Reality Is Not an Extraordinary Assertion
A bit simplistically interpreted; intoxicated by their cause, euphoric, and so on—it's a common metaphor in American discourse.
The thing is that the Pauline evangelism mixes its principles into reality at a much higher concentration than other political blocs. Belief becomes truth for many Paul supporters, and your post is demonstrative of that point.
Mathematics.
The simple consideration is the fact that after forty-three contests, Ron Paul has won exactly zero on the popular vote. With fourteen remaining, Rep. Paul cannot win enough states to win the nomination.
However, Ron Paul is maneuvering to collect delegates despite failing to win a state. Consider the delegate count estimation:
As it is, through victories at the ballot box or procedural maneuvering, Mitt Romney needs three hundred delegates, while Paul needs over a thousand.
One of the problems with the nomination process, though, is that, as Dr. Paul has shown, the actual ballot totals don't mean a whole lot. In Louisiana, where Paul placed fourth with 6.1% of the vote, and Mitt Romney second with 26.7% of the vote, Romney might well end up getting nineteen delegates, Paul 17, and the actual winner of that primary, Rick Santorum, all of 10. Rachel Maddow, on her May 1 show, reflected on how the "Ron Paul delegate strategy is working". The regular MSNBC transcripts appear interrupted as of April 16; I haven't figured out where they put the rest of them. The video segment is just over four and a half minutes, but here's a spot transcription:
This is what people outside the Pauline evangelism are seeing. Ron Paul supporters seem onboard with the candidate's strategy to use procedural tactics to override what primary and caucus voters say about their preferred candidates.
In and of itself, it's not illegal; these are the rules, after all. But the problem the Paul candidacy presents to the Republican Party is, quite simply, that a Paul nomination would tell voters that what they have to say doesn't matter, and that the real will of the Republican Party follows whoever can shout the loudest, be the most disruptive, and play the best backroom games. In other words, it's exactly what so many voters—and especially libertarian voters—despise about American politics. The Pauline evangelism is seeking to play the role of champions for liberty by undermining the actual voters.
Thus:
Mitt Romney has a commanding delegate lead. Of the remaining GOP candidates—including issue candidates like Fred Karger—Romney is the only one who has actually won a state nomination contest at the ballot box. Of those candidates, only Mitt Romney can win 1,144 delegates without usurping caucuses and conventions, without shouting down opponents.
These points are facts that people outside the evangelism recognize. Ron Paul's supporters, however, don't so much seem to despise these facts, but, as you remind, refuse to acknowledge them.
For everyone else, the explanation is obvious: Romney, over 800 delegates, multiple state-level victories; Paul, 80 delegates, no state-level victories. Outside the Pauline evangelism, this point is significant, and is the basis for the analysis you reject as being unexplained. You will continue to believe this reality has no explanation as long as you refuse to acknowledge the explanation.
Perhaps it's a slam, but it also has real foundations.
Acknowledging that Ron Paul can't win, and making those contributions about wrangling with the Party over the platform is one thing, but to push the idea that Ron Paul can win the nomination is more than just dishonest; it's a tragically silly tinfoil dream.
This outlook does not surprise anyone when it comes from one who refuses to acknowledge reality.
The least you could do is attend the analysis instead of ignore it; to wit, I can only reiterate here what you've ignored:
If Ron Paul ends up contributing to Obama's re-election by weakening Romney's candidacy, will his supporters celebrate?
What is Paul pushing for? Do you really think he can win the nomination and contest Obama directly by winning a procedural strategy that tells Republican voters that they don't matter? Do you really think the Party's power brokers would allow that? The best Paul and his supporters can hope for, if they're really playing for the nomination, is to shred the Party itself by dragging the Convention into absolute chaos.
Let us imagine, for a moment, that this works. Paul arrives at the convention without having won a single state at the ballot box, but also having accrued enough delegates through procedural tactics to contest Romney's nomination. The Republican Party, as a whole, has two basic choices on that front—they can give the nomination to a guy who couldn't win a state among Republican voters, or they can nominate the guy who won a bunch of states.
If the Party gives over and nominates Paul, what will that tell Republican voters? It will tell them that their votes at the ballot box on election day don't matter to the Party. This is not a notion the Republicans want front and center on August 31, when the GOP emerges from its convention and sends forth its nominee to challenge President Obama directly.
