Ten Reasons Why Ron Paul Canâ€™t WinSubmitted by retrorepublican on Tue, 08/21/2007 - 08:39
By Thomas R. Eddlem
It always perturbed me that the wide variety of neocon commentators on television regularly pronounce with such fury and unison that Ron Paul "canâ€™t win" but never give any reasons why he couldnâ€™t win the presidential race.
At first, I assumed that these guys would be denying he had a chance up until and including Ron Paulâ€™s inauguration day. And why shouldnâ€™t I assume that? The pundits probably donâ€™t give any reasons he canâ€™t win, I thought, because there arenâ€™t any.
Then I thought more deeply, and found that there are plenty of reasons why Ron Paul canâ€™t be elected. Here are the ten top reasons why Ron Paul canâ€™t win, in the format of David Lettermanâ€™s Top Ten List. My logic is flawless. As Bill Oâ€™Reilly would say, "you canâ€™t even argue it."
10. Ron Paul is too popular among people who know where he stands. Instant polling numbers among focus groups watching the debates have his popularity at about 75 percent. But Americans donâ€™t vote for people who are that popular. Itâ€™s true that George W. Bush got a little more than 50 percent of the vote in 2004 â€“ just barely â€“ but that was a fluke. Bushâ€™s popularity numbers have since sunk back to the traditional 25â€“35 percent range. Before 2004, not one of the winners in the last three Presidential campaigns even got 50 percent of the vote. Dubya didnâ€™t even win a plurality of the popular vote in 2000. So itâ€™s a clear modern precedent that in order to become President, you need to be unpopular rather than widely popular. Ron Paul simply canâ€™t win if he remains that popular, and thereâ€™s no reason to believe people will begin to hate him.
9. Heâ€™s got too much money, and nowhere to spend it. Itâ€™s great that Ron Paulâ€™s official campaign is raising nearly as much money as the frontrunners. But it wonâ€™t do him any good. What would he spend it on? He doesnâ€™t need to spend it on local campaigning, because heâ€™s already got more than 700 Meetups across the country. (More on that in reason #8). Many of these Meetups are printing bumper stickers, fliers, and yard signs without money from the campaign. They are creating phone banks on their own. A few are even making their own media advertising buys. Therefore, the campaign doesnâ€™t need money for any of these things. So the massive Ron Paul campaign fundraising, while impressive, is superfluous at best. Money simply wonâ€™t help.
8. Ron Paul is cheating by harnessing the fervor of an army of volunteers, rather than the method pursued by the other candidates â€“ who must pay a huge campaign staff to get their message out. Itâ€™s not fair that Ron Paul has excited volunteers who will spend their own money to get him elected, while the other candidates have to pay lots of people salaries to work for their campaigns. So donâ€™t think that the other candidates wonâ€™t cry "foul" when they notice that most of Ron Paulâ€™s campaign contributions are "off the books" in these Meetups. Collectively, the Meetups may be spending more money than the frontrunner campaigns. I noticed this myself recently when I attended a Ron Paul Meetup in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. I got handed a wad of Ron Paul bumper stickers from a guy who printed them up himself. Others passed me self-printed fliers and lapel stickers while the whole group passed the hat to print road signs on their own. Do you really think these expenditures were sent in to the Federal Election Commission as a campaign contribution? I doubt it. "We need a campaign â€˜fairness doctrineâ€™ to level the playing field," the other candidates will argue, quite possibly to great effect.
Read the rest of the reasons over at LewRockwell.com