Ron Paul's best hope could be... Gingrich?

In my last several posts I've been discussing the Republican Nomination in general, and prospects for Ron Paul, the seeming Iowa frontrunner, specifically. I have noted several times that the Paul campaign has changed it's media strategy in Iowa and New Hampshire recently, specifically regarding Newt Gingrich.

His campaign has been running a negative spot on the airwaves in an attempt to erode Gingrich's popular support, particularly from conservative audiences, which would theoretically position Ron Paul as the 'true' conservative anti-Romney candidate. This strategy to woo conservatives, including social conservatives is echoed in his other most recent ad. Paul has said in TV interviews that he had decided to go after Gingrich because he thought that Gingrich's hypocrisy needed to be brought to light, particularly the fact that Gingrich took over a million dollars in compensation from Freddie Mac, a corporation Ron Paul has railed against for being a part of crony corporatism.

It has been my opinion that Ron Paul actually benefits from staying out of the fray so long as he is still seen as a second tier candidate in national polls. Romney and Gingrich, both running about 10 points better than Paul nationally, don't want to elevate Paul's position by attacking him- at least if they don't have to. Meanwhile Paul can use his organizing power and positive spots highlighting his consistent conservative position to build his vote share in Iowa, where he is running even or better than Romney and Gingrich. There's three reasons why tearing Gingrich down is risky, and maybe even counter productive.

First, attacking Gingrich, not surprisingly, has invited counter attacks, and although Gingrich probably doesn't have the funds to go on a major ad campaign against Paul, he can go on national TV to swipe back. For example, on CNN today he declared that he would not vote for Ron Paul against Barack Obama, that 'decent' Americans wouldn't agree with Paul on foreign policy, and that past controversial campaign mailers have not been adequately explained. It may not be much, but I can't see this extra negative attention helping Paul- and the attention may increase.

Second, Paul's ads may truly have helped to drag Gingrich down; certainly Gingrich has fallen to a tangible third place in Iowa polls behind Paul. But these attacks could also help Romney in Iowa. Perhaps increasing distaste of Gingrich could be cementing Romney's position as the alternative to Gingrich for voters who simply cannot stomach Paul's brand of libertarian conservatism- it appears that Romney's numbers have been on the rise in the last few weeks, corresponding with Gingrich's fall. But even if not, by splitting the vote in Iowa, Paul lowers the threshold for a victory, allowing the possibility that even with a ceiling of 25%, Romney could win or come in a narrow second place; both would be a victory for a campaign that has comparatively ignored the state.

One might argue that Romney doing well in Iowa doesn't matter as long as Ron Paul wins the overall Iowa caucus. I disagree. Romney is almost certain to win New Hampshire, with a nearly 20 point lead in polling there; even if Ron Paul grabs momentum from Iowa, he is unlikely to win in NH. So if Paul was to hope to win NH, it would be through attacking Romney, not Gingrich. In fact, if Gingrich remained relatively strong at Romney's expense and Huntsman could glean away enough moderates, it would lower the threshold for victory in NH as well, opening a possibility for a Paul win. Attacking Gingrich, and ruining him in Iowa will only further weaken the Gingrich campaign's ability to focus on pulling establishment conservatives away from Romney. Paul doesn't have a lot of play in the establishment.

But finally, the risk in attacking Gingrich has a much longer term effect. As Nate Silver wisely points out in a recent post, the best thing for the Paul campaign is to keep the Republican field as fractured as possible for as long as possible, and to enter into a brokered convention with as much influence as possible. To think that a majority of the GOP electorate would ever choose Paul as a nominee is very wishful thinking, but I could see a plurality supporting him in a fractured field. Therefore the best strategy for Paul, it seems to me, is not to win, but just to hold his own and hope the other weaker candidates can too. We could call this a winning (sort of) strategy.

Unfortunately to have a long term fractured field, you have to have candidates who can fight a long fight, continuing to split the vote with Romney much past Iowa and New Hampshire, since Romney's campaign is the only campaign that seems to have the game an resources to play a long game with Paul. The only other options for long-term candidates are Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich- Perry cause he has the money, Gingrich cause he has the numbers. And Gingrich was, and may still be, the best hope for the Paul campaign. But since being attacked from all sides, Gingrich has been weakened significantly, and without victories in either Iowa or New Hampshire, he may not be able to continue his campaign long enough to prove a contender for Romney.