If the Party crushes the Ron Paul Revolution despite all their hard work and procedural play, will the Paulines keep their mouths shut?
There is a third option, I suppose, which is to broker the convention and drag out the process through multiple rounds of negotiation and voting, again reminding Republican voters that what they say at the ballot box doesn't really matter to the Party organization.
Most observers outside the evangelism seem to recognize there are two main routes for the Paul campaign to follow: the platform, and the running mate.
Some have suggested Rep. Paul wants his son, Rand, in the vice presidential slot. The long view suggests this would be problematic for the Romney campaign; Rand Paul has said he opposes the Civil Rights Act, and even suggested explicitly that businesses should have the right to refuse service on the basis of race or ethnicity. This won't play well in Democratic-leaning swing states, and in places like Florida and Arizona, which have Republican tendencies and high minority populations, Rand Paul might tip the scales in Obama's favor.
As to the platform, the GOP has endured its presidential aspirants trading boasts of destroying federal departments. This is not, in the end, a winning argument. It might play well among the hardline right and libertarian blocs, but it doesn't help with moderates and swing voters. And Ron Paul's doctrinal anti-abortion outlook, in which liberty omits women, isn't going to help, either. The GOP will manage an anti-abortion platform, but it is worth noting that the whole life-at-conception argument is too much for Mississippi, which scores R+10 on the Cook PVI. In other words, life-at-conception makes for popular rhetoric, but when put to a policy test, even conservative voters hesitate.
What can Paul bring to the platform that wouldn't otherwise be included? Not much, and what there is also looks extreme not only to Democratic supporters and self-described independents, but also many Republican voters.
In the end, a continuing Pauline full-court press is only going to hurt the Republican Party in November. And therein lies the problem. While he has done an excellent job of highlighting vulnerabilities in the GOP's nominating process, and this is something to be proud of, what will people say when he hamstrings the GOP going into the general election? The Paulines see problems of corruption, inefficiency, and general idiocy across the partisan spectrum, but their general tendency is toward the Republican Party.
Are they going to take down the GOP, costing Republicans the presidency and even complicating legislative elections?
Remember that there are several state organizations within the GOP that are suffering financial and organizational problems. Indeed, this is part of what Paul is exploiting in his procedural campaign. But Republicans won the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010, as well as a majority of state houses. Throwing the Party and its convention into chaos very well could complicate legislative and state office elections.
If Republicans lose their House of Representatives majority, will the Paulines pat themselves on the back and say, "Good job"?
With Republicans at the state level having opened Pandora's Box in midwestern states like Wisconsin and Ohio, if a Republican Party in disarray costs conservatives victories in midwestern state elections—such as governors and state legislatures—will the Paulines congratulate themselves?
If the whole of the Paul campaign's efforts hurts GOP representation in political offices across the nation, and thus helps advance the Democratic Party, will the Paulines cheer?
Attending the "sober up" metaphor, one could suggest that your response seems hallucinatory because it depends on an outcome that most others find impossible, that the GOP will hand Ron Paul the nomination after the Texas congressman failed to capture even a single state.
Of course, he could still win Texas, which is a proportional allocation of 155 delegates, so it is possible that Paul will arrive at the convention with one state won at the ballot box. Still, though, any suggestion that GOP power brokers will allow a Paul nomination, with all its implications, is a pipe dream.
Outside the Pauline evangelism, it is not an extraordinary suggestion that the Republican power elite simply will not allow a Ron Paul nomination to the presidential ticket.
Paul's political career either ends with this legislative session, or after his presidential tenure. As the latter is, by all appearances, not going to happen, the good doctor will ride off into the sunset in January, 2013, at the age of seventy-eight.
And how will people remember this last campaign? Will it be for rekindling libertarian fires around the nation? Exposing problems in the GOP nomination process, thus forcing Republicans to do things better? Those are not contributions to eschew. But if the effect of this last campaign is to injure the Republican Party and help Democrats? To shore up President Obama's re-election, and, perhaps, help Democrats reclaim a congressional majority?
Is a second term for Obama, and a Democratic majority, what Ron Paul and his supporters actually want? I sincerely doubt it.
And if, like an aging superstar athlete, his final season in the game costs his team a championship, that is how he will be remembered.
Frankly, it wasn't that smart of a question to begin with. For instance—
—do you really believe that encouraging Ron Paul to denigrate his legacy would be showing your "support"? Because that is the question other people see. Apparently, however, the Pauline evangelists think it's mere propaganda, and believe that Ron Paul can win the presidential nomination at Tampa this summer.
