The Ron Paul Juggernaut Rolls On
In the most recent polls from the state's having primaries today, Paul is:
Last in Georgia, with 8% of the vote.
Third in Massachusetts, with 7%.
Last in Ohio, with 11%.
Last in Oklahoma, with 7%.
Third in Vermont, with 11%.
(I did not cherry-pick the states in which he is doing the worst: the above is every state for which RealClearPolitics has a poll.)
Here's a question you should now ask yourself, if you once thought Paul had a "good chance" of winning the GOP nomination: "How did my views wind up so out of line with reality?" One fact about Paul's candidacy has always been glaringly obvious: he is a strongly anti-war candidate in a strongly pro-war party. That is all one ever needed to know to realize he has never had a chance of getting the nomination.
Look, I love my daughter, and am happy she is now in her second year of competitive swimming. But if she comes to me today and tells me, "Dad, I'm going to win a gold medal at this year's Summer Olympic games," I will respond, "I'm sorry, my dear, you don't have a chance of even making the Olympics this year. Maybe, if you work very hard, in a decade you might win a medal. But to think you'll win this summer is delusional." Telling her that is honest and helpful, and not an attempt to "sabotage" her swimming career. But some people become so invested in their delusions that to question them is considered treason.
And what about the people who knew all of the above but were selling others the delusion?
Last in Georgia, with 8% of the vote.
Third in Massachusetts, with 7%.
Last in Ohio, with 11%.
Last in Oklahoma, with 7%.
Third in Vermont, with 11%.
(I did not cherry-pick the states in which he is doing the worst: the above is every state for which RealClearPolitics has a poll.)
Here's a question you should now ask yourself, if you once thought Paul had a "good chance" of winning the GOP nomination: "How did my views wind up so out of line with reality?" One fact about Paul's candidacy has always been glaringly obvious: he is a strongly anti-war candidate in a strongly pro-war party. That is all one ever needed to know to realize he has never had a chance of getting the nomination.
Look, I love my daughter, and am happy she is now in her second year of competitive swimming. But if she comes to me today and tells me, "Dad, I'm going to win a gold medal at this year's Summer Olympic games," I will respond, "I'm sorry, my dear, you don't have a chance of even making the Olympics this year. Maybe, if you work very hard, in a decade you might win a medal. But to think you'll win this summer is delusional." Telling her that is honest and helpful, and not an attempt to "sabotage" her swimming career. But some people become so invested in their delusions that to question them is considered treason.
And what about the people who knew all of the above but were selling others the delusion?
Gene,
ReplyDeleteWhat should people have done instead? If the choice was between Obama, Romney, etc, and supporting Ron Paul who had everything stacked against him, then I think the moral choice, if given that, would be to support Ron Paul.
As well, your daughter winning the Olympics at her age isn't a life or death situation. I'm sure, if someone came to you and said, "Unless your daughter competes and wins in the Olympics to win a gold medal, a lot of people will die; however, if she doesn't try to compete and gives up, people will die anyway, and no one will think there is any alternative. So, Mr. Callahan, isn't it at least worth having your daughter try, even though she might loose? Isn't some chance, however so small, better than nothing?"
That's kind of how I have thought about this. In the case of our society, it seems that in cases like Ron Paul campaign, even if he looses, he still wins; that is, he still makes people aware. However, I have heard many people, say, "Well, I'd vote for him, but he's not going to get the nomination," or some variety of that. Besides, getting 20% of the Republican Party to be anti-war conservatives, libertarians, etc, whatever, is itself a victory. Otherwise, we could all just pack up, go home, and hope for the best.
"What should people have done instead? If the choice was between Obama, Romney, etc, and supporting Ron Paul who had everything stacked against him, then I think the moral choice, if given that, would be to support Ron Paul."
ReplyDeleteHuh? Did I criticize anyone for supporting Ron Paul?!
I support my daughter's swimming. That support does not, however, include delusional beliefs about how well she will do.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFather Fetter, you seem to be attacking a post I simply did not write.
ReplyDeleteI also never said Ron Paul should not have run. The Charlotte Hornets should keep going out and playing basketball and trying to win games. But if you're a Hornets fan, there is something seriously wrong if you think there is a "good chance" they will win the NBA championship.
Please re-read my post. Was I criticizing people who said "Hey, it's a real long-shot, but Paul might as well make the effort"? I think not.
So what would you suggest an American who is anti-war and anti-deficit do?
