Change Yes, Ron Paul No
Even with a huge historic turnout of about 348,000 participants, Paul did not attract significant numbers of independents that could easily participate in the Republican caucuses. They went to Obama, Edwards and Huckabee.
On the Democratic side, of some 232,000 people that turned out for the caucuses, nearly doubling what it was four years ago, about 70 percent wanted change and went for Obama and Edwards, roughly 150,000 participants.
On the Republican side, of the 116,000 participants, about 40,000 change-voters went for Huckabee, compared to 11,600 that chose Paul, giving him fifth place. That 10 percent for Paul was very close to the 9 percent found in a Des Moines Register poll of likely caucus voters (margin of error 3.5 points). Interestingly, like Paul, Huckabee also wants to eliminate the federal income tax.
In both parties, change-voters totaled about 200,000. So Paul received just 6 percent of that large fraction, and just 3 percent of the total of all caucus participants in Iowa. Paul was first in only one county, Jefferson, with 36 percent
Edwards was absolutely correct when he summed things up this way: "The one thing that is clear from the results in Iowa tonight is the status quo lost and change won."
With all the hoopla from Paul supporters about younger people being for Paul, that's not what the Iowa results showed. Younger people seeking change and inspiration flocked to Obama, in particular. There was no demographic in Iowa that overwhelmingly went for Paul. Sure, Paul beat Giuliani, but Paul's effort in Iowa was much bigger than Giuliani's.
None of these results will impact Paul's supporters nationwide. Earl Ofari Hutchinson wrote a great article on Alternet.org: "Ron Paul is Scary, But Those Who Cheer Him Are Even Scarier." He was right when he said: "The scariest thing about GOP presidential contender Ron Paul is not his fringe, odd-ball racial views. It is that people take him seriously." But now Iowa has thankfully shown that the vast majority of Americans, especially those seeking political change, reject Paul.
After losing badly in Iowa Paul said: "The other candidates talk about tinkering with the status quo. We don't want to tinker; we want to change the status quo." He said that his campaign is on the upswing and gaining support among independents, frustrated Republicans and unhappy Democrats. Just one very big problem: The Iowa results show that all these people are much more likely to vote for other Democratic and Republican change-candidates.
Paul's supporters claim that he will do much better in New Hampshire where Libertarian Party members hold a number of offices. I don't think so. Several polls taken before the Iowa results found Paul at just 5 to 9 percent. Will Paul get a big boost from Iowa? I don't think so. Paul had predicted he could finish in third place in Iowa, and many of his supporters think he will do that in New Hampshire. I don't think so. Paul will likely finish fifth in New Hampshire, in large part because more independents will go to Obama and McCain.
When Paul first ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, he won just 0.54 percent of the vote. Iowa shows that his second presidential bid will not produce much better results. Paul is definitely not tapping in a major way into the national populist movement, major desire for political change, anti-status quo sentiment, or even the anti-Iraq war issue. Clearly, other Democratic and Republican change-candidates are doing much better. This reality will not affect Paul's passionate, cult-like followers that are solidified like cement in their belief that Paul can and should be our next president, something that Paul himself probably never really believed.
Published by Joel Hirschhorn
Author: Delusional Democracy, Prosperity Without Pollution & Sprawl Kills. Senior official Congressional Office of Technology Assessment & National Governors Assn; full prof Univ. of Wisc. Publishing regul... View profile
Political Analysis: Trying to Understand the Iowa Caucuses & Their Impac...The Iowa caucuses, which only came to precede the first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary in 1972, were ignored until 1980. Intensely undemocratic, they now attract more atten...- Ron Paul: The Candidate with the Golden DollarRon Paul is the only candidate running for President of the United States, that has his own Gold, Silver, and Copper Dollars
Analysis: Canadian Company Leads in Ron Paul CoverageMainstream media ignores this "internet" candidate, so Canadian company media takes charge, providing daily coverage of the Ron Paul presidential campaign- Would Mixing the Parties Being Elected for President and Vice President Be Good or...Can a true change be made by mixing the parties for President and Vice President?
