Just Wait for Super Tuesday

Some LRC bloggers, especially James Ostrowski, have been pushing the line "Sure, Paul is not doing well now, but everyone else is out of money, and he's been saving his for Super Tuesday. Then we'll show 'em!"

Well, as of right now, per CNN, "out-of-money, dead-in-the-water" Huckabee has won 4 states and at least 51 delegates, while Ron "I'll show 'em Feb 5" Paul has at best one or two second place finishes, and 0 delegates. (And mind you, I think Paul's second-place finishes are a great accomplishment, and I'm happy he did that well. But, as I posted long ago, his 20% in those states is the maximum I ever expect he can get.)

That showed 'em, alright!

If you were convinced by this talk that Paul could win, you were sold a bill of goods and Jim Henley explains why, at the end of the linked post.

Comments

  1. Let me guess: You don't think it was the MSM blackout.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous1:01 AM

    Actually Paul did win some delegates, but your overall point stands. And given the machinations of the electoral process he will have more delegates than he is credited for, but nonethless your overall point stands.

    However, Ron Paul and many who support him view this as the beginning of a long multi-year process, regardless of the short term enthusiasm of some folks.

    ReplyDelete
  3. CNN still has Paul at 0 for the day as far as I can tell, but I've heard of some deal in WV that got him 3 delegates.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I stand corrected -- CNN shows him with 5 delegates in Alaska and 5 in North Dakota at 8:10 AM.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "You don't think it was the MSM blackout."

    Three points:

    1) As I documented in a previous post, there was no "MSM blackout."

    2) Does the MSM slight fringe candidates with possibly worthy messages? Yes. Look at the coverage Kucinich and Gravel got.

    But this outcome was and is entirely predictable, and to the extent someone was saying, "Paul has a real shot at winning," they were saying, "Paul can overcome that obstacle," or they had their head in the sand.

    3) Did Paul face some especially egregious lack of coverage from the MSM? Unless someone does a statistical study showing otherwise, I say, "No way." If you tell Mike Gravel that Paul suffered from an MSM "blackout," he probably punch you in the face.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "If you were convinced by this talk that Paul could win, you were sold a bill of goods and Jim Henley explains why, at the end of the linked post."

    Are you serious? I followed the link and the last paragraph of Henley's post may be the wackiest analysis of all... Lew or whoever engineered the mass donation days to build mailing lists? Please tell me this is one of your jokes, Gene.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Engineered"? Who said anything about the mass donation days being engineered by someone (other than the actual organizer)?

    The question is, what was the original goal of the Paul campaign? Did anyone of the main drives of it actually believe Paul could win? If not, then was the real point "to build a long-run movement," a movement that obviously would be centered on LVMI/LRC?

    If this seems crazy, note that a number of LRC writers have shifted from "Let's win" to "Remember, the goal all along was to build a long-run movement," as the actual results have come in.

    If that was the goal all along, at least the leaders of the Paul campaign were not delusional. But what bugs me about it is the same thing that bothers me about every AntiWar funding raising drive -- I guarantee you, if they don't make that quarters quota, they are not shutting down the side. Maybe they'll have to cut one columnist or something, but the site will stay up.

    So why do they want to trick us into giving them support? It's like the Mattress stores always running fire sales.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sorry about all the typos above, but I don't think blogger allows comment editing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Put it this way, Stephen: A couple of months ago, Lew was talking like RP's march to the White House was a foregone conclusion. (I'm not going to look up quotes, because there were so many emphatic statements of this that I don't think anyone will dispute it, but I'll find quotes should there be an argument.)

    Now, Lew has been around politics for a long time, and is a pretty bright man. Do you think his perceptions were so far off that he really thought a guy who can't crack 10% nationally, whose views are radically outside the mainstream, and who has no national name recognition -- to cite just a few problems! -- was going to win everything?

    I can't believe it. And the more I saw it, the more it bothered me. I can't conceive that Lew ever really believed Paul was going to win -- he was saying it so that a bunch of 25-year-olds would go freeze their butts off wandering around New Hampshire for no pay.

    And I just didn't feel that good about that.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh, and I realize it was for a good cause. But say, "RP is a long shot, we know, but we can use his campaign to build a long-term movement for liberty." Don't guarantee he's going to win just to get people pumped up!

    ReplyDelete
  11. I speak for no one, but I thought the point was just to try. As far as I know, no one knows how to move things in a libertarian direction. We basically figure that we're screwed no matter what we do. But it doesn't seem right to just give up. So we're all just trying different things. I'd say this experiment was at least as valid as LP putting up a pres. Candidate.

    Do you know what we should be doing, Gene?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm down with ya, Stephen. I gave money to the campaign. Twice. You can probably even look up my name online. Trying is cool.

    But what was coming out on the LRC blog wasn't, "Let's give this our best shot." It was, "The Paul campaign is unstoppable."

    Did people really think that? Or was that a tactic, kind of like having a going-out-of-business sale all the time?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous3:41 PM

    The Ron Paul Midnight Madness sale?

    "We are slashing prices! Everything must go!"

    or perhaps;

    "We are slashing expectations, but still donate!"

    Only a handful of his supporters can still command my respect after this mess.

    ReplyDelete
  14. brian n. wrote: Only a handful of his supporters can still command my respect after this mess.

    Can you elaborate? What did hundreds of thousands (minus 5) people do to lose your respect?

    (I get why you don't like, say, PhysicistDave from the other thread, but surely you are not holding Ron Paul Girl liable for his posts.)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous4:02 AM

    Sez Bob; Can you elaborate? What did hundreds of thousands (minus 5) people do to lose your respect?

    Well. I guess I ought to qualify what I have to say from now on, shouldn't I? Is that what you want, clear, readable statements that don't require further clarification? Well then you're going to have to sit through just that, now.

    I don't mean all of his supporters, just certain kinds. Namely, libertarian pundits and such. Theorists who knew better. One who went overboard in his support was Block, for whom I used to have an immense amount of respect and admiration, and this makes me uncertain. It's those who said things that amounted more or less to "support Ron Paul or fuck you!"

    One of the libertarians I respect most is a Paul supporter. His reasons are sound. I'm just not sure I agree that it's the right approach. It's a strategic question, the imperative (and the stakes) of which I don't deny.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous7:57 PM

    The page is so wonderful that I want to write something about myself.
    I am so happy to get some latale online gold and the latale gold is given by my close friend who tells me that the latale money is the basis to enter into the game. Therefore, I should buy latale online gold with the spare money and I have gained some cheap latale gold from other players.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

"Machine Learning"

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness