Is Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul's Support Underestimated?

Most political commentators have looked on with amusement at the determined Internet activism displayed by followers of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul of Texas. For the most part, the media has been dismissive of his chances, partly because of his low numbers in scientific polling, and partly because his views cross the sharp dividing lines that have been drawn to divide the two major parties and their supporters. But Ron Paul and his supporters seem to defy the pundits at every turn, and the number of Americans who would consider voting for Paul is likely to continue growing by the day.

For the clearest example of how his campaign has confounded analysts not familiar with Paul-or for that matter, prevailing political sentiment on the Internet-one needs to look no further than the iconic confrontation with Rudy Giuliani about 9/11 and its causes at the South Carolina presidential debate. Fox News quickly predicted the end of the Ron Paul campaign after the crowd showed its support for Giuliani. In a moment subsequently mocked on YouTube, GOPAC Chairman Michael Steele flatly stated, "Ron Paul basically...for me, it's done," only to see the congressman lead in their instant poll for nearly the entire night. He later referred to the poll result with the obvious comment that "he's got a lot of folks out there going to text-message for him." But why wouldn't the more widely-supported candidates have that many more people text-messaging support for their own candidate of choice?

As Paul clearly espouses libertarian views (strict adherence to the Constitution and the limited-government principles it embodies) and backs them up with his votes in the House and speeches in the presidential campaign, he taps into a largely ignored group of Americans hungry for a candidate they can comfortably support. Having found one, they are determined to do all they can to push Ron Paul, and thus their political philosophy, into the mainstream. Though not well-represented in the mainstream media, libertarians are everywhere on the Internet-partly because they tend to skew younger, and partly because the open unregulated expanse of cyberspace appeals to them. And since the argument with Giuliani, this crowd has responded: estimates for donations to the campaign range from 2 to 5 million dollars, after only about $600,000 from January to March, and the Paul campaign was quick to credit individual online contributors. In the most recent Republican debate in New Hampshire, Paul supporters dominated the crowd outside the venue. Similar crowds have followed him all over the country, from Los Angeles to New York, and even inside Phoenix's Sky Harbor Airport. The average follower of Ron Paul is probably much more likely to abstain from voting in the 2008 election than to vote for another Republican, something that most likely could not be said about the followers of any other candidate in the race.

Why then does Paul barely register in the national scientific polls? For starters, his primary support group-libertarians-is difficult to account for through polling methodology. Many do not own a landline phone, the only way that polling firms can contact people. (A study released by the Pew Research Center showed that 12.8% of US households are cell-only, swelling to as much as 25% for those under 30, exactly the tech-savvy libertarian base that has flocked to Ron Paul.) Much of the same group would also be missed in samples of "likely Republican voters," because of youth, registration as an independent, or lack of voting in prior elections (mainly because none of the candidates were satisfactory choices). So while Paul generally hovers around 2% in national polls, it would not be surprising if the true support was closer to 5%, with potential to climb sharply in the upcoming months.

The reason that Paul's star should be on the rise even further is clear, and has recently even been expressed by the candidate himself: he is the only Republican firmly against the war in Iraq and other nation-building missions. Despite the other ten candidates' (including Fred Thompson) clear support for the war, the number of Republican voters on the other side of the party line is not insignificant. A recent Rasmussen poll showed that 27% of Republicans favor either immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a concrete timetable for withdrawal. More surprisingly, 57% of Iowa Republicans want the US out of Iraq within the next six months. These voters have only one choice in their party, while those who support the war have ten candidates to choose from.

Additionally, the congressman is known as "Dr. No" for his votes against any bill which is unconstitutional-making him by far the strongest Republican in the field when it comes to matters of taxes and spending. He has completely steered clear of the big-government bugaboos that show up as black marks for primary voters, such as mandatory health insurance, campaign finance reform, and No Child Left Behind. His views on virtually any issue outside of foreign policy are essentially the embodiment of the small-government principles espoused by Republicans for decades, but only occasionally followed by those in power. For voters primarily concerned about the size and scope of government, he would be a dream candidate.

Despite his (somewhat artificially?) low numbers in the polls, Ron Paul has luxuries any of the frontrunners would dream of right now: an extremely vocal and devoted group of supporters, the ability to run on his record in public office, instead of away from it, and views which, though considered unorthodox in the red/blue dichotomy laid out in the popular press, would appear to correlate with those held by a significant portion of the American public. Having shown a commitment to the principles expressed by the Founders both in their speeches and in the Constitution, it seems apparent that he will continue to make waves in the 2008 campaign as he points out his rivals' ignorance of these principles.