Comments (21) | Add a comment
Steve Sebelius
Paul's big numbers grind to halt
One of the things Ron Paul and his supporters cite when asked about how the public is reacting to the Texas congressman's message is the numbers.
Thus far in balloting -- not counting the trio of states that voted Tuesday -- Paul has received nearly 170,000 more votes than he did in 2008.
In Iowa, he got more than 14,000 more votes than four years ago. In New Hampshire, more than 38,000. In South Carolina, more than 62,000. And in Florida, he got more than 54,000.
But in Nevada, Paul only added 91 votes to his 2008 tally.
What happened?
Before you say "voter fraud," let's keep in mind that no one has presented any reliable evidence. (There is, by contrast, plenty of evidence of bungling the vote count, which is a much different thing.) And let's also keep in mind that Paul's Nevada campaign director, Carl Bunce, said he was satisfied with the count.
So how else to explain why Paul, who earned 6,084 votes in 2008, only managed to get 6,175 this year, falling into third place behind Newt Gingrich?
It's not as if Nevada is unfriendly to Paul's message. In fact, Nevada is tailor-made for Paul's message. Our brand of conservatives lean strongly to the libertarian, small-government, leave-us-alone branch of the Republican Party.
It's not as if Paul wasn't organized: His Nevada outfit has been strong and committed ever since Republican Party officials unconscionably shut down the 2008 state convention rather than let Paul's supporters -- who'd followed the rules -- have a victory in selecting delegates.
It's also not as if Paul didn't try: He campaigned in Elko, Reno, Las Vegas and Pahrump in the days leading up to the caucus. He met with Hispanics in Politics and Filipino American war veterans. He even sat down for an interview with me.
And it's not as if Paul's message has changed since 2008. In fact, Paul's message hasn't changed since 1988, when he first ran for president as a Libertarian.
So what happened? Why didn't Paul beat Gingrich for second?
First, 2012 was a different race than 2008. Four years ago, only Romney and Paul seriously campaigned in the state, which Romney won. Eventual nominee John McCain wrote off Nevada.
But this year, four candidates contested the state. Some votes that went to Gingrich and Santorum would obviously otherwise have gone to Paul. The fact that Gingrich won South Carolina going away -- and that he's fighting hard to collect anti-Romney conservative votes -- no doubt cut into Paul's lead. And since fewer people showed up this year -- 33,000 -- versus four years ago, there were fewer overall voters from which to draw.
And there's the electability factor. As the campaign rolls on, more and more voters are trying to assess which candidate could best defeat President Barack Obama, regardless of a candidate's ideology. That kind of thinking always hurts Paul, whose message is pure, but whose chances of success in a general election are not seen as high. That's why his backers often remind voters they're not betting on a horse race when they cast a ballot.
There's also the notion of caucus confusion. Many voters who didn't understand the caucus process showed up after voting had concluded, thinking they could vote anytime between 9 a.m. and noon. Paul's supporters have the reputation of being better organized than most, but newer fans may have been tripped up.
Finally, there's the possibility Paul has hit his Nevada ceiling, that until the state switches to a primary system, which would boost turnout, he's always destined to capture the same small but dedicated minority of Nevada voters.
Regardless of why, it's undeniable there were many disappointed Paul supporters -- and even some surprised pundits -- when the long, slow count of caucus ballots was finally done.
Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter at www.Twitter.com/SteveSebelius or reach him at 387-5276 or SSebelius@reviewjournal.com.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Minden63 talks about former Paul aids who confirm that he is racist. Who? Are you talking about Eric Dondero? He said that he was not racist. Get your facts straight and give your source. It is ironic that you act concerned that Dr. Paul is a racist, when you are obviously a bigot yourself. You call Paul supporters "Paultards" which is a combination of Paul + Retard. Calling people retarded is as demeaning as you can get. You are making fun of people with intellectual disabilities, which makes YOU a bigot. Before you remove your brother's splinter take the plank out of your own eye.
