Prediction: 2012 (Part 1)

I’ve been contemplating whether to go down this path or not—I am a Paul supporter (although more reservedly so this year than 4 years ago, for a number of reasons).  I know that there are many—some of whom read this blog—who will take exception to what I’m going to write, but…

I’ve been trying to come up with some way that Ron Paul could snag the GOP nomination, and the odds seem long (although Intrade is giving him almost as good of odds as Gingrich).  Still, the deck sure seems to be stacked against him—the odds-on favorite is still Romney.

I put together a little graphic, using my handy-dandy spreadsheet, which shows the current RealClearPolitics averages in the first four primary/caucus states, as well as the national standings.

EDIT:  Updated for new national numbers (Gingrich gains, Romney falls, marginally):

Ron Paul is doing well in Iowa, although that would appear to be the state where the race is the tightest.  To suggest, though, that Ron Paul is going to “win” Iowa is probably to make too much of a leap at this point.  AND, even if he did WIN the caucus, the process does not guarantee delegates to the national convention (what the primary season is really all about).

In the Republican caucuses, each voter officially casts his or her vote by secret ballot. Voters are presented blank sheets of paper with no candidate names on them.^[6] After listening to some campaigning for each candidate by caucus participants, they write their choices down and the Republican Party of Iowa tabulates the results at each precinct and transmits them to the media.^[7] In 2008, some precincts used a show of hands ^[8] or preprinted ballots.^[9] The non-binding results are tabulated and reported to the state party, which releases the results to the media. Delegates from the precinct caucuses go on to the county conventions, which choose delegates to the district conventions, which in turn selects delegates to the Iowa State Convention. Thus, it is the Republican Iowa State Convention, not the precinct caucuses, which selects the ultimate delegates from Iowa to the Republican National Convention. All delegates are officially unbound from the results of the precinct caucus, although media organizations either estimate delegate numbers by estimating county convention results or simply divide them proportionally.

So, while caucus wins in Iowa would be a nice feather in the cap for the Paul campaign, they’re still a long ways away from being able to claim delegates from Iowa.

New Hampshire’s primary, which one would think—because of the state’s “live free” attitude, should be a strong place for Paul—looks to be (at this point)—a likely win for Romney, absent some major scandal in the next few weeks.  Even with a Ron Paul win in the Iowa caucuses, there’s only a week between Iowa on January 3 and New Hampshire on the 10th—that’s a big gap to make up in momentum in that short of a period of time.  It’s not impossible, but I suspect that in the next week to 10 days—in the pre-Christmas to New Year’s time period—that those who are only modestly engaged in the political system will largely tune out, so these numbers are probably not going to move dramatically before the caucuses and New Hampshire primary.

Let’s take the most positive view, though.  Let’s assume that Ron Paul can somehow both dominate in Iowa, AND come from behind and win New Hampshire.  Even then, the deck is really stacked against him, and I’m not sure how he can make up the ground.  Still polling in single digits in both South Carolina and Florida—both states where there is a significant military/neoconnish presence—he’ll be doing well, I think, to come in 3rd in those states.  I haven’t dug into the rules on those states delegate selection process, so I don’t know whether a 10%  or lower finish will net him any delegates; some states are winner-take-all, some are proportional (based on vote attained, although some have a minimum vote required to be eligible for delegates).  Regardless, the South Carolina primary is January 21 and the Florida one is January 31, which means that there isn’t a whole lot of time to pick up steam in those states.

I suspect Ron Paul will do better than last time, and will be a potentially larger force in the GOP Convention next year. But I just don’t see a path to victory.  I hope I’m wrong, but he is—I believe—still perceived to be too far outside of the Republican mainstream to pick up the nomination.  The people who listen to Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh on a regular basis hear words like “America blamer” and “Isolationist” tossed around where Paul is concerned, and they’ll start to believe that without exploring what that’s referencing.  

Thinking positively about Iowa and New Hampshire, though, here’s what I predict would happen IF Ron Paul finished strong in those states:

1) A win in Iowa: Governor Branstad and other Iowa politicians will say “Ignore that.”  Even more will be made of the newsletters that Eric mentioned here.  EDIT: They’re already getting nervous.  Since I wrote this, I’ve run into several articles making mention of the newsletters—including this one, which purports to quote some of the more incendiary language.

