See other Ron Paul Articles
Title: Ten Reasons Ron Paul Can't Win
Source:
Lew Rockwell
URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/eddlem/eddlem18.html
Published: Aug 21, 2007
Author: Tom Eddlem
Post Date: 2007-08-21 06:21:12 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 3370
Comments: 115
It always perturbed me that the wide variety of neocon commentators on television regularly pronounce with such fury and unison that Ron Paul "can’t win" but never give any reasons why he couldn’t win the presidential race. At first, I assumed that these guys would be denying he had a chance up until and including Ron Paul’s inauguration day. And why shouldn’t I assume that? The pundits probably don’t give any reasons he can’t win, I thought, because there aren’t any. Then I thought more deeply, and found that there are plenty of reasons why Ron Paul can’t be elected. Here are the ten top reasons why Ron Paul can’t win, in the format of David Letterman’s Top Ten List. My logic is flawless. As Bill O’Reilly would say, "you can’t even argue it." 10. Ron Paul is too popular among people who know where he stands. Instant polling numbers among focus groups watching the debates have his popularity at about 75 percent. But Americans don’t vote for people who are that popular. It’s true that George W. Bush got a little more than 50 percent of the vote in 2004 – just barely – but that was a fluke. Bush’s popularity numbers have since sunk back to the traditional 25–35 percent range. Before 2004, not one of the winners in the last three Presidential campaigns even got 50 percent of the vote. Dubya didn’t even win a plurality of the popular vote in 2000. So it’s a clear modern precedent that in order to become President, you need to be unpopular rather than widely popular. Ron Paul simply can’t win if he remains that popular, and there’s no reason to believe people will begin to hate him. 9. He’s got too much money, and nowhere to spend it. It’s great that Ron Paul’s official campaign is raising nearly as much money as the frontrunners. But it won’t do him any good. What would he spend it on? He doesn’t need to spend it on local campaigning, because he’s already got more than 700 Meetups across the country. (More on that in reason #8). Many of these Meetups are printing bumper stickers, fliers, and yard signs without money from the campaign. They are creating phone banks on their own. A few are even making their own media advertising buys. Therefore, the campaign doesn’t need money for any of these things. So the massive Ron Paul campaign fundraising, while impressive, is superfluous at best. Money simply won’t help. 8. Ron Paul is cheating by harnessing the fervor of an army of volunteers, rather than the method pursued by the other candidates – who must pay a huge campaign staff to get their message out. It’s not fair that Ron Paul has excited volunteers who will spend their own money to get him elected, while the other candidates have to pay lots of people salaries to work for their campaigns. So don’t think that the other candidates won’t cry "foul" when they notice that most of Ron Paul’s campaign contributions are "off the books" in these Meetups. Collectively, the Meetups may be spending more money than the frontrunner campaigns. I noticed this myself recently when I attended a Ron Paul Meetup in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. I got handed a wad of Ron Paul bumper stickers from a guy who printed them up himself. Others passed me self-printed fliers and lapel stickers while the whole group passed the hat to print road signs on their own. Do you really think these expenditures were sent in to the Federal Election Commission as a campaign contribution? I doubt it. "We need a campaign ‘fairness doctrine’ to level the playing field," the other candidates will argue, quite possibly to great effect. 7. Ron Paul tells the truth. Ron Paul has a 20-year career in Congress of always voting the way he’s promised, even sometimes on positions that could hurt him politically (See reason #5 for more on this). He’s honest even when it hurts him, and that’s great. But let’s face it, Americans long ago tired of electing honest presidents. They very much prefer presidents who will lie to us "for your own good." This explains why they elected George "Read my lips, no new taxes" Bush, Bill "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Clinton, and most recently, George "Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone" Bush. Need I elaborate more? The American people long ago tired of honesty! Honesty just doesn’t sell. 6. He’s for lower spending AND lower taxes. Most Americans want lower taxes, so Ron Paul’s halfway there, but they don’t want to cut spending. Americans want a candidate who talks about lower spending but actually increases spending. This explains the Bill "the era of big government is over" Clinton and George "compassionate conservative" Bush presidencies. Of course, Americans also want balanced budgets … and Ron Paul’s philosophy would give them both lower taxes and a balanced budget. But I still think the American people would settle for another candidate who promises to enact a balanced budget precisely four years after the end of his last term – four years after any influence he has over spending ends. 5. Ron Paul is a man of principle. Ron Paul is known for