As I noted before, it seems a cross-partisan phenomenon that a candidate's supporters will blame everyone and everything else for their loss. Al Gore? John Kerry? Sure, there were complicating factors, but had they run better campaigns, perhaps there wouldn't have been room for those complications. And people can blame racism and the liberal media all they want for John McCain's failure in 2008, but the guy was obviously dishonest—he even tried to say he never called himself a "maverick", for heaven's sake—and then he went and picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. Blaming everyone else for McCain's loss in 2008 overlooks the fact of the candidate's astoundingly bad campaign.
Likewise, no matter how out of touch Romney appears, no matter how mendacious, no matter how clumsy or spineless or elitist, when he loses in November, many Republicans will blame everybody else. And the greater the friction, the stronger the tremors, that Ron Paul creates in the Republican Party come convention time, the more prominently his name will be scorned by conservative voters looking for someone to blame, and the more prominently history will speak of the Texas congressman as the monkey thrown at the Republican wrench in the 2012 presidential election.
And if it turns out, come convention time, that Ron Paul has long known he can't win and thus has been playing for platform influence, will the Pauline evangelists say they knew it all along?
____________________
Notes:
Associated Press. "Republican Delegate Tally". The New York Times. (n.d.) Elections.NYTimes.com. May 5, 2012. http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates
Maddow, Rachel. The Rachel Maddow Show. MSNBC, New York. May 1, 2012. MSNBC.MSN.com. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#47256328
Eyeswideshut said:
A bit simplistically interpreted; intoxicated by their cause, euphoric, and so on—it's a common metaphor in American discourse.
The thing is that the Pauline evangelism mixes its principles into reality at a much higher concentration than other political blocs. Belief becomes truth for many Paul supporters, and your post is demonstrative of that point.
Mathematics.
The simple consideration is the fact that after forty-three contests, Ron Paul has won exactly zero on the popular vote. With fourteen remaining, Rep. Paul cannot win enough states to win the nomination.
However, Ron Paul is maneuvering to collect delegates despite failing to win a state. Consider the delegate count estimation:
• Romney, 847, Paul 80; these numbers include superdelegate preferences. Even if Ron Paul wins the popular votes in the remaining primaries in such a way as to collect every delegate, that is 700 more, still well short of 1,144.
As it is, through victories at the ballot box or procedural maneuvering, Mitt Romney needs three hundred delegates, while Paul needs over a thousand.
One of the problems with the nomination process, though, is that, as Dr. Paul has shown, the actual ballot totals don't mean a whole lot. In Louisiana, where Paul placed fourth with 6.1% of the vote, and Mitt Romney second with 26.7% of the vote, Romney might well end up getting nineteen delegates, Paul 17, and the actual winner of that primary, Rick Santorum, all of 10. Rachel Maddow, on her May 1 show, reflected on how the "Ron Paul delegate strategy is working". The regular MSNBC transcripts appear interrupted as of April 16; I haven't figured out where they put the rest of them. The video segment is just over four and a half minutes, but here's a spot transcription:
Back on March 24 of this year, then-presidential candidate Rick Santorum won Louisiana. He won the Louisiana state Republican primary. Rick Santorum won with forty-nine percent of the vote, Mitt Romney got twenty-seven percent, Newt Gingrich sixteen percent, Ron Paul six percent.
The great state of Louisiana will send forty-six delegates to the Republican convention in Tampa this summer. But even though Ron Paul came in dead last in Louisiana, even though he came in fourth out of four in Louisiana, when Louisiana sends its delegates to the convention in Tampa this summer, Louisiana will retroactively become a dead heat between him and Mitt Romney. It's looking like, right now, maybe nineteen delegates for Mitt Romney and seventeen for Ron Paul; Rick Santorum, who's now out of the race, will still have the remaining ten that he got that March night. But Ron Paul supporters overwhelmingly dominated the Louisiana caucuses this past weekend. Almost three-quarters of the Republicans elected at the caucuses in Louisiana say they support Ron Paul for president.
Also this weekend, there was chaos at the Republican caucuses in the great state of Massachusetts. Less than half of Mitt Romney's delegates were elected to represent him at the convention. Voters instead chose Ron Paul delegates; they even rejected Mr. Romney's former lieutenant governor from his time as governor of the state. She lost as a delegate so Ron Paul delegates could win.
