So apparently a more moderate and a less moderate conservative did quite well, and Ron Paul came in third.
And apparently two other conservatives are out and their backers are free to look for someone else. Let me guess how New Hampshire is going to turn out...
I swear, guys - when we said Ron Paul had no chance it wasn't anything personal. It's (a.) just math, and (b.) well maybe a little personal 'cause the guy thinks we're statists and we're amazed you think he's a "nice guy" despite the fact that he's pretty mean to people like me.
But it's mostly (a.) just math.
Ron Paul's demise is a foregone conclusion, I think. I'm personally a little worried about Romney now. And I'm only worried about Romney because I'm worried about Obama. If Obama's going to be a one term president, I want a President Romney.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
It is only a demise if you think Paul's main goal is to win the Presidency. I've never thought that. I've always thought of him as a movement guy; as in create a movement that others will further. For being a major dark horse Paul did well; he more than doubled his total from 2008; and he has some momentum for New Hampshire and beyond.
ReplyDeleteDon't you mean that you think he's pretty mean to people like "us?" If you're going to go all silly and use the first person plural at least be consistent.
According to Perry's twitter account, etc., he hasn't hung up his spurs.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYeah, it does look a bit sulky.
You guys need to lighten up - it was a crack on myself.
ReplyDeleteAnd anonymous - I'm going to start deleting your comments if you don't stop. You don't need a name, just a pseudonym.
The point is this is what a lot of people have been saying for a long time, but every time we even mention this fairly reasonable point the Paulites get up in arms and offended. It's just the math of it. An 80% conservative GOP electorate is not going to nominate a libertarian and every primary is going to converge on that mathematical reality.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm wrong I'll be happy to admit I made a mistake, but I doubt I'm going to be wrong.
It's not because the media black-balls him. It's because he's trying to get the nomination of a conservative party. The media dismisses him because they're smart enough to realize that and they and a lot of the public recognize that he's something of a joke.
"You guys need to lighten up - it was a crack on myself."
ReplyDeleteThat's good then. But there are other, non-suprising ways to interpret it. Looked a bit sulky to this Sith Lord.
"An 80% conservative GOP electorate is not going to nominate a libertarian and every primary is going to converge on that mathematical reality."
If 80% of them are "conservative," why did Romney win (barely) in Iowa (a state with lots of evangelicals, etc.)? The Republican party is pretty diverse and there are votes up for grabs. That doesn't mean that Paul will win (unlikely), but I reject your characterization of the G.O.P.
The Paul campaign always had a longshot strategy, if some Paulites didn't realize that, well, that's because they're really passionate about their candidate - I really don't fault them that or get my boxers in a wad over it.
I meant to say this earlier but forgot; Santorum is really pushing populism more now than anything. I think he is the populist candidate of the "winners" in Iowa. So being a less moderate conservative doesn't really describe him the way I see him.
"The media dismisses him because they're smart enough to realize that and they and a lot of the public recognize that he's something of a joke."
ReplyDeleteSo it isn't that he is running as a non-conservative in a 80% conservative party, it is that he is a joke? Now you got me confused.
I gotta ask, did you at one time support Ron Paul and now don't? For the record, the Sith never supported Ron Paul (nor didn't support him).
If you're curious, the Sith gave Paul a 0.05% chance of winning the Presidency a year ago; now we give him a 5% chance. His campaign has played its cards well so far. We Sith still assume the CW to be true; Republicans take turns and it is Romney's turn.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to hear more about what Jon Huntsman's up to. On the other hand, I don't remember if it was Joe (not Joel) Klein's recent piece saying that we should congratulate the Republicans for being fast and loose with the facts and prompting a crisis of confidence in the deficit, rather than in the real economy, that reinvigorated my interest. That is, to put it another way, is he only slightly less insane about the economy than his fellow candidates? Or more so?
ReplyDeleteI was almost sucked into the middle of defending Santorum on Wikipedia last year - in fact I still rather regret not having done so because it was a larger point for factual and journalistic integrity. In any case, it is interesting that despite his obvious craziness that the Iowa caucus decided to reward him as far as they did. I sympathize with his views, but being wistful doesn't make you less wrong.
The demise of Ron Paul is welcome insofar as it drains out one of the festering boils of thoughtless cultish behavior, or at least pushes it to the side a little where it's not quite so visible and so ready to be poked at for hours on end. I think I learned my lesson - next time, use a needle.
Edwin,
ReplyDeleteJust curious what views of Santorum's you sympathize with. His ranting economic populism or his ranting social conservatism.
@ Lord Vader
ReplyDeleteI sympathize with Santorum on abortion, in the same way that I sympathize with somebody who really wants Santa Claus to exist. It's wistfulness for an age of innocence, perhaps, that never existed and which has caused a great deal of suffering when people attempt to act on it. I am deeply mistrustful of everything he has tried to do on abortion - but I don't fault his motivations.