Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Ron Paul’s Candidacy: What Really Went Wrong Why the pillars of a symbolic movement collapsedby Christopher Espinal
(Conservative)
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
I think at this point it is fair to admit that Ron Paul cannot win this nomination.
American voters have finally signaled to the world what we as a collective value: security and equity.
Unfortunately for traditional conservatives, dangers lurk around the Republican Party and the one remaining small government candidate couldn't manage to spread his message as far as possible within the short period of time.
This should bring small government conservatives to ask important questions on the issue of organization.
Firstly, I would like to recount my experience with the Ron Paul constituency.
The Ron Paul Constituency
-Supporters were very organized online. Must I mention the dozens of emails I received after the Ron Paul with Don Black article?
-Supporters were very active in the streets, waving signs, and handing out fliers. I joined them several times in Chicago and New York City.
-Supporters gained enough political organization to acquire a headquarters for campaigning projects. A grand example of this was the NYC Ron Paul Headquarters, which had a real estate investor donate renting space for several months. Spray painting signs was a daily activity and conversing on issues of monetary policy and "Adolph Ghouliani" served everyone's interest regularly.
-The ReLOVEution certainly appeared to be a fun time for my several visits! People listened to good music, threw back a couple of shots, and spray painted all night long.
We should ask ourselves; did these grassroots efforts ever really make a difference?
The Main Question
Some say yes, these efforts produced over $20 million for Ron Paul's candidacy. "Money Bomb" days brought in tens of thousands of new donators every single event.
But we really know the obvious answer to this question: no, since he didn't do much during Super Tuesday, which essentially was his last chance to gain momentum, shine, and get votes.
Thoughts on Collective Organizing
Although the Ron Paul fans were very well articulated in the issues and extremely enthusiastic about his candidacy I always sensed a lack of true organization. Ron Paul's campaign did something very risky which allowed an invisible hand to guide the grassroots movements. Firstly, who were these people? They were individuals who never campaigned for a politician and just had their "apathy cured" by Dr No. It is much too risky to allow groups of inexperienced individuals to guide a national campaign for the presidency.
The fundamental issue that I'm trying to get at here is that these supporters held very simplistic views of organization. They only did what came to mind rather than develop solutions to problems using the power of planning. They failed to realize that garnering hundreds of thousands of votes required discipline and complex strategies rather than waving signs on street corners. These complex strategies require rigorous plans containing meticulous steps to precise goals. Why is planning such an important issue: I can go with the simple phrase "If you fail to plan, you plan to fail." As a better alternative explanation, one must have a vision as to what they want and more importantly, how they will get there.
Ron Paul's supporters didn't have that vision or an idea as to their next step to achieving their goal. While they were spray painting more signs creating an excess supply, they lost time in finding creative ways to reach and organize voters. I wrote about the diminishing marginal utility of Ron Paul articles and Neocon bashing on the internet. Another market needed attention: organizing huge events that would bring many voters or potential constituents together at one site to bombard with Ron Paul literature and voting registration. Or service the voting community by reaching out to those in search of their ideal candidate. None of this happened because people were complaining about the MSM's lack of attention to Ron Paul and Sean Hannity discrediting the libertarian-conservative.
They needed an understanding of how to run political campaigns before wasting time on useless activities. Here's the planning drift: when thinking of successful businesses, it is highly likely that they have a realistic business and marketing plan (of course with a realistic goal and idea). Businesses with no plan will never know how to achieve the most important goal for survival and expansion in the competitive world: capital accumulation. Money is one issue but production to gain more capital, especially human capital (or activists), is another issue. Intermediate goods were worth more than the final product of this political effort. The Ron Paul campaign and its grassroots efforts failed to use its resources to expand its production possibilities frontier, or potential service (outreach) to the voting community.
It all happened because of a lack of plan. I guarantee that if you look at all of the Ron Paul headquarters across the nation, not one of them was professionally organized with a plan to achieve a precise and ultimate goal: X amount of votes to win Y precinct by Z date. That is the reason why allowing grassroots organizations to form the trajectory of a campaign is dangerous: they have no direction.
