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

[Matt of San Francisco]

I wish I knew for sure why Ron Paul lost, but like everyone else I can only guess. My guess is that most people like being taken care of by government and the idea of living in the kind of society proposed by Ron Paul and his followers is frightening. Most people will choose security over liberty every time.

[dave morris]

this was a win. Ron Paul is talking about elminating the fed ending the IRS and gets 10,000 votes. This is a win for freedom movement

[Matthew]

Amazing result for Ron Paul! Against the mainstream who dare not report on him in the news sections (where people might see it). Who raised the most money last quarter? Ron Paul, but who knows that fact as no one reported it.
I think you need to work on your journalist skills as you aren't very good.

[basiltaco]

Oh, Mr. Malcolm, you really enjoy baiting us Paulites, don't you?

Obviously, I am disappointed with Dr. Paul's results in New Hampshire. I was hoping that once voters there heard Dr. Paul's speeches, and compared them with the other candidates' speeches, they would clearly see the difference between substance and pablum/fluff. Unfortunately, I, like my fellow Paulites, was wrong.

Without having intimate knowledge of how Dr. Paul's campaign staff compares with the other campaigns, these are, in my humble opinion, the reasons why Dr. Paul did not fare as well as we had hoped: (1) his message is too truthful, and thus too provocative, for the general population to accept (think Cassandra in Greek mythology); (2) he doesn't work with image consultants; (3) the vast majority of American voters do not have the interest or time to learn about candidates, it's all first impression via broadcast media; (4) the vast majority of Americans do not understand history well enough to have an independent understanding of current events; and (5) Dr. Paul is ahead of his time.

But I still plan to give to Dr. Paul's campaign; his message is too important for America for it to disappear. We're not going to disappear, Mr. Malcolm.

[Doug Kansas]

I am really at a loss as to why Paul finished 5th. Personally, i think a lot of voters talk of change but when it comes to pulling the lever for somebody who will change things, it frightens them. They want to know that the Nanny State will still be there to take care of them, to think for them. Fear is what motivates voters to keep things the same. Change to them is a new face in the White House not new policies.

[Jake Jones]

Hello Andrew,

I am a supporter of Ron Paul's Platform. I believe that most of his ideals would actually impact this country in a positive way. In fact, I believe in many ways they allready have, by causing people who didnt believe in the system to actually get up and rally behind a politician. Most of these supporters are new to the game of politics, and many of them are pure skeptics of the entire system myself included.

The problem with todays political system is the polls, in my opinion. The generations before mine believe they can only get the information they need from mass media. They believe the little man in their tv is allways right, he has to be. But newer generations are growing adept at finding out their own information through the internet. So as the prominiance of generations shift in years to come you will se a major swing in the views of the people. They will start deciding their candidate on his record and not just what the poll numbers on the TV say.

So in a way Ron Paul's Campaign is just the beginning, He has been branded as dark horse and long shot by media ever since he decided to run. And this branding come from information fueled by polls that some of which didnt even mention his name in some states.

Please view this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4nfIMgz9wY

So you believe that this is a fair system? If you believe so then I see that as the bases of my skepticism in the system.

But I believe as the young people grow up to be the majority voice in this country instead of the "tv will rot your brain" generation we have now, a candidate for president will hopefully be viewed fairly for his platform and his performance record on the hill. And not just because the polls said he would win.

Thank you for your time and for your article.

Jake Jones

[Rob Biddle]

Ron Paul is doing poorly in the primary for one reason and one reason only.
The vast majority of people in this country DO NOT WANT FREEDOM.

They value government control more than freedom.
They want a magical universe where cause is not realted to effect.
They want the results of all human action (or inaction) to be made equal by force.

[Michael]

Dr Paul lost due to lack of name recognition. His Campaign needs much more exposure. i live in NH and for every 3 Mcain/Romney commercials Paul had 1. I had phone calls from every other candidate except Paul. I think maybe the 20 million he raised came in too late to effect NH. What he needs to do is tap Walter Williams as his VP to counter the racism smear thats going on right now. Spend all 20 mil on ads right now and pray the grass roots fills the bank again.

[Todd]

"Despite all the positive publicity surrounding his being snubbed by Fox News"

Um, you kinda failed to acknowledge the possible negative consequences of Fox suggesting to the voters that Ron Paul was un-electable by excluding him.