Thus Ron Paul may emerge as the only Romney alternative, and I can't see Paul pulling in 55% of the overall national vote against an establishment-backed, well funded candidate, can you? Wild as it may sound, Paul's best overall chance for victory may have been to run positive spots on Gingrich's behalf, rather than bashing Gingrich down with negatives. I say this tongue in cheek.

Either way, and whatever the true reason for the changing fortunes, Romney's position is looking better and better for the long term- as Gingrich has fallen- even as Paul's position in the short term has skyrocketed. Now that Gingrich is fading, maybe the best chance for the Paul campaign is to hope for a Perry upset in Iowa, or a Huntsman surprise in NH. Or switch strategies and run a full court press on Romney, like, right now. Absent these possibilities, I'm having to admit that it's looking more and more like Romney just has to not mess up, and he could coast just ahead of the Paul tide, straight into the convention...

But to conclude, let's have a reality check here. Keep in mind that Gingrich's plummeting numbers are not- at all- entirely due to Paul's attacks; these attacks have simply added fuel to a growing chorus. There is not much Paul could have done to stop Gingrich's slide; my point here is that it may really have not been worth the resources attacking him. Remember, Gingrich still has a lot of play left, and he could ride strong performances in Iowa, NH, (and some debates) into a victory in SC and Florida, reviving his campaign. It's hard to know how much it will hurt Gingrich to lose two contests in a row- perhaps he will emerge into SC with the strength to hold his superior numbers there.

The outcome for Gingrich- and Ron Paul's fate too- may end up hinging on what candidates do after Iowa. It is likely that at least a couple of candidates will drop out if they have disappointing Iowa performances. If those candidates all consolidate around Romney, the end result seems clear. If they do nothing, it is unpredictable where their supporters might go, but Gingrich- and Paul- could benefit. However, if Santorum or Bachmann chooses to endorse Gingrich (or Perry) in the hopes of keeping Romney off the ticket, it may give Gingrich (or... possibly Perry) the credibility to continue to contests in SC and FL and grapple with Romney beyond.

And that could also be enough to give Ron Paul a winning (sort of) strategy.

Who's surging with two weeks to go? Ron Paul

Iowa caucuses, the first official contest in the GOP primary calendar, take place on January 3rd this year. That means we're two weeks away from the eve of Iowa, and the polls and ground game are pointing toward an unexpected winner: Ron Paul. Fivethirtyeight now gives him better than 50% odds.

Now if you've been reading this blog, you'd already know that a Ron Paul victory in Iowa has been a distinct possibility for weeks, but we now have the first polling which suggests a veritable surge for Paul, not just in Iowa, but across the country.

This is the average of polls released two weeks ago for Ron Paul, Gingrich, and Romney:
Gingrich: 31%, Romney: 18%, Paul: 16%

This is the average of polls released last week:
Gingrich: 23%, Romney: 17%, Paul: 19%

And here is the average of the polls released so far this week:
Gingrich: 14%, Romney: 19%, Paul: 24%

The trend is obvious. Paul, capitalizing on the Cain supporters who came to his camp, seems to have capitalized further on the 5-candidate attack on Gingrich that has weakened Gingrich's position over the last couple of weeks. His strategy of also attacking the former Speaker may be paying off, after running his spot regularly in Iowa and New Hampshire for the last couple weeks.

As I pointed out in my previous post, this attack strategy is dangerous, because it invites a response and may hurt Ron Paul's favorability (voters generally don't like a negative campaign). But I also noted then that Ron Paul may be safe as long as he is still seen as somewhat of a joke to the larger GOP, and if his national polling stays weak. If a front-runner were to attack Ron Paul, s/he would only elevate Ron Paul to the position of 'worthy opponent', something the candidates have so far avoided. As a result, Ron Paul has been left relatively unscathed by the primary process, while the others fight amongst themselves.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) for Ron Paul, his polling numbers are on the rise outside of Iowa: a New Hampshire poll out today shows him in second place, and several national polls now put him in the low double digits. These national numbers are significant because Paul has so far been unable to win more than about 9% of the national electorate to his cause. These numbers also mean that the other candidates can no longer afford to laugh off Paul and that could be bad news for the Texas congressman. They may now have no other choice but to attack Ron Paul, since he is becoming an inarguable front runner, positioned to win the first GOP primary contest.

