Possible Ron Paul Upsets in Alaska and North Dakota?
Texas Congressman Ron Paul has won zero states this go-round in the Republican nomination process, but has placed 2nd in four: Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Washington. Robert C. O'Brien, writing at The Daily Caller, suggests that Alaska and North Dakota might be Paul's chance to finally win one or two outright.
This could be good for the GOP for two reasons:
1. Paul has a solid base of support, somewhere between 5-10%, with late-comers adding another 5% or so. He can peak around 20% under certain conditions. Paul's numbers over time are remarkably similar to Newt Gingrich's standing, aside from the former speaker's brief surge in November and December. As Chris Cillizza has argued, we ignore Paul at our peril.
2. Mitt Romney and Ron Paul represent two distinct views of both Republican conservatism and governance. We see this at multiple levels: taxes, regulation, foreign intervention, and so on. This is an important conversation for the party to have, and it is a conversation that the base has been having amongst itself for several years.
What do you all think? Should we be rooting for Ron Paul up north on Super Tuesday? Would a couple solid wins by him be healthy for the party?
- Comment (51)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: Possible Ron Paul Upsets in Alaska and North Dakota?
"Would a couple solid wins by him be healthy for the party?"
Pat Buchanan won Alaska too. Just sayin.'
Overall, I think having something of a libertarian on the stage is not a bad thing (and may account for his better than usual showing, thanks to Obama). At this point he's almost a traditional fixture at the primary debates, where he even gets a relative pass on most of the crazy uncle stuff that he'd be crucified for if people really thought he had a shot at the White House. I also think he pretty much sticks to attacks on substance, which these days qualifies as playing nice.
I certainly don't see any Ron Paul third party run in the offing, though he might not be adverse to letting speculation go uncorrected. I can't imagine he believes he could win, and becoming persona non grata in Republican circles would cut him off forever from the only bully pulpit he can reliably expect to occupy.
Oct '10
Re: Possible Ron Paul Upsets in Alaska and North Dakota?
*Averse* not adverse, of course. ::sigh::
Jul '10
Re: Possible Ron Paul Upsets in Alaska and North Dakota?
Probably the simplest explanation is the right one. A lot of soldiers probably want fewer and/or shorter military engagements.
The King Prawn
That debate can't happen because the people who support him don't know his ideas. They all latch onto one or two planks of his platform and think it representative of his whole governing philosophy.
For example, his voters in MI supported the auto company bailouts at a higher rate than those of any other candidate.
Pretty surreal.
Sep '11
Re: Possible Ron Paul Upsets in Alaska and North Dakota?
Admittedly, I am uninformed: I don't pay all that much attention to politics, but when I hear that Ron Paul has a great deal of support within the military, that makes a big difference to me, for a couple of reasons. With all due respect to conservatives who are better informed than I am, those who enlist in the military have infinitely more moral authority than conservative intellectuals do; they also understand the reality of what foreign engagements entail in a way that most conservative intellectuals can't. Some conservatives think that others should listen to them because they are better educated, but if I wanted to take orders from people who are better educated than me, I would be a liberal. If young conservative men really want to convince people that these wars are necessary, then they should put their money where their mouth is and enlist in the military. As long as large numbers of men who support the wars refrain from fighting in the wars that they support, they have no moral authority.
Nov '10
Re: Possible Ron Paul Upsets in Alaska and North Dakota?
I've long puzzled over the Romney/Paul partnership. For you're right that there is a huge gap between them in terms of policy, conservatism and governance. But I think I've got it now.
First, there is a genuine friendship between their families. That can't be discounted.
Second, I don't think there's any truth to the rumor that Paul believes Romney will name him as running mate. Too much daylight between their views.
Third, Paul knows he cannot attain a majority. He's not in this to win, but for exposure -- not for him personally but for the creed to which he has devoted his life. He's "taking one for the movement"; an altruist, if you will (take that, Randians!).
Fourth, Paul's presence in the race is obviously beneficial to Romney's bid for the nomination.