The media chanting "that candidate is un-electable" does have a harmful effect-- it scares people from voting for the candidate they want, and into voting for the lesser of "electable" evils.

Ron Paul was probably doomed in NH anyway, but it is wrong to play down the effect that the mass media's negative view of him had on the masses.

[ALL4CHANGE]

Its really all about educating the masses. Unfortunately we don't have the help of the MSM like some of the other candidates. I mean really, if you look at all the other so called change agents, do they really have a plan for this change, do they even have a platform they have stood by, the answer is no, and you will see that if you take the time to look. All of Dr. Pauls stances have real substance and are backed by the education history provides. To say that there are not consiquences to the way we interact with the rest of the world is either arrogance or ignorance. Since we were kids we have been taught to treat people the way we would like to be treated ourselves, does this not apply to us as a nation? Are we to continue on our present course and expect things to be different for our children? Again, arrogance, ignorance or insanity.
The people of New Hampshire just voted in a candidtae that has publicly announced he would approve of an additional century in Iraq, not to mention
the other nations of the middle east. Granted McCain, even if nominated, would have little chance of success against the democratic nominee; this is a disturbing situation. On top of this, we have growing economic concerns that no other candidate other than Ron Paul is willing to adequately address. Why not bring back the gold standard, why not cut way back on spending, why not do away with government agencies that serve very little purpose other than to cause higher taxes and why not bring our troops home from places like Germany, Korea, and the many countries in the middle east. Just this one measure would make us a much strnger nation than many people seem to realize. Well, I could go on forever about this. Hopefully at least one reader will take notice because it really is all about educating the masses.

[Tim T, WI]

Dude, I'm at a loss. I was upset last night when CNN would not put Paul's name on his greyed out slice of the pie chart. At the time he was only a few hunder votes behind Giuliani. All day long I heard how Giuliani main rival was Mick, yet Paul was the only one close to the man.

I think if the media would spend more time on reporting the issues than treating this as a horse race it might be different.

[Louis Nardozi]

I can give it to you in two words. Name Recognition. People vote for the nsame they recognize. In the coverage for the primaries, Ron Paul is never covered or televised. His name is blacked out of pie charts. He is blocked from debates. Really, what do you expect? Here's the thing though. You seem to think we'll just lay down and die because things didn't go our way with less than 1% of the vote in. Laughably, you expect the economy not to worsen considerably between now and February. Hysterically, you believe that some OTHER Republican could beat a Democrat this year. But you know what's funniest of all? I'm thinking about how YOU will perceive your smarmy tone in 2010 when the economy is COMPLETELY collapsed. Ooooh...bet you'll feel a LOT safer then, when we can't AFFORD an Army to stop attacks on our soil.

[Andrew Douglas]

I've been supporting Ron Paul's campaign since I watched the first debates back in May, when his poll numbers where "-" - meaning less than 1%. Am I upset about only getting 8 or 9% in NH? Somewhat, but it was not a loss. I did personally think he would do better, but I don't think my personal investment in his campaign has been wasted. If you remember the resounding applause for Rudy's "smack down" of Paul back in May - to think that Paul went toe to toe with Giuliani just a little over 6 months later is huge. To think that Paul will have out raised Giuliani in the 4th quarter would have been beyond my wildest dreams. To think, while we sat at "-" in the polls, that we'd be anywhere near 9% in NH or 10% like we were in Iowa would have been "nuts".
But why didn't he do better? Why didn't he outperform the polls in NH? I think what we've seen from the Democratic side of the isle is a big part of that. Obama is sucking a lot of the air out of the room when it comes to independents who want a change in the war. I think the media attacks have shown just how effectively voters can be convinced of a candidates chances for success. It's self fulfilling prophecy at it's finest.
However, the vocal minority of ~10% that Paul has proven is out there in the real world and not just on the internet is going to be a powerful force in politics for not only this election but for decades. And as that 10% becomes more organized, the even larger mass of people who have completely turned off of politics as usual will start to wake up to what's possible. There won't be one Ron Paul in congress... soon there will be dozens, and it won't stop there. And the movement towards a return to a Constitutional government that Ron Paul started will be remembered for a long time to come.

[Tyranny]

Yep. You're right. He didn't win. Didn't even come close. But, that's not because we're not out there voting for him.

There are many counties in Iowa where Paul votes were cast that are showing 0 on Politico.com with 100% reporting.

what gives?

[David Schexnaydre]

Thank you, Andrew, for the forum.