The good news for the Paul campaign is that there's virtually no time for the other candidates to outmaneuver Paul's current position. People aren't usually paying much attention to politics during the holidays and there are no more debates left between now and the caucuses. Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are probably the only candidates with the monetary resources to beat Paul, and Romney at least is more likely to pin his hopes on a New Hampshire win than to make a large ad buy in Iowa. Perry might try an attack on Paul; he desperately needs a good showing in IA; so might Bachmann, although she isn't rolling in money. Overall, a last minute attack ad is not out of the question, but seems unlikely. On the other hand, we have desperate campaigns shaping up here, with several candidates relying on Iowa for a break out win. A dirty mailer or robocall attack may emerge.

Setting all speculation aside, these Iowa numbers are undeniably good news for Ron Paul. And his increasing traction with the national electorate suggests that he may be surging at just the right time. Better polling across the board also points to the possibility that Paul will be able to sustain his position even after Iowa and New Hampshire, and compete long term-- he just finished raising 4 million in a money bomb over the weekend, so he'll have the funds to compete.

So the final question is, will he hold on to these good numbers, or even see them increase? He probably has a good chance of staying where he is. We will have to see whether the other candidates react with a Paul pile-on, but I am skeptical either way that Ron Paul will see much more of a boost than he already has. Not only is Paul a divisive figure, what with his 'wacky' and 'off the rails' foreign policy perspectives, but no candidate has been able to secure more than a third of the vote in Iowa so far, mainly because the field is just too crowded. It would be a downright shocking achievement if Paul ended up with much more than a third of the vote. But even 25% is enough to win, with all the other candidates splitting the rest.

After that, it's hard to say. His numbers are still pretty weak nationally, even though they are on the rise. Will a win in Iowa give a boost to that support?

I should note here that we should all be careful not to underestimate Ron Paul. He is an unusual candidate with an unequaled ground game in Iowa and a base enthusiasm that is also unmatched amongst the candidates. If he does win Iowa, it'll be because of these supporters and volunteers; and with them, Paul really may have just enough of a foundation to make a real play for the nomination.

Calculating Ron Paul

In my last post (which you should read!) I indicated that the most important non-Romney/Gingrich candidate to watch during this Republican Nomination is Ron Paul. I also stated that the effects of his campaigns in IA and NH will be difficult to predict. While that still holds true, this post will attempt to play out some scenarios regarding "Dr. no".

In the last few days five different pollsters have interviewed prospective Iowa caucus-goers and come up with the same stunningly uniform result: Ron Paul is sitting at around 17% support in the state. That's up from around 12% the last few weeks. Similar good numbers in NH have yet to be confirmed by substantial polling agreement like this.

Although it might not seem like it, 17% is very good. It actually ties Paul for second with Romney, and puts him only 10 points behind Gingrich. And yet this has corresponded with virtually no change in his national polling numbers, which remain in the high single digits, meaning that this is a local phenomenon, probably due to Paul's powerful campaign infrastructure in Iowa.

In order to understand what all this means for the nomination as a whole, we have to ask this question: So, what is this Ron Paul boost due to, and will the trend continue? To try to answer this question, I have looked at three of the five pollsters (those which have surveyed Iowa multiple times) to compare this new result with their last result of these polls in October. We'll look at the 4 candidates that have appreciably changed their numbers before and after, the others have remained roughly static. Averaging (and rounding) them together gets this result:

October: Gingrich: 7% Romney: 23%  Paul: 11%  Cain: 24% Undecided: 11%

Now: Gingrich: 26% Romney: 17% Paul: 18% Cain: 6% Undecided: 9%
(Herman Cain had dropped out and was not surveyed by one of the 3 polls the second time, but the numbers still work)

Look at that! Cain and Gingrich have swapped numbers, and Paul has sapped 6 or so points from Romney. Romney? Well, looks can be deceiving. Cain having imploded (as predicted last post) and dropped out of the race was a big game changer for the race, but he had been on a downward trajectory for weeks now. Cain's support in Iowa does appear to have transferred largely to Gingrich, but it is likely that some of his anti-establishment supporters have and will go to Ron Paul as well. We also know from national poll numbers that it is Gingrich, not Paul, who has largely sapped Romney's strength, and this is probably playing out in Iowa, as well.

