Rep. Ron Paul rarely makes news, and his candidacy is frequently ignored by Beltway reporters. But headlines, his aides say, are overrated. In fact, the Texas Republican’s low-key autumn was strategic. As Paul’s competitors stumbled and sparred, he amassed a small fortune for his campaign and built a strong ground operation. And with January fast approaching, his team is ready to surprise the political world and sweep the Iowa caucuses.
“This was a movement when he first started running in 2008,” says Trygve Olson, a senior Paul adviser. “Now it’s turned into a highly professionalized campaign, but the energy from that last run is still there, and at the heart of what’s keeping up his momentum.”
Advertisement
The latest polls back up that confidence. In the influential Des Moines Register poll published over the weekend, Paul placed second. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, captured 25 percent of likely Iowa GOP voters, but Paul garnered 18 percent, two points ahead of Mitt Romney, who in 2008 placed second in the caucuses.
If Paul wins Iowa, the upset could upend what many politicos say is a two-man race between Gingrich and Romney. According to state GOP insiders, a Paul victory is a real possibility. In background conversations, many say Paul is much stronger than outside observers believe, with deep and wide support among a frustrated electorate. With Herman Cain’s departure from the race, operatives see Paul potentially collecting a quarter of caucus attendees.
“Ron Paul is definitely for real out here,” says Tim Albrecht, the communications director for Iowa governor Terry Branstad, who has not endorsed any GOP candidate. “He is going to get 18 percent in the caucuses no matter what. If there’s a snowstorm, he’ll probably win, since he has such dedicated, passionate supporters. The question is whether he can move higher than that.”
Paul, for his part, thinks that he can close in on Gingrich, who has seen a recent bump in both state and national polls. “We’re getting pretty close to it being within the margin of error,” Paul told CNN on Sunday. “I think we continue to do what we’re doing. We’ve had the flavors of the month up and down so far this campaign. I’d like to think of myself as the flavor of the decade.”
Indeed, Paul’s consistency, his strategists say, is integral to his strength, especially in Iowa, where GOP voters have shuffled through an array of favorites. “Iowans, after testing Bachmann, after testing Perry, after testing Cain, and now Gingrich, are realizing that Ron Paul, all along, has been their candidate,” says Fritz Wenzel, Paul’s pollster. Unlike many primary fights, “this is becoming a race about principles,” he says, “and Ron Paul has stood up for true conservative principles for decades, not just in the last month.”
But campaign strategy, of course, has also played a major role in sustaining Paul’s poll numbers. The campaign combines a strong online presence, centered on volunteer organization, with prolific fundraising. Perhaps more important, however, is Paul’s “traditional” strategy in Iowa, which combines a heavy candidate presence with constant mailings and outreach.
Even though I may disagree with some of Ron Paul's foreign policy choices, I think that 4 years of Ron Paul would do more good than 4 more years of Obama. Especially domestically. No other candidate is talking about taking on Big Government like he is. And to me, our biggest long-term threat is our own Leviathan. That must be dealt with in a serious way, not tinkering around the edges.
There are several problems with a Ron Paul candidacy. Firstly, he is definitely more libertarian than conservative. He would have trouble when compared to Obama because Obama is skilled at at least sounding moderate while acting the part of a leftist. The contrast between a fairly right-wing candidate and Obama's faux moderate stances would not, I think, win the middle votes Paul would need to win the election.
Secondly, there is a man named Mitt Romney. Given Cain's departure, and the fact that Gingrich comes to the field as a 'Washington bureaucrat', despite some stronger poll numbers, Paul still isn't likely to take the primary against Romney.
Ron Paul might be the person who can save this republic.
One of Ron Paul's first acts would be to disband the loathsome TSA and their thuggish practices. Indeed, in a perfect world Ron Paul would allow wronged airline passengers to sue the worst of the TSA employees under "Bivens".
Ron Paul would actually control Federal Spending. According to current spending the $15,000,000,000,000 debt will shoot to $20,000,000,000,000 by Fiscal 2016 and will could climb from $25 to 28,000,000,000,000 by Fiscal 2020. That will be well in excess of 150% of projected US National GDP and the USA would have a more grim financial future than Europe. Mark Steyn writes many articles at NR on this subject. How National Review could support any other candidate than Ron Paul boggles the mind. The financial survival of the USA is on the line and not one politician wants to address the problems that really concern the educated voter.
Ron Paul is like Judge Bork. Both men believe in the American Constitution. Perhaps National Review is more similar to leftist magazines like Atlantic and New Republic. All three magzines will burn the Constitution if it gets in the way of their agenda.
Ron Paul can save the Republic because he believes that all Americans have a right to personal and financial freedom.
