Topic: Ron Paul
Ron Paul Can Win: BIG The shared crystal ball, scientific polls, and information strategy says Ron Paul's campaign is a frivolous, quixotic, and impossible struggle. They're all wrong.by William Westmiller
(Libertarian)
Monday, December 10, 2007
There are only two words that are mandatory for any popular news report or commentary on the Ron Paul campaign: "can’t win" must appear somewhere in the article or broadcast. Of course, this statement isn’t a fact; it’s purely conjecture. However, it has become a popular truism through a tactic called the "Availability Cascade." This is information theory jargon for "Everybody says so, therefore it must be true." Every authoritative, informed, credible, esteemed, and popular source says this assertion is true. Even if the claim is false, it will become true, simply because it intends to dispel all hope that any contrary outcome is possible. Every effort to make it true is quixotic, foolish, and self-destructive. Don’t bother to try: Ron Paul can’t win.
The claim isn’t totally frivolous, even if no one can predict the future. Operational crystal balls are in short supply and even the most popular psychics are more often wrong than right. But, it is a fact that Ron Paul frequently represents a minority of one within the halls of Congress. He’s called "Dr. No" because he is often the only legislator who votes against bills that are otherwise unanimously approved. Being one out of 435 elected representatives must certainly indicate that Paul’s popular support is less than 0.2% of those represented in Congress. Obviously, nobody can win a national election with less than two tenths of the national vote. Therefore, the logic goes, he can’t win.
Popular media outlets can’t take their credibility lightly, or they could go bankrupt for lack of readers, viewers, and listeners who consider their insights untrustworthy. So, a scientific basis for their speculative "facts" is very important. What could be more "scientific" than opinion polling? A random selection of adults, properly filtered, is the only means of discovering what the public – read advertising clients – think about any issue or person. Every successful business uses scientific polling for their marketing analysis, so it must work. Until recently, Ron Paul’s support in scientific polls was less than the margin of error, well under 5.0% of the surveyed likely voters. Since that isn’t even remotely near the 50.1% required to win a national election, Ron Paul can’t win.
Finally, Ron Paul is so far out of the mainstream political culture that voters will certainly reject his positions on the issues, and him, when they discover where he stands. This might seem like wishful thinking, even beyond issue polling, simply because Paul has always been very clear about his positions and defended them with facts and logic for more than thirty years. His arguments are practically echoes of the Founding Fathers prolific writings, men whose ideals can hardly be considered foolish or out-of-tune with American culture. The only way to discredit Paul is to paraphrase what he says, in order to make it sound as outlandish as possible. Don’t quote him, just characterize what he says. Better yet, find a few people who support the candidate and really do have outlandish ideas. Quote them. If these crazy people are the only one’s supporting Paul, then every sensible person will certainly reject those ideas, and Ron Paul can’t win.
All of this makes perfect sense to the chattering class. It’s incontrovertible. Not.
It is certainly true that Ron Paul represents a minority view in Congress. However, bear in mind that those who are elected to office actually represent a tiny percentage of the American public. Over the past decade, the majority of potential voters have been so sickened by the political norms that they have dropped out altogether. Almost 25% no longer associate themselves with political parties. Many party nominations are won with the support of less than 5% of party registrants. To win a general election, a candidate only needs a majority of those who vote, commonly for the lesser of two evils. At best, a winning candidate actually represents less than 20% of the citizens in their district. The impediments to ballot status and public attention, to say nothing of self-interested districting, have been institutionalized to preclude any electoral competition. A minority viewpoint in Congress could very well be an accurate representation of the opinions of an overwhelming majority of American citizens.
Equally important is name identification. The reality is that a significant number of voters don’t cast their ballot for candidates, they check-off a straight party-line vote. Most voters know the names of the candidates running for an office, including the office of President of the United States. Pew Research Center surveys over several election periods have found fewer than 50% of voters know the names of the major candidates for President. Only 7% of voters knew the name "Ron Paul" in October of this year. That has changed over a very short period, but more than 49% of likely Republican voters still don’t know "anything at all" about where Ron Paul stands on the issues. That’s both a challenge and an opportunity. What it means is that half of all GOP voters might vote for Paul, if they knew anything at all about him or his positions.
