frt page Wash Times - above the fold) and Romney, and McCain and Obama made the Post front page together. There are front page stories about these people nearly every day. Paul gets nada.

Paul couldn't even make the front page of any paper on Dec. 16th - when he set the all-time one day fundraising record. Also, when the San Fran Republicans literally canceled a straw poll to keep him from winning - there was no coverage of that shocking event. Had it happened to anyone else, it would have been front page news, and we'd still be talking about it now.

So, that explains why he didn't do better. But again, why aren't you asking for Fred's explanation for N.H. too? And what about Rudy in Iowa? Oh that's right, cause you're a statist shill and hack who wouldn't know freedom if it played footsie with you in a bathroom stall.

WE'RE NOT GOING ANYWHERE!

Go Ron Paul!

[Jonathan Cohen]

While I agree that Paul's result in New Hampshire was far from a victory, I've never seen anything like the glee of members of the media that Paul couldn't crack the top tier of Republican candidates.

I naively expected that the media would put a positive spin on a long shot candidate with a populist viewpoint achieving high levels of enthusiasm in his campaign. Instead, Paul has been met with vitriolic opposition from the media.

One would be hard pressed to find an article mocking the Giuliani campaign for its disappointing showing despite Giuliani's fame and party backing.

Yet, here comes a blog from the mainstream media laughing in Ron Paul's face for having the bravery to do what few Americans do - run on actual beliefs, and to do so outside of the Washington establishment. Perhaps it requires more bravery to sit behind a typewriter...

[Mark Christian]

Good Morning Andrew,
My name is Mark and I am a Ron Paul supporter from Michigan. I can't speak for the multitude of Paulites but I will write what I think and feel.

There's a saying, "The hardest thing to do is change someone's mind." I believe that is evidenced by Dr. Paul's election results thus far. As you said, despite the effort, letters, and cheering, we finished 5th. However we are not trying to remodel the system, (different amounts of troops in areas of Iraq, tweaking the monstrosity that we call the tax code) we want a complete overhaul. This major change makes people uncomfortable. "What will we do if there is no federal tax? Who will pay for the highways, who will protect our oil, how can we defend the country?"

It blew my mind when I learned how our fractional reserve banking system works. If you ever have the inclination, try to explain the creation and operation of the Federal Reserve to someone. They will think you are crazy. "You mean to tell me that a private bank like Bank of America or Chase prints and controls the money supply. They are audited by no one. They are not a part of the government. They have shareholders (owners). Our federal taxes go to pay the interest on the debt of the very money that they loaned us in the first place????" This will be met by serious resistance.

Try to explain the constitution to someone who has never read it or hasn't read a book in the past year (like many Americans).

It's outrageous to think that by applying the constitution (that all members of government swear to defend) Dr. Paul almost gets laughed off the stage in the debates.

One thing I know. The fight for our country will not stop with two losses or 50 losses, or even a loss in the general election. We love our country too much to see it continue on this disastrous route caused by not heeding the constitution. This is a rEVOLution and if my memory serves me right, we are doing better than the American colonists that were fighting for their freedom. Our 8% support is much higher than the approximately 3% who participated in fighting to create this great country.

Good day.

Ron Paul 08 Hope for America

[Tiger]

Au Contraire....

He has already won.

Why?

Becuase his message is out there.

People are realizing why Thomas Jefferson killed the first bank,

and Andrew Jackson the second.

Central bank inflation robs savers,

and rewards owners of income producing property.

In addition he is a wiinner becuase unlike most of the

press he hasn't sold his soul/truth out for personal gain.

[William]

Apparently, all Ron Paul needs to do is to pull out a copy of the US Constitution and light it on fire on live T.V, then you'll see how he'll win the election. Obviously, the election results reflect this sentiment when the only guy who wants to follow the law (the Constitution ) receives the least amount of votes. What does this say about our nation and society? This is a travesty in US politics, I guess in the end we'll get what we deserve - fascism and perpetual war.

[SQ]

The article in The New Republic (which is factually baseless) did him in. I think the people who did vote for him in New Hampshire had not read it. How unfortunate that our system is so dirty.

[lono1]

there were more signs in new hamshire than ron paul got votes. there is only one way to explain why he didn't do better. the same reason saddam got 100% of the votes in his election. hey, you know, obama did win in the places where they used only paper ballots...what kind of conspiracy theory can you come up with to explain that.

[Jared Endicott]

I am a Ron Paul supporter, but I never had any illusions about him winning. I still intend to vote for him in the Washington Primary anyway.

I would say that the main reasons why Ron Paul is not getting more votes dispite his money, is that his message is too complex and likely too counter-intutitive to the casual voter. His message is too contrary to what most people have come to believe about the role of government.

It takes a bold leap into uncharted territory for people to support ending the Fed, and people don't want to hear about ending Social Security either. Regardless of political parrty, most voters in general support a nanny state in some way or another. Or they support our empire.

However much you want to belittle Ron Paul and his supporters though, his message has ignited a large cross section of America (even if it is just 5%) who now see that big government and empire is not the answer.

I for one was woken up by Ron Paul's message and I know that this is the case for so many. Our view of government will never be the same.

[Doug C.]

You say its not winning huh? It's no conspiracy, it's been a long shot the entire time. Although I am disappointed that he didn't have better results in New Hampshire, I am enthused that without getting mainstream media support he is still not blown away by the entire GOP field.

The push for McCain by all major networks was enormous as we got closer to the primary. If Ron Paul had any Mainstream Media support he would be very popular.

It is true that the corporations that control our media are scared of Ron Paul's message. We will defeat the NWO. I just wish we had more time!

[Lynn]

I wish I could tell you why Ron Paul lost so badly, but I'm scratching my head, too. For months now, Paul his supporters have been called "crazy," but I don't think it's crazy to uphold our Constitution. I do think it's crazy that we are rapidly losing our freedoms because of the Patriot Act, which is not a Constitutional amendment. I don't think it's crazy if we actually get to keep the money we earn instead of letting the government have nearly half; I do think it's crazy that we're producing money out of thin air, and that it's backed only by debt. (See "Money as Debt" on YouTube) I don't think our active and retired military members are crazy, yet they've given more money to Ron Paul than any other candidate. I do think it's crazy to say that it's okay if we're still fighting in Iraq 100 years from now. I don't think it's crazy to want our politicians to be honest and stop the influence of lobbyists, but I do think it's crazy that a few wealthy individuals and corporations are getting rich off of my tax money (read "Free Lunch" by David K. Johnston).

Maybe I'm crazy to hope that my fellow Americans will remember that this used to be a country honored and respected around the world, that promised freedom and privacy to its citizens.

Call me crazy, but I'm still supporting Ron Paul.

Will the MSM start calling Romney a longshot now? Second place twice in a row? And no, Wyoming doesn't count, since it was decided solely by party establishment who just happened to be Romney's staff there.

We all know Romney doesn't stand a chance in South Carolina. He *might" win Michigan, but will have to contend with McCain's inc