Ron Paul Won’t Be The Nominee, Much Less President
Ron Paul is surging in Iowa. He's in 3rd place in the national polls and has been for most of the race. He's not Mitt Romney.
Ron Paul is surging in Iowa. He’s in 3rd place in the national polls and has been for most of the race. He’s not Mitt Romney. Yet, there’s zero chance that he’ll be the Republican nominee, much less be elected president.
Andrew Sullivan is tired of media types downplaying Paul’s chances. He’s hopping mad that Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, set to moderate tonight’s debate, declaration that, if Paul somehow wins the Iowa Caucuses, “to a certain degree, it will discredit the Iowa caucuses because, rightly or wrongly, I think most of the Republican establishment thinks he is not going to end up as the nominee. So, therefore, Iowa won’t count and it will go on.” Sully calls for Wallace to recuse himself from the moderator’s chair on the grounds that “A man who is openly backing the Establishment against the possible winner of the vote is not an impartial moderator. He is a tool.”
He adds, “He’s basically saying that the votes of Iowans do not count in advance if they decide for Ron Paul. Between what Ailes demands and the voters want, there is no contest. You want to see contempt for the Republican voter? Forget MSNBC. Try Fox.”
But Kevin Drum gets it right:
Wallace isn’t openly rooting for one side or another here. He’s just making the obvious point that the Republican establishment normally thinks of the Iowa caucuses as a bellwether, but if Ron Paul wins they won’t. They’ll figure it’s just a fluke and move on to New Hampshire. Given the fact that Paul has always had a dedicated band of fanatic supporters willing to give him money and organize support for him, but at the same time has never in his life managed to gain even double-digit support nationally, this is actually perfectly rational. Ron Paul isn’t going to win the GOP nomination, and if he manages to pull out some kind of freak victory in a small state with a weird nominating process, well, it’s just a freak victory.
This is hard for Paul supporters to hear, but it’s simply the truth.
Despite a certain nuttiness, I find Paul appealing on a lot of levels. He’s genuinely smart, has a sharply honed view of the world, and says what’s on his mind regardless of what his audience wants to hear. That’s refreshing and fun.
But we’ve seen this show before. Paul had a rabid following and repeatedly made news with his fundraising prowess in 2008. He finished with 21 total delegates, 6 of whom actually cast ballots for him.
Why? Because hard core libertarianism is simply not particularly popular.
While there are significant libertarian strains in both major American political parties, it’s not the dominant faction–or close to it–in either. The Republican Party primaries are dominated by Evangelical Christians who very much want government to regulate moral behavior, notably in the cases of abortion, marriage, and drugs. Even though Paul strays from the libertarian line on abortion, he’s simply not part of the mainstream in his party.
Aside from ideology, he doesn’t have a presidential background. He has no real executive experience and has never won a statewide election. We haven’t elected a president with no higher office than the House of Representatives on his résumé in modern times.
Additionally, the fact that he’ll be 77 years old by the time the election rolls around is decidedly unhelpful. He’s not only older than John McCain was last cycle, he’s older than Ronald Reagan was when he ran for re-election. Indeed, he’ll be nearly as old as Reagan was when he left office.
Paul’s an interesting character and he adds a valuable point of view to the debates. And he deserves to be in the debates, given that he does have sizable support. But his ceiling is somewhere around 15 percent.
How much bigger would the “Paul as frontrunner” freakout be than the Newt version?
Mike
@MBunge: There’s zero chance of Paul emerging as a national frontrunner. It’s not inconceivable, though, that he could do very well in a caucus state like Iowa, where a relative handful of committed supporters can have a huge impact.
Paul could win the presidency on Mars, however.
@James Joyner: “There’s zero chance of Paul emerging as a national frontrunner.”
And two months ago, how much chance was there of Newt becoming the clear national frontrunner, with a bigger lead than anyone in the GOP race to date?
Mike
@MBunge: Two months ago, I would have put Newt’s chances at becoming the frontrunner as low, but higher than what I would have given Paul.