There's no need to get angry because it's true.
The Official Ron Paul Campaign
Besides the fact that the grassroots effort couldn't seriously mobilize the libertarian-conservative movement, the national campaign has a lot of fault to bear.
When running a national campaign, especially during a time when most voters have decided on a candidate, it should be the imperative of political organizations seeking votes to push voters towards a new candidate. This involves comparisons between the candidates. Why do you think that Romney and McCain spent money comparing each other's conservatism. Ron Paul failed to harshly attack his opponents by comparing his authentic conservatism to their moderate-liberal records.
Instead of exposing the real John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Tax Hike Huckabee, he put pessimistic ads of the Federal Reserve and a failing economy. He tried to get creative by putting regular everyday people on his TV ads talking about his candidacy. However, this would never convince people that he is a better candidate with better ideas. He didn't try hard enough to compare himself with others and chose to put cheesy ads that signal unimportant information about his campaign.
That is what destroyed Ron Paul's potential win. He only did okay in states that were ignored by the other candidates. However, an okay performance just wasn't good enough.
A New Republican Party
The Republican Party is in a serious need of a new constituency. The Weekly Standard won their war on traditional conservatism and the party of Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and the Founding Fathers.
Sleep my Constitution. Have a painless recovery .... for the new arbiter of law and government has won this battle!
This article is so wrong. What this whole process has shown is how much power the media has over the people of this country. Ron Paul didn't have a chance without at least fair reporting from the media.
If this were true then why didn't people organize much stronger from the beginning? Why didn't this provide an incentive for Paul supporters to work hard to improve his telephone polling. Even Futures Markets had Ron Paul at such a low trading price, it is hard for me to believe that the MSM had anything to do with this. They make it harder for the small candidates to break through, but that is what must be done. The campaign wasn't serious enough to provide that breakthrough. I'm sorry. But it's over!
Chris, No one cares what you think!
That's exactly the reason why the RP revolution went no where...for the short term goal that is! I received the same response when I previously criticized my friends, their RP group, and their activities. No one took my ideas seriously. So you are exactly right!
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 27 thumbs so far
2008 Christopher Espinal, all rights reserved.
Published: Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Last modified: Saturday, February 9, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Christopher Espinal only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Christopher Espinal is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Don't give up Ron Paul can win if we write in his name! The Republicans haven't made up thier mind yet. The MSM doesn't want you to know about Ron Paul!
Good critique of the shortcomings of the campaign. Ir ia hard sometimes for libertarians to get organized because they value their freedom of action too much. On the whole, although it did not gather as many votes, I think that the campaign in some respects did better than the Perot campaign. His campaign got in trouble when he dropped the amateurs and ran a pale mimicry of a traditional campaign. But this is a start toward remaking the Republican Party.
Rick Over: Where are you going to write him in? The voters don't vote for the President, they vote for the electors who vote for the President. Without a party nomination, he has no electors
..."American voters have finally signaled to the world what we as a collective value: security and equity."??? You should replace 'Americans' in that sentence with 'GOP Neocons'. The rest of us once we finally heard about Ron Paul think he's the only worthy candidate period. I couldn't switch in time to vote for him--It takes a while to get to know about all the candidate especially when there are so many to start off with. But if he runs as an independent I'd vote for him. Actually regardless if he does, I'll write his name in if I have to.
The battle for freedom in our lifetime is not lost. Aye, it is just beginning. It has always been my belief that the period between Ron Paul's announcement of his candidacy and through the primary season would be a time of name recognition build-out and message disemination. I would call that Phase A. The result of Phase A: Ron Paul has built up a large volunteer and donor base, awoken and motivated untold thousands of new citizen voters to the freedom message in this country. He did it without sounding angry, bellicose or strident.
The next logical step is Phase B. In this step, recognizing that our country is in peril, Ron Paul makes the determination to challenge the status quo by running as a 3rd party candidate, either within the Libertarian or Constitution Party framework where 50-state ballot access is all but guaranteed, though there would need to be an effort to assist the Constitution Party to gain the balance of ballot access since it holds only about half of the states.