voting against pork even for his own congressional district. He voted against the Iraq war even when the American people were backing it in polling by three-to-one margins. He’s the "1" in more 434-1 votes than all of the rest of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives put together. He doesn’t take congressional pay raises or participate in the generous congressional pension system. While that might lead some people to think it would attract voters to his candidacy, it actually hurts him. Despite the fact that his campaign rallies regularly draw more supporters than any other candidate, these huge crowds have made him a very, very lonely man. Crowds are isolating psychological phenomena. Getting the biggest crowds at rallies only exaggerates the loneliness that people always have in crowds. Psychologically speaking, he can’t take any more of the loneliness of those crowds. No one could. That’s why the other candidates have limited themselves to smaller crowds of mostly salaried campaign officials and government employees. 4. Ron Paul has peaked. He wins first or second place in all of the online polls, so his expectations have been raised too high for him to win a primary. Ron Paul has already lost the expectations game, unless he can somehow pull out 274.8 percent or more of the total vote in the Iowa primary. I’m no mathematical expert, but my accountant tells me it’s mathematically impossible for Ron Paul to pull in that kind of a vote. 3. He’s been against the Iraq war from the start. You might think that taking a position against the Iraq war from the start would help a candidate in a campaign where the American people oppose the war by a two-to-one margin or more. But the truth is, the American people don’t want a know-it-all candidate who has demonstrated foresight. They want a dumb bumbler that they can make fun of; it’s the same social phenomena that caused people to watch the old Jerry Springer show. They want a president who can’t pronounce "nuclear," preferably one who physically resembles a simian. Also, and perhaps more importantly, the troops are about to pull out a dramatic victory from Iraq. Not with the current surge, but with the post-surge surge. The fact that Ron Paul is raking in more campaign contributions from veterans than any other candidate should not be taken as a sign that the troops want out of there. The troops aren’t voting with their wallets, they’re just getting tanned, rested and ready for the final surge. The campaign contributions are a diversional maneuver designed to draw out al Qaeda fighters, and those weapons of mass destruction Sean Hannity says were secretly stored in Syria. The post-surge surge will also expose the mystery behind Area 51, end world hunger and cure male-pattern baldness. This issue will be a loser for any anti-war candidate in short order. Just wait and see. 2. Ron Paul’s a medical doctor, OB/GYN, and a graduate of Duke Medical School, but not a government health care management professional. Therefore, no American could possibly take him seriously when he gives his opinion on medicine. It’s a good thing that Dr. Paul has not been given an opportunity to comment on any question about health care in any of the Presidential debates, because the other candidates’ expertise on medicine would blow him away. It’s only a matter of time before they embarrass him. Other candidates like Mitt Romney have experience as part of a "management team" capable of delivering a "wide range of services." Ron Paul has only ensured proper health care for a few thousand individual people. The other candidates know that government policy can deliver much better health care for less cost than country doctors. Take, for example, Boston’s "Big Dig." The Big Dig, the depression of Boston’s central artery, is the largest public works project in history at $15 billion and counting. This could never have been accomplished by the private sector, and the Big Dig construction is almost finished after 10 years and going only 800 percent over budget. It’s true the Big Dig has already killed a motorist who was crushed by the falling three-ton concrete blocks used as ceiling tiles. (How could anyone possibly have foreseen such an outcome from an innovative design of precariously fastening concrete ceiling tiles?) But the truth is that we need government to bring the same cost controls and safety controls of the Big Dig to health care. Ron Paul just doesn’t understand this vital macroeconomic point. 1. George Stephanopoulos says Ron Paul can’t win. George Stephanopoulos may only stand nine inches tall without television camera tricks, but that’s because he’s the only documented Greek Leprechaun in modern history. He therefore wields powerful clairvoyance powers that can shape the future. That explains Bill Clinton’s election and reelection over the seemingly unstoppable Bob Dole. If you don’t have George Stephanopoulos on your side, your cause is hopeless. Fortunately for Boston Red Sox fans, Stephanopoulos withdrew his longstanding "The Red Sox can never win the World Series" edict in October 2004. Let’s face it, the evidence against a Ron Paul victory is overwhelming. Dr. Paul will never be the "front-Ron-ner." At least, not until he takes his oath of office at his inauguration.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-2) not displayed.
.
.
.