It's hard to be sure what a Ron Paul supporter looks like, but we know that his support is coming from a nearly even mix of (self-identified) Moderate, Somewhat Conservative, and Very Conservative voters. Therefore it would actually not be too surprising that Romney, beaten down from all sides by flip-flop allegations, might be losing some more moderate Republican voters (what few there are in Iowa) to Ron Paul, even as some Herman Cain conservatives quietly slide into the Paul camp. It's also possible that undecideds are beginning to break for him, especially now that he is establishing himself as a viable candidate in the state, but right now it is too early to tell.

Paul is certainly playing to win the very conservative crowd in Iowa, but if he is picking up moderate support as well, he may begin to pull within striking distance of Gingrich. Romney meanwhile is probably kicking himself for his recent decision to ramp up in Iowa which will serve to raise expectations of a better than third place standing come January.


So while the majority of Paul's boost is probably from Cain, he may also be playing well in moderate and undecided circles. I'll be keeping an eye on it. But now we must ask: will the trend continue?

My answer is absolutely yes. Here's why: the front-running Republican candidates, like the media, are having a hard time taking him seriously. And for once this is coming in handy for the Texas Congressman. See, Paul has a national viability problem, and he's seen as somewhat of a joke in some Republican circles, so if Romney or Gingrich were to attack him (to bring his numbers down) it could make Paul into a threat- a viable threat. So Romney and Gingrich will be reluctant to spend time attacking Paul when they are busy attacking each other; no need to elevate Paul's position to that of front-runner, right?

But this means Paul can fly under the national radar to pull a (by national polling standards, surprising) upset in Iowa and New Hampshire, since he has continued to concentrate his resources there. Its possible that he can even get away with attacking Gingrich without drawing return fire, and although I think it is a risky move, Paul probably doesn't have a whole lot to lose at this late stage. All the while Paul can continue to solidify his base in IA while Gingrich and (especially) Romney are gearing up for a lengthy nomination fight, concentrating their resources down the road.

All of this is good news for Ron Paul. It shows in hard numbers for the first time that he could actually win IA and possibly even NH, which would at the very least elevate his personal stature from side-show to main attraction, force his critics to stop laughing, and inject his views into a serious national discourse. Even if this were to happen, Gingrich and Romney are making a wise bet that the Paul campaign will run into a brick wall at SC and beyond. But maybe being taken seriously on a national stage is all Ron Paul needs to make his case to the Republican electorate- to force them to consider whether there really is something credible in Paul's sometimes rambling answers, and for him to prove to Republicans that he can win- not just the primary, but the Presidency too.

The Tea Party Coalition

A lot of people don't realize that our beloved American Tea Party movement is not a group of ideologically pure individuals in agreement. It is a coalition, a group of people with diverse views on a variety of issues, but one major issue to bring them together. In this case the driving issue is economic conservatism. To explain, it can be reasonably argued that the history of what became the Tea Party actually began in 2007 with the general public backlash against the President at the time, George Bush.

Representative Ron Paul (R) of Texas shocked audience members at the Republican Presidential Primary debates with his message of extreme fiscal conservatism bordering on outright libertarianism. Though most Republicans were incensed at some of Paul's 'extreme' positions, a number of people who were frustrated with the growth of government spending found for the first time in a long time a person they felt like they could get behind. A person who was unwilling to compromise, had a record of "no" votes on almost anything growing the government, and was charismatic in a folksy way. With massive online fundraising campaigns he called "money bombs" Paul managed to stay in the primary fight long after others had been forced out, picking up support from 5-15% of the Republican electorate in all over the United States. He capped off his bid with an event that took place at the same time as the Republican National Convention that he called the "Rally for the Republic" after being denied a speaking slot at the RNC. More than 10,000 people attended. The groundswell was quite impressive, and the anti-establishment sentiment was clear.

