Ron Paul loses worse than even Obama in West Virginia

Not a good day for Rep. Ron Paul.

Everybody was watching the overwhelming of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama by New York Sen. Hillary Clinton on the ongoing Democratic side of the partisan primary struggles in West Virginia yesterday. But over on the Republican primary battlefield with 98% of the votes counted, the 72-year-old Paul was overwhelmed by the presumptive GOP nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

Paul gathered in only 5% of the vote, a lousy 5,812 ballots.

That's about 1/17th as many votes as those received by the dread enemy, the 71-year-old Arizonan, McCain, who got 87,786 ballots.

Paul even got thumped by ex-Gov. Mike Huckabee, who isn't running anymore and hasn't been for weeks and was actually acting as a commentator on MSNBC. Huckabee got more than twice as many votes as the Texas congressman, 11,896, or 10%. And he'd already won most of West Virginia's GOP delegates back in that winter state convention deal with the Paul people to head off the Massachusetts Mormon.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney, another GOP also-ran, also came close to nipping Paul, who's having more luck selling his bestselling new book than his way-behind-the-crowd candidacy. Romney got 5,062 votes, or 4%. Rudy Giuliani -- remember him, the former New York mayor? -- received 2%, or 2,777 votes. So Paul did beat him again.

Paul also beat Alan Keyes, who in 2004 did such an impressive job as the Republican candidate of terminating the political career of that up-and-comer named Obama in the Illinois U.S. Senate race. Keyes got 1,389 West Virginia votes, 1%.

Out in Nebraska, Paul did somewhat better, copping 13% of the vote (17,587) to McCain's 87% (117,529). Which, according to The Ticket's calculations, means McCain won.

But as Paul's vocal supporters are fond of pointing out, it's not about winning the Republican nomination. It's about something else, which they'll be happy to explain in the comments section below where they are always welcome.

--Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[Lars]

Yes it is about the message and educating people about where we are heading.

If the message of smaller Government doesn't win this time around it will only grow stronger and win majority sometime in the future. Current policies are unsustainable and when people realize they will be ready for change.

To a large extent Ron Paul's message has been misunderstood. And for good reason, since it is complicated and also very different from most of what we normally hear.

It is often presented as "follow the Constitution", "freedom" and "small Government" but what does this really mean?

Through history there are countless examples of big Governments abusing power. "Power corrupts" as they say. Nazi Germany (a democracy), Mao's China, The Soviet Union and Mugabe's Zimbabwe to name a few.

Our most important responsibility as citizens is to know what our Government is doing and make sure no abuse of power takes place.

It is important that we keep up the debate about the role of our Government regardless of whether we as individuals believe it should be bigger or smaller. Letting Government grow and slowly letting it increase it's powers without openness, visibility, accountability, and involvement of the people is a formula for disaster as history has proven again and again.

[dave]

it is about winning your integrity, responsibility and freedom; the peace of mind that comes from doing what is right. (all of which people who deliberately, cynically and perversely work to mislead and corrupt others, like certain media people are actively doing, do not care about and despise)

[terribly smart]

Isn't funny that when he gets 130,000 votes in Pennsylvania, you state only the percentage: 16. But when not even that many turn out to vote in the West Virginia primary, you're all over his vote count.

You're so obvious.

[Phelps]

Haven't you heard? Since Pennsylvania, the Trilateralists have reinstated their political fatwa on Paul. That means: more Diebold shenanigans and crap articles like this. Oh wait. I answered my own question.

[ron]

Gee,

How many times have the words "Ron Paul" appeared on the political front page of the Los Angeles Times? As opposed to John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney? Go over the records beginning last year, when all four announced their candidacies.
He's getting five percent without recognition from the establishment media.
You fire out the results without any build-up.
P.S.
The online blog page should not be counted in your research.

[Matt O.]

While the closing paragraph of this blog post is delightfully condescending, 13% of people in Nebraska and 16% in Pennsylvania is nothing to scoff at considering it illuminates the greater rift between neocons and true conservatives within the conservative spectrum. I believe Rep. Paul's book is also a bestseller, so to downplay his impact at this point is misleading.

[bryan]

You almost make it sound like this is a fair election process with no corporate or media manipulation

[Ron Paul]

Why be condescending dude? It's about the love.

[truthseeker]

Dr. Paul would have done much better in West Virginia if that state had internet access and thus were informed about Dr. Paul's Presidential run. Nebraska , alive and well in the 21st century, with internet access, and with an informed citizenry, gave Paul 13%- so apparently having an informed electorate is good for our republic.

[Charles]

Mr. Malcolm,

Perhaps you should have included "Nanny, Nanny, Boo - Boo" to round out your article.

Regards,

Charles

[Mike D.]

Ahh...Robert Byrd State. Five percent in a state who consistantly sends the purveyor of fine, government, pork back to Washington year after year. The people who cry that the government isn't doing enough for them giving 5% to the great Dr. Paul. I think that is victory enough.

[ProfessorAI]

seems to me that Ron Paul should join forces with Bob Barr on the republican-libertarian ticket.