ReplyDeletetraumerei, did I say one shouldn't support Ron Paul? If my daughter was racing Michael Phelps, I would cheer for her and hope she does her best. I just wouldn't tell everyone that it is "likely" she will win!
ReplyDeleteI understand what you're saying, but it boils down to telling excitable, naive people "don't be stupid". When you're facing the odds Paul is, I think that's wasting one of your most valuable assets (the excitement, not the stupidity). You want to be honest to prevent them from feeling sad? The video linked to at your link is no longer available, so I don't know how much of an exaggeration calling it treason is, but it seems safe to say that if you wanted Ron Paul to be elected, you wouldn't roll your eyes about his candidacy in an interview. If even his nominal supporters are embarrassed of him or think it's a vanity campaign, who's going to take him seriously? I am always amazed by the Machiavellian scheming that your average news watcher will pull out of his ass about electability, so it's not hard to believe that something like that could have an affect.
ReplyDeleteAnother point that made me hopeful early on was the fact that if liberals were capable of thinking for themselves and actually held the principles they claim to, they should feel drawn to him. Very naive, I know. But I read some pinkos who floated the idea of supporting Paul.
It's one thing that you threw me under the bus. But now your own daughter? You statists have no shame.
ReplyDeleteI realize you sort of did a mea culpa with the SOB post after this one, Gene, but as of this writing:
ReplyDelete==> Paul is in 2nd place in Vermont with 25%.
==> 2nd place in Virginia with 40%.
==> 2nd place in ND with 28%.
==> 2nd place in Idaho with 17%.
==> 3rd place in Alaska with 21%.
Indeed, except that he won Georgia, Gingrich is arguably the big loser tonight, even in an absolute sense (let alone relative). But I don't think you were flipping out in December when Gingrich was saying he was likely going to be the nominee; it seemed like he had "momentum" etc.
I'm not saying a betting man should have picked Ron Paul 6 months ago, but I *am* saying that your cynicism and charges of skullduggery are not nearly as objectively sound as you seem to think.
But Bob, when Gingrich pulled ahead, I quite definitely was flipping out.
DeletePaul had a pretty good night. Virginia was surprising, but I think his total there would have *dropped* had Gingrich and Santorum already dropped out nationally.
ReplyDeleteMy daughter has no chance of winning the Olympics this year. Ron Paul has no shot at the GOP nomination. I don't say either of those things because of cynicism.
Good evening, Dr. Callahan.
ReplyDelete"Paul had a pretty good night. Virginia was surprising. . ."
I live in California, and by the time the primaries get to this state, the race will probably be over -- if it's not already. Nevertheless, I plan on voting for Ron Paul, both in the primary and in the general election.
I do not see, however, how it can be said that Paul had a surprising night in Virginia: there were only two people running in Virgina. So, all the anti-Mitt vote had to go to Dr. Paul. Now, if he had won Virginia, then I would say that it was surprising.
Not sure if my second and third comment went through. If so, please delete this one.
ReplyDeleteBasically: Your post-Iowa blog explains the surpise reference. And, to completely switch gears: Your sleeping activity makes me think that you may be part of the Cullen clan. (If you have a daughter, I am sure that you understand that reference.)
Hi, anti-hotel!
ReplyDeleteWhat about my sleeping?
Well, it seems as if you don't sleep, just like a vampire. (The Cullens are the name of the vampire family in the Twilgiht series.)
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean? I'm sleeping right now!
ReplyDelete"Another point that made me hopeful early on was the fact that if liberals were capable of thinking for themselves and actually held the principles they claim to, they should feel drawn to him. Very naive, I know. But I read some pinkos who floated the idea of supporting Paul."
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as an actual pinko, capable of thinking for myself, there's not much basis to this argument. I could explain why, but only if it would be taken as an explanation, if you know what I mean.
There wasn't much of an argument, just a note that there are some things Paul says that liberals should appreciate. I know it wasn't obvious, but I don't think of liberals and pinkos as synonymous. I tend prefer pinkos generally, mostly because they think for themselves more (since Marx died).
DeleteJim, stop kidding us: only libertarians think for themselves!
ReplyDeleteBut, Gene, that doesn't mean I'm not capable! Just that I don't do it . . .
ReplyDelete"traumerei, did I say one shouldn't support Ron Paul?"
ReplyDeleteI never said you said that. But given your take of the Paul situation, do you think support for his campaign is misplaced?
No, traumerei, support him! I just recommend doing so to register your displeasure with the fact that Romney is going to be the nominee, not because Paul will be.
DeleteTreachery!
Delete