That’s what Clarence Page seems to be saying in his latest column in the Chicago Tribune:
Of all the interesting little fish swimming beneath the currents of the major candidates in this presidential campaign season, none ismaking waves as surprising as those kicked up by Rep. Ron Paul.
The Texas Republican, who embraces a libertarian point of view, has been riding an unimpressive 2 percent in the polls, but if the presidential election were held in cyberspace, Paul would probably win hands down.
Paul’s supporters flood online polls, such as the unscientific survey ABC News invited viewers to join after the Republican debate last Sunday. Yet, you could barely find the Texas doctor in the network’s after-debate coverage, despite the vigorous applause he ignited with his call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
In endless e-mailings or phone calls to talk shows, Paul’s fans blame an insidious conspiracy to muzzle the “truth.”
So, why, Page asks, isn’t Ron Paul attracting more support, and, more importantly, more media coverage. His argument boils down to two points. First, at this point, based on the polls, there isn’t any realistic possibility that Ron Paul could win the nomination; therefore, his media coverage is minimal.
But then, Page makes this point:
Judging by my contacts with Paul promoters—in person and through e-mails—they seem to be largely young, male, independent-minded, leave-us-alone libertarians who like Paul’s tiny-government agenda.
Which leads to another reason why I think Paul faces trouble in moving his campaign to the next level of public attention: organization. You can’t win political campaigns without it, but organizing libertarians is about as easy as herding cats. Angry cats.
Well, notwithstanding my own well-expressed assessment of the likelihood of success, I can still say as a not-so-young, married, yet sill pretty independent minded voter that I support most of Congressman Paul’s campaign platform.
And, I don’t particularly like cats.
August 7th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
The thing they miss is that Paul supporters are WAY more organized than the Paul campaign. They’re practically dragging the campaign to the next level.
August 7th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
yes he’s riding that same 2% bill clinton was riding in 1991,
actually twice the 1% jimmy Carter was riding in 1975.
From attending his meetup group (over 200 members), I see more Dems and Reps than libertarians. In fact, he is not libertarian enough for some of them—but they support him just the same. since he is expected to get 0% in the Iowa Strawpoll, if he gets ANY votes, he has exceeded all expectations. Remember when he raised an “abysmal” $600k in Q1: they said he would be lucky to repeat that amount in Q2…He confounded the “predictors” by quadrupling his fundraising. Its not quite exponential but do the math..
If his growth rate so far continues– or increases–who knows. give me a penny today and double it each day, then come see me in a month…
August 8th, 2007 at 8:16 am
I can say that most of the people whom I know support Paul are young, white, independent-minded males (I certainly don’t know any females who support Paul). Paul will not be popular among the base of Republicans (whom he needs to impress first if he wishes to make it to the general election as the Republican candidate), he needs to drop his bad case of “trutherism”. Suggesting that President Bush knew something about 9/11 before it happened will alienate him, no matter how much some Republicans may feel that President Bush has alienated them. He also appears weak on military amongst many Republicans, and he cannot hope to get back into the game unless he can change that perception, no matter how good of a candidate he sounds otherwise.
And rich, I first think we cannot simply compare poll numbers (or do you think that Jim Gilmore jumped ship to early?) or fundraising against predictions (how often do we see candidates exceed expectations there?). It is certainly early in this race, but I don’t see Paul gaining traction at any point in the future.
August 8th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
yep, it definitely is an uphill battle, and even if he is in the top 3 by the primaries, almost every one of the so-called experts will have to admit failure in their ability to predict anything. I know without the blessing of the mainstream, as well as his own party the odds will be heavily against him. if you bet on him 2 months ago you’d get 200:1.This week its down to 8:1 (actually tied with romney). But thats according to gambling 911.com and sportsbook.com; not political analysts, but with their money and reputation on the line, its worth noting.
August 8th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
in any case i doubt if any republican has that proverbial snowballs chance in hell of beating a Hillary or obama or a mixture thereof. especially those who hang on to that war that cant be criticized per bush’s duly 17 directive.
August 8th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
sorry,i ment july not duly, im typing while on a stationary bike