Also this weekend, Ron Paul supporters in the great state of Alaska quite literally took over the state party's convention. A Ron Paul guy won the state party chairmanship. The Paul supporters were so fired up in Alaska, they were just so loud, that Senator Lisa Murkowski, who's a Mitt Romney supporter—
—hear that?—could not deliver her planned speech in the room. Neither could her guest, Wyoming Senator John Barrasso. The crowd is chanting, "Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul!" and nobody else is getting a word in edgewise. As a result of all this, a Ron Paul supporter won the election for state Republican Party Chairman. He beat out the guy backed by the current Alaska chairman, who's had the job for over a decade. Alaska is going to end up sending six Ron Paul delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa.
We've seen this Ron Paul plot before. Do you remember the Iowa Republican Caucuses this year? First they said that Mitt Romney won it, but then it turned out that no, that wasn't right. Then they tried to say it was a tie. Then Rick Santorum was declared the winner. But then it turned out none of it actually mattered in a practical sense, because the Iowa Caucuses did not allocate a single delegate. A state Republican Party committee does that. A state Republican Party committee picks the delegates who go to the Republican Convention. And last month, Ron Paul supporters took over that committee, guaranteeing Ron Paul at least half—at least half—of Iowa's twenty-eight delegates. So in the end, forget all that nonsense. Ron Paul won Iowa. And, oh, by the way, a Ron Paul supporter now chairs the Iowa Republican Party, as well.
Ron Paul supporters have used state party rules and conventions and processes to secure victories large and small that will have a practical effect on the Republican Party; if not the nominating process for president this year, maybe the convention itself. Ron Paul's strategy hasn't been to convert nonbelievers or swing Romney delegates over to his side. The Ron Paul strategy has been to get his own supporters inside, to get them inside the process. And we cannot say we didn't see this coming.
Making the outsiders become more appropriate, like, making them take over the state parties.
In addition to those coups this weekend and before in Louisiana and in Massachusetts and in Alaska and in Iowa, Ron Paul has won more than half the delegates in Minnesota and in Washington state. So, yes, Ron Paul won Minnesota and Washington state. He's got his eyes on Maine, on Missouri, and Nevada as well. He's scheduled to speak at the Nevada Republican state convention this weekend. If Ron Paul wins a majority of delegates in five states, his name will officially be entered in nomination at the Republican National Convention in Tampa. And there will be a lot of Republican Ron Paul delegates there to cheer, or do something, when that happens. And then what? Republicans fight it out like gladiators at the colosseum? I love this stuff.
The great state of Louisiana will send forty-six delegates to the Republican convention in Tampa this summer. But even though Ron Paul came in dead last in Louisiana, even though he came in fourth out of four in Louisiana, when Louisiana sends its delegates to the convention in Tampa this summer, Louisiana will retroactively become a dead heat between him and Mitt Romney. It's looking like, right now, maybe nineteen delegates for Mitt Romney and seventeen for Ron Paul; Rick Santorum, who's now out of the race, will still have the remaining ten that he got that March night. But Ron Paul supporters overwhelmingly dominated the Louisiana caucuses this past weekend. Almost three-quarters of the Republicans elected at the caucuses in Louisiana say they support Ron Paul for president.
Also this weekend, there was chaos at the Republican caucuses in the great state of Massachusetts. Less than half of Mitt Romney's delegates were elected to represent him at the convention. Voters instead chose Ron Paul delegates; they even rejected Mr. Romney's former lieutenant governor from his time as governor of the state. She lost as a delegate so Ron Paul delegates could win.
Also this weekend, Ron Paul supporters in the great state of Alaska quite literally took over the state party's convention. A Ron Paul guy won the state party chairmanship. The Paul supporters were so fired up in Alaska, they were just so loud, that Senator Lisa Murkowski, who's a Mitt Romney supporter—
[crowd noise on video segment]
—hear that?—could not deliver her planned speech in the room. Neither could her guest, Wyoming Senator John Barrasso. The crowd is chanting, "Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul!" and nobody else is getting a word in edgewise. As a result of all this, a Ron Paul supporter won the election for state Republican Party Chairman. He beat out the guy backed by the current Alaska chairman, who's had the job for over a decade. Alaska is going to end up sending six Ron Paul delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa.