Though Paul's campaign did not result in the Republican nomination for President, and the GOP leaders dismissed his effort as extremist noise, Paul went on eventually to found the C4L (Campaign for Liberty) and went to work trying to elect what he called "constitutional conservatives" to public office. Notable persons that C4L supported include William (BJ) Lawson (R) in NC-04, Adam Kokesh (R) in NM-03, and Bob Conley (D) for SC Senate, none of whom were successful. But the string of attempts, continuing fundraising, and foundation of C4L (and YAL Young Americans for Liberty) chapters throughout the US-- efforts continued through 2008 and 2009 at which point something began to happen in American politics.

The thing that was unique about the C4L or Ron Paul movement (we'll call it the "Liberty" movement) was that it embraced a variety of socially liberal values like elimination of drug enforcement and additional gay rights. Meanwhile the movement called for a return to isolationist American values and the withdrawal of all US troops abroad with the intent of a drawdown of defense spending. We'll come back to this point later.

Some of the first protests that established the Tea Party on the national stage were in response to major bills that increased the size of government spending and bureaucracy, including TARP, the Recovery Act, and Health Care legislation. By the middle of 2009, the Tea Party had already become influential in many local races and in the beginning of 2010, the surprise upset of Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Special Election for Senate solidified the group in the national dialogue. Ron Paul was considered a darling, maybe even a founder, of the movement and his son, Rand Paul, used his Tea Party and C4L roots to build the momentum for a major Senate campaign in Kentucky. The rallying cry for the movement was the same as it had been during Ron Paul's upward battle in 2008: pay down the deficit, eliminate bureaucracy, and leave American free enterprise out of the scope of the government.

During those early days, there weren't clear Tea Party leaders like there are today. Many media outlets turned to Ron Paul and his son, Rand, to talk about the movement in connection to what they had started in 2007. But within a matter of months, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, Sean Hannity and Michelle Bachmann had established themselves as major "Tea Partiers" and the movement started to show some distinct colors that had been (to some degree) hidden before 2010. Suddenly the Tea Party movement organizers started talking about more things than just economic conservatism. They started talking about the corruption of the family, the evils of Islamic terrorism, and the denigration of American Christianity. Rand Paul, at this point running a very national Senate campaign, on cue began to backtrack on some of his previous socially libertarian positions, becoming hawkish on foreign policy, snapping shut on drug enforcement, and reinforcing his ties to the Christian right. His change in attitude was not just a reflection of the internal concerns of a Kentucky Senate race, but were also a reflection of major shifts in the Liberty movement.

Now the prime examples of true Tea Partiers are people like Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, Pat Toomey, Joe Miller, and Carly Fiorina (look these people up if you like, you'll see what I mean). Suddenly the Tea Party made it a mission to bring down the Islamic Cultural Center in NYC by drawing on xenophobia, racism, and security concerns within the Tea Party movement. Rand Paul, at this point having defeated the establishment GOP candidate in a primary, proved his clear hard right position by coming out against the mosque.

Meanwhile his father, stubborn as ever, continued to toe his original socially pluralistic line: diversity is good in America, of course Muslims should build the mosque there, why in the world shouldn't they? But where was the rest of the Tea Party when Ron Paul was breaking with them on these issues? Rallying against the Mosque in NYC and spouting rhetoric that seemed to recall traditional GOP fear mongering.

So what happened to those original supporters of Ron Paul's? What happened to the Liberty movement? It's still alive today, as a sub-faction of the Tea Party. It turns out that the Tea Party is a coalition: eager for substantial conservative change on economic issues, original Liberty activists were glad to make room in their movement for foreign policy hawks, the Christian Right, and even members of the establishment GOP. For now, they're content to work with these other people to enact serious fiscal discipline on the part of the Government. At this point its safe to say that the Liberty movement is a minority within the Tea Party, and as long as President Obama continues in office, its unlikely that there will be any major defections from Tea Party ranks from those who would see Ron Paul as President.

But the Tea Party is now a hard right-wing movement that has essentially stripped of itself of all non-economic ideals associated with the Liberty movement. It'll be interesting to see how this coalition holds up as the future progresses. "Libertiers" will be content for now to work with people like Sarah Palin and Jim DeMint, but for how long? This Coalition and this movement are still brand new; can its leaders manage to appease its growing and diversifying membership, or will the group fall into factionalist disarray when some of the original backbone of the groundswell is neglected? The way it's going now, the Tea Party's obsession with "purity" may weed out some of its own members from amidst its own grumbling and disaffected ranks, leaving the GOP with a shrinking set of values (and voters) from which to draw upon, and perhaps leading to the break-up of the once-powerful Tea Party Coalition.   