2) A win or surprisingly strong showing in New Hampshire: more pressure will be placed on 2nd tier candidates like Bachmann and Santorum to withdraw.  The gloves will come off, and the GOP establishment machine will go into full throttle operation.  The implications about Ron Paul’s supposedly racist past, the “anti-Americanism”, his “crazy” ideas about government, his “isolationism”—all of these will become more overt in the weeks heading into South Carolina and Florida.  Lindsey Graham will be the South Carolina attack dog.

3) If the GOP hasn’t managed to completely trivialize Paul by the end of January, and a clear frontrunner hasn’t emerged (Romney or Gingrich?), deals will start being cut to try and consolidate the the “establishment” vote.

Ron Paul will not be the nominee of the Republican Party.  In my gut, I think it’s going to be Romney.  He “looks” like a Republican, he doesn’t have the baggage that will eventually diminish Gingrich, and much of the Party establishment (including Nebraska’s Governor and our Republican Senator) has gotten on the Romney train.  I don’t think he’s the most principled candidate, but I think that ultimately he’ll look like the “best” and “safest” candidate to many Republicans.

So, what happens to the Paul folks?  This is one of the questions that a lot of us have been trying to answer for 4 years now.  Because Paul supporters tend to be more idealistic than the typical Republican activist, they have a very hard time holding their noses and playing nice with people they don’t agree with “for the sake of the Party.”  Because they tend not to want to “rally ‘round the nominee”, they have trouble (at least in a lot of places) establishing a firm foothold in the Party, where the goal is to “elect Republicans”—not necessarily principled ideologues.

It seems to me that the tension in the GOP with the Ron Paul contingent is not going to lessen anytime soon.  Many Ron Paul folks believe (rightly, in many instances), that they and their candidate are treated unfairly by the establishment—that the game isn’t being played on a level playing field.  That perception certainly doesn’t increase the likelihood that they’ll want to to be “team players” in the GOP.  But, unless they become team players, they’ll have trouble really being anything but “outsiders” who can’t be “trusted.”

Ron Paul could, of course, help improve that situation—by throwing his endorsement to whoever wins the nomination…but I’d be surprised if he did, because then he’d be a “sell out” to his supporters (not to mention that he has too much integrity to do that). 

But, let’s argue that Paul has gotten a fair shake by the establishment this time.  He’s been included in every debate.  He’s gotten a lot of media attention (in spite of what some supporters argued was a “black out”).  What more do his supporters want?  This is politics.  You can’t demand that everyone agree with you, or see your way of looking at this—you have to compete and convince in the “free market” of ideas; and if your ideas aren’t convincing, maybe it’s just not your time yet.  So do you take your ball and go home?  Or are you a good sport, and keep playing, in the hope that an opportunity to win or comeback will come along sometime?

I don’t think Ron Paul will run a 3rd Party race if/when he loses the GOP nomination.  I suspect that he’ll assume his role as “elder statesman” of the liberty movement as he moves into retirement.  A 3rd party race for Paul would be destructive for his supporters who have made inroads into the Party, as well as being damaging to the political careers of his political (and familial) heirs, e.g. Rand Paul.  Not to mention that he’d probably have trouble getting on the ballot in some states because of “sore loser” laws.

It is obvious that Gary Johnson is going to run as a Libertarian Party candidate for President.  IF he gets that party’s nomination in May, I think it likely that many Paul supporters will move in his direction for the General Election (some will move quietly, since they’re working within the GOP; some more vocally). 

Johnson’s campaign has the potential (assuming he gets the nomination—not a “done deal” by any stretch of the imagination) to help to grow the Libertarian Party in a way that other LP candidates haven’t done.  The largest vote percentage that the LP has ever gotten was just over 1% in 1980.  Johnson might not be able to do better than that, but then, again, he might.  He’s a personable, yet not flashy kind of guy.  If the LP has been building around the country, he could—at the very least—help them to build their base.  Imagine a LP Presidential candidate going around the country, campaigning with LP candidates for Congress or state office; imagine local news coverage of both, bringing into more popular view the idea that neither of the two major parties really means what they say—either on matters of fiscal responsibility, smaller government, or individual liberty. 

Some will argue that a Johnson run (or a Paul run 3rd Party) will doom the Republican candidate to defeat, by splitting the GOP vote in key states.  Maybe, but I think that a REAL libertarian draws from both the fiscal conservative/socially moderate portion of the GOP, as well as from the socially liberal/civil libertarian/fiscally moderate portion of the Democratic Party.