How can that thinking be wrong? How can any other thinking not be toxic to the general liberty and financial freedom of the USA?
Someone or PAC needs to be campaigning against Paul and point to his maning writings and video statements that are total opposite of how he has portrayed himself.
Social Cons would run for the hills if they saw his actual views and background, as should sane people in general.
Four years of my dead dog would be better than four more years of Obama.
Unfortunately; Rep. Paul cannot win. He has a very enthusiastic base but it will never grow enough to get the nomination. He has convictions that are quite honorable but for most they are farther "out there" than most are comfortable with. Sad. Our foreign policy and the Federal reserve desperately need a wholesale change.
Last, don't you finnd it interesting that all the candidate are getting a bump in the polls in some sort of sequence? It seems almost by design?
I think that regardless of the sophistication of the polling that there is a significant amount of mischief going on. I believe that a great many democrats are lying when polled. Fine, American politics have always had a great deal of mischief.
I simply refuse to be influenced by the polls instead I actually LISTEN to the candidates.
BTW, I'll vote for ANY republican that is nominated, twice if I could get away with it. But wait, I'm not from either Boston or Chicago so I guess that's out.
You say that Ron Paul can't win. Why? If most people I speak to say that they like him, he is incredibly principled and they like his policies then why can't he win? Because the media and donald trump say so? Stop being sheep to the mainstream media people! It's not that he can or can't win, the truth is that he Must win or America will collapse! Because we are on a colission course that only he can avoid!
If he were to gain ALL the republican votes he would only have approximately 39% of th electorate. He would need virtually all of the 17 to 19% of voters self-identified as independents.
He's too far from the edge of the mainstream to attract even half that number IMO. So simple math gives him about 48% maybe 49% if he draws half the independents. Unless he can precisely allocate that 49% in the appropriate electoral vote states he's toast.
A decent, principled man, but unfortunately not widely enough liked.
It'll undercut Gingrich's "surge" and then it goes to New Hampshire, where Romney will win. Then South Carolina where Gingrich is favored, but Paul will still be energized and cut into his lead (creating a Gingrich vs. Paul SC scenario).
Then it's onto the real race. The other states will split the Hard Right's energy between Gingrich and Paul and give Romney plurality votes...plus the RNC wishing to avoid a disasterous Ron Paul nomination, will pull out all the stops (and call all the donors) and put all their eggs in a Mitt Romney basket, even if it means pulling the rug out from under Newt to do it.
Paul MUST be stopped...or the GOP loses the Social Cons and Neo-cons while only picking up the same old libertarian votes they already had and maybe a handful of college kids.
I've yet to encounter any individual who uses that term who has any specific idea what it means, or at least any specific idea that they're not ashamed to share with people who do not see "NeoCons" behind every single problem this country faces.
I am a social conservative. I will only vote for Paul if he becomes the nominee, which won't happen, in order to keep Obama from being reelected, and even then, I anticipate very little difference between Obama's foreign policy and Paul's.
The political left and the paleo-conservatives of The Buchanan Brigades (who are STILL politically homeless) use the term "neo-con" to mean those whose support of Israel supposedly colors their thinking entirely on foreign policy questions.
It's the "gentleman's" way of expressing anti-Semitism.
If it were not, one person who uses that term would have described it by now.
They don't because they intend to paint with a VERY broad brush.
Notice this genius here puts the number at 100. He's more open with his anti-Semitism than most.
While Paul would be better than Obama, he is unacceptable as the Republican nominee. He is a gadfly with no foot in reality. And if he chooses to run as a third party candidate, he will assure Obama's reelection. He is no statesman. He is a shameless self-promoter who enjoys playing the crochety old fruitcake to the hilt. I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me what he's done in all those years in Congress.
The Republican "leadership" is quite delighted to declare Ron Paul's foreign policy as isolationism. Or perhaps they do not know the difference between wars declared congressionally according to the Constitution and war/police actions run politically by the executive branch, between democracy by example and democracy demanded at gunpoint, between trade and threat, or between trillions spent with lives lost and the statesmanship of respect for the sovereignty of other nations.
Question seriously whether our nation would have become engaged in the wars in North Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo/Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lybia had Congress been required to fulfill their constitutional duty and vote to declare them.
I would never vote for Ron Paul because of his foreign policy stance. If he believes the Muslims hate us because we are in the Middle East he lives in an altenate universe. Unlike the NRO's favorite candidate Mitt Romney, Ron Paul at least believes in what he says. Mr. Romney believes in getting himself elected. It is time NRO stopped pushing the RINO Romney and let the voters decide who should be nominated.
Read their literature. They hate us because we are infidels. They hate us because they see current history as a continuation of the 1000 year running war between Christendom and the Caliphate.
Follow