- In Morning Sun, Iowa, Republicans Brave Cold to Caucus for Mike HuckabeeWhat follows is a description of our small town republican caucus. What we did from the time we entered, to the vote and who won, to the planks for the Republican platform to be considered. Iowa caucuses are unique!
- Presidential Hopeful Ron Paul: Raising the Roof in Iowa
- Presidential Candidate Ron Paul Goes International
- The Importance of the Iowa Caucuses
- Will Hillary Clinton Ignore the Iowa Caucus?
- Mitt Romney Takes First Place in Iowa Straw Poll
- Ron Paul is Gaining in Money and Momentum!
- Is Ron Paul the Subject of a Google Bomb?
5 Comments
Post a Commentnothing but a waste of my valuable time. Spin it however you want, your actions to steer "the people" further away from our Constitutional premise goes beyond being "obnoxious", but puts you right in the center of the loathsome "shill for the establishment" category, or worse; one of the "useful idiots".
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
to describe it. But these cliques generally can be categorized as not only pro-establishment, but more pro-interventionist, whether it be the so-called liberal interventionists on the Democratic side or your war hawks on the Republican side.
But what became clear is that the candidates weren't reaching outside of these establishment cliques and that they were getting no fresh ideas, no vision outside of these pretty standard parameters. And we thought-me and the editors thought it might be a good idea to explore a little bit under the surface about where these of advisers were coming from..."
Ron Paul IS the only TRUE choice for CHANGE and is the perfect leader to bring that change; back to the Constitution that protects your and my individual rights, the basis and premise this country was founded on, and has the proof in his record to back it up. If you think supporting this premise is "closed minded", "obnoxious" and "delusional" then clearly further discussion with you is nothin
RE: (How sad that Paul supporters have such closed minds; I too want the revolution, but Paul is not the right leader for it...I took you off my list...And don't blame the media for why Paul is not and will not succeed in convincing Americans that he is the right change agent)
You need a reality check and to do some research, then see who truly has the "closed" mind. You call for "change" yet evidently follow the same crowd that bellow the words "change" in their campaign rhetoric?
Just for starters:
Vote for Change? Atrocity-Linked U.S. Officials Advising Democratic, GOP Presidential Frontrunners http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/3/vote_for_change_atrocity_linked_us
KELLEY BEAUCAR VLAHOS: "Well, it was becoming clear to me and to others here in Washington in certain circles that the advisers that were emerging for the campaigns, whether it be Democratic or Republican, were part of some seriously pro-establishment cliques. And I say "cliques," because there is really no other
Since you consider me obnoxious and deluded, you can take me off your mailing list now. When I first discovered you I thought you had integrity and a sense of journalism. Suffice it to say, any degree of respect I may have had is completely gone, now you sound just like Bill O'Riley.
What happened to you, Joel? Are you still ticked Dr. Paul didn't answer your "Open letter to Ron Paul?" How do you know he even got it? And perhaps he wouldn't agree with you if he did. This portrays you as a bratty kid who doesn't get his way resorting to name calling and stamping his feet. Your credibility just took a plunge.
Ron Paul is doing the best he can without getting shot like Bobby K. He got fifth in Iowa because everyone in this country is a stupid moron and don't know change when it hits them in their face.
Why don't you try arguing Paul's politics since he's the only candidate with any REAL opinions on how to change this country. All of the other sheep just flock wherever the wolves take them. They don't have the intellectual capacity to understand a candidate like Ron Paul because everything he says is way over their head. The largest grass roots movement ever is not a sign that the other candidates are doing well, instead it's more of a sign that 90% of Iowa is a bunch of backward retards. Ron Paul wants to be president, the status quo would rather take a black man than have their wonderful finance monopoly in jeopardy.
I liked your articles about a Constitutional Convention but your Ron Paul articles suck; just as much as a Fox News reporting, you trying to get a job there? Indy m