Time for a Bad Lip Reading soundbite
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igQlbesF0zA
@MBunge:
The difference is that Paul has a ceiling of 15-20% beyond which he will not be able to move. He is out of step with the vast majority of the GOP base on issues ranging from foreign policy, to Israel, to even the economy. “End The Fed” is a great applause line for the Ron Paul fans but no other Republican, and very few conservative economists, takes it seriously. Heck, I’m more sympathetic to Paul than Newt or Mitt, and even I don’t take it seriously.
Yes, but Paul is a proper protest vote for actual conservatives.
The extent to which the establishment realizes this will determine how long the Republicans stay in the wilderness.
He is not a sell out. He doesn’t lie. He is pro Constitution. He knows that the “foreign policy” is just jingoism. He’s the only candidate that properly forecast the collapse in the housing market.
Tell me which one of these statements is wrong.
Paul has some pretty right wing bigotry/xenophobia issues in his closet. If the media were to take his candidacy seriously and start talking about some of this stuff it wouldn’t be pretty.
From his newsletter re: the LA Riots:
The man is pretty far out there…at least from a moderate’s point of view…I am sure there are those on this site who agree with him.
Lots of people say this, yet they never seem to make an actual argument as to why it can’t happen.
@Hey Norm: The newsletter issue was never really cleared up. If Paul was allowing someone to publish in his name without direct involvement it still raises serious questions about his judgement and thought processes.
Having said that, I’m not sure Paul’s bigotry is necessarily worse than Obama’s Constitution trashing.
@Ben Wolf: In re: the newsletter thing, I would recommend this.
@Ben Wolf: We’re not going to get rid of the Fed for the same reason that we’re not going to get rid of the EPA or the DOE or any other of the governmental agencies libertarians think we don’t need.
Libertarians: people who think that it’s perfectly fine for rat turds to be in your peanut butter provided you don’t know about them.
I thought Ross Douhat put it excellently in his New York Times Column:
@Doug Mataconis: “Heck, I’m more sympathetic to Paul than Newt or Mitt, and even I don’t take it seriously.”
Which is the real problem with Paul. If the GOP has to seriously engage his candidacy, they will be forced to admit that a lot of the libertarian-sounding arguments and rhetoric they’ve adopted are either crazy or stuff they never really believed.
Mike
MBunge,
Ron Paul is not the sole, nor even the best, representative of libertarian ideas on public policy.
@Hey Norm: This was brought up by the media just after his first major surge during the last election. It’s actually an old story. But the minute he becomes popular enough to matter, the left wing media will bring it up again (I think The Nation reported it last time). Btw I think it should be discussed…I only mention the LWM as a prediction of where the story will originate.
Personally I don’t think those statements are his beliefs…it’s likely that the head of the Mises Institute was ghost writing all of those ridiculous newsletters and using Paul’s name to fund raise. I think it speaks less to Paul being a bigot than to his association with and inability to control fringe supporters.
I like his views, but I don’t think he has the administrative chops to control the Executive Branch.
I am going to laugh when all of these media pundits who think their opinion means anything
to rational Americans have to come out on the air to announce Ron Paul as the Winner in Iowa. And then too see their bloated faces squirm as they announce Ron Paul was the winner in New Hampshire.
It’s funny how what most pundits tout as “journalism” is really just biased corporate sponsored hypocrisy. The people who work for FOX, CNN, MSNBC all have ties to defense contractors and big industry.
They promogulate this nations problems by playing appeaser to big money, and bowing to iconoclast morons who’s policies have bankrupted this economy. Their unwillingness and lack of courage is a testament to the cowardice they exercise on the airwaves every day.
Here is a reality check for you. The Media DOES NOT CHOOSE CANDIDATES, the people do.
And like it or not, the people have chosen Ron Paul for President. The troops have chose Ron Paul as President. And there is no amount of whining, discrediting, and outright lying the Media can do to change that fact.
This 2012 will be there year where the Corporate Sponsored Media is marginalized by the people.
Ron Paul 2012 – get used to it.