I LOVE Ron Paul's ideas. I LOVE Ron Paul's demeanor. I LOVE to listen to Ron Paul speak because he speaks in detail about the issues and he supports those issues with specifics. Thus, he does not sound like EVERY OTHER candidate, Democrat or Republican.

Ron Paul is a man of substance and his words convey it every time he speaks. Unfortunately, the average voter does not and will not take the time to search out, much less watch and pay attention to, the many You Tube videos on Ron Paul. Unfortunately, the average voter is lazy and will only learn that which is spoon-fed to them by the media or by political advertising. We know that Ron Paul cannot and will not have any control over the media. They will ignore him and, when not ignoring him, they will treat him unfairly. (Andrew, you have by far been the best of all of the media, but why is Ron Paul consistently referred to as "the 72-year-old, 10-term congressman" when John McCain is never referred to as the "71-year-old, 26-year congressman"?)

So, what is Ron Paul to do? The only other way to spoon feed the lazy voter masses is to do it in a way that lets them know that Ron Paul is different from all of the other candidates. The way to do that is NOT to run the ad his campaign created to run in New Hampshire. As one honest Ron Paul supporter described it, a viewer would simply come away with knowing that Ron Paul is a doctor who wants to cut taxes. Big deal. That will not work. Ron Paul needs TV and radio ads that have him stating his positions:

I am Ron Paul and I will protect and defend the Constitution like no other candidate. What does that mean?
The United States does not need to be the policeman of the world.
The United States should not take your money and send it to other countries.
The federal government should not be involved in education at the local level.
States can do that.
While as a physician I am personally against abortion, the federal government should not be involved in the decision of whether a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy. States can do that.
The federal government should not be involved in your personal lives. Those decisions should be made by you at the local level.
The federal government should not take your money and give it to corporations.
What the federal government should do is protect us all from foreign enemies. But the way to do that is not for the federal government to take your money and spend it on building and maintaining military bases in so many countries around the world. That just makes other countries resent us. How would you feel if Japan or Germany or the Phillipines or Cuba had a military base in Florida or California or New York or Kansas?
The federal government should take the money it spends on military bases around the world and make sure that our borders are secure and that our national defense is the strongest in the world so that our families can be truly protected.
Do you want proof that I am not a hypocrite like so many politicians? In my 10 terms as a U.S. Congressman, I have refused to accept my congressional pension because it would be paid with YOUR money, not mine. No other candidate can say that. I am Ron Paul. I will protect and defend the Constitution like no other candidate.

That is the type of message the average voter must hear. Then they will get a glimpse of who Ron Paul is. Then they may get excited enough to check out Ron Paul on You Tube. Then they may get excited enough to tell their friends and family. And who knows? Maybe they will even get excited enough to pull the lever for him.

Ron Paul, PLEASE DO NOT QUIT. And Ron Paul Supporters, PLEASE DO NOT GIVE UP on the only candidate, Democrat or Republican, who will truly defend the U.S. Constitution in a way that our forefathers intended.

[Tyranny]

Yep. You're right. He didn't win. Didn't even come close. But, that's not because we're not out there voting for him.

There are many counties in Iowa where Paul votes were cast that are showing 0 on Politico.com with 100% reporting.

what gives?

[Warren]

Like a turtle on ice Ron Paul's message will continue to spread. The fires of freedom will burn at their own pace independent of primary schedules but eventually engulfing the mindset of the people. Truth will win out in the hearts of Americans and the coming crisis on wall street will be a bigger endorsement for Paul than 10 Oprah's in his camp.

[Mr. X]

Independent voters broke for McCain and Obama, due in no small part to the glowing media praise for their surging numbers. Huckabee got a bounce out of the Iowa win, and all four candidates who did better than Paul were invited to the Fox News "forum" on the Sunday before the elections, while Paul was shamefully excluded.

As far as what needs to be done to win, it's the same strategy that McCain was pushing before the New Hampshire win. Continue to compete, let other candidates drop out as their funds run out, and be the last man standing.

[J Bradford]

Ron Paul lost in Iowa and NH because of one thing, and one thing only - the media.

And I don't necessarily mean the lack of coverage, I mean the type of coverage. The stories that were done on him, including the ones in the LA Times, always try to marginalize him, ridicule him, or make him out to be some sort of "kook."