Now, with great angst across important sectors of the voting spectrum, especially within the Republican Party as John "Amnesty" McCain rolls toward the nomination versus either Clinton or Obama, Ron Paul will fill the great void. His name has already been out there for over a year. Paul has over a 20 year congressional career proven his bona fides as a true constitutionalist. He is the true peace and freedom candidate. What Paul needs to do in Phase B is to conduct his campaign with respect to the lessons learned above. Specifically, Paul must take off the gloves and make specific and unequivocable concrete delineations between his policy positions and those of the two-party statist candidates, while the huge grassroot organizations are focused on the precinct level voters.
Seldom in politics does a candidate get a do-over in an election. But do we have a choice? We have no alternative but to fight for the win in November 2008.
Your thoughts mirrored my own early on. However, his candidacy has inspired many people to get educated about the real issues impacting their lives and this country. To this day, I can't remember how I learned about Ron Paul - I'm just very glad I did.
From a philosophical standpoint alone... I've widened my horizons... and deepened my understanding of my place in the world.
I fear no-one; and I'm not so easily bamboozled anymore.
I also once hated the fact that his supporters were so eager to stand on street corners waving signs. I worked hard on my writing to reflect the sentiments of a grown-up instead of a crybaby not getting enough attention. But I stood on street corners and lambasted the heretics online myself; and I must admit, it was all in good fun... while it lasted.
In the Texas primary I will cast my vote for Ron because he's still the only candidate who I really trust to represent my interests.
But whatever the outcome of this election, personally speaking, I'm a better man for having participated.
It's important to remeber that a party isn't changed by selecting a Presidential nomination, but by getting involved in the day to day grind of working with the party and changing it from the ground up (I got that from Neal Boortz - nothing original here). Ron Paul's people are primed for this and must redirect their efforts long term towards shaping the party, party leaders, and party decisions towards a greater emphasis on freedom and non-interventionism. Ron Paul's people did best (as when they won that 1 county in Iowa) by talking with people and telling them about the founders views on the world and the Constitution - not by waving signs.
This article is so wrong. What this whole process has shown is how much power the media has over the people of this country. Ron Paul didn't have a chance without at least fair reporting from the media. Ron Paul was labeled a fringe candidate without a possibilty to get the Republican nomination and the people listened. If they had been for this man and done stories and interviews and praised his stances on the issues he would have swept the Republican primaries and caucuses. MSM has the control, Ron Paul's supporters did not fail him at all.
If ron paul stays in it till the brokered convention he could win this whole thing. By the time the convention rolls arund the economy and Iraq will come back to the forefront of issues and the GOP will be forced to name Dr. Paul as their guy. They must realize that the American people are NEVER going to elect a guy who is going to keep us in the war! Just give him time. I have seen it time and again. I simply ask someone who they are voting for. Then I direct them to the Ron Paul website and bam, they are instant supporters/voters. The problem is that most people get their info from the MSM and nowhere else. All it takes is a small sense of how our economy works and people say "whoa! why isn't this guy our president already!" Its like watching someone wake up from a coma. Too bad so many americans are in such a deep sleep .....
I'm really not sure. I hardly run into anyone who hasn't heard of Ron Paul anymore. I think perhaps our failure is due to the strength of opinion from those venerated neocon voices who so inarticulately mis-labeled him as a kook; or perhaps even worse, that our fellow citizens just simply did not respond to the message of individual freedom and limited government.
I'm afraid things will have to get worse, much worse before the masses realize how wrong things are. But, I recall reading on this site that if not for Jimmy Carter, we would not have had Reagan.
I don't agree it's "fair" to admit that Ron Paul can't win the nomination. It only tells me that you're listening to the MSM and not really looking at what has been attained or maybe you don't know how the electoral process works.
PLEASE READ THIS SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THAT WE CAN WIN THE NOMINATION AND STOP LISTENING TO THE MSM FOR YOUR INFO!
The MSM is not reporting how to become the nominee in a situation like this so i will tell you to stop getting your info from the MSM.
I know many of you are bummed about yesterday BUT THAT IS BECAUSE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE ELECTION SYSTEM WORKS : Let me explain to you the reality of how to become the nominee.