So, a realistic appraisal of Ron Paul’s potential appeal is best projected from those voters who do know him. They are the residents of the 14th Congressional District of Texas, where Paul has been elected by increasing majorities in 10 elections, with over 60% support. These were not shallow, incumbent-protected majorities, but victories over strong Republican party opposition. IF – possibly WHEN – voters across the country become as familiar with Ron Paul as his own constituents, he has the potential to win 60% of a national vote, in spite of the wishes of the established political powers. In terms of electoral support potential, his own district may be the best and clearest "crystal ball." He not only can win … he has won.
Any projection of what could happen always has a huge IF attached. For Ron Paul, that IF is name recognition. Every scientific pollster will admit that their results are a test of whether voters recognize a candidate’s name and only secondarily will they select it from among a list because of a favorable impression. So, let’s review the second motive for the claim that Ron Paul can’t win: polls.
Others have scrutinized a variety of polls for faults that explain the small percentages for Ron Paul. But, let’s take the results for what they pretend to be: a random sample of likely voters. Ignore the filters and take them as fact. At this point, early December, Paul is still below double digits in every national and early primary state poll. However, there’s just barely enough data to suggest a trend line. By consolidating the trends nationally and in the early primary or caucus states, we can project the range of Paul’s support into the January flurry of early voting.
Every historic review shows that those early states set the momentum for a campaign and dictate the amount of media coverage that a "dark horse" candidate will earn as the voters go to the polls. Based on a simple arithmetic, trending toward logarithmic, projection of Ron Paul’s polling numbers, it appears likely that he will be in the 15-20% range by the time of the Iowa and New Hampshire elections. With five credible candidates likely to remain in the race through the February 3rd "Super Tuesday" contests, 21% of the vote could easily be a plurality. The projections indicate that Paul is likely to place third in Iowa and a close second in New Hampshire, with potential victories in Nevada, South Carolina, and Michigan. That’s momentum, even if there are no "news making" breaks, or contender drop offs, in the meantime. Yes, trend lines are speculative, but no less "scientific" than the filters imposed by pollsters. Every poll is a snapshot and no statistical trending can predict the future, but assuming these are reasonable for the early primary season, Paul can win.
Let’s review the final motive for discounting Paul’s prospects: the issues.
Many of the issues Paul presents are novel, rarely or never discussed in popular political discourse. Even on his major issues, he offers many positions that are rarely polled. They can hardly be out of the "mainstream" if those issues have never been presented forcefully or discussed seriously before his campaign. Let’s take two that are polled: Iraq and taxes. Over 70% of Americans believe we should get out of Iraq and about 60% believe that we never should have gone in. Almost 45% of Republicans, and 72% of independents, disapprove of the Bush invasion and occupation. The wording of polls can make a difference, but the general sense that Iraq invasion was a serious mistake – which is Ron Paul’s position – is more "mainstream" than the views of any other Republican (and most of the Democratic) candidates. On taxes, 50% to 70% believe they pay too much and at least 70% object to the way their taxes are spent. Ron Paul’s position – abolish the IRS – has never been polled, but there is broad and deep support for both the flat tax and the fair tax proposals as alternatives to the dreaded IRS and the income tax code. On both of these issues, Paul can win.
The interesting thing about the smaller issues is that they each have their own devoted, if small, constituency. Some of those advocates are extreme, but the persistent effort to associate their views with Ron Paul is a clear case of the Association Fallacy, which works in casual political discourse, but is clearly dishonest and false. No candidate can review, endorse, or declaim the views of their supporters. They are responsible for what they say, not the opinions of their supporters. Nevertheless, the consolidated vigor of those advocates – including the extremes – is a huge and passionate resource for any campaign.
More important than any of the particular issues is the general theme of a campaign. Since few voters actually scrutinize every specific position of every candidate, the general theme is critical. The American electorate can be divided along many lines, slogans, inclinations, and themes. However, nearly 60% of voters describe themselves as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal," without knowing that that position is essentially libertarian and consistent with Ron Paul’s philosophy. If those "leave us alone" voters learn that Ron Paul shares their sentiments, Paul would win any general election contest.