We've seen this Ron Paul plot before. Do you remember the Iowa Republican Caucuses this year? First they said that Mitt Romney won it, but then it turned out that no, that wasn't right. Then they tried to say it was a tie. Then Rick Santorum was declared the winner. But then it turned out none of it actually mattered in a practical sense, because the Iowa Caucuses did not allocate a single delegate. A state Republican Party committee does that. A state Republican Party committee picks the delegates who go to the Republican Convention. And last month, Ron Paul supporters took over that committee, guaranteeing Ron Paul at least half—at least half—of Iowa's twenty-eight delegates. So in the end, forget all that nonsense. Ron Paul won Iowa. And, oh, by the way, a Ron Paul supporter now chairs the Iowa Republican Party, as well.
Ron Paul supporters have used state party rules and conventions and processes to secure victories large and small that will have a practical effect on the Republican Party; if not the nominating process for president this year, maybe the convention itself. Ron Paul's strategy hasn't been to convert nonbelievers or swing Romney delegates over to his side. The Ron Paul strategy has been to get his own supporters inside, to get them inside the process. And we cannot say we didn't see this coming.
[video excerpt]
Unidentified Man: How do you, from the outside, make positive change, as you're not the party's nominee, and as president if that's the will of the people—being that outside?
Ron Paul: Have the outside become the inside ....
.... We don't win over the insiders by becoming like an insider. We win the inside over by making the outsiders become more appropriate.
[end video excerpt]
Unidentified Man: How do you, from the outside, make positive change, as you're not the party's nominee, and as president if that's the will of the people—being that outside?
Ron Paul: Have the outside become the inside ....
.... We don't win over the insiders by becoming like an insider. We win the inside over by making the outsiders become more appropriate.
[end video excerpt]
Making the outsiders become more appropriate, like, making them take over the state parties.
In addition to those coups this weekend and before in Louisiana and in Massachusetts and in Alaska and in Iowa, Ron Paul has won more than half the delegates in Minnesota and in Washington state. So, yes, Ron Paul won Minnesota and Washington state. He's got his eyes on Maine, on Missouri, and Nevada as well. He's scheduled to speak at the Nevada Republican state convention this weekend. If Ron Paul wins a majority of delegates in five states, his name will officially be entered in nomination at the Republican National Convention in Tampa. And there will be a lot of Republican Ron Paul delegates there to cheer, or do something, when that happens. And then what? Republicans fight it out like gladiators at the colosseum? I love this stuff.
This is what people outside the Pauline evangelism are seeing. Ron Paul supporters seem onboard with the candidate's strategy to use procedural tactics to override what primary and caucus voters say about their preferred candidates.
In and of itself, it's not illegal; these are the rules, after all. But the problem the Paul candidacy presents to the Republican Party is, quite simply, that a Paul nomination would tell voters that what they have to say doesn't matter, and that the real will of the Republican Party follows whoever can shout the loudest, be the most disruptive, and play the best backroom games. In other words, it's exactly what so many voters—and especially libertarian voters—despise about American politics. The Pauline evangelism is seeking to play the role of champions for liberty by undermining the actual voters.
Thus:
Mitt Romney has a commanding delegate lead. Of the remaining GOP candidates—including issue candidates like Fred Karger—Romney is the only one who has actually won a state nomination contest at the ballot box. Of those candidates, only Mitt Romney can win 1,144 delegates without usurping caucuses and conventions, without shouting down opponents.
These points are facts that people outside the evangelism recognize. Ron Paul's supporters, however, don't so much seem to despise these facts, but, as you remind, refuse to acknowledge them.
For everyone else, the explanation is obvious: Romney, over 800 delegates, multiple state-level victories; Paul, 80 delegates, no state-level victories. Outside the Pauline evangelism, this point is significant, and is the basis for the analysis you reject as being unexplained. You will continue to believe this reality has no explanation as long as you refuse to acknowledge the explanation.
Perhaps it's a slam, but it also has real foundations.
Acknowledging that Ron Paul can't win, and making those contributions about wrangling with the Party over the platform is one thing, but to push the idea that Ron Paul can win the nomination is more than just dishonest; it's a tragically silly tinfoil dream.
This outlook does not surprise anyone when it comes from one who refuses to acknowledge reality.