Perception is reality after all, and most Americans only get their "information" from sound bites on the TV, or from short articles online, or in newspapers. Most people don't take the time to do any research on anything - not just political candidates.

Ron Paul didn't lose in Iowa and New Hampshire because of his message, or his lack of money, or lack of character. He lost because you, and every other major media outlet, decided you weren't going to let him win.

Mike Huckabee's rise in the past month was due only to the media's favorable projection of him. He was in the race for months, played the game as it should have been played - which means he didn't go against the establishment with his message, and made a few funny comments in a debate. The media jumped on it and YOU made him into an overnight sensation. Mike Huckabee did nothing to put himself as the "front runner" - the media made him so by repeating it over and over that he was the front runner. Again, perception is reality.

The same could be said with John McCain coming into New Hampshire. All you heard on tv was that McCain was poised to win New Hampshire and battle it out with Romney. Guess what happened? He won NH and battled it out with Romney. You don't "report" on what's happening, you make it happen by the continual coverage and slanting of certain stories. The influence you guys have over the world is astounding, and you know it. You could start running a story today that Dennis Kucinich is suddenly "surging" in the Democratic race. Other media outlets could run with that story as well, and guess what would happen in the next primary? Dennis Kucinich would win. Is that really how we want this country to work? Are we really "free" to make our own choices??

The American people don't elect the President, the media elects him for us by who you portray in positive light and who you give the most attention to. It's a sad reality.

So once again, Ron Paul didn't lose because of anything he did, it's because YOU didn't want him to win. Ron Paul doesn't play the political games, doesn't give into the big corporations, and doesn't go along with the status quo. In short, he's not with the "in crowd" in Washington so he's left out in the cold.

The fact is, Ron Paul didn't lose in Iowa and New Hampshire, the American people lost. By not allowing everyone to hear his message you have short changed the public.

What you, and others, fail to recognize is that the Ron Paul message is not about Ron Paul at all. It's about the greatness that made this country what it is today. It's the American way. I was a skeptic when I first heard him speak, but fortunately I took the time to research his message, and didn't just rely on outlets such as this.

I thank God I didn't miss out on what he had to say. It has transformed my life, and thousands of others across this country. Never again will I settle for the "lesser of two evils" in an election. Never again will allow the media to tell me how to think. Never again will I sit idly by while our freedoms are stripped from us and our wealth is robbed from us bye elite bankers and corrupt politicians.

Ron Paul may have lost in Iowa and New Hampshire, but it doesn't matter because he's already won something much bigger. He's changed me, and in turn I've changed my family, who will in turn change others. There are hundreds of thousands of other people across this country just like me. We will not let this die. Change doesn't occur overnight, but it will occur. Count on it.

Ron Paul's legacy and the people he has inspired make him nothing but a true winner. Long after you're done writing your negative stories about him, his legacy will carry on with me and the thousands of other people he has forever changed.

It's a shame more people have been denied the opportunity to learn about Dr Paul and his message. You, and others like you, have done a disservice to the American people. They are the true losers in this election.

[Adam]

I wasn't at all surprised that Ron came in fifth, and I'm not going to pretend that 8% of the vote is good. I am die hard Ron Paul supporter from Illinois and I'd like to point out surprisingly a lot more people in lake county, then I expected. But my main point I'm trying to make is that yes Ron does have a lot more supporters then his campaign ever imagined a lot more people are wakng up, me included. We are also being very realistic, if ron Paul wins then we win and if ron paul looses then we win as well. You wanna know why? Because this isn't about Ron Paul, this is about the message, truth, and just waking up from the bull the establishment throws at us and ron being excluded from the the fox debate was a perfect example of that. You have to ask yourself what is the media so scared about? Why do they shy away from a great man? Its obvious and I think we all know what it is. I honestly believe that's its not because they don't think hes going to get votes because 10% in Iowa was good yet it went unnoticed because???? Although I do believe new Hampshire was a bad showing but as I said I'm not surprised. The revolution is strong at least we are waking more people up and that is a victory in itself because that's what the establishment is fearful of. No matter where Ron stands at the end of this deal, I'm still very proud of what has happened around the country. One last thing I want I point out is one of my friends live in sutton, nh and him, his mom, dad, and aunt all voted for ron paul but he called me last night and when the local news reported 0 votes for him, my buddy was freaking out. I CANT BELIEVE THE VOTER Fraud!! Haha its just so funny too me how that happens.VOTE RON PAUL!!!