#3. To: Ada (#0)
He can't win for the simple reason that Americans will not vote republican. In addition, his stand on overturning Roe v. Wade won't help him. Women may not be "for" abortion, but the majority sure as hell want the right to a safe and legal one.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma Gandhi
His reason for scraping Roe v. Wade is to return to the states the right to make that call for themselves.It's a states rights issue 10th amendment the term "banning of abortion" is spin thats not his position
Ron Paul believes the individual states should determine such laws, like the legality of abortion, not the federal govt. He is himself pro-life, not surprising for a man who has delivered 4,000 babies. He understands the violence of abortion. And The current laws regarding human life are themselves in conflict; for example a person can be held liable for the death of an unborn, yet a fetus the same age can be legally aborted. In any case, Ron Paul is for getting rid of the federal govt's jurisdiction over abortion and returning this issue to the people at the state level.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
that's funny.
We will never get away from "big government" because too many people cannot find the forest because the trees are in the way.
Exactly, you have put it more succinctly and clearly than I did. And you bring up an important point, that his position will most assuredly be twisted and spun in an attempt to paint him as an extremist. Actually, by making the abortion laws sweeping federal laws, decided only by the Supreme Court, is extremist.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
Invariably, regardless of their political ideology, think of JFK, George Wallace and MLK, threats to the Establishment are dealt with by extreme prejudice. The Zionist-co0ntrolled MSM will ignore Ron Paul until he becomes too popular, then his lights will be put out.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
Women tend to vote guided by personal emotions, and far too often on a single issue. Many years ago I was an observer for the first Robert Kennedy run for Senator in NY state. The outdoor audience was mostly women, controlled behind a six foot chain link fence at the local airport. From a high vantage point we could watch the fence slowly but surely taking a concave form. I went down to the area as the crowd was leaving, stopped one lady and asked her, if she found Kennedys speech interesting, her answer was an enthusiastic "yes". Then I asked her what did he have to say, her answer, "I dont know what he said but he said it well"... I knew then Kennedy was a sure winner and he was.
Hopefully, they can all get behind Dr.Paul's message of Freedom, Peace & Prosperity. What a concept.
If enthusiasm alone determined candidates, then Ron Paul looks like a sure winner in 2008. This time though, the supporters know exactly why they are so passionate. With the current regime's record, Ron Paul's message is like manna from heaven.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
excellent post!
true post!
nearly every single man I know (from left to right)
Money seems to be the determining factor. Money that controls the political process.
After the catastrophe of the clinton presidency, I don't know if a Democrat can win the White House again
I do not own a gun but have voted from Ike on up. During that time the only votes I cast for a candidate were for Goldwater and Reagan. The rest of the time it was lesser of two evils or none of the above. If you well recall, single issue campaigns, LBJ ran one, namely Goldwater would A-bomb the world and as a result LBJ had the largest vote plurality of any president ever. We all know the result.
(Cynicom) Money seems to be the determining factor. Money that controls the political process. well Romney has all the money personally, altho money may have decided a lot in the past Love, Palo
No, the #1 reason Ron Paul can't win is because he can't get the Republican nomination.
lod... I posted to someone here the other day that I had asked a friend if he could vote for Paul and his answer, "I am a democrat". There were 60 million votes cast democrat in the last presidential. How many are like my friend?? Most I suspect.
Romney sure wasted a lot of $$ in Iowa!
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
I did not have in mind personal money, rather the elite money that controls the process. Ross Perot was a perfect example that personal money cannot outweigh the elite process money. Perot I believe spent over $20 million of his money and failed twice.
Prior estimates to Romneys wealth was $150 million, the other day there is a new estimate of $250 million.
I have already met half-dozen Democrats voting for Ron Paul. They are all young educated career types, who get all their news from the World Wide Web. They know he was against the war in Iraq from the start. They are somewhat fiscally conservative and are pro-choice, but understand his argument for states' rights.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
You are up early Sink.
Always remember: It is in critical times that the owl calls to the breathless moon when the field mouse urinates on the forest floor.
I remember that. I guess that it's easier than thinking. Is your friend happy with the way our ruling elite have taken us lately?
