Let's Assess Ron Paul's chances in Iowa and New Hampshire
I sit here in my apartment trying to assess Ron Paul's chances in Iowa and New Hampshire. I know,...I can't expect to get great information by relying on what I get out of the internet, or maybe the radio, ...and what newspapers and magazines I allow myself to read. I should be there in Iowa. I should be talking to real people, and a lot of them... But, I can't do that. I've got work to do. I have to take care of things at home.
However, I can seek out some of the people who are themselves in Iowa and New Hampshire. Maybe they will give us some insight into what's really going on.
I found this article talking about Rep. Paul's general chances, and whether he's a serious candidate in Iowa. The end of it said,
"...Recently, a reporter for a major national newspaper wrote a piece about former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's movement in the Republican presidential race by comparing him to Paul. (Huckabee's momentum in Iowa is real, though it is still unclear if he'll develop into a top-tier hopeful.)
The reporter wrote the following: "[Huckabee's] campaign saw Web site traffic jump to levels second among Republicans only to that of Mr. Paul, who has a strong base of Internet supporters, forcing it to upgrade its server three times."
The comparison was interesting but totally meaningless. Yes, Paul gets lots of Web site traffic. And yet, has zero chance of being nominated. Given that, who cares about Paul's Web traffic (or Huckabee's, for that matter), unless you are a technology reporter who is personally invested in your beat?
Anyway, I'll offer a guess as to why Paul is raising all that cash and generating those Web hits. He received 423,000 votes when he ran as the Libertarian Party's nominee for president in 1988, raising a little more than $2 million. Anyone who knows libertarians knows that they are a committed bunch, certain that the country has lost its way and in need of immediate repair.
I'll bet that many who voted for and contributed to Paul in the past (he raised more than $2 million for his House races in 1998 and 2000) are investing in his presidential campaign this time, and he almost certainly is drawing support from liberals who connect with his views on the war in Iraq, from frustrated Americans who simply don't like "the system," and from some Republicans who are at the libertarian extreme of their party.
Check out Paul's Web site. He is openly appealing to voters who aren't registered Republicans by including, on the lower left hand corner of his Web site, a box listing "party affiliation change deadlines." "You must be registered with the correct party to vote for Ron Paul in closed primaries," says the site.
Sorry, but you can't win a Republican presidential nomination by relying on the support of non-Republicans. Nor can you win if you finish fifth in the Iowa straw poll (in which three credible candidates didn't participate) and third in your home state's straw poll behind Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.).
How can we explain Ron Paul? This is a big country with hundreds of millions of people, some of whom are attracted to quirky, anti-establishment candidates. And some of those people are angry, looking for an outspoken leader and searching for an easy answer to the nation's problems.
But there simply are not all that many of them.
The Internet undoubtedly has made it easier for Paul supporters to connect with the campaign and with each other, and it's become a terrific way to raise cash for a candidate with emotional followers. But Web chatter, declarations of undying support on Facebook and even surprising fundraising totals don't make a serious contender out of a candidate from the political fringe.
Ultimately, it's about votes.
Stuart Rothenberg is the editor of the The Rothenberg Political Report, and a regular columnist for Roll Call Newspaper...."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/pauls_internet_campaig...
I listened to a piece on NPR this morning, wednesday, Nov. 28th, and they spoke about Huckabee's increasing support in Iowa. Apparently, the speakers reported, Mr. Huckabee has support from the fundamentalist Christians in Iowa and a lot of those people have recently decided to go with Huckabee. Seems the reporters thought that the top tier Republicans thought as well because they started smashing up Huckabee more during their last debate.
There wasn't much said about Rep. paul, except later, a comment that he sure has a loyal following and they have a lot of signs up.
I think this article by Rothenburg states the general impression held by these reporters, that Paul doesn't have the commitrments of enough voters in these early states to include him in their discussions about where the Republican race is at the moment.
I have a few questions. maybe someone can inform me about what's up here. The Iowans, I'm told, are concerned about defending conservative social issues. Is this something that Rep. Paul can speak to? I thought his message was about the war, fiscal conservatism, and promoting the rule of law at a time when a Republican administration has been trashing it.