First stop looking at who wins each states popular vote for most of these states the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and have no real bearing on who will become the nominee. The only way this matters is if 1 person receives 1192 delegates that are bound by state rules to be committed to that candidate. So if a candidate like Mccain has 600 delegates now and he doesn't reach 1192 most of the delegates the state awarded him mean nothing and keep in mind in most of the states most of the people that represent the 600 for Mccain are actually Ron Paul supporters. NOW there is no possible way that anyone in the race can achieve this goal now because of the major split in state wins by the candidates.
So what happens now you ask? You look at the number of delegates that Dr. Paul has that are uncommited to the other candidates and will support him. these delegates are not decided by the popular vote ie: straw poll of the people. Since no one will have enough delegates to skate them through to the nomination we now must look at how many delegates NOT VOTES but delegates Dr. Paul has that are 100% uncommited to the other candidates and will be 100% for Dr. Paul and are free to vote for whom they wish.
This race will go all the way to the convention for there is no other way for someone to receive the nomintaion until the convention.
The RNC will convene its annual Winter Meeting - and voters will continue to cast their ballots in the nation's primaries and caucuses. Candidates for delegate and alternate delegate to the convention will be elected - and thousands of convention participants and guests will begin planning their trips to Minneapolis-Saint Paul The first week in September 2008
SO WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN?
This means that all of the people that registered to become a deligate (sic) for Dr. Paul can go to the convention and cast their vote for Dr. Paul, now think about what i just said : Do you think for one second that all the people that voted for Dr. Paul and filed to become a delegate will not show up at the convention to vote for the good Doctor? Of course they will just like they battled the rain and the sleet and the 15 below zero winter weather to knock on doors and wave signs spreading our message.
Now I assure you that even though we didn't win the popular vote in many states WE DID PICK UP THE MAJORITY OF DELEGATES THAN ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES IN MOST EVERY STATE EXCEPT A FEW. So yes they won the straw poll and and we won what counts which isdelegates.
Doesn't Dr. Paul need to WIN 5 states to be on the ballot at the convention for the nomination?
NO THIS IS NOT TRUE for people were just confused on how it actually works.
We only need the majority of delegates from 5 states to be put on the ballot NOT THE POPULAR VOTE OF 5 STATES and i assure you we have picked up the majority of uncommitted delegates for Dr. Paul in more than 5 states.
Do any of you remember seeing posts by myself and many others that said BECOME A DELEGATE? There is still time in most states to become a delegate for the convention and we are picking up more of them every day.
So please STOP you worry too much because you do not understand how the election system works and you thought we lost didn't you?
The fact is Dr. Paul is a genius in his strategy and we are further ahead in delegates than you think and we can win the nomination.
I hope this gives a better understanding of how we have been winning even though most of you thought we were not.
Hate to burst people's bubble, but the belief that Ron Paul will suddenly burst forth to victory in a brokered convention rests on two very slim hopes... First, that there will even be a brokered convention, a possibility that seems to be fading post-Super Tuesday now that McCain leads the 2nd place candidate Romney something like 3 to 1 in delegates; and Second, that Ron Paul will have a place at the table in a brokered convention. Unfortunately for Paul, the convention rules require that to be considered for nomination in a brokered convention a candidate must "demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates" from at least five states. So far, Paul does not have the support of a majority of the delegates from even one state, let alone five. So a Paul nomination at a brokered convention is predicated on the extreme crash-and-burn of McCain or the the sudden exponential take-off of the campaigns of either Romney or Huckabee (but not so much that either of them can win a clear victory, just enough to throw it into convention - a very specific sort of requirement!), AND, once this convention happens that enough candidates from at least five states would throw their lot in for Paul to get him nominated - and even then, being nominated is no guarantee of getting the nod in the end. Having been nominated, Paul would then still need to get the majority behind him to select him as the Presidential candidate.
It doesn't really matter if Ron Paul has a chance or not. He is the only candidate that represents what I believe in. I will write his name in if I have to - I could care less if he gets ONLY my vote. I don't participate in popularity contests - thats for children. This is democracy, our nation is supposed to be Republic ... I know what my duty is as described by the forefathers - do you know yours?
