The race for the Republican nomination is over, but people still keep voting for Ron Paul:
Sen. John McCain is champing at the bit to run against Sen. Barack Obama in the fall. But while the presumptive GOP nominee focuses on his likely Democratic rival, he should also worry about his own right flank. Bob Barr entered the presidential race last week as a Libertarian, in time for that party’s nominating convention (which starts Thursday), and while the former Republican congressman from Georgia isn’t going to become president, his run is no joke. Barr might well inherit the sizable support garnered by Rep. Ron Paul during his own run for the Republican nomination — and leave McCain sputtering the sorts of epithets usually uttered by Democrats talking about Ralph Nader.
Though Barr’s promises to drastically shrink government spending, begin withdrawing from Iraq and protect civil liberties will undoubtedly appeal to capital-L Libertarians, there’s little evidence that he has much of a national following. Reporters covering his announcement at the National Press Club noted that no Libertarian candidate has ever garnered more than 1 million votes and that Barr’s most recent high-profile media appearance was a joke played on him in the “Borat” movie. But he could still seriously siphon votes from McCain in the fall — not because Barr is such a compelling candidate, but because he could become the vehicle for the many disaffected Republicans gathered under Paul’s flag.
And there’s really one reason that this is a possibility:
Clearly, one sizable chunk of the Republican base — small-government types who also oppose the Iraq war — hasn’t reconciled itself to voting for McCain
For good reason, I would argue.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Doug,
Slight problem with this analysis, in most states even now, Ron Paul is still beaten by Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney.
May 19th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I would also wonder how many of these protest votes will turn back to McCain when they see the alternative in November. Might not be a majority of them, but I’m sure a few will at least.
May 20th, 2008 at 7:43 am
Kevin, it’s not a problem. One needs to expand it by stating that folks are still voting for Huckabee, Romney, and Paul in larger numbers.
Ron Paul is beaten because the party doesn’t want the electorate to see Paul as a real option. If they did, he’d poll higher. It wouldn’t be high enough to win but it would be enough to change the direction of the party.
May 20th, 2008 at 7:46 am
Kevin,
You are correct, but I think that the fact that Romney, Huckabee and Paul are still getting votes at this point is a sign that people aren’t happy with McCain. And the difference between Paul and Barr is that Barr is far more likely to pick up some support from people who voted for Romney and Huckabee than Ron Paul ever would have been able to garner.
Moreover, as Nader proved in 2000, you don’t need that many supporters to make a difference.
May 20th, 2008 at 7:47 am
CR UVa,
A valid point, but and it may vary from state to state, but I for one am sick of voting for the lesser of two evils and, in my book, Obama and McCain are nothing more than two sides of the same coin.
May 20th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Story, J. (Ret.),
Ron Paul was beaten because he wasn’t able to appeal to more than 10% of the voters in any state, not because of some vast, grand conspiracy hatched at GOP headquarters. Frankly, I doubt that the National GOP, or any of the other candidates, gave him much consideration because he was, notwithstanding his online fundraising successes, a factor at the ballot box. Chalk that up to being out of touch or to a badly managed campaign, but it wasn’t a conspiracy.