Not sure why everyone's ignoring the significance of this year's Iowa caucus for Ron Paul.
In 2008, after fundraising about as much as this time around, he only received 10% of the Iowa vote and got in 5th place. This year he didn't just get a slightly larger marginal slice of the pie, he more than doubled his percentage to 21%, and less than 5% from first place, a tighter gap than between the 1st and 2nd spots in all previous Iowa caucuses. His 2008 results truncated his campaign, whereas this result gives him a lot of credibility to campaign until the convention.
Beyond Iowa, his views on key issues align with the majority of Americans. Americans now oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 2 to 1. We prefer diplomacy to military action in Iran 4 to 1. He receives more contributions from active military than anyone else. Anyone still disagree with his foreign policy? Go on ahead, but you're in the minority. On economic policy, only Romney and Paul have real plans to balance the budget. But let's be realistic, is Romney going to balance it very quickly while simultaneously increasing defense spending by 10%? Paul's plan is better, because it would lead to faster tax cuts, which would boost the economy faster as well.
Of course Romney or the right-wing candidate (Perry, Santorum or Gingrich) have better shots at the GOP nomination currently, but that may just fall apart as time goes on. With Romney, his only true benefit versus the rest is "electability" though Paul is just as electable in most recent polls versus Obama, because he will pull independents and democrats. With the other candidates, more publicity has meant lower polling, hence the revolving door in the right-wing candidates. With Ron Paul, it's the opposite. His nationwide polls have climbed steadily over the past year and over the past month. He survived the scrutiny over the newsletters because they were not tied to his record as a lawmaker.
No comments:
Post a Comment