Is Paul still a longshot? Yes, but so were George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, and Gary Hart. It is true that Republicans have, for over half a century, nominated whoever was leading in the first Gallup poll after Labor Day. But the past doesn’t control the future. Until 2000, for instance, no-one who had lost the New Hampshire primary had ever won the general election.
Polls show that about quarter of Americans are libertarians, in a general sense, so Paul has lots of room for growth. If he can keep raising enough money to get his message out, then with some strong finishes in the early states, he will start getting earned media.
But the "conventional wisdom" tells us he can't win--that is, the people who always tell us to give up without a fight and to negotiate from an initial position of compromise and appeasement say don't even try...
If half the gun owners who mindlessly
parrot this line would throw their support behind him, they might be surprised at what can be accomplished.
I saw this same defeated-before-engaged "strategy" play out in California, where the establishment Republicans and weak-kneed gun owners proclaimed a
Tom McClintock loss a foregone conclusion--even though Gallup polls at the time showed he had a substantial lead over the top democrat if
Arnold--
an avowed gun grabber--was not in the picture. The result? Welcome to the first and only state (thus far) to ban a bolt action rifle based on caliber.
Ah the hell with it. Tell me I'm wrong and put your faith in a "lesser of two evils." The skids are already being greased by some in the "gun camp" to fall behind Giuilani because of the Hillary threat. Besides, why enter the fray and actually do something based on principles when we can just make a dismissive comment and give up now? Isn't that the way revolutions
always happen?
I read a comment on
KABA Newslinks this morning that I really like:
If supporting the Constitution makes you unelectable we're doomed anyway.