I have come to realize that Ron Paul has a very good chance of getting the GOP nomination. This notion took seed in my brain during the last GOP debate. A question went to Ron Paul and he was asked how he felt about Fred Thompson entering the race. Most of the GOP presidential pack is probably fearful of his entry but Ron Paul said:
"I welcome him to the race because, very specifically, he will help dilute the vote for my benefit because he will be pro-war and I'm the anti-war candidate representing the Republican traditional position." (see full debate transcript here).
OK so Ron Paul is the anti-war candidate in the GOP field and let's see who else in the race for the GOP nomination is against the Iraq War? NOBODY. They're all very pro-war. So Ron Paul is taking a stark minority position on a very emotional and motivating issue (maybe THE issue) for Americans.
In an Wall Street Journal
Op-Ed article about the debate, former speechwriter for GHW Bush and Ronald Reagan, Peggy "Thousand Points of Light" Noonan wrote:
"After Mr. Paul spoke, it seemed half the room booed, but the other applauded. When a thousand Republicans are in a room and one man of the eight on the stage takes a sharply minority viewpoint on a dramatic issue and half the room seems to cheer him, something's going on."
"Ron Paul's support isn't based on his persona, history or perceived power. What support he has comes because of his views. As he spoke, you could hear other candidates laughing in the background. They should stop giggling, and engage in a serious way."
Of course they won't stop giggling, they can't. They don't have anything of substance to say and that's fine with me because while the other eight GOP contenders think it would be political suicide to oppose Bush and his illegal war there's a large contingent of GOP voters who oppose the war.
According to a
CNN poll conducted this summer, 38% of Republicans oppose the war, that's a big number and in a crowded field of nine presidential hopefuls if one of them can get 38% (assuming those voters vote their conscience) and there is no clear winner among the rest of them, the guy in the minority position (with the 38%) wins.
If you ever saw the movie "A Beautiful Mind" you know how this works. There's a scene where John Nash, played by Russel Crowe, has an epiphany about the best strategy for picking up girls. He opines that it's better for the group of males to approach all of the fair-looking females rather than just the good-looking one because by approaching just the one, all of the girls will be offended and want to leave, including the good-looking one. If they hit on all of the fair-looking girls and leave the good-looking one alone then only the good-looking girl is offended but all the guys will probably get lucky.
This is how the movie explains the Nash Equilibrium which is: if each player (in a 2 or more person game) has chosen a strategy and no player can benefit by changing his or her strategy while the other players keep theirs unchanged, then the current set of strategy choices and the corresponding payoffs constitute a Nash equilibrium.
For further information on the Nash Equilibrium please consult the
All Knowing Wikipedia.
All of the eight pro-war GOP contenders think they are in a Nash Equilibrium. They believe that their current strategy of not opposing the Bush Administration is the best strategy for winning the nomination but with 38% of the GOP voters opposed to the war and just one candidate willing to take that view, the eight's supposed Nash Equilibrium vaporizes; the one has the advantage over the many.
Ron Paul has taken the opposite point of view and is unabashedly promoting his ideas and he is getting support, strong support and thus destroying the Nash Equilibrium which never was.
How strong is that support? It's too early to tell but while he barely shows up as a blip on traditional polls, he shows up strong, most of the time in first place, among state straw polls (See the
Washington Post's article on Ron Paul's "surprising" win of the Maryland Straw Poll), online polls (he won the Fox news call-in poll for the debate), and
Google Trends. Many have concluded that the traditional polls are not accurate when calculating Ron Paul's support because they are conducted by contacting home telephone numbers and they are garnered from lists of names of registered Republicans from the last election cycle. Most of Ron Paul support comes from younger voters and independents, who don't have home telephones and were not registered Republican last election.
Which brings me to the second punch of the 1-2 combo: according to that same CNN poll, "Fifty-four percent of Americans do not believe U.S. action in Iraq is morally justified." And while there are candidates in the Democratic field that are anti-war, many voters will cross-over and vote for Paul adding to his majority numbers. There are many states in the primary season which are cross-over states (AL, AR, GA, HI, ID, IN, IA, LA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, ND, SC, TN, TX, VT, VA, WA, and WI) meaning that even if you are a Democrat or independent you can cross over and vote in the Republican Primary. New Hampshire is not one such state however indpendents can vote for candidates in either party. New Hampshire is arguably the most important state from a strategy perspective (because it's first and it's small thus easier for a low budget candidate to make an impact). So those wishing to cross over will need to hold thier nose and register Republican (the deadline is 90 days prior to the primary).
New Hampshire is a state known for its "Live Free or Die" motto and ethos and if ever there was a candidate who ate, drank and slept that motto, it's Ron Paul. Ron Paul can take New Hampshire and the media will be forced to report it. Then instead of Joe Sixpack asking "who?" he'll start asking "what?" as in "what does this guy stand for?" and when they start asking that, the majority (in a crowded field of pro-war candidates) will vote for him in the slew of early primaries that we'll have this time around. The early primaries of states like California and Florida play an important role in Ron Paul's success because the field of pro-war candidates won't be diluted going into those primaries. In other words, the field isn't going to change before we know who the winner of it all is.
Lastly Ron Paul will win because his supporters are completely fired up. No other candidate from either party has supporters who are as enthusiastic as Ron Paul's supporters are. We know that this is "IT". Either we take back our country now and restore the Constitution or the war will expand to Iran and our civil liberties will continue to erode. This enthusiasm will catch on to those of like-mind and those people will motivate their families and friends to donate money, time and ultimately to vote.
Like the Iraq Invasion Dr. Paul's victory is not a slam-dunk. It will take hard work and money. New Hampshire looms large. If he wins that state (and I think he will if we try really, really hard) then the nation will know that he's the anti-war, pro freedom Republican and that he DOES stand a chance of winning. The rest of the race won't be easy but without New Hampshire it will be that much more difficult. If you agree with Ron Paul that this is an unjust, illegal war please donate your time, efforts and
money to this very just cause of retaking our government and country.