Aren't Paul's issues of concern to the same voters who seem to be going for Huckabee, supposedly, and the "conservative" social values. I understand that Paul is very conservative about abortion, for example, and I would think coinsistently so. I personally find his view objectionable, but, I would have thought it would sell to conservatives.
I'm told, by the NPR reporters that Iowans make up their minds at the last minute. Is this true? If so, is there enough time for a Paul campaign to address the concerns of Iowan voters?
Rosenburg tells us it doesn't matter whether paul has a lot of Internet support if he doesn't get enough votes at election time in Iowa and new Hampshire. I suspect he has a point. I think it does matter that paul has the support he does. Paul can therefore raise money. He has a national organization that may be more developed than Huckabee's. The question is, which Rothenburg gets correctly, about how many votes paul can get in these early primaries.
Does anyone have any evidence that the polls have been undercounting Paul's voter support in these primary states?
Here is another take by Jonah Goldberg on Rep. Paul and the differences between Paul and Huckabe:
"...While many are marveling at Paul's striking success at breaking out of the tinfoil-hat ghetto, Huckabee's story is even more remarkable. The former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister is polling in second place in Iowa and could conceivably win there. He's still a long shot to take the nomination and a pipe dream to take the presidency, but Huckabee matters in a way that Paul still doesn't. One small indicator of Huckabee's relevance: His opponents in the presidential race are attacking him while the field is ignoring Paul like an eccentric who sits too close to you on the bus.
So what's so scary about Huckabee? Personally, nothing. By all accounts, he's a charming, decent, friendly, pious man.
What's troubling about The Man From Hope 2.0 is what he represents. Huckabee represents compassionate conservatism on steroids. A devout social conservative on issues such as abortion, school prayer, homosexuality and evolution, Huckabee is a populist on economics, a fad-follower on the environment and an all-around do-gooder who believes that the biblical obligation to do "good works" extends to using government -- and your tax dollars -- to bring us closer to the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.
For example, Huckabee has indicated he would support a nationwide federal ban on public smoking. Why? Because he's on a health kick, thinks smoking is bad and believes the government should do the right thing.
And therein lies the chief difference between Paul and Huckabee. One is a culturally conservative libertarian. The other is a right-wing progressive.
Whatever the faults of the man and his friends may or may not be, Paul's dogma generally renders them irrelevant. He is a true ideologue in that his personal preferences are secondary to his philosophical principles. When asked what his position is, he generally responds that his position can be deduced from the text of the Constitution. Of course, that's not as dispositive as he thinks it is. But you get the point.
As for Huckabee -- as with most politicians, alas -- his personal preferences matter enormously because ultimately they're the only thing that can be relied on to constrain him...."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg20nov20,0,7...
Goldberg thinks Paul is just harmless. Paul has odd views, but, he's constrained by his ideology and, presumably, as Goldberg understands things, that Paul does not have enough voters committed to him to be elected.
These are the opinions of the journalists. Is there evidence that thay are mistaken, and Paul in fact does have big number voter support in these early primaries?
Truth Seeker--huckabee supports illegal immigration, check my blog..Ron Paul is a top tier candidate, I was recently in New hampshire and Mass, and ron paul has lots of supporters in both states, in fact he is behind home man romney in mass by only 2% points..Ron paul appeals to people in both parties, and being the only president who talks about abolishing the illegal,private for profit irs and fed, he appeals to tens of millions of registered voters..
The mainstream media is always gonna say that he's not gonna win because they don't want him to. It's called power of suggestion.
I was very happy to see my grandfather, a lifelong republican, say he was supporting Ron Paul, I hadn't told him about him, and so I find out over thanksgiving, much of my family supports Ron Paul, only a few here and there, but it was very surprising nonetheless. I think he does have a real chance, not many trust the mainstream channels now anyway, especially when it comes to politics. That's why its had to divide CNN- hillary, Fox-Giulianiromney. That leaves a large discontent plurality, that is sick and tired of the same old shit.