@Stormy Dragon: I think there is an irony in Douhat’s article. The “I’m waiting for the TP’s to reveal themselves to be who I thought they were” attitude reveals a similar conceit in many hard-line Lefties – no matter how genuine or principled the TP’s ever where, the Hard Left was going to vilify them regardless. The Far Left cried “racism” and “astroturf” before proof of either ever surfaced. The Tea Party and the subsequent reaction revealed a lot of ugly qualities of both sides of the fence.
On a separate note, do we actually know who the Iowa TP is supporting? All I’ve heard about so far is leanings of the Religious Righters.
@Steven L. Taylor: I always found Rothbard distasteful, But I your link takes it to a whole new level. As for Paul I’m not sure what’s worse: that it appeared he was a bigot, or that he wasn’t and just pretended to be for political expediency.
@grumpy realist
We need an agency to coordinate environmental protection and large majorities of Americans agree. There is no argument for the existence of the Fed, particularly given its independence is a myth. Its operations should simply be folded into Treasury.
@Jay:
I don’ think there has been a lot of good reporting on who the Tea Party supports.
That said, from looking across sites an TP friendly media, there has been a movement towards Gingrich. Cain had previously seemed to be a general TP fave.
I would say, rather than being about race and creating an acceptable banner after they field the Republican Party left them, the TP has always been about anger and frustration. Thus the move to Gingrich — if it is happening — is more about the person who can perform the TP anger rather than necessarily actually sharing the TP values.
@Jay:
Allowing your name to be used in such a fashion is more than “inability to control fringe supporters” it is abdication of responsibility at best and tacit agreement at worst.
@Ben Wolf:
But I don’t think that that is what Paul means when he says get rid of the fed–he means go back to the gold standard.
@Doug Mataconis:
I have no idea why you believe that was a response to what MBunge said. Just because Ron Paul is a less-than perfect example of libertarian public policy does not refute that “a lot of the libertarian-sounding arguments and rhetoric they’ve adopted are either crazy or stuff they never really believed”
@ Jay,
Much of the lefty reaction to the TEA Party (Taxed Enough Already) was to point out that it arose from a premise that was bullshit: taxes were relatively low, after repeated cuts by folks the TPers voted for. The “it’s astroturf” stuff may have been unfair, frankly I don’t know. I think the TP is essentially the GOP base rebranding effort (there is poll data I think backs this up pretty well, but not totally. I’m saying there is a *lot* of overlap, without saying that every TPer is a conservative Republican who doesn’t want to call themselves that anymore). That effort may well have started as “grass roots.” It sure seemed to explode in January of 2009, though.
Anyway, that’s why I think Paul has trouble with them. The GOP base is full of SoCons who want their social conservatism served by the federal government. Many of them suddenly got angry about government spending and whatnot when their side lost an election.
I get the impression Paul is a SoCon who sticks to principle and wants to leave authoritarian social conservatism to the states. 😉 He also has been banging on consistently about the size & scope of the federal government for a long time.
I think he’s badly wrong about a number of things, but I do see him as principled (note: that doesn’t mean I think all the principles are good, even), rather than a panderer. That is another part of his problem. I don’t think he will be able to promise all things to all people, and that’s what successful candidates for POTUS do.
@Steven L. Taylor: I think my statement “associate with fringe supporters” is exactly the same as “tacit agreement”. Not sure what your argument is here.
@Mike Rockefeller:
That was hilarious. Or you invented a time machine, which is pretty cool.
Gah, I should also say that I think Paul and the GOP base are widely apart on foreign policy/military matters.
Again, there may be a substantial # of Republican voters/leaners who might agree in whole or in part with Paul on such things, but I think the GOP primary electorate – the base – is more hardline/militaristic.
@Doug Mataconis: “Ron Paul is not the sole, nor even the best, representative of libertarian ideas on public policy.”
Nice non-responsive response. Ron Paul is, at this time, the most prominent libertarian in U.S. politics. That may be a bitter truth, but you still have to swallow it.
Mike
@Jay:
I am assuming that if one hires/allows persons to use one’s name, the those persons are not “fringe” associates, but rather close associates.
@Jay: Perhaps the issue is how to define “fringe” in this context.
@ Mike…
The beauty of a fantasmagorical ideology like Libertarianism (and unicorns for that matter) is that you never actually have to own it.
