I stopped doing the Real Ron Paul Report- highlighting the media's inability or just unwillingness to cover his campaign. The reason is simple: there was too much work to do. Other than John Stewart's excellent read on the situation a few weeks ago, it's been more and more of the same.
Here's a sample.
The lead political story from every major agency today is that Herman Cain has jumped to the lead in the Wall Street Journal Poll. The secondary story is that Romney has slipped to runner up. If there's a third story, it's that Perry is falling and Gingrich is holding firm. But finding the specific numbers from the poll is near impossible- don't check the Wall Street Journal, the article in the Journal only covers the top three candidates. CBS, CNN, AP, and Reuters cite the scores of only the top two candidates. I had to go all the way to France, to the AFP, to get the actual breakdown of the table.
Here they are in full.
Cain- 27%
Romney- 23%
Perry- 16%
Paul- 11%
Gingrich- 8%
Bachmann- 5%
Huntsman- 3%
Anyway, I'm tired of watching the inadequate reporting. I don't buy into the idea that there is a conspiracy. It is upsetting though that the media's de facto selection of who is and who is not a viable candidate is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This is especially compounded by the fact that Ron Paul is the only candidate who needn't win the race to win the election.
In 2008 Ron Paul earned 7.8% in the New Hampshire primary. This year, assuming Obama has no primary candidate, Paul stands to do much better, for two reasons. The first is that many otherwise Democratic primary voters will cross over to the Republican poll to support the only anti-war candidate in the race. The second is that the fundamentals are much better for Paul. Given the projected state of the economy during a late December or early January primary in New Hampshire, existing polling, and the political trendlines, I project Paul will take 10-12% of the vote. This number could be 2-3% higher, depending on the number of candidates in the race at that time (Bachmann or Gingrich dropping, I think, could help him a bit).
In 2008 New Hampshire Democrats surprised every pre-election survey and selected Clinton over Obama by some 2%. I don't expect Ron Paul to win New Hampshire, but he doesn't need to win, he only needs to gain one or more delegates.
And that's why, starting now, I'll be doing the Ron Paul Delegate Report, projecting delegates I think Paul will win in upcoming primary elections, caucuses, or whatever format the states throw at us.
Ron Paul's objective in New Hampshire is not to place high or to even win, as nice as that would be. New Hampshire is ordinarily targeted as a method to gain attention, to either prove a candidate's viability or to gain fundraising. He doesn't need either of these.
Ron Paul's staying power, with his devoted base, is not at issue. Nor is his fundraising ability a concern. He does not need to impress Goldman Sachs to earn donations, the money will be coming from the same loyal base that will be voting for him no matter what the polls say.
What he needs though are delegates, which equate to a seat at the table. In 2008 Ron Paul earned 35 delegates. If Ron Paul can earn enough delegates in New Hampshire, Nevada, Montana, and other states which don't completely accept the neocon agenda, he'll have an opportunity to extend the growth of the traditional wing of the Republican Party. That of course is his ultimate goal, and one worthy of great effort. Specifically, I believe he needs to earn 100 delegates to make his mark in the Republican Party.
So I'll stop with the Ron Paul Report, because it's clear the mainstream media is not just not helping the campaign, it's downright against it- albeit I would argue unintentionally. Instead, I'll focus on projecting his potential delegates, hoping he can gain enough to be not just a thorn in the side of the party, but the impetus to turn it, and America, back to its Constitutional roots.
So for New Hampshire then, I project Ron Paul will win at least one and possibly two delegates.
This does not sound like a lot, but it's enough. New Hampshire is the first of 56 (57 if Navassa Island gets its act together), and it's a small one. One two delegates from New Hampshire would be a huge victory for the Ron Paul campaign, and a real concern to the Republican establishment.
Next up (once we have a formal date), Iowa, where Paul has done well in the recent straw poll. And then my home state of Nevada, a place where Ron Paul enjoys considerable support and the promise of more delegates.
Sensible libertarian views on nearly everything- except foreign affairs.