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

[Tim in Wisconsin]

What Ron Paul supporters seemed to ignore was that the more popular he became, the less palatable he was going to be to the general public. Paul could only be popular as the underground candidate. An anti-war candidate will generate interest. However, once he became more popular and more of his rather unorthodox views (to put it charitably) came to light, his popularity would only level off.

It's not that the American public didn't know anything about his views. They learned about his views and rejected them. It's time to move on to a different messiah, folks.

[Pete]

I was rather shocked by Paul's 8% in NH, as I had expected that with all the on-the-ground support and the resonation with NH ideals, Paul would have gotten 20+% of the vote.

What apparently happened is that the support I envisioned for Ron Paul went to McCain (from those dissatisfied with the war) and Obama (from those disenchanted with corporatism or vaguely wanting 'change'). I could write a couple of pages about why I think these folk are misguided, but I'll spare you. The press (not you) constantly beating the drum about him being a fringe whacko probably didn't help. Finally, there's the possibility that "the young bastards failed us again" (Hunter S. Thompson, 2004) by not turning out to vote.

So, where to go from here?

Some Paul supporters envisage a rather complicated scenario in which the GOP convention is brokered and eventually falls our way because Paul really is the only candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton. I'm not saying that these people are wrong, but just that I lack sophistication as to this kind of strategy and cannot judge it.

It seems to me that if Ron Paul is going to win the nomination in the typical way of conquering an increasing number of states in snowball fashion, he is going to have to jump a couple of sharks in order to draw attention, money, and votes. So, I would not rule out shock and awe from Ron Paul in January.

[Greg Stark]

Everybody with a brain knows there is a conspiracy against Ron Paul. He speaks out against the Federal Reserve, and since the Federal Reserve represents the heart of evil, he cannot be allowed to question its holiness.

The title your snooty little article shows exactly what we're talking about. I mean "Ron Paul, Loser Again", give me a break. Why not "Rudy Giuliani, Loser Again"? Never mind....we all know why.

I also notice that your little blog pops up #2 on the Google search for "Ron Paul" - gee, I wonder if it could be the same reason that pathetic report about a pimp and some hookers arranged by Tucker Carlson appeared tops on the Google search for at least a week. Well anyway, I hear that New Hampshire has those Diebold bandit machines, but that it didn't use them in all townships. I have no doubt that evidence of blatant voter fraud will soon be pouring in. I'm not holding my breath that you "journalists" will be investigating it in any meaningful way.

Oh, I notice no comments so far. Is that because nobody thinks your article is responding too, or because you haven't had time to carefully sift through to CHOOSE with informations we plebes have a right to see?

[1440 minutes]

Andrew,

Rome wasn't built in a day. Not since Barry Goldwater ran in 1964 has anyone proposed a platform like Ron Paul's in one of the two major parties. It took 16 years for the Republican Party to go from Goldwater's defeat to Reagan's victory.

Two different Libertarian candidates finished with exactly 0.34% of the vote in 2000 and 2004. Ron Paul has multiplied the support by a factor of more than 20.

To think that one political campaign could reverse generations of conditioning about the nanny state in less than one year is unrealistic. Ron Paul has planted seeds. It is up to us to decide what to do now.

[michael hoggan]

Everyone who reads this will see how impartial you are. don't you get it? These tactics are not going to work. The American people see through them.

[Greg Cottrell]

Your facts are wrong, Andy. What the media actually said throughout the campaigne was that his support was only about 2%.
Doing 4 times better than the media predicted doesn't quite call for names like "loser".

[Eric]

Voter fraud confirmed in Sutton!
Sutton with 100% reporting reported 0 votes for Paul, yet various voters in Sutton have claimed they have voted for Ron Paul.

Should anyone be surprised about this?
America: Freedom to Fascism indeed.

http://www.truthnews.us/?p=1587

Of course, Mr. Malcolm isn't going to mention this.

[Will]

Not much different could have been said of Ronald Reagon in 1980, as he appeared a 'longshot' at a similar junture. However, Rep. Paul, at no point narrows his focus to only achieving immediate political power. He himself has made that point eloquently. The foremost victory is already in the bag for the revolutionaries, though many may be overlooking it. I think liberty's fight has honorable history, which history is still being made. We recall that by mental prowess and superior strategy, Alexander and his small band overturned the dumb prowess of a tyrannical semitic world empire. For years prior, the oppressed greeks rallied to an idea and from it, forged themselves quetly into the perfect, unstoppable machine. So that when that machine engaged, there was absolutely no adequate defense that the might of Cyria could marshal, to the worlds astonishment. The freedom message Ron Paul gives voice to is an imperative truth, one that cannot be tarnished or beaten down by anything mortal but will be strong enough to win hearts and minds to our worthy timeless cause, make its own mark, and claim its own glorious victory. There are important things to be learned first, lessons to be experienced, and no small-minded, short-sighted voice can predict or mininmize what that will mean. We wont give you that victory ever.