The least you could do is attend the analysis instead of ignore it; to wit, I can only reiterate here what you've ignored:
Think back to 2000. Many Democratic supporters blamed Ralph Nader for peeling off Al Gore's votes (i.e., the Florida issue should not have decided the election). Or in 2004, there are plenty of stupid things to blame for Kerry's loss, such as the Swift Boat lies. But in either case, the Democratic candidates themselves carry the ultimate blame. Neither Gore nor Kerry ran strong campaigns.
And it is true that, in the end, when Mitt Romney loses the general election, he will carry the lion's share of the blame. It's his candidacy, his campaign, and he can't seem to let a day pass without embarrassing himself, unless, of course, he spends that day out of the public eye and out of earshot.
However, the longer analysis will also note that Romney buried himself trying to compete with other candidates to woo the various hardline blocs within the party, thus exacerbating his problems with various demographic blocs in the general electorate. And Ron Paul's campaign only adds to that burden, augments that effect.
And it is true that, in the end, when Mitt Romney loses the general election, he will carry the lion's share of the blame. It's his candidacy, his campaign, and he can't seem to let a day pass without embarrassing himself, unless, of course, he spends that day out of the public eye and out of earshot.
However, the longer analysis will also note that Romney buried himself trying to compete with other candidates to woo the various hardline blocs within the party, thus exacerbating his problems with various demographic blocs in the general electorate. And Ron Paul's campaign only adds to that burden, augments that effect.
If Ron Paul ends up contributing to Obama's re-election by weakening Romney's candidacy, will his supporters celebrate?
Ron Paul has more than adequately made his point within the GOP. Wang is, in this sense, suggesting that the congressman quit while he can still assert pride in this campaign's accomplishments. By pushing on, weakening Romney, and helping bolster President Obama's re-election chances, Paul is denigrating his own legacy, and for the moment, it seems his supporters are cheering that debasement.
What is Paul pushing for? Do you really think he can win the nomination and contest Obama directly by winning a procedural strategy that tells Republican voters that they don't matter? Do you really think the Party's power brokers would allow that? The best Paul and his supporters can hope for, if they're really playing for the nomination, is to shred the Party itself by dragging the Convention into absolute chaos.
Let us imagine, for a moment, that this works. Paul arrives at the convention without having won a single state at the ballot box, but also having accrued enough delegates through procedural tactics to contest Romney's nomination. The Republican Party, as a whole, has two basic choices on that front—they can give the nomination to a guy who couldn't win a state among Republican voters, or they can nominate the guy who won a bunch of states.
If the Party gives over and nominates Paul, what will that tell Republican voters? It will tell them that their votes at the ballot box on election day don't matter to the Party. This is not a notion the Republicans want front and center on August 31, when the GOP emerges from its convention and sends forth its nominee to challenge President Obama directly.
If the Party crushes the Ron Paul Revolution despite all their hard work and procedural play, will the Paulines keep their mouths shut?
There is a third option, I suppose, which is to broker the convention and drag out the process through multiple rounds of negotiation and voting, again reminding Republican voters that what they say at the ballot box doesn't really matter to the Party organization.
Most observers outside the evangelism seem to recognize there are two main routes for the Paul campaign to follow: the platform, and the running mate.
Some have suggested Rep. Paul wants his son, Rand, in the vice presidential slot. The long view suggests this would be problematic for the Romney campaign; Rand Paul has said he opposes the Civil Rights Act, and even suggested explicitly that businesses should have the right to refuse service on the basis of race or ethnicity. This won't play well in Democratic-leaning swing states, and in places like Florida and Arizona, which have Republican tendencies and high minority populations, Rand Paul might tip the scales in Obama's favor.
As to the platform, the GOP has endured its presidential aspirants trading boasts of destroying federal departments. This is not, in the end, a winning argument. It might play well among the hardline right and libertarian blocs, but it doesn't help with moderates and swing voters. And Ron Paul's doctrinal anti-abortion outlook, in which liberty omits women, isn't going to help, either. The GOP will manage an anti-abortion platform, but it is worth noting that the whole life-at-conception argument is too much for Mississippi, which scores R+10 on the Cook PVI. In other words, life-at-conception makes for popular rhetoric, but when put to a policy test, even conservative voters hesitate.
What can Paul bring to the platform that wouldn't otherwise be included? Not much, and what there is also looks extreme not only to Democratic supporters and self-described independents, but also many Republican voters.