Second of all, I don't live in America because I refuse to pay taxes and contribute to a nation slaughtering innocent people. If McCain wins great - the sooner America buries itself the better. America now, is an obstacle to progress. A lot of great people in America will serve the world better when they are no longer subject to the propaganda and lost causes their government entangles their efforts in.
I can say, I half agree with this article. I hate to see "He should have attacked his opponents"; but it may have paid off. Many of his supporters like myself absolutely adore the fact that he will stick to what he finds important, and thats sticking to the issues.
So, why perhaps has McCain done so well? the attacks. I found too often last night at the local caucus that mccain and romney supporters favored their candidate because of his strengths in this area.
Us Paul supporters think differently than the others. What we failed to do, was look outside the box.
I did canvassing and phone calls, and looking back after last night I wish I had taken the time to compare the candidates rather than spout just Rons excellent ideas. They are magic to me; but not everyone thinks like me.
But it's not over. Those of us that care will continue the fight for these ideas. Its a lop-sided fight, however.
I think you're all wrong. I never saw a McCain sign here in the Bay Area, yet, McCain beat Romney in every single county in the state. People just viscerally responded to McCain whether the county organization was good, bad or indifferent. We need a leader that everyone will viscerally respond to, and then put Ron Paul's message in his head. Even then, it will be a close call.
Even JFK barely beat Nixon, if you can believe it 48 years later.
Where was this guy before. Hinesight is 20/20 and pundits sitting around after the fact instead of getting ahold of the Paul campaign and doing everything right themselves seems a little ridiculous to accept.
I was a part of his grassroots, the early part as a captain for 5 precincts in Iowa. We finished 3rd in those, and all of us that wrote our own caucus speeches, waved signs, called independents did all we could realistically. I don't know what else the RP campaign could've done better here either besides dump millions more into the state like Romney did. The blame really lies on the MSM, or a guy who's now a fortune teller after the fact.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-02-07 07:46:32
Well, since none of the campaign staff had run a national campaign before, they were bound to make mistakes. Since few (probably none) of the grassroots had ever been in a national campaign before, they also made mistakes. This appears to be the point of your article. It's true.
But is it relevant? Or to put it another way, what method do you propose they should have followed prior to 2007-2008 in order to gain the experience to avoid these mistakes?
The only way to learn from your mistakes is to make mistakes! The only way to make mistakes is to get out there. That's what happened with the Paul campaign.
Frankly, I think your article misses the point it attempts to raise.
Ron Paul's antiwar message is what tanked him. Let's be honest America, WE LOVE JESUS, AND WE LOVE WAR. No anti-war presidential candidate has ever been able to earn more than a few percentage points. Kucinich, Goldwater, Paul. They all got swiftboated by the opposition, and silently swiftboated by THEIR OWN PARTY.
Ron Paul was a near perfect candidate with no dark skeletons in his closet nor personal failings. You can't win the presidency if you state you are against wars as a philosophy.
Posted By: Christopher Espinal
Date: 2008-02-09 22:38:25
America is not the failure. Most Americans prolly don't know politics. The Paulites didn't do the right things to get him natioanl attention: break into top ranks in polls. That was the real problem here!
I was with Paul on everything except the War on Terror. I found the conspiracy 9-11 nutjobs that were associated with Paul's campaign to be thin skinned and unstable. So much so that I avoided them at every turn. The Blame Bush/Chenney Crowd was a big turn off for the Republican Base. Paul could have made some real noise if so many of his supporters weren't Alex Jones Zombies.
Ron Paul can still win.
If the GOP has a brokered convention, which we may have thanks to the admirable Huckabee refusing to give up and in turn winning support. If mccain si kept from reaching 1191 bound delegates then the convention will likely nominate Paul. You can not listen to the man speak on the issues and not understand him, and know that he is right.
It is not who he is, but the issues he holds that will be fought for forever by citizens whether he wins or not. He has spread the word of freedom and the people want more.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Christopher Espinal, all rights reserved.