View Full Version : Breaking Down Electability - Paul vs. The Others

01-17-2012, 08:00 PM

I will refrain from discussing (in too much detail) that “electable” is not even a word. My spell check shouts at me every time I type it. What is more interesting is the concept of “electability.” Does electability mean ability to get elected? OK, presuming this to be true, let’s take a look at the facts. You may have heard that GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul has been elected 12 times. This is a piece of information that he offers quite often in response to journalists that make the focus of most interviews with Paul a narrative on his “un-electiblity” (also not a word).

But that is only half of the story:
What the pundits never talk about is how “electable” Mitt Romney actually is. Romney ran for governor of Massachusetts, arguably the most liberal state in our country, and won once in 2002. He did not run for re-election. But he did run for president in 2008 and lost, to Sarah Palin. This is the inevitable and eminently electable front runner?

But what about Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum? Well they certainly fair better than Romney when it comes to electability. But when you add it up you have to combine all three of their elections to equal the number of times Paul has been elected by the people of Texas. Isn’t it just beautiful how it all comes together so nicely? Thanks for not telling anyone that story, CNN.

To be sure, the question of electability is more than a story of past achievements. The fact that the Republican Party has decided to present us with Romney is an important item. The fact that the mainstream media has barely tried to hide their contempt for a Paul presidency is an important item. But also important is the fact that despite these realities, Paul has outperformed all estimates, and unlike all his opponents has an enormous grassroots base of real people that are behind his candidacy.

Of course, the question of electability gains a new importance when you pit Paul against Obama. Most polls consistently show Paul in a close race with Obama and those polls reflect a media bias that has strictly marginalized Paul. As the Republican candidate, the media would be forced to spread Ron Paul's message to a far greater populace, and the story seems to be consistent: Despite attempts to demagogue against the 76-year-old libertarian, the more people who get to know Ron Paul, the more people support Ron Paul. The same cannot be said about any other candidate, including Obama. Some evidence of this was on display at the lesser-publicized Democratic Primary in New Hampshire last week where Ron Paul took second.
So I guess what I am saying is:
Ron Paul is electable, Mitt Romney isn’t.

01-17-2012, 08:06 PM
"...the more people who get to know Ron Paul, the more people support Ron Paul. The same cannot be said about any other candidate, including Obama."

Former Libertarian Party candidates never expected to win, calling it a "campaign of ideas." I have to pinch myself sometimes when I see how far the Ron Paul candidacy had come in educating the truth-deprived masses.