| Would any of us ever have expected that Ron Paul would be the leading Texas Republican in both national polls and crucial early primary states? The Ron Paul faithful probably would, as they've been zealously organizing for their candidate since before 2008, and it's really paying off as GOP voters are still unable to unite behind either Mitt or the Not-Mitt of their choice.
What's most interesting to me in the rise of Ron Paul is that news outlets are actually reporting on field organizing, which traditionally get ignored in favor of splashy TV ads or contentious press releases intended to earn some free media coverage. However, suggesting that the ground game is the only reason why Ron Paul has caught on with so many Iowa caucus-goers basically ignores his Libertarian, isolationist policies, which while petrifying to imagine actually living under, are at least somewhat ideologically consistent.
Back in 2008, I was constantly frustrated by the media's seeming obliviousness to the impact of the Obama campaign's field organizing efforts, and how that could pay off in terms of boosted turnout. So it's good to see that four years later, the mainstream media seems to be taking a closer look at how field can indeed make an impact on the outcome of elections.
From the New York Times:
The campaign developed an Internet-based phone-banking system that allows people around the country to make calls to Iowans from home using scripts tailored to identify supporters. It seems to be working: a New York Times/CBS News poll this month found that 60 percent of likely Republican caucusgoers said they had been contacted by the Paul campaign, the highest rate of any candidate, and about double that of Newt Gingrich. The true believers have also been coached not to be rude or dismissive to those who do not embrace the message, an issue during the last campaign.
An Internet-based phone-banking system? Golly gee. What newfangled things will campaigns think of next? Maybe a palm-sized digital device to obviate data entry after canvassing!
In all seriousness, the volume of contact from the zealous Ron Paul supporters is impressive. Paul is now leading Iowa polls, as Gingrich seems to be collapsing just before the actual voting starts. And while Paul's isolationist stance sets him at odds with the war-hungry Republican base, his states'-rights, drown-the-government platform otherwise caters to many GOP faithful.
Paul should do well in the caucus states, and his extensive grassroots network should help him expand the number of states in which he's able to contact voters. And while -- just as they did with his 2nd-place showing in the Iowa straw poll -- the media will likely discount Paul even if he outright wins Iowa, Paul should continue to rack up delegates throughout the primary process on the strength of his field organizing. If there's no clear GOP nominee based on delegate accumulation by the RNC convention in Tampa, it would be interesting to see what happens if Ron Paul has enough delegates to play king-maker.
Ron Paul is probably also the only GOP candidate who could branch out and run a legitimate third-party bid. He has a large grassroots base of support, a substantial small-donor fundraising network, and a largely coherent message that sets him apart from the other GOP Nopefuls floundering around during the seemingly endless series of Republican debates. And while a Paul third-party bid effectively guarantees that Obama wins re-election, it would be a really great "Up Yours" gesture from Paul to a Republican Party that has clearly lost touch with just about every value Paul espouses. In any case, he isn't running for re-election, so what's Ron Paul got to lose? |