[Daniel, 21, Louisiana]

Ron Paul stopped actively campaigning once McCain locked up the nomination; what's the surprise here?

I'm sure there's some good dead horses around that you could beat, instead.

I would think journalists have better things to do with their time than be annoying...but I guess The Ministry of Truth only gives you so many talking points a day.

[awb]

Did not pay much attention to WV primary, but my 1st thought when hearing Hillary won big was that there was NH-style funny business going on at the polls again. RP's surprising low results support that theory as well. Also, if there were really so few of us around, you wouldn't spike your hit rate with these inflamatory RP articles.

[Timothy Bevin]

Great ideas from great statesmen are not always immediately embraced. For years, John Quincy Adams would petition Congress to end slavery and was treated with with derision from most his colleagues. I believe the people of this country have not been humbled enough to accept the accept the conservative monetary and foreign policy principles espoused by Ron Paul. I think the next four years will be very trying on many fronts for most Americans and many more will better understand and empathize with the ideals he is promulgating.

[Ben]

hahah. Oh Andrew. It's ok man, take a deep breath and stop shaking. This Paul thing has become so personal for you that you've forgotten why you became a journalist in the first place... Maybe Fox News will hire you one day. Similar caliber of reporting too.

But seriously, even in West Virginia, 24% are dissatisfied with McCain. It doesnt matter though, it's all cinched up, why are we even talking about it? Good story man. Classy.

[Charger]

So, winning 8% in two of the last three primaries (16% in the third one) was regarded by the media, everywhere, as being quite a significant statement, but 5% in W. Virginia you pass off as a disaster?

Are you forgetting your own opinion that he is supposed to be getting 0%?

Getting 5% anywhere, at this point in time, is just a continuation of that significant statement. Even you understand that every state's demographic will be a little different, but Paul keeps getting votes in a race that, according to you, is already locked up.

Do you not understand that the one million votes that Paul has garnered, in a country where the president is elected by only 20% of people old enough to vote, is not just significant, but huge? And with each passing primary he keeps adding to that total?

Does it make you feel intelligent to end every one of your pieces with a "prediction" that you will receive many comments from Paul supporters? A child could make that prediction, which is how you come across, each time you do it.

All the Paul supporters are trying to do is ensure that any article that presents a blatantly biased interpretation of the facts includes a different interpretation of those facts, on the same page. They understand, as you obviously do, that some people have a tendency to believe everything they read if they aren't told the whole story.

If you simply reported the results and let people decide their meaning for themselves, the only comments you would get from Paul supporters would be, "thank you for the coverage".

[Mark Smith]

Paul's 5% in WVA is consistent with what he has averaged across the country in all primaries (5.13%, according to uselectionatlas.ord); so that would seem to be his core constituency among GOP voters in closed-primary states. The longer-than-expected Democratic race has deprived Paul of crossover Dems and Independents, who are (understandably) voting in the more competitive Democratic primaries. The 13% result in Nebraska is 2-1/2 times better than Paul's national average -- probably reflecting some anti-McCain sentiment. At this point, Paul deserves credit for still being on his feet and giving his loyalists an opportunity to vote for him in every state.

[Jeff Noel]

Wow Andrew...I'm gonna need some Wellbutrin after reading that! Everything you said matters, if this was a quest for power. Ron Paul can't win the nomination, we've known that since Super Tuesday. This is about SPREADING THE MESSAGE. But you want to harp on Paul getting slaughtered in West Virginia, like we're under some delusion that we can win. We'll gladly take that "lousy 5%" of the vote, and it to what we've got, and see if that gets RP some speaking time at the convention. We've definitely shifted gears here, although the media has been really slow to pick up on it. The next step in the revolution is to get Dr. Paul to speak at the convention, and see if we can get at least SOME of our ideas into the official Republican platform.

Oh yeah, and we have to make sure Ron Paul republicans everywhere win their respective elections. Can't forget about that one.

[Frank F]

and, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead!

Is this really newsworthy ?

[Billy Corgan]

This information will not even stop this train of revolutionary steam! See you guys at the GOP convention where RON PAUL BETTER SPEAK!!! I will be there. Who else?

Down with the warmonger Mccain.

[Wm Tate]

Perhaps this will put to rest internet rumors of a Ron Paul "Revolution" at the GOP convention.
-Wm Tate
http://www.atimelikethis.us/

[Evan]

I know this blog likes to pile on Ron Paul--and I must admit that it is fun--but isn't a bigger story here that 22% of Republican voters went out of their way to vote AGAINST their party's nominee? WIth McCain having the nomination wrapped up, 26,936 Republicans could have sat at home, but they went out and decided to vote for someone other than McCain.

[DRUMZ]

(Yawn)

Hey, how about Nevada? Oh, wait. McCain's fake republican contingency is cheating overtime to steal that state back from a legitimate - no news there. Yeah, it's probably better you focus on the obvious and make some derisive Ron Paul comment so your editors think you have traffic.

[CT Johnson]

Andrew...you sound kind of off your game this morning. May I suggest a couple cups of strong coffee? :D

However, thank you for the plug on Congressman Paul's book and the big picture/insert of it.