   

Republicans are Bad People

That's not really what I mean, but it hits the crux of an important question. Are Republicans more hypocritical than Democrats?

Wading into a debate like that is about as dangerous as wading into a river full of candirú and taking a nice long piss.

But what I will say is that Indiana Representative Mike Pence gave this impressive, rabidly conservative speech at the SRLC (Southern Republican Leadership Conference) and said just one thing that knocked me off into the deep end.

He said "You know I believe that ending an innocent human life is morally wrong, but it's also morally wrong to take the tax payer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans, and use it to promote abortion at home and abroad. This administration has opened the floodgates to providing and promoting support for abortion overseas and let me say from my heart: the largest abortion provider in America should not be the largest recipient of federal funding under Title 10. The time has come to deny any and all federal funding to Planned Parenthood of America."

Ok. Take a breath, James. By Title 10, Pence is, I believe, referring to the U.S. code for the House of Representatives for the Armed Forces. Now, honestly, I don't know how we're supporting Planned Parenthood overseas through the military BUT

I do know that ending hundreds of thousands of innocent human lives is morally wrong, and it's also morally wrong to take in between 700 billion and 1,400 billion dollars (depending on who you ask) of taxpayer dollars from millions of ANTI-WAR Americans to promote violence and hatred at home and abroad through the US military. This administration, like every administration before it, has opened the floodgates to unending military industrial contracts, mercenary companies, and the services of death and destruction overseas in the name of "security". Let me say what is in MY heart. That the most powerful, dangerous, controversial, and prolific military complex in the world is also the largest single recipient of total US tax dollars. The time has come to end this madness, and phase out the military and the parasitical industrial complex bent on sucking human fear for all its worth, till someone, everyone, snaps.

And it's all gone in a flash.

Everything we've worked for, maybe even the human race, in the wake of a nuclear, chemical, or biological holocaust. Where will all the unborn children be then, Representative Pence?


You can't be an advocate for smaller government, then rally every budget cycle for increased spending on Defense. Being a good steward of federal funds means allowing ANYONE to opt out of ANYTHING they find morally reprehensible in the federal government, including war; including federal contracts to multi-billion dollar corporations, and yes, Mike Pence, even abortion funding. If you are going to have an ideal. Take it its MORALLY proscribed finale. I'm tired of the sidestepping. Either you're a real fiscal conservative like Ron Paul (who, though considered wild and radical by most, is at least taking his ideals to their maximum potential; their logical conclusion), or you are NOT, like almost everyone else. Stop being hypocrites, Republicans. Just. Stop.


It's ironic that Mike Pence used the Title of the Armed Forces to make his point, given what I think is a great argument using his logic that I have just made. Not to mention that the federal funding for abortion doesn't even register as a blip against the funding for our national "defense". I need Mike Pence to know that there is a real world out there that lives beyond the land of nice applause lines and fun soundbytes. People, just like his unborn aborted children are dying, daily, of hunger, of violence, of disease, of our own military actions, of ignorance. If you consider all people people, Mr. Pence, consider that your rhetoric on abortion is out of line with any rhetoric on violence and destruction. NOTHING is so simple, that it can be put in black and white moral terms. Situations are complex. But if you want to say you live by and claim you will legislate by a simple moral imperative that has at its root fear, self-righteousness, and ignorance, then I want you to to really live it, 100%, or I will call you a hypocrite. Not all Republicans are Mike Pence, in fact, only one is, but I must say, Republican talking points just keep sounding... Pencean. Or is it the other way around.

Of course by this logic, almost all politicians are hypocrites... or even, 'bad' people, so to speak. Therefore, perhaps more important is an examination of the silliness of our political systems that causes politicians to have no choice but to spew irreconcilable rhetoric, or lose their office. How can one be logically 'crazy' and win a seat anywhere, anyway?

Well, what's Ron Paul's secret? Isn't he the only one? : )