I watched justin.tv in Iowa. You should have seen the way Romney wastes his $$. He paid $2200 per vote there. He bought 10,000 tickets. Romney is not going to waste all his personal wealth, and he wasted millions in Iowa. Ron Paul's campaign is run by young, passionate volunteers. Romney has paid staff; very bored paid staff.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
yes I remember that don't forget Cynicom I just don't know if past elections are a guide to what is happening now everything feels new to me darling electing Ron Paul our President is a bona fide revolution!!
robin... That is encouraging. Statistics have shown in the past that only about 3 per cent of the electorate actually vote the candidate not for a party.
Deep in your heart, you know I'm right.
At the time I was employed by the Federal gubmint and in my facility, I was the ONLY one that supported and voted for Goldwater. After the election I was the butt of a lot of criticism. Later as we watched the weekly unloading of bodies from Vietnam it was impossible to find anyone of my friends that voted for LBJ.
Deep in my heart, I know you are a dimwit.
Ron Paul won't win a single GOP primary. If Ron Paul really wants to make a difference he'll abandon the GOP and launch a 3rd party run because that's the only way he'll get anywhere. Seeking the Republican nomination guarantees failure.
Did I say I disagreed? I am a realist, one that never gives up hope. There are too many people spreading negativism, in actuality giving up before the process begins. I supported Goldwater and I was right, that satisfies me, the rest of Americans that voted that SOB LBJ have to live with it. I voted for this current SOB and have to live with it.
I prefer he run third party. Perot received 20,000,000 million votes and he was a squirrel.
You can't be much of a realist if you hope Ron Paul can get the GOP nomination. It boils down to numbers. There clearly are not enough REGISTERED REPUBLICANS to hand Paul the GOP nomination.
Perot received 20,000,000 million votes and he was a squirrel. I'd bet that Ron Paul could get a lot more votes than Perot if he ran 3rd party. But that would mean leaving the GOP first.
some Democrats will vote for Ron Pual It will be interesting to see if the Dems cancel the Presidential debates however if the Dems don't cancel the Prez debates Letting Ron Paul stand side-to-side with any Dem IMHO Love, Palo on the forum I was on before this one, a wonderful poster there reported
Sink, your comprehension is lagging. Hope for the process, for our country, Paul is the vehicle. Again as above, I prefer third party but that is not for me to say. Too many people have that "party loyalty" bag they drag around. As i wrote above, only three percent vote out of party in a two horse race. If you were reading above, I said Perot received 20,000,000 votes in a THREE MAN CAMPAIGN. In a two party, the sheep vote party, given a third party choice, "millions vote the man not the party".
Again as above, I prefer third party but that is not for me to say. Well, Mr. Realist, right now Ron Paul is seeking the Republican nomination not a 3rd party run. There is no realistic chance he'll get the Republican nomination. Ron Paul isn't much of a vehicle for hope if he's on a dead end path.
You are acting as if you know that he will not opt to run as a 3rd party candidate if he does not show well in the early GOP primaries? Maybe he will. But for now he is running as a republican, so I registered as a republican in NY so I can vote for him in the primary if he gets that far. Now run along and spread your negative BS elsewhere, please.
Comments (44 - 115) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: angle (#3)
#5. To: angle (#3)
Women may not be "for" abortion, but the majority sure as hell want the right to a safe and legal one.
#6. To: Ada (#0)
George Stephanopoulos says Ron Paul can’t win. George Stephanopoulos may only stand nine inches tall without television camera tricks, but that’s because he’s the only documented Greek Leprechaun in modern history. He therefore wields powerful clairvoyance powers that can shape the future. That explains Bill Clinton’s election and reelection over the seemingly unstoppable Bob Dole. If you don’t have George Stephanopoulos on your side, your cause is hopeless. Fortunately for Boston Red Sox fans, Stephanopoulos withdrew his longstanding "The Red Sox can never win the World Series" edict in October 2004.
#7. To: robnoel (#4)
His reason for scraping Roe v. Wade is to return to the states the right to make that call for themselves
#8. To: robnoel, angle, wbales (#4)
His reason for scraping Roe v. Wade is to return to the states the right to make that call for themselves.It's a states rights issue 10th amendment the term "banning of abortion" is spin thats not his position
#9. To: angle (#3)
#10. To: robin (#5)
Ron Paul believes the individual states should determine such laws, like the legality of abortion, not the federal govt. He is himself pro-life, not surprising for a man who has delivered 4,000 babies.
#11. To: Cynicom. everyone (#10)
Women tend to vote guided by personal emotions, and far too often on a single issue.