I think the explanation is very simple: In exchange for a free hand in the primaries, giving his views maximum exposure, Paul happily bleeds votes from Romney's principal rivals. It's win-win for them, no need for anything deeper or more nefarious; just a fair exchange of commodities.
Apr '11
Re: Possible Ron Paul Upsets in Alaska and North Dakota?
Palaeologus
The King Prawn
That debate can't happen because the people who support him don't know his ideas. They all latch onto one or two planks of his platform and think it representative of his whole governing philosophy.
For example, his voters in MI supported the auto company bailouts at a higher rate than those of any other candidate.
Pretty surreal. · 1 minute ago
That's kind of true of all candidates, though. Everyone has policy positions that would confuse the heck out of their voters if they ever found out about them, good and bad. For most people, the thought process goes as far as finding out what label to apply, then applying it. For some that's "good" and "bad", with the assumption being that the good candidate will support the right policies. A little more sophisticated and you get to conservative/ liberal. Above that, some specifics; eg., from canvassing in 2008 "I like Paul because he'll fix global warming because he'll get rid of all 'em politicians who cause it all", which contained a kernel of truth (Paul doesn't like politicians).
Sep '11
Re: Possible Ron Paul Upsets in Alaska and North Dakota?
This is how I'm beginning to think about it:
For a long time now we've been sacrificing small government to get a robust foreign policy. I think during the eighties, with a still aggressive Soviet Union, this was the right choice. Over the years the external dangers have lessened, and the peril of large government has grown. Now the biggest threat to the United States is the federal government. It doesn't make sense to sacrifice limited, constitutional government yet again for foreign policy. Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich don't appreciate that we are teetering on the abyss. Of course there is no hope: we are going to fall, and nothing will stop us; but at least Paul knows why. One day he will be considered prescient.
Sep '11
Re: Possible Ron Paul Upsets in Alaska and North Dakota?
I don't know personally, but if I had to guess it's because our soldiers have the sense to see that our military power is going away, soon. You all know the stats: we borrow 40% of our federal budget just to sink a little slower than we would otherwise; the baby-boomer entitlement tidal wave is coming ashore; if interest rates rise to historical norms our federal debt service payments will consume most of the federal budget; if the Fed just monetizes the debt we'll literally have hyperinflation. In twenty years our military will be a shell of what it is now. Ironically, only Ron Paul's policies would allow the nation to be economically strong enough to allow us to continue to have a global military reach (which he despises.)
Edit: ha ha--our soldiers must thing exactly like I do! Anyway, that's what I think, for what it's worth.
Edited on March 6, 2012 at 12:45amApr '11
Re: Possible Ron Paul Upsets in Alaska and North Dakota?
edit: It happens at every level, though. Politico wrote a story called "Turn-aways in a Santorum-friendly county in Washington?" about a county that was obviously going to be one of Mitt's strongest, based entirely on it being conservative. Prof. Rahe talks similarly about Mitt shying away from firing union members.
Edited on March 6, 2012 at 12:50amJul '10
Re: Possible Ron Paul Upsets in Alaska and North Dakota?
James Of England
Palaeologus
The King Prawn
That debate can't happen because the people who support him don't know his ideas. They all latch onto one or two planks of his platform and think it representative of his whole governing philosophy.
For example, his voters in MI supported the auto company bailouts at a higher rate than those of any other candidate.
Pretty surreal.
That's kind of true of all candidates, though. Everyone has policy positions that would confuse the heck out of their voters if they ever found out about them, good and bad. For most people, the thought process goes as far as finding out what label to apply, then applying it. For some that's "good" and "bad", with the assumption being that the good candidate will support the right policies. A little more sophisticated and you get to conservative/ liberal.
Sure, but that is one awfully flashy instance of seeming cognitive dissonance.
"Ron Paul, the bailout guy."
Sep '11
Re: Possible Ron Paul Upsets in Alaska and North Dakota?
Ouch! That stings! But you have a point.
Apr '11
Re: Possible Ron Paul Upsets in Alaska and North Dakota?