[Jon McElroy]

I dont think he will win. I dont think most americans are ready. Ron Paul has spelled out what is going to happen if we keep going down this road, and I think things are going to have to get a lot worse before most people wake up. Its a sad fact. Our dollar is collapsing, we as a nation are going broke, we are loosing our liberties daily in the name of "safety", we are spending our treasure running around the world telling people how they can be free, while we are loosing our freedom here.

Yes, I dont think he will win, but he has started a lot of people thinking about what path we should be on. We now see just how far we have drifted from the constitution and how that puts us in grave danger. I will not stop fighting just because "Ron Paul" cant win this election. Its not about Ron Paul. Its about our Liberty and personal freedom, and thats always worth fighting for, and always will be. thanks, Jon

[Joseph Rowley]

In spite of Ron Paul's limited success in the first two states -- and I admit that he will have limited success in most states to come -- he is an important element in this presidential race. In my mind, success for Ron Paul is simply to force the other candidates to discuss other perspectives on international relations, on the economy, and many other issues that only Ron Paul will directly address. Yes, the other candidates are smart not to take Paul's approach. About 50% of the presidential race simply comes down to a popularity contest and the other candidates are aware of that fact. That's why they keep their discussion of the issues at a minimum. I believe Ron Paul is aware that issues won't win him the nomination but is simply too principled to care. I really believe that Dr. Paul's goal is to have his message heard and he has succeeded far beyond any expectations and will continue to succeed up to the end of the primaries.

I also suspect that he will leave a legacy. Do you really think that all these cult-like followers are going to just disappear? I believe that Ron Paul has started a movement that will endure for more time to come, and that is what many in the political establishment are concerned about. A movement like this doesn't just go away and may become a key constituency in elections to come. Ron Paul will succeed in changing the face of politics and maybe convince future candidates that actually saying something isn't so bad after all. I call that success and I'm sticking with Dr. Paul to the end.

[John Carlton]

There are a few obvious reasons for Paul's NH showing. A crowded GOP field split the vote 5 ways. McCain has been camped out in NH for months, putting all his eggs in this one basket. When the MSM deigns to mention Paul, it is almost always dismissive, and that has a stifling effect on would-be voters. Finally, the public have been conditioned in the last 7 years to place fear ahead of substantive issues. And judging by the cranked-up war propaganda of the other candidates (in particular Giuliani, Romney) running ads that show Jihadists moving across the sand with RPG launchers, and things blowing up everywhere, the message of peace through national defense and sound monetary policies has little room to be heard. It's all very simple, really. You thought this would be difficult to explain?

[Aaron Walker]

Well, I guess I'll go first...

I won't go so far as to call Paul's performance a victory, but I wouldn't characterize it as a loss either. The final vote tallies, even with absentee ballots will still place Paul 5th in the primary, but let's analyze the numbers a bit. The number of votes between 3rd place Huckabee and 5th place Paul is a "whopping" (sarcasm intended) 8170. Considering that nearly 227,000 votes were cast for republican candidates, an 8000 vote difference is not as catastrophic as your article attempts to portray. You've counted Paul out of the race after what?... Three states which represent, maybe 2.5% of the total U.S. population? You honestly have the gall to "report" that Paul received "0 delegates in Wyoming"???... Wyoming??? You're kidding me, right? Wyoming is in Romney's back yard and there are barely more than 500,000 people in the entire state. I hardly think that receiving no delegates there is a newsworthy event. Even by LATimesBlog standards.

The fact that Giuliani, a household name and the media's golden child up until about 6 weeks ago could only garner 2000 more votes than Paul says a great deal about the Paul campaign (and quite frankly the Giuliani campaign as well)... they are very successful despite the glaringly obvious lack of media coverage. McCain has essentially been campaigning in New Hampshire since 1999 and Romney spent 10's of millions of dollars there AND it's his neighboring state. No one in the Paul camp expected to take 1st or 2nd in New Hampshire. We looked optimistically to a 3rd or 4th place finish and I personally feel that we are all pretty darn satisfied coming in what is essentially a tie for 4th.

