Ron Paul's ever-changing "ceiling" of support

How did such a man rise to the top of the polls? One thing to note is that his support has a ceiling: in no state do more than about a third of Republican voters favour him, though in Iowa’s crowded race that could be all he needs.

Click to expand...

Source: The Economist

As one Paul supporter said, "That is no ceiling, that is the roof of an elevator."

I personally hope that Ron Paul does very well for the next several months. I would like to see him win in Iowa, finish well in South Carolina and even be the STOP ROMNEY choice in Virginia and may win that as well.

However, I think he really shot himself in the foot with his handling of the newsletter scandal and his continuation in handling that poorly is getting him lots of really bad publicity. So my good wishes for a strong Paul candidacy for the next several months could be answered with disappointment.

Demon of Light said:

Source: The Economist

As one Paul supporter said, "That is no ceiling, that is the roof of an elevator."

Click to expand...

That's just talking about willing supporters. What's going to happen is the sheep mentality of "I don't care what his politics are so long as there is an "R" next to his name... and I'm being told that he is the front runner therefore..." that will fall in line and blow that ceiling to hell and back.

If Paul somehow secured the nomination is would cause a massive internal fight within the Republican Party from the national to local individual Republican clubs level. Many Republicans including leadership and officials would disavow Ron Paul openly for his stance on the military and military bases. Likely Democrats would recapture a clear majority in the House and definitely hold the Senate. The "R" by his name wouldn't get past that problem.

Compounding this is that any third party candidate would garner a larger share of the vote - and from Republicans - meaning moderates would vote for Huntsman or even Johnson over Paul and definitely Trump if he got in over Paul.

There are too many Republicans that absolutely would not vote for an anti-military candidate and some religious right Republicans who would not vote a candidate vowing to cut military support of Israel. Obviously WallStreet money would not go to Paul for the campaign.

joko104 said:

If Paul somehow secured the nomination is would cause a massive internal fight within the Republican Party from the national to local individual Republican clubs level. Many Republicans including leadership and officials would disavow Ron Paul openly for his stance on the military and military bases. Likely Democrats would recapture a clear majority in the House and definitely hold the Senate. The "R" by his name wouldn't get past that problem.

Compounding this is that any third party candidate would garner a larger share of the vote - and from Republicans - meaning moderates would vote for Huntsman or even Johnson over Paul and definitely Trump if he got in over Paul.

There are too many Republicans that absolutely would not vote for an anti-military candidate and some religious right Republicans who would not vote a candidate vowing to cut military support of Israel. Obviously WallStreet money would not go to Paul for the campaign.

Click to expand...

I'm not looking to divide and conquer like others seem to like to do but I would love for this to happen because I think it would restore the GOP back to intellectual conservatism that is worth debating... the likes of William F. Buckley and such as a mass exodus of the religious social conservatives bail out to go to the Constitution Party. I'm not nor ever have be a conservative but the discussion and respect of debate and policy before the evangelical invasion from the Reagan era forward was much more civil and intelligent.

The fight for the soul of the Republican Party came with the candidacy of Pat Robertson who well understood the obsure and little attended mention of selecting Republican Party delegates for conventions and thus platforms. He taught his followers well and they gave Republican conventions hell. Prior, being Republican meant pro-military, pro-business and economic conservatives - wanting no part of issues such as abortion and other religous moral issues.

However, ultimately and recognizing the extreme level of militancy and energy, they were basically accepted having no choice otherwise - shifting the Republican focus to social issues. It has not served the Republican Party or the nation well.

The way Ron Paul is handling the newsletter fiasco brings very real and central question up to be answered: Is Ron Paul seriously running for President or is this about something else? One has to ask that question because a few weeks ago Paul was on the cusp of achieving a status that he had never been able to achieve four years ago - namely being the actual frontrunner in some state primaries. Paul was hitting some high notes and actually was projected as getting real live convention delegates since the first two months of GOP primaries are largely allocated proportionately.

Then came the newsletter scandal and now the news articles about Paul are dominated by that story. My local paper this morning has a story on the latest Iowa poll from CNN putting Romney in first at 25% and Paul second at 22% with Santorum coming up strong at 16%. It was taken from Dec 22 - 27th during the period where the Paul newsletter fiasco got lots of play and even Newt Gingrich said he would not vote for his should Paul end up the nominee.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...new-hampshire/2011/12/28/gIQATGazMP_blog.html

While Romney and Santorum gained, Gingrich dropped and Paul is failing to make any progress while bogged down in the newsletter fiasco.