#12. To: Cynicom (#10)
#13. To: robin (#12)
#14. To: lodwick (#11)
Love, Palo
#15. To: Cynicom (#10)
Women tend to vote guided by personal emotions, and far too often on a single issue.
voted for Bush in 2000 because they thought Al Gore would take away their guns
#16. To: robin (#12)
If enthusiasm alone determined candidates, then Ron Paul looks like a sure winner in 2008.
#17. To: angle (#3)
He can't win for the simple reason that Americans will not vote republican. In addition, his stand on overturning Roe v. Wade won't help him. Women may not be "for" abortion, but the majority sure as hell want the right to a safe and legal one
There are a range of views on abortion, but in these critical times
I'd guess only 2% of our citizens would base their vote for President solely on that
#18. To: palo verde (#15)
Bush in 2000 because they thought Al Gore would take away their guns
#19. To: Cynicom, robin (#16)
(Robin) If enthusiasm alone determined candidates, then Ron Paul looks like a sure winner in 2008.
let's see if he can win the ticket
this election is like no other
and I don't think money is going to decide this one
#20. To: Ada (#0)
1. George Stephanopoulos says Ron Paul can57;t win.
#21. To: lodwick (#11)
Hopefully, they can all get behind Dr.Paul's message of Freedom, Peace & Prosperity.
#22. To: palo verde (#19)
#23. To: palo verde (#19)
and I don't think money is going to decide this one
#24. To: robin (#22)
Romney sure wasted a lot of $$ in Iowa!
#25. To: Cynicom (#21)
#26. To: Mister Clean (#20)
No, the #1 reason Ron Paul can't win is because he can't get the Republican nomination.
#27. To: palo verde (#17)
There are a range of views on abortion, but in these critical times I'd guess only 2% of our citizens would base their vote for President solely on that
#28. To: Cynicom (#21)
I posted to someone here the other day that I had asked a friend if he could vote for Paul and his answer, "I am a democrat".
#29. To: Cynicom (#24)
#30. To: Cynicom (#18)
If you well recall, single issue campaigns, LBJ ran one, namely Goldwater would A-bomb the world and as a result LBJ had the largest vote plurality of any president ever
my dad had voted 3rd party his whole life
but he fell for that propaganda about Goldwater
and campaigned for LBJ
those of us who believed Ron Paul would win the Oval Office from the instant he announced his candidacy
did so because we have faith in our fellow citizens
and faith in truth
and because we knew it was absolutely necessary to get Ron Paul in the Oval Office to save our country
and what the outcome now will be
Love, Palo
this is what we are engaged in now
and we will win
#31. To: robin (#25)
I have already met half-dozen Democrats voting for Ron Paul. They are all young educated career types, who get all their news from the World Wide Web. They know he was against the war in Iraq from the start. They are somewhat fiscally conservative and are pro-choice, but understand his argument for states' rights.
#32. To: Cynicom (#26)
You are up early Sink.
#33. To: palo verde (#30)
my dad had voted 3rd party his whole life but he fell for that propaganda about Goldwater and campaigned for LBJ
#34. To: Mister Clean (#32)
Deep in your heart, you know I'm right.
Enemies of the Republic
#35. To: Critter (#34)
Deep in my heart, I know you are a dimwit.
#36. To: Mister Clean (#32)
Deep in your heart, you know I'm right.
#37. To: Mister Clean (#35)
If Ron Paul really wants to make a difference he'll abandon the GOP and launch a 3rd party run because that's the only way he'll get anywhere.
#38. To: Cynicom (#36)
I am a realist, one that never gives up hope.
#39. To: Cynicom (#37)
I prefer he run third party.
#40. To: Cynicom, robin, lodwick, all (#21)
I posted to someone here the other day that I had asked a friend if he could vote for Paul and his answer, "I am a democrat".
some won't
I think it is too early to determine the numbers
because no candidate of theirs can last in the ring with Ron Paul for 5 seconds
a lot of cross-over votes will come from that
only the most close minded Dem would choose the Dem
"everyone under 30 is voting for Ron Paul"
#41. To: Mister Clean (#38)
You can't be much of a realist if you hope Ron Paul can get the GOP nomination.
#42. To: Cynicom (#41)
Sink, your comprehension is lagging. Hope for the process, for our country, Paul is the vehicle.
#43. To: Mister Clean (#42)
Enemies of the Republic
.
.
.