The point here is to explain that Ron Paul can win, but there’s an interesting footnote. Since a fair number of voters simply want a winner, someone who can beat the other party’s candidate, it’s useful to take note of the fact that as things stand, it doesn’t matter who the GOP runs against Hillary Clinton. She gets 47-49% of the vote, no matter which Republican candidate is nominated. Not good news for the Democrats (although Barack Obama does better), but a very good reason to ignore the claims of any candidate about "electability." Even without knowing who Ron Paul is, he does just as well as Rudy Giuliani against the opposition.
In fact, there are many polls showing that Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and John McCain can’t win against either Hillary or Obama. And, there were lots of polls in past contests that made it obvious that Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush could not win at some point in their campaigns. Oddly: it was the passion and commitment of their supporters that made it happen. With a passionate commitment to liberty, unbridled enthusiasm, and a renewed "Hope for American", Ron Paul can win and he could win BIG.
--
Update1: After some delays, the Ron Paul Blimp is in the air over South Carolina, the Tea Party has started.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 271 thumbs so far
2007 William Westmiller, all rights reserved.
Published: Monday, December 10, 2007
Last modified: Thursday, January 3, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of William Westmiller only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. William Westmiller 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.
I agree completely! Ron Paul is doing very well and is certainly a "top tier" candidate. At my website, www.thecaseforronpaul.com I have gathered the evidence of his domination. I have also created a video presentation which is a summary of the The Case For Ron Paul.Check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f_YFMfottY and see what you think. How anyone could still think of Ron Paul after that is simply lost to the MSM.
I totally agree. Even when Ron Paul went on "The View" and the woman who had been talking on previous shows about how much she liked Dr Paul, said to him "You know you can't win don't ya?" I'm sure she was told by her superiors (the same ones who made Rosie quit because she couldn't exercise free speach about many subjects like WTC 7)
that "Ok, you can invite Ron Paul on the show but you have to say the "can't win" words.
Come primaries and elections, I suggest to show up early. The crowd will be huge and I foresee long lines and most likely problems with the voting machines.
Posted By: William White
Date: 2007-12-10 15:49:14
Quite recently, it was taken for granted that Venezuala's populace would vote to grant Hugo Chavez absolute control over his country until 2050. And look what happened: the people voted and freedom won.
If it can happen there, it can happen here. Vote Ron Paul 2008.
I think you've missed the biggest factor in the question of Ron Paul's electability. The "surveys of likely voters" include only those who voted in the last Republican primary. These are the hardcore supporters of the Republican party (6.6% of registered Republicans). Of course we won't know for sure until the primaries, but I'd venture a guess that the voting Ron Paul supporters will outnumber them by a HUGE margin.
Say all you want about cell phones not being polled, voter perceptions and name recognition, etc. I don't think all these other "poll distorting factors" combined have near as much impact as the fact that the Ron Paul support base is massive - these folks will vote!
The Republican primary is a horse race - and you don't want to be first until the end. In this game they shoot at the front runner. I think Ron Paul is just where we want him: in first place with the majority (us) - and in fifth place with the minority (the people who get polled).
Ron Paul will win because HE MUST win. People know he is the USA's last hope for a decent future. People in maine are burning wood and trailer parks have stove pipes because the dollar is so weak people cant afford winter heating oil! ITS BAD! Americans, lets take this country back and get Ron Paul, the only man up for 2008 that cares for THE PEOPLE.
The top three ways I've seen the MSM try do to Dr. Paul when addressing our ReVolution.
1. Media pundits form "Straw-man" arguments to battle Dr. Paul's positions. This means that the MSM takes an argument that they can't beat, rephrase it by distorting, exaggerating, etc. and attack this new weaker position.
2. Ad hominem or source attacks. Instead of arguing against a position by Dr. Paul, like less government intervention in people's lives, the MSM argues against the source of the position. .ie Labelling Dr. Paul all sorts of strange things. By extension, people who support Dr. Paul either from the US, Europe, or around the world, are also labelled negatively.
3. An MSM favorite is to appeal to "public opinion," via self-selecting polls, which are inherently biased... 'nuff said. This bastardized data supports their bastardly views. End of discussion.