Johnson won’t win—much as I’d like to see him do just that.  But he could usher in the beginnings of a REAL realignment of the parties, as the anti-statist remnants of both parties move for a time in a different direction.  Whether that means that Barack Obama would win a second term—or whether the Republican nominee could win—I don’t know.  But whichever happens, a strong showing by the LP (especially if there were strong showings at all levels), could result in some serious shifting of loyalties.  It won’t happen overnight, but critical elections—which this could be—can mark the beginning of a realignment pattern.

I’ll have some less long-winded predictions next week.

              

Comments

[Ron Schwab]

This is a great, thought-provoking analysis, and it introduces a dilemma for those of us who have struggled on,continuing to carry water for the elephant in the hope libertarians might at least have a meaningful voice in deveoping policy in the Republican Party. Do we once again work for and vote for the lesser of evils? Is this the best we can do? Or is there another road that would at least make us more comfortable with our consciences and give us the solace of being keepers of the flame?

[Ed Stevens]

Laura:

I can neither agree with, nor argue with, your analysis ... largely because there is simply too much time till election day and too many variables about which too little information/data is currently available. But I would offer a scenario that, while undeniably cynical, is becoming more attractive to me by the day. It goes something like this:

I think that Obama's re-election is virtually certain thanks to the sorry quality of the field of Republican contenders, so we should all work energetically to elect Republicans (or Libertarians would work also)to the Senate so that both the House and the Senate are under the control of essentially "anti-Obama" forces. This would assure four years of governmental policy stasis and hyper-gridlock ... which, of course, to we small-government types would be very good news indeed. Short of naming a few post offices, declaring pizza a vegetable, and spending us irretrievably into the poor-house, Washington hasn't accomplished anything laudable since Abe was a pup ... so putting the entire Washington establishment into a coma can only be viewed as a good thing. To update an old proverb - "that government is better that governs least, and that government is best of all that governs not at all."

Just a thought ...

[Laura Ebke]

TypePad HTML Email
Ed:  I agree that there is too much “unknown” to adequately define what will happen on election day 2012.  As for the Republican nomination, I still think (maybe even more so today than when I wrote this a day or two ago), that Romney will be the nominee.  What happens after that is pretty much irrelevant:  I’m not sure that there is THAT much difference between Romney and Obama in terms of how much they’d be willing to grow the government to accomplish their own means (or for that matter, that much difference between ANY Republicans and ANY Democrat—safe one or two on each side); the difference is merely in the specific areas or policies for which they’d exercise government growth. I agree 100% that we ought to be focusing on getting “good guys” (and gals) into Congress and at the state level.  3 ½ years ago I wrote this: http://redstateeclectic.us.com/article.php?articleid=14 , which promoted the idea of voting for “divided government” instead of a particular person. If Barack Obama is in the White House, our only hope is to elect Republicans and Libertarians to Congress who will (as you put it) “put the Washington establishment into a coma.”  Until such time as “small government types” can become the dominant force in American politics again (which, as you point out, has been a VERY long time), our best hope is probably to let hyperpartisanship keep applying pressure to the brakes in the hopes that damage isn’t too great. Of course not just *any* Republican will work—some of those guys will bend to the President’s will easier than the Democrats.  Nebraskans need to figure out which of the four main contenders running (I’m not including Zimmerman) will be the most principled and small government/libertarianish leaning, and elect him (or her).  I’m pretty sure I know who’s DOESN’T fit that bill, but not so sure about which one or two DOES. Merry Christmas from eastern Nebraska to central Nebraska (although we’re still 3rd District compadres). 

[Eric Larson]

Today, I think, we find ourselves in a situation totally of Ron Paul's making. By that I mean we have a candidate who has caught fire. He is surging in Iowa and within striking distance in New Hampshire. But...

From what I can tell, Ron Paul has never made inroads with the GOP. With anyone at all within the GOP so that he has no insiders, no colleagues, and no institutional support to help him in his quest to win. It explains why he didn't pass much legislation until he had an enormous grassroots organization behind him.

I agree that Romney will be an almost impossible candidate to beat. Perhaps the Ron Paul campaign can provide adequate training to its caucusers in other states and convention attendees in primary states to navigate hostile conventions (and yes, they will be very hostile).

One could argue that many Paul supporters are battle tested from 2008 but I think the numbers are still too small. Just watching the tea party forces attempt to penetrate the state party here in Michigan showed that they couldn't succeed because of the establishment.