I’d love to see Ron Paul win in Iowa, and in New Hampshire. Simply to see the kerfluffle the Republicans would find themselves in.
And if Ron Paul were magically elected president, I think you’d see the same problem as that of a dog that had run after a car, barking, then actually caught it. It would be the “whaddeye do now?!” panic-stricken eyes-bugging-out to end all facial contortions.
Not to say that a Ron Paul presidency wouldn’t have moments of hilarity by itself, however. You can also bet that after four years of total inability by Ron Paul to accomplish anything he claims how he will be able to get done (you think Congress will go along, hello?) we’ll then get to hear years and years of whining from the Ron Paul fanbois about how Congress Didn’t Work Together With Their Dear Leader….
Stock up on popcorn futures, guys, and keep the wheels turning.
@MBunge:
And more to the point, Ron Paul is THE respresentative libertarianism within the GOP.
There are certainly other libertarians out there (many of whom I like. Some of whom I might even vote for), but Paul is the standard bearer for the libertarian-leaning faction of the GOP.
If he were in the spotlight as a serious contender (and I’ve love it if he was), many of those leaners (and others who aren’t but consider themselves to be small-government constitutionalists) would have to decide whether they *really* like that.
I think it would be cool, on multiple levels.
@grumpy realist:
Not to say that a Ron Paul presidency wouldn’t have moments of hilarity by itself, however. You can also bet that after four years of total inability by Ron Paul to accomplish anything he claims how he will be able to get done (you think Congress will go along, hello?) we’ll then get to hear years and years of whining from the Ron Paul fanbois about how Congress Didn’t Work Together With Their Dear Leader….
Actually, my biggest fear about a (highly unlikely) Ron Paul Presidency is that (a presumably GOP-controlled) congress *would* work with him in certain areas. The areas where I disagree strongly with Paul, of course. In the areas I agree with him, they’d probably fight tooth and nail to stymie him. Though I don’t think Congress would be able to start a war w/o him, which would be nice.
@Mike Rockefeller: Just so you know – Ron Paul is NEVER going to be the Republican nominee. Never – he has exactly zero chance to win. None. Deal with it.
@Steven L. Taylor: Fair enough, that was a terrible word choice on my part. I was referring to the drama with Lew Rockwell during the past election.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lew_Rockwell#Working_for_Ron_Paul) While Rockwell is firmly entrenched in the Lib mainstream, he has been known to push “fringe” beliefs, such as thinly-veiled racist metaphors, to attract the “Redneck” Libertarians to join the already-established “Pot Smoking Academic” Libs.
@bob:
Not a bloody one.
But none of them make a damn diffierence to the GOP base.
Thanks for playing,
Harold StassenRon Paul!Nuttiness? Refreshing and fun? God forbid you should step out of your Seventh-Grade mentality to actually talk about an actual issue. It seems that ad hominem attacks are the only way for fools to address Ron Paul’s ideas. You are so intellectually lazy that the only way you can judge a candidate is whether or not he is in the “in” crowd. As if that were important. Sure, you start out sounding like you are capable of escaping your blank-eyed groupthink, then proceed use terms like nuttiness and fun, and to talk only of Paul’s age and some irrelevant statistical reasons you think he isn’t right for the job. Are you afraid the cool kids aren’t going to invite you to their pool party if you show too much interest in the kid with the good grades? Grow up, jackass.
@Matt Blanchard:
I must confess: this is probably not the best way to convince someone that they ought to be making a more substantive argument.
Notice how the Paulbots think anyone who isn’t completely, totally in love with Ron Paul is a brainwashed idiot?
Not exactly the best way to win people to your side, as Steven notes. You guys do know you need votes to win an election, right?
mantis,
This is not new. Four years ago when I was writing at libertarian-oriented blog and started writing pieces critical of several aspects of Paul’s campaign, including the newspapers, the Paul supporters came out of the woodwork to attack.
@Steven L. Taylor: Grow up, jackass.
“I must confess: this is probably not the best way to convince someone that they ought to be making a more substantive argument. ”
And yet, judging by the fact that Doug Mataconis uses essentially this exact argument whenever he’s confronted by inconvenient facts, it seems to be the stock libertarian response to any disagreement…
Ron Paul: hates government so much he’s spent 30 years sucking at its teat.