This is only the 3rd state in the race... there is a long haul ahead and Paul has the funds to keep his presence strongly in the race. History has already proven... to McCain personally back in 2000... that winning the NH primary doesn't really mean all that much in determining who the eventual nominee will be. Iowa was far from fertile ground for Paul, Wyoming was, well... Wyoming... and New Hampshire is just a temporary win in a heat race. It's the finals that count and they are occurring on February 5th.

I don't count Paul out... no not in the least. He's showing up very well despite being virtually ignored in the national press. America is still very much a sound byte nation filled with people who get all of their facts from NBC, CBS, and ABC. A grassroots movement takes time to grow and I think we're showing signs of some very solid roots. The resulting grass could end up being a lot greener than short-sighted folks like you could have ever imagined.

[Greg Cottrell]

Your facts are wrong, Andy. What the media actually said all along was that Pauls support was only 2%. I would say that doing 4 times better than predicted doesn't call for names like "loser".

[Andrew]

I have to believe that the Ron Paul campaign has the winning message for the simple fact that it is based on truth and intellectual discourse. The problem is that most intellectuals are not very good snake-oil salesmen.

One huge problem is that most of our citizens refuse to perform any sort of research, and continue to believe that a media which feeds us infotainment is really concerned with facts. Couple that with fringe elements (which are "entertaining" thus receive the media attention) and the real message gets hidden.

In my opinion the problem is two-fold...

First, we have a grassroots that should be responsible for spreading the message... Period. However, some like to play the role of preacher and try to define it. They become obnoxious and turn-off the moderately involved.

Second, the official campaign is showing its lack of experience. Dr. Paul has an incredible line of reasoning. However, it is not being sold. This must stop. This campaign has to get aggressive, and must do so yesterday. The good doctor is capable as evidenced by this audio clip.

h ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJXRa2n6Fe4

Allowing your opponents to laugh at you and steal your positions (see Giuliani, Huckabee, and others) is simply unacceptable. It is also necessary to create a easily digestible sound-bite package which will be the campaign's biggest obstacle.

Far too many people believe going back to the gold standard involves carrying coins around. That is simply not true. It means our money (even if it continues to be paper or digital credits) has real value. The campaign needs to define this, or simply leave it alone.

Far too many people believe that democrats want to get out of Iraq. That's simple not true. [Obama stated he would strike Pakistan, and none of the leading Dems would promise to come home by 2013] Why is this an issue for a Republican candidate? Because 70% of this country wants to come home. No one will win in November by arguing to continue our aggression. That's simply a fact. Therefore, Paul is the only Republican that stands a chance in the general. A comparison must be made. Ron Paul has to grab Obama's independent vote now, and couple it with fiscal conservatives to simply compete. He can pick up social consevatives along the way for the win.

All in all the official campaign must detail and define the message before the media does so, and the grassroots must stick to spreading it and allow Paul to speak for himself.

[Steven Westy]

Great diary, I mean, blog entry sir. Only a wit who has risen to the heights of press secretary to Laura Bush could so deftly frame the issues. Yes, it is quite ridiculous that the youth has chosen to participate in the political process, with their cute little signs and hand written letters and so on. What idiots!! I wish they would just shut up and vote for Romney already.

On a personal note, sir, I appreciate your sentiments regarding a third party run for Paul. You note, and again I defer to you, that "...getting the acclaim of friendly crowds is a heady experience." I assume you are referring to your 2004 Pulitzer run, when sadly, you fell short. But oh, the cheers from your fans must deafen you to this day!!

[Glenn Miller]

Andrew got out of the wrong side of bed this morning. Or else Ron Paul, the America-First candidate, is getting to him big time.

Somebody tell him that Dr Paul won in New Hampshire. Dr Paul wins every day and everytime he makes the media and political whores squirm and patriotic Americans smile. He wins with every young American he awakens and activates to the Cause of liberty, prosperity, peace, and the United States Constitution.

Media hounds who doubt that Dr Paul is winning need only observe the nervous jitters and foaming at their mouths of the other candidates everytime Ron Paul is in theirj presence.

Ron Paul is winning because the 2nd American Revolution is growing. The spirits of Thomas Jefferson and all America's founders are rising from their graves, and soon the whole world will know that Dr Ron Paul is right.

Frazier Miller
US Army, Master Sergeant, Retired
Aurora, MO 65605

[Allison]

On a day, in a state where he should have made his proverbial "line in the sand" he was the victim of a journalistic "IED".