I agree, but don't forget the OTHER ISSUE that is a HOT BUTTON for Americans. It's "ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION", and Ron Paul would put our troops on the borders, and solve BOTH PROBLEMS....taking our boys home to put on our borders. This is a real hot button, and IF the TV & Radio Ads hit these 2 big points constantly, time after time after time, with HUGE REPETITION, he will win, imho.
Posted By: USAF Vet Dan: "The "surveys of likely voters" ...
I agree that it's a factor and included a link to a very good analysis of one poll. I may do a future commentary on polling, but it's a technical argument. Very few pollers actually disclose how they select or screen participants, so it's mainly speculation.
Posted By: Tim: "... you don't want to be first until the end."
I'm not sure anyone - including Ron Paul - could "schedule" public support, but I'm slightly astounded by the good timing on the rough charts I offered.
lol just kidding. But I dont see how he can do well in michigan. We seem to be a bunch of morons up here, dumber and lazier than most. (Myself included! Although I do actually try to be informed, let me assure you that I am in the vast minority in that regard.) Also, people here know the Romney name, because of George Romney, for whatever that matters. Michigan republicans will vote for the Limbaugh Candidate of choice. An early primary will only ensure that. It's so funny how they are pushing their primary forward, but by doing that they are only ensuring that our votes will be an even bigger waste. If MI had a later primary, there would at least be a chance to catch the Ron Paul wave.
Posted By: George Niiranen
Date: 2007-12-10 21:02:29
I used to believe the MSM because I didn't know any better. But, we all saw how the MSM beat the drums of war leading up to the Iraq invasion. Few of these people have offered any apology, or showed any remorse for their actions. Now they are trying to put notions into our heads about who can win. It's not about what they want, it's about what we vote for and get. There was a recent Presidential election where the media was declaring the winner of the state of Florida long before the voting was over. As it turns out the Florida pan handle is in a different time zone, so there was yet one more hour to vote. Who knows how many people decided not to vote after they heard on the "news" that Florida was already decided!! That was criminal! Some of these broadcasters should have been locked up! We should be a little wary of everything the MSM says.
Don't count Michigan out. I just found out about Ron Paul last month. A friend of my girlfriend told her to watch Ron's upcoming interview on a late night TV show. The interview got us interested, the internet got him our support. Not only are we voting for the Dr. but we've talked most of our friends and family into voting for him as well. He's an easy sell to anyone that's willing to listen.
I LOVE RON PAUL...I TELL EVERYONE I TALK TO ABOUT VOTING FOR RON PAUL. ALL THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ARE ONE OF THE SAME PARTY. HOPEFULLY, THEY WILL ALL BE GONE IN THE NEXT ELECTION. HOPE WE GET RID OF PELOSI TOO. SHE IS
Tom Knapp just reported at TPW, that he looked at the voting records of both Ron Paul and Cynthia McKinney and found that they agreed on 80% of Congressional votes.
Fear not Ron Paul fans. Cynthia McKinney is likely to be on the general election ballot in 40 to 45 states. Unless you live in NC, Indiana, WV or Oklahoma, your chances of being able to vote for an Anti-War extremist are really, really good.
And those of us on the Pro-Defense Libertarian Right, greatly urge you to do so.
Posted By: Ronald J. Cappuccio, J.D., LL.M.(Tax)
Date: 2007-12-12 08:02:46
I am so tired of not having a real choice when voting. Ron Paul is far different than the "yes, but" big government Republicans and all of the Democrats. Ron Paul is for Limited Goverment. The difference between the other Republicans and all of the Democrats is just the speed in which they want to eliminate the Bill of Rights and Constitutional Freedoms set in place by our Founding Fathers.
Why should our choice only be "faster" or "even-faster-yet" towards socialism and totalitarianism?
The answers are simple. Make sure you're registered to vote. Go to the RonPaul2008 website and check out what you need to know for caucuses/primaries in your state. Everyone do so and show up as if your future depends upon it because it does.
This is the most important article I've read. I want to fight but didn't know how. One thing to remember fellow "FREEDOM FIGHTERS" is never to relax, to never feel comfortable until this campaign marches to General Election. The opposition is brainstorming JUST AS MUCH as we are and have MORE RESOURCES. This truly is a fight for your civil liberties/property rights.
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.
2007 William Westmiller, all rights reserved.