Three Reasons Ron Paul Might Steal Iowa Caucus
Nick Carraway
Some rights reserved by Gage SkidmoreIf you saw any of last night's debate on foreign policy among potential presidential candidates, it is clear that most Republicans on the stage are within a close distance of each other's foreign policy stances - except for one, Congressman Ron Paul. Up until now the media has largely ignored Paul, and most pundits dismiss him as unelectable in a general contest against Obama. However Paul did get 600 seconds of talking time in last night's CBS debate, and that's a huge percentage jump considering, he only received 89 seconds to make his points in the previous debate. Perhaps cries of a media blackout campaign against Paul are finally having an impact, or maybe his support is growing too much to ignore.
Ron Paul is not only seeing gains in media coverage, but also enjoying a steady climb in poll results. Last week, in the Real Clear Politics poll average of the results for Iowa and New Hampshire, Paul reached his highest score yet, around 14 points. While currently still in the middle of the pack, these numbers suggest Paul is trending towards a top three finish in the early primaries.
Offering more recent data, Revolution PAC, a super PAC set up to support the 2012 Ron Paul campaign, commissioned their own private polling company to gauge support for their candidate in the Iowa caucuses. This polling data, while obviously from a biased source, projected Paul at first place in Iowa with 25 percent support among likely voters.
Before dismissing it as just another poll, there are a few big differences in the Revolution PAC poll that are worth noting. Its polling sample was 2900 people, much larger than many other polls, and those questioned included 168 disgruntled Democrats/Independents, not just Republicans. Buried in this polling data is the suggestion that Ron Paul has crossover appeal that the other Republican candidates might not.
Here's three reasons why Ron Paul might actually turn out to be that rare presidential hopeful who can bridge America's wide partisan divide and actually mount a populist-backed election to the White House.
First, the media's neglectful coverage of the Paul campaign might actually turn out to be in his favor. Aside from Mitt Romney, every other Republican contender has been treated by the press to a rollercoaster ride of highs and lows in their public support. Trump, Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and now Gingrich have reached the apex of front runner status only to be ripped back down to reality by the ratings-driven, 24/7 news cycle in which the media constantly seeks fresh, often negative spins on easily exhausted storylines. If Romney either makes a huge blunder or fails to close on his long time competitive standing in the polls, Paul could be poised to take the lead despite what the media has to say.
Secondly, as the most recent debate and the Revolution PAC polling data exhibited, Ron Paul sounds more like a liberal Democrat when it comes to foreign policy. Ten, even four years ago, during the rule of Bush and the neo-cons, this stance automatically discredited a candidate like Ron Paul among Republican primary voters. However, we now live in the age of Obama where diverse people from all walks of politics have found something about the country's direction to dissatisfy them. In 2012, Paul's isolationist tendencies may find cross-party support among the anti-war left who feel betrayed by Obama's aggressive foreign policy, the right wing Tea Partiers who want to slash government spending, and even the Occupy movement who, despite having a nebulous agenda, seem to agree with Paul when he says that "the biggest threat to national security is our financial condition."
Lastly, no matter how much the talking heads on the right dismiss Ron Paul's chances of defeating President Obama in 2012, the obvious fact remains that no matter who wins the Republican nomination, influential conservatives will throw all their support behind that candidate, even if it is Congressman Paul. Once Republicans get beyond the small politics of personality games that have plagued this year's primary debate cycle, they'll start thinking in the larger terms of party politics. And that means do everything possible to make sure Obama doesn't win. The tribal desire to claim victory for their side means that Reagan acolytes, evangelicals, Tea Partiers, and anyone else who misses having their guy in charge will vote for even a 70-something year-old maverick in the uncompromising, last ditch effort of his lifelong political career. It's not like it's never happened before...
Reader Comments (2)
I have to admit that I know very little of Ron Paul. I am going to check him out. He seems to be an outsider with rogue ideas that many would listen to. I feel he is in the same position as Obama was during the primaries, so your theories seem plausible.
If he does win, will he be thwarted by Washington politics like Obama was? Will he be too much an outsider to bridge the divide? He seems to want to run on a financial platform, when most of America are concerned with social issues that are shredding our hope --- jobs, rising healthcare, high cost of education, political deceit, energy issues etc. Maybe it is all about the dollar.
One thing I hope to do is keep an open mind this election and listen. Your post helps and I hope you will continue to share your political views.
I think the real hope for anyone who loves liberty is not that Ron Paul will win the presidency and dismantle the government overnight. Since he is a constitutionalist, he doesn't believe or say he would have that power anyway.
The real hope is that he would have four years to preach the message of liberty, sound money, and the correct foreign policy, to influence and challenge people's existing ideas and worldviews. Until the people change their ideas, it really doesn't matter who the president is.
One thing he would be able to do immediately is to bring all the soldiers home from every battlefield around the world, and that is a worthy goal in and of itself.