[DeliveryBoy]

The big media outlets got it right. Voters didn't make their decisions until the last week. In most cases, it was the last day. The momentum that Ron has been building has been coming from people who have been looking at the candidates for a long time. Therefore, when Ron gets cut from the debate before the primary it hurts him immensely. When CNN leaves his section of the pie-chart graphic for Iowa nameless, it hurts him in New Hampshire.

http://s242.photobucket.com/albums/ff209/MKD1989/?action=view¤t=RPaul.jpg

Name recognition is a big part of the picture. Big media has been giving time to Romney vs McCain and Obama vs Clinton. It is no surprise that these are the candidates that are leading.

[Jerry]

I am disappointed. I was expecting at least top 3 in NH, and I don't know what went wrong there. I think Ron Paul and his supporters should shift strategy a little. We need to not make "constitution" the focus of his campaign. Focus on the other issues that he shares with the other candidates, like being pro-life, however, let the states decide on that issue.

He's against gay marriage, but if Massachussettes wants to make it legal, then Ron Paul won't allow the federal gov to intervene.

He wants to end the war in Iraq. Aren't 70% of Americans against the war?

Maybe people are too lazy these days and don't want the responsibility of governing themselves. You know, let someone else handle it. I don't know. Now I'm beginning to think that most people need to be told what to do. Most people need to be ruled for their own good I guess.

[Dionysus]

Hah! Not one comment before this. Loser.

[Bryland Sutton]

Ron Paul did indeed lose New Hampshire. I believe the reason he lost is because we as a people are lost. We as individuals do not like to live within our means. We do not like to see suffering abroad and be the ones who turn our backs. So why should we be any different as a country? The sad truth is that we cannot save the entire world. We simply cannot afford to save the world. We cannot police the entire world. And we shouldn't police the world. When did that become our job? Why is it ours any more than its Canada's or China's? But, it appears that we will try the follly. We will try until we are bankrupt. To our own ruin and to no good end, we will try and foolishly repeat history.
Those who use rhetoric to persuade us to vote for them will use us and the system and make their fortunes. They will wage their wars. Were McCain to win, we would be in his 100 year war (his own words) and eventually the fall of the US due to bankruptcy. We cannot support another 5 years of war, let alone 100. It sounds so patriotic to wage war against the evil in the world, doesn't it? And if that is patriotic, then non-support of the war is the opposite, right? Huckabee? Religious fanaticism and war.
HIllary or other democrats? Socialism and then, poverty for all but the elite.
I will 'waste' my vote on Ron Paul. I will do so because I believe in what this country used to be; what the founders hoped this country would be.
But, my prediction is that the people will flock behind who they think will win. Not because of the candidate's record or policies, but simply because they could win. Because they pander to crowds and we find it convenient to ignore the truth. Our country will continue to decline and those few of us who disagree will have to watch with sad eyes.

[gia]

The problem with the ron paul campaign is its based on telling people that america is in crisis. its in a constitutional crisis, attacks on habeus corpus and comitatus and privacy, financial crisis (the debt is 400,000 per household) , jobs crisis (only 5,000 jobs created last month? ) with so much moving offshore and importing onshore a rip off class of indian and chinese workers.

The problem is 84% of americans polled say the good times are here. Much of the economic wreck hasn't hit americans yet. Oh sure some. But not enough. Our crises doesnt seem real yet. Lets hope that doesnt include being rounded up and put into those concentration camps KBR is building.

so McCain with his illegals dont matter, hell lets fight a war for 100 yeras its all good message wins.

americans are sheep who wont wake up and hear Paul's message until harder times hit.

You can equate McCains supporters cheering at his win speech last night to nero fiddling while rome burned.

hink about it. in IOWA, where job loss is rampant, they voted for people who would do nothing.

In New Hampshire, where live free or die, one would expect the constitutionalists to overrun for ron paul, but they voted for a war monger pro illegal destroyer of the constitution

Paul needs to keep his message of the PROBLEMS on the back burner and criticize the front runners on their notion of CHANGE. Call them on WHAT change they are for that is supposed to HELP people who are losing their jobs to china, WHAT change is going to save social security, WHAT change is going to save the deficit.

Everyone knows RP is the consitutionalist candidate or they will learn. he needs to put that and the gold standard on the back burner for now. focus on a traditional message of protecting jobs, lowering taxes (to ZERO!) , and fixing the deficit.