The New Republic published a scathing report yesterday, highlighting that the man who had become my hero, at worst hates me, or at best associates with numerous racists and homophobes.

And his lassie faire explanation that those were other people's words was not sufficient enough for me.

30 years of racist, homophobic vitriol in a newsletter that bears his name???

Regardless of whether or not he edited the newsletter is of no consequence. He allowed his name to appear on the masthead, and did so for 3 decades; not just once as previously explained from the Houston Chronicle investigation in 1996.

I am so saddened by this turn of events. I once thought he was our nation's last hope, now I realize there is none.

[stanley davis]

hi all....as an avid ro paul supporter you asked a legitamet question......i am not sure of the answer .....i'm a little puzzeled too.....my only answer at this point is we have to work harder....we have to get people to goggle ron paul and we can win......that's all that's missing....not enough people have heard of him yet.....i am going back to work for ron paul......

[Paul]

Possible Rx - Ross Perot used charts and other visuals to demonstrate his thoughts. Dr. Paul needs to do the same, visuals of charts, maps and photos help those legions are who not familiar with the Fed Reserve, gold standard and government waste.. Such visuals should be downloadable for meetings and classrooms. Dr. Paul has the message it needs to be simplified for the average person.

[Todd Newland]

I believe his views on change are to rapid. Major changes need to take place over a period of time. We can't change this collosal government mess in a matter of weeks or months. Just slow it down a little Mr. Paul.

[Ivar]

Andrew -

There are a number of reasons for Ron Paul's poor showing, so here goes:

1. Voter mindset of what primary is all about. This country has been conditioned to believe that they should vote on who they think has the best chance of winning rather than on the issues. If the opposite were true, both RP's and Kucinich's numbers would be much, much higher. Complaints about races being popularity contests are still not enough to overcome this psychological trend. The most commonly quote phrase about RP is the most revealing---"I really like what he says but he has no chance of winning". Hello? Anyone see a disconnect here?

2. Power of poll numbers. Polls, including the most "scientific" are guided exercises in groupthink. Penn and Teller's video on Andrew Kuntz should be necessary viewing for those interested in what polls mean.

3. Power of maintream media. Voters think that the more face time a candidate gets, the more chance he has of winning. This dovetails nicely with point number one. Even the few mouse clicks it takes to get the real candidate positions is more than enough to keep them from the majority of Americans.

4. Poor education of the average citizen, especially in history and economics. If we understood more of what RP was saying, he would be a no-brainer. One need only study these two and what he says would gain a lot more traction. Read a modern American history book and you see more entertainment than fact.

5. Voter apathy. It takes a motivated person to affect change, and most of my fellow countrymen are just too damn lazy to be a part of it. They would rather follow the herd and then complain at the end of it when they have two lousy choices to pick from.

[Rick]

Paul needs to fade back into obscurity. The sooner the better...

[Elvis]

Here's the assessment I gave the RP campaign last week:

Revolutionary propositions require extraordinary persuasion.

Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

In this campaign, it's more like, "Revolutionary propositions require extraordinary persuasion."

Sharpen the message, make it easy to understand, and deliver it in a way that will get the attention of a broader audience, or the game is over.

[A Patriot]

The REVOLUTION will not be easy or quick - it has taken 95 years to get here - don't think we will restore liberty in 3 weeks.

IT was 3 years between the Tea Party in 1773 and the signing of the Declaration of Independence - then another 12 or so years until we had a Constitution....

Dig in your heels, donate, canvass and realize your country is at stake!

Don't lose hope - Ron Paul is not going anywhere and neither are we

[James]

Typically, blog entries critical of Ron Paul elicit many comments, mostly from supporters who in turn criticize the blog author and/or the media in general. However, this is the only entry I have seen that explicitly addresses the readers for comment. Ironically this seems to have discouraged comment, at least at the time of this posting.

Although I do not agree with all of his positions, I view Ron Paul as a beneficial force in the campaign due to the fact that he brings attention to the gross divergence from the constitution that has been effected in previous decades. I am therefore disappointed by the somewhat weak showing in NH. Although his results in OH and NH are most impressive given his treatment in the mainstream media, his supporters were (not entirely unjustifiably) hoping for an historic upset.

As for an additional explanation, the media savvy internet users who are most likely to be aware of Paul's campaign are also likely to have heard about the New Republic article attributing racist and bigoted quotes to Paul. It seems that this article (which is almost certainly a misrepresentation) was well timed to dissuade potential Paul supporters in NH.