In summary, Paula needs either a ground swell of consvpervatives who embrace his campaign and help work against Romney or he needs to run the tables early. If he wins the first 2 and then wins or nearly wins in SC, NV, ME, and FL then perhaps he has a chance to win.

[Laura Ebke]

TypePad HTML Email
I tend to like the RCP polling averages, because I think it’s too easy to pick and choose your polls to suit your purposes—and because it tends to flatten out the wild differences from one poll to the other.  Most of the polls have the same ordering (at least in the top 3 or 4 candidates)—it’s just the margins that are different. That said, I’m skeptical about Paul being in “striking distance” in New Hampshire.  Anything’s possible, I guess, but if you look at the difference between him and Romney, in order for Paul to pull a win, people either have to leave Romney and go to him (rather than Newt, Huntsman, Bachmann, Santorum or Perry), or else—assuming that Romney’s numbers are stable, Gingrich’s people need to migrate to Paul, OR, all of the other candidates need to drop out and all of their current support needs to go to him.  I just find those virtually impossible odds.  Ron Paul stands alone—philosophically, and from an integrity standpoint—in the nomination race as it’s shaken out.  The other six remaining  candidates (I’m excluding Johnson at this point), have more in common with each other than they have with Ron Paul.  I am really hard pressed to see many of their supporters who would move toward Paul; maybe some of Huntsman’s (on foreign policy), maybe some of Bachmann’s (Tea Party)—but certainly not most of them. Some of Paul’s supporters are indeed battle tested.  But many more (I’m afraid) are still buying into the notion that “things are different” and “there are more of us this time”—and that the GOP establishment won’t know what hit them.  Maybe that’ll be the case in some places.  But I think people are vastly underestimating the power of the “establishment” to martial a lot of human resources if they really need to.     

[Eric Larson]

We have a running joke in my family about basketball. "I'd rather be up by two than down by two."

While watching Kentucky and Michigan State play in the tournament years ago to get to the final four, the game was close and stressful all the way to the end. As any true fan will admit, you are convinced that your team's collapse is imminent and just around the corner when there is no margn for error. With time running out in the second half and MSU up 2 and Kentucky with the ball my dad gave us the famous quote. Which, when you stop and think about it is completely ridiculous and obvious. But states the fact that the game was in doubt and we would rather be blowing them out.

I can say the same about Ron Paul this time. If, in April you told me Ron Paul had a really good chance to win Iowa and would be don 13 points going into NH 3 weeks away I would have said you were crazy. Sometimes, the hardest thing to deal with is success.

[Laura Ebke]

TypePad HTML Email
We’ll see.  I like to be right, but in this instance, I would be happy to be wrong. 

[Eric Larson]

Well, if there's one thing you can't anticipate in this race is the change in opinion of the GOP electorate. They keep changing their minds and perhaps if it comes down to Paul versus Romney the tea party pulls for Paul and the anti-Romney folks as well. It's too far out to know how frustrated the voters may get. Perhaps conservatives will push for Paul to force a brokered convention. Anything is possible. Can't wait.

[George Whitfield]

Laura,
That is a very well thought-out and well-written analysis of the situation. I have supported Ron Paul as much as I can from overseas: I have contributed the legal maximum, I have donated to Revolution PAC, I host the Seoul Ron Paul Meetup Group and I even changed my Florida voter registration to Republican so can vote for Ron in the Presidential primary there. But this morning I also made my flight reservations to attend the Libertarian Party National Convention in Las Vegas, the first week of May. I have been an LP Party member long enough to know that we have our faults, but we also have a purpose that is bigger and better than our personal foibles and some of us are really stubborn. So you are right, we are going to run the best campaign for President and every office we have candidates for, that we possibly can.

[Texan for American Liberty]

I hope that Ron Paul supporters find Libertarian or liberty-minded Republican State Rep and State Senate, gubernatorial, and sheriff candidates in their state who will nullify unconstitutional acts like Obamacare, TSA groping, the EPA, FDA, etc., and get them elected so that we can start pushing back on the feds. I think that the federal government will never limit its own power. The states will have to do it.

I think that supporting Libertarian Party candidates, especially at the state level and sheriff level is a way to build an institution that people can come to when the big-government parties of Washington continue to fail, and the people realize that both Washington and the two-party system is hopelessly broken.