@Stormy Dragon:
Yeah, the Ross Douhat piece is neat. Not just for the two stark choices (fringe ideologue or political hack), but for the missing third choice.
Too bad there isn’t a principled and rational candidate in the list, eh?
(If Romney is the “principled and rational candidate,” he has a curious and strangely political need to hide it.)
Sullivan’s point is that the constant harping of “Ron Paul has zero chance of making it” has a certain self-fulfilling effect, and the media is wrong for continually propagating it. With Gingrich and Cain, they never got the kind of constant “zero chance” trope that Paul is. Once the numbers came in, they were willing to believe that they could be the eventual winner. With Ron Paul, they don’t bother with that.
The Anti-Paul train inside the GOP is very scared, because Paul is principled, even though some of his principles are deeply wrong. He honestly believes the stuff he spouts, versus the rest who are all looking to pander to the 27%. He would not be as open to lobbyist corruption as the others.
His anti-war stance resonates across both right and left constituencies, even if his economic views do not. Now, while I don’t agree with a lot of what Ron Paul believes, I too think he has a very important role in having a discussion about the size and scope of government. I entertain the idea of what an Obama – Paul contest would produce, substantively, and in certain areas, he would provide a refreshing perspective and some different ideas to use as a starting point for compromise.
You know I always like to bring this up during heated debates. What if “the people” voted on your boss to be CEO of the company you work at? If you had no say in who YOU wanted to be your next boss. Well have you ever considered that everytime a veteran goes to work everyday its the president who is his boss. Have you ever ask the men and women of our military who they want as there boss. Of course not because it doesn’t benefit you. Well it matters to us, and we have chose our nominee. So next time you think it really matters to you who our next president is remember it goes double for us. Ron Paul 2012.
@Rustynuggets: Before saying anything else, let me fully acknowledge why members of the military might prefer Paul.
However, there is a major problem with your general argument:
Well, in fact, the men and women of our military are asked, as are all citizens. Indeed, members of the military have more influence over who their boss will be than do, well, almost everybody. I certainly don’t have a vote over whom my boss will be.
Rustynuggets,
Should the Federal civilian workforce also get the same rights you are suggesting the military have? After all, the President is their boss, too.
@Moosebreath: Last I checked, federal civilian workers also participate in presidential elections.
Jeremy,
True enough. Rustynuggets seemed to be saying that wasn’t good enough for the military, and I was checking to see whether it was only the military which would be so privileged.
@Rustynuggets:
…
I’ve NEVER had a job where I was asked for input on who I wanted the boss to be.
Paul is primed to win in Iowa and is a strong 2nd place in New Hampshire, where he also leads among Independent voters. I suppose if he wins Iowa AND New Hampshire, those two states will be flukes and we’ll just write them both off. Ah, American politics (and media) at its finest.
@Jason: Quite the contrary: if he wins Iowa and has a strong second in NH then the media will pay substantially more attention to him as either the new Not Romney or will recast the race as either Paul v. Gingrich or a three-way race.
The trick will be achieving a win in IA and a strong second place finish in NH.
Despite what people often assert, the numbers drive the coverage (see, for evidence: Bachmann, Perry, Cain and Gingrich).
@Steven L. Taylor: If Ron Paul wins Iowa, then… Ron Paul wins Iowa. And that will have about as much to do with the general election as the strong showing of Past Robertson and Buchanon in that state several elections back. Iowa ain’t America and America ain’t Iowa.
@WR: I made no claim about the general election. I made a claim about media coverage.
Ron Paul could win Iowa by 20 points and he will still not be the nominee. He has low ceiling of support and will not be worth worrying about by 2/1/12.
Those of us who have been self employed at one time or another have had the best boss ever!
In other news: “Masterbation is sex with somebody I love!” Woody Allen
Ernieeyeball,
He also said “I don’t understand why more people aren’t bisexual. It doubles your chance of a date for Saturday night.”
(Not that I really want to be taking dating advice from a person with Woody Allen’s history)