In the end, a continuing Pauline full-court press is only going to hurt the Republican Party in November. And therein lies the problem. While he has done an excellent job of highlighting vulnerabilities in the GOP's nominating process, and this is something to be proud of, what will people say when he hamstrings the GOP going into the general election? The Paulines see problems of corruption, inefficiency, and general idiocy across the partisan spectrum, but their general tendency is toward the Republican Party.
Are they going to take down the GOP, costing Republicans the presidency and even complicating legislative elections?
Remember that there are several state organizations within the GOP that are suffering financial and organizational problems. Indeed, this is part of what Paul is exploiting in his procedural campaign. But Republicans won the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010, as well as a majority of state houses. Throwing the Party and its convention into chaos very well could complicate legislative and state office elections.
If Republicans lose their House of Representatives majority, will the Paulines pat themselves on the back and say, "Good job"?
With Republicans at the state level having opened Pandora's Box in midwestern states like Wisconsin and Ohio, if a Republican Party in disarray costs conservatives victories in midwestern state elections—such as governors and state legislatures—will the Paulines congratulate themselves?
If the whole of the Paul campaign's efforts hurts GOP representation in political offices across the nation, and thus helps advance the Democratic Party, will the Paulines cheer?
Attending the "sober up" metaphor, one could suggest that your response seems hallucinatory because it depends on an outcome that most others find impossible, that the GOP will hand Ron Paul the nomination after the Texas congressman failed to capture even a single state.
Of course, he could still win Texas, which is a proportional allocation of 155 delegates, so it is possible that Paul will arrive at the convention with one state won at the ballot box. Still, though, any suggestion that GOP power brokers will allow a Paul nomination, with all its implications, is a pipe dream.
Outside the Pauline evangelism, it is not an extraordinary suggestion that the Republican power elite simply will not allow a Ron Paul nomination to the presidential ticket.
Paul's political career either ends with this legislative session, or after his presidential tenure. As the latter is, by all appearances, not going to happen, the good doctor will ride off into the sunset in January, 2013, at the age of seventy-eight.
And how will people remember this last campaign? Will it be for rekindling libertarian fires around the nation? Exposing problems in the GOP nomination process, thus forcing Republicans to do things better? Those are not contributions to eschew. But if the effect of this last campaign is to injure the Republican Party and help Democrats? To shore up President Obama's re-election, and, perhaps, help Democrats reclaim a congressional majority?
Is a second term for Obama, and a Democratic majority, what Ron Paul and his supporters actually want? I sincerely doubt it.
And if, like an aging superstar athlete, his final season in the game costs his team a championship, that is how he will be remembered.
Frankly, it wasn't that smart of a question to begin with. For instance—
—do you really believe that encouraging Ron Paul to denigrate his legacy would be showing your "support"? Because that is the question other people see. Apparently, however, the Pauline evangelists think it's mere propaganda, and believe that Ron Paul can win the presidential nomination at Tampa this summer.
As I noted before, it seems a cross-partisan phenomenon that a candidate's supporters will blame everyone and everything else for their loss. Al Gore? John Kerry? Sure, there were complicating factors, but had they run better campaigns, perhaps there wouldn't have been room for those complications. And people can blame racism and the liberal media all they want for John McCain's failure in 2008, but the guy was obviously dishonest—he even tried to say he never called himself a "maverick", for heaven's sake—and then he went and picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. Blaming everyone else for McCain's loss in 2008 overlooks the fact of the candidate's astoundingly bad campaign.
Likewise, no matter how out of touch Romney appears, no matter how mendacious, no matter how clumsy or spineless or elitist, when he loses in November, many Republicans will blame everybody else. And the greater the friction, the stronger the tremors, that Ron Paul creates in the Republican Party come convention time, the more prominently his name will be scorned by conservative voters looking for someone to blame, and the more prominently history will speak of the Texas congressman as the monkey thrown at the Republican wrench in the 2012 presidential election.
And if it turns out, come convention time, that Ron Paul has long known he can't win and thus has been playing for platform influence, will the Pauline evangelists say they knew it all along?
____________________
Notes:
Associated Press. "Republican Delegate Tally". The New York Times. (n.d.) Elections.NYTimes.com. May 5, 2012. http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates
Maddow, Rachel. The Rachel Maddow Show. MSNBC, New York. May 1, 2012. MSNBC.MSN.com. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#47256328