The actual vote count matters little as delegates have the power to nominate someone at the GOP convention who was not even on any ballot in any state. . . see "brokered convention"
Sorry I meant Reid won, with not voting machine, who is their to blame? Agents of the Federal Reserve?
Yeah dude .. it's called voter fraud. Research it yourself, do a little investigative journalism for a change.
There's no way in hell Paul only gained a handful of new votes in Nevada, the last time around the GOP practically shut down because of so many Ron Paul supporters were flooding the polling locations. You're going to tell me that they haven't signed up any new Republicans since '08? And Rick & Newt performed better there?
What a joke, you have to suspend all logic in order to buy this cheap script.
Now they're reverting to an electronic vote at the upcoming CPAC in a desperate attempt to avoid another Ron Paul win there (now 2 years in a row) wonder if the fake neocon establishment Republicans will get their way there too?
Don't be fooled people! Ron Paul is the only true choice for We the People!!!
www.RONPAUL2012.com
Uh, Mrs. Ed? Harry Reid didn't lose. But I sure wish he had!
Well said Winston.Smith!...Most Americans nowadays seem to prefer a handout to a handup...Paul hearkins back to a time when Americans believed in God, country and most of all; themselves....Now they want to sit back and wait for the welfare check to arrive...They think they are entitled to everything; without working for it! Hell, the 'community organizer' Maobama said just yesterday that he "deserves" a second term!...Based on what?...The highest levels of debt, welfare, food stamps, government regulations in history!...I guess that is what happens when you take affirmative action all the way to the white house!...You wind up with a "President" who thinks he is owed the job!
BTDT: You're welcome.
You know, most Ron Paul supporters recognize how difficult to spread the message of small, Constitutional government vs. the large Orwellian warfare/welfare state, but we march on trying to bring Americans back to a level of liberty that our Founders envisioned.
And yes, the Hegelian Dialectic Process has been used to morph society to its current state, based on Edward Bernays' propaganda methodology.
The fascist/globalist banksters have been pulling the strings for a century, having bought up the major media, the textbook industry and the two major parties decades ago.
I only seek to explain what liberty is, where it came from, why it is still important, who is trying to destroy it, and how to save it. That others from the false left/right paradigm don't understand or don't care what our foundational principles were, or even seek to re-define them, is not my concern. There are those that will always choose tyranny and security over liberty.
Some may consider this anachronistic, but people have always fought for their freedoms, since liberty is inherent in most people. The tyrants always seek to squelch the freemen, using whatever tools they have to do so. That Ron Paul represents a higher level of liberty than just about any major politician should be obvious by now. He is a throwback to our founders, and though his principles may not resonate with everyone, especially those sheep who only seek greater government dependency, his clarion call is not to be ignored.
In reality Ron Paul will never be elected. Paul stands for personal responsibility and that is no longer the American way of life. 50%+ of Americans want someone else to take care of them and supply them with a great life. No one that would make laws stating you have to take care of yourself will ever be elected in this country.
@btdt. I agree Paul's ideas are the minority. I also understand the concept Ad Populum and holding minority views is irrelevant when it come to rightness or wrongness. Either way, who cares? As I have said many times, this whole thing is a scam. Representive government is a myth and merely a tool to maintain the masses. We are the first generation to say "Voting does not matter". This is where the real fight is. Governments are losing their illusion of legitimacy. The man behind the curtain is being seen by more and more people thanks to people like Ron Paul. That is a great thing for societies as a whole. A new age is dawning and another leap toward freedom is currently being undertaken. The nation-state days are numbered.
@Minden63. You know not of what you speak. Ron Paul did not know what was written in the newletter bearing his name. Odds are on it was writen by Lew Rockwell. A close and personal friend of Paul. Paul will not verify it was Lew or not. But the fact is, the words were writen by someone else. Condemning Paul for the actions of another is illogical. Paul has come out against what was writen. End of story. Now, if you want to talk about rascists lets look at Obamba who fully supports the Libyan al-quida branch that is systamatically killing black people in Libya. Actual actions do speak louder than words. It is clear Obamba is a racist. Also, anyone who supports the terrorist government of Israel is a racist. That is just a fact.