Palaeologus
James Of England
That's kind of true of all candidates, though. Everyone has policy positions that would confuse the heck out of their voters if they ever found out about them, good and bad. For most people, the thought process goes as far as finding out what label to apply, then applying it. For some that's "good" and "bad", with the assumption being that the good candidate will support the right policies. A little more sophisticated and you get to conservative/ liberal.
Sure, but that is one awfully flashy instance of seeming cognitive dissonance.
"Ron Paul, the bailout guy." · 0 minutes ago
Right, but no one thinks "bailout" is something that happens to them. Watch Santorum bailing out homeowners, for instance, or OWS's views on student debt. People are mostly against bailouts because they don't like their money being given to other people.
Sep '11
Re: Possible Ron Paul Upsets in Alaska and North Dakota?
Tenther
Ouch! That stings! But you have a point. · 0 minutes ago
Thank you, Tenther, I really don't like to sting people. :)
Jul '10
Re: Possible Ron Paul Upsets in Alaska and North Dakota?
But this took place in Michigan, James. Trust me, plenty of folks voting in that primary thought long and hard about the potential consequences of GM and Chrysler going under. It was still a (slightly) minority position in the primary, and Paul as its spokesman is plain bizarre.
Sep '11
Re: Possible Ron Paul Upsets in Alaska and North Dakota?
Judithann Campbell
Tenther
Ouch! That stings! But you have a point. · 0 minutes ago
Thank you, Tenther, I really don't like to sting people. :) · 38 minutes ago
No harm done!
May '11
Re: Possible Ron Paul Upsets in Alaska and North Dakota?
I'd also add on to R. Craigen's point that I don't think Paul likes Santorum very much and that they've been going at it throughout the race. In one of the earliest debates when Paul first put out his position on Iranian nukes, it was Santorum who confronted him about it. Recall also that after Gingrich collapsed in Iowa Paul was actually surging there for a brief time before Santorum took off. In other words, Santorum supplanted Paul, and quite possibly denied him a win there. Even assuming Paul's not in it to win it but simply to get exposure for libertarian ideals, he would have really been in the spotlight if he won Iowa, so he can't be happy about that.
Nov '11
Re: Possible Ron Paul Upsets in Alaska and North Dakota?
Yes. That's bc Santorum is a big government conservative and RP is a libertarian conservative. And Santorum is explicitly anti-libertarian.
Apr '11
Re: Possible Ron Paul Upsets in Alaska and North Dakota?
In general, I agree with you, but I'd point out a couple things. I think most conservatives believe that risking troops should only be done for clear American interests. Ron Paul seems to have an aversion to using military power at all and he has repeatedly blamed American foreign policy for the attacks of Sept 11. A large part of his attractiveness to younger voters is his anti-war stance.
For troops in harms way who are likely sick to death of endless deployments, unclear objectives, and the like, I understand why Ron Paul might draw their support. Refusing to use military force means they won't be overseas. But, refusing to engage doesn't negate the reasons we might need to, and kicking the can down the road does no good. Cont'd...
Apr '11
Re: Possible Ron Paul Upsets in Alaska and North Dakota?
I would point out also that joining the military is done for many reasons, not just patriotism, and that not all members of the military have an interest in or deep understanding of geopolitics.
I considered joining the army a few years back to the point of having a couple meetings with a recruiter. I was struck by the emphasis on what the military would provide to me (G.I. Bill, job training, health care etc) with very little said about what it meant to be part of a team defending the nation. Maybe it was implied, maybe more would have been said had I continued in the process, but it wasn't the main focus of the recruitment talk. If you weren't joining up for pure patriotism, you might view the military as one of many job prospects and not know or care as much about the ramifications of choosing one commander-in-chief over another and what it might mean for the country.
I'll always give the opinions of members of the military serious weight regarding CIC, but I'll reserve my final judgment based on a host of factors. IMHO, Ron Paul doesn't rate.
Sep '11
Re: Possible Ron Paul Upsets in Alaska and North Dakota?
Anyone who joined the military over thepast ten years did so knowing that they would probably be sent into a war zone; I seriously doubt that they joined up for the job training and the free health care.