If Jimmy, Michael, Bill, and John Could Do It, Why Can’t Ron?

Posted by Eric F. Langborgh on 09 Jul 2007 at 05:40 pm

I just found this interesting list of facts concerning polls and presidential politics over at LewRockwell.com, and I think it is worth exploring here:

At this point in the cycle, national polls are entirely a reflection of name identification, not voters’ views of the candidates.

“In early 1975, Carter was polling at 1% (he went on to win the Presidency).

“In early 1987, Dukakis was polling at 1% (he went on to win the Democratic nomination).

“In early 1991, Clinton was at 2% (he went on to win the Presidency).

“In the spring of 1999, John McCain was polling at 3% (he went on to win the NH primary).”

The common refrain from the Establishment — of either Party — is to dismiss candidates that challenge the status quo. The basis for this dismissal is the polls. The media engages in the same dismissal, attempting to winnow the field down for us, despite the fact that the MSM hardly speaks for most of us in the actual electorate. But who in America, outside of Washington, D.C. and political junkies like myself are paying attention or even care a year and a half out from the election? And if no one (relatively speaking) even cares, then why would we make polls the barometer of whether or not a candidate is credible or not? If the people don’t know a candidate by name yet, and aren’t paying attention enough to learn, then of course the lesser-known candidates are going to be blips on the polling radars compared to the Establishment candidates. (As a side note, this is why I have argued elsewhere against the use of polls in determining who should be allowed into the presidential debates; that determination should be made on the basis of whether a candidate is on enough ballots to be able to theoretically win the race of the White House. But I digress.)

This is not to say that the campaigning that is going on right now is unimportant. Each of the candidates from previous cycles mentioned above that went on to win their party’s nomination and perhaps even the White House did so in large part because of what they were doing on the ground at this point in building their support — despite the polls. In this sense the straw polls of activists within the early primary and caucus states are more important than the more “scientific” national and even state polls. Because these straw polls demonstrate the effect candidates are having on the activists on the ground, and those activists in turn will convince their less active friends and neighbors to support their favored candidate and will drive the effort to get voters to the polls on the day that actually counts.

All of which is to say, if Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, and McCain could go on to achieve such success in their runs for their party’s respective nominations for the White House — back when “viral marketing” through a near-free medium like the Internet wasn’t available — then why can’t Ron Paul, whose success thus far on the Internet generating grassroots support is unparalleled, achieve similar heights? The phenomenal numbers in this regard that I posted in my blog, “YouTubin’ Ron: Lapping the Field,” are even better now.

The momentum for the Ron Paul campaign in terms of actual strength on the physical ground is building, too. For instance, Dr. Paul is showing great and growing strength in the straw polls of important battleground states and of movement conservatives: placing second with 5% to Romney in heavily Mormon Utah, fourth with 12% in California, second with 16.7% in the National Taxpayers Union straw poll, second in Georgia with 17%, and, in the latest, first in the New Hampshire Taxpayers straw poll with 65%. Clearly, these straw polls are far from scientific, but they are encouraging measures of the on-ground strength of the Ron Paul campaign nonetheless.

Despite this, the GOP Establishment is still trying to freeze Ron Paul out on the basis of media polls. In Iowa recently they succeeded in doing just that, though their claimed reasoning of “credibility” for inviting or not inviting candidates to participate in a forum was hardly credible itself, as I have pointed out elsewhere. But this effort backfired, and had the unintended effect of demonstrating the strength of Paul’s campaign far more than his inclusion would have, as I explain in my post, “GOP Establishment’s War on Ron Paul Backfires — Again,” as Paul attracted more supporters than the rest of the gathered candidates combined.

As a result, with the second fundraising quarter complete, despite national polls, Ron Paul has seen contributions to his campaign increase four-fold over the first quarter. With 80% of this funding coming in over the Internet, the cost of raising this money is miniscule compared to the other candidates. So successful has this formula been, in fact, that Ron Paul has pulled ahead of John McCain in term of cash-on-hand — even though McCain was considered the favorite to win the GOP nomination not that long ago.

To wrap this post up, I want to address the question that is sure to arise: if few people are paying attention yet, why spend the energy talking about the campaign now? Part of the answer is already provided above: what we do now makes a world of difference in changing those poll numbers seven and eight months from now. That’s why I have argued that Ron Paul should be the candidate of the Religious Right. He should be the choice of conservatives. Everyone who believes in the Constitution should support him. In short, I believe that the people that can swing the Republican nomination in Ron Paul’s favor should in fact do so. Therefore, I have raised my voice in the effort to help make that happen.

Now, I am under no illusions that Ron Paul’s chances are greater than they are. He has a tough road to hoe, and I believe that even if he doesn’t win, the longer he stays in the race the better America will before it because of the issues he brings to the table. I’m no political operative. I’ve never worked for a campaign. I am a very small fish in a vast ocean. But the cumulative efforts of thousands of small fishes like me — even in just spreading the word like I am doing now — can make a huge difference. After all, it has before. Why not now?

© 2004-2008 Eric F. Langborgh