Paul has attempted to walk a very fine line with a high risk strategy on the newsletters that is baffling to anybody outside of the normal libertarian circles. Even though they were published under the name RON PAUL he claims he was not responsible for them and in fact did not even read them or know what was in them until years later. Washing his hands of the extremist newsletters in a Pontius Pilate gesture may well satisfy the hardcore Paul supporters but it only spurs on lengthy articles from major publications like the New York Times who want answers along the lines of "just who is responsible for the content of those newsletters?"

Paul is handling this very badly. This is not going back to the 1500's and trying to determine what happened to the lost colony of Roanoke. This should not be as tough.

If Ron Paul is not responsible - or does not want to be held accountable - for the content of his own newsletters with his name on them - then who exactly is? Who did have the job of overseeing the newsletter? Who was paid to do that job? Who had final say about the contents and who else worked on it? It should not be difficult to get a definitive answer to those questions.

The Des Moines Register said this yesterday: Paul's bigoted newsletters need answers - Congressman's excuses and explanations have been lame

Perhaps the reason Paul continues to be “pestered” about his newsletters is that his explanations for their content strains credibility. The newsletters were variously titled Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, the Ron Paul Political Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter. He was listed on mastheads as the editor and publisher. The articles in question carried no bylines, but some had personal references unique to Paul. It is hard to accept that someone in his employ could use a newsletter bearing Paul’s name and photo to spread vile content that he did not approve of, that it could occur repeatedly over the course of several years and that Paul never once intervened. “I was pretty careless about what was going in my own newsletter — that was my biggest fault,” Paul told the Times.

Careless, indeed. These lame excuses might pass for some, but Paul is running for his party’s nomination to be president of the United States. He may see the latest resurrection of the newsletter controversy as old news that he has already explained. The problem is that he has not, but now he must.

Click to expand...

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...HED03/Paul-s-bigoted-newsletters-need-answers

Todays Boston Globe has an article about the subject

http://bostonglobe.com/news/nation/...-paul-views/q0SA1iXcTdOMOFRD0ZF8BJ/story.html

In it, a Paul supporter hits the nail firmly upon its head requesting Paul to come forward

Trettin’s brother, William, a 19-year-old student at the Naval Academy, said Paul has done a poor job of refuting the allegations against him, but his failure to adequately explain himself will not affect the brothers’ votes.

“He needs to make it really easy for people to understand what the mix-up is,’’ said William Trettin. “He seems more like the smart grandpa they made run an election rather than a politician.’’

Click to expand...

Will Paul come forward as some of his own supporters feel he should? Will we get a name and a face of a person who was truly responsible for the content of those newsletters if Paul has washed his hands of that responsibility?

Time will tell.

Demon of Light said:

Source: The Economist

As one Paul supporter said, "That is no ceiling, that is the roof of an elevator."

Click to expand...

You should read your source, the author is actually saying Ron Paul has no chance of winning at all. In fact in the first paragraph he literally says

"Even if he wins in quirky Iowa, Ron Paul will never be America’s president."

Click to expand...

The author isn't support or being encouraging to Ron Paul, you bolded "more than about a third of Republican voters favour him" however the 4 words in first of it change the meaning all together "in no state do more than about a third of Republican voters favour him"

The fringe element is like the very loud lady in line at the grocery store. The manager comes over and gives her what she wants to shut her up and get her the He[[ out of the store.

Wiseone said:

You should read your source, the author is actually saying Ron Paul has no chance of winning at all. In fact in the first paragraph he literally says The author isn't support or being encouraging to Ron Paul, you bolded "more than about a third of Republican voters favour him" however the 4 words in first of it change the meaning all together "in no state do more than about a third of Republican voters favour him"

Click to expand...

I am not saying it was meant to be an encouraging article. That's actually kind of the point. All over the place the media talk about this "ceiling" of support that will keep him from being the nominee, but that ceiling keeps getting higher.

Right now there is a ceiling and it is one of his own making in the newsletter scandal. If Paul wants to break out and really be the nominee he is going to have to speak directly to this entire issue and come up with much more than he was busy that day.

This is a very crucial time for him and how he handles the newsletter issue will determine if he can be a serious candidate for the nomination or not.

Perry, Cain, Gingrich and now Paul - the "Anybody-but-Romney" crowd is rapidly running out of potential GOP presidential candidates to "park" its vote.

The "ceiling" has been one of their own making - unable to withstand the intense scrutiny of even "15 minutes of fame."

By default, Bachmann (without her campaign director), Santorum and Huntsman are all that's left - and there's no reason to believe that these "also rans" will be any improvement over those who have gone before.