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

[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!

[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.

[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

[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...