Ron Paul's Nevada Disappointment

The end results for Ron Paul in Nevada were nearly heartbreakingly disappointing--third behind Gingrich with 18.7 percent, just 6,175 total votes in a very low turnout caucus vote, with more than 10,000 fewer GOP caucus goers than 2008. This was for a campaign and candidate that expected at the least a strong second and, if they continued their pattern of enormous state-by-state increases vs. their vote totals in 2008, maybe even win. See this chart to see what a bizarre outlier Nevada was in terms of Paul improving over 2008:

In some good news, Paul outperformed and Gingrich underperformed the last Public Policy Polling poll leading up to the vote, Paul outperforming by around 4 percentage points and Gingrich underperforming by the same.

What went wrong? Reports of general human error incompetence in the Nevada vote counting and caucus locations abound, and Paul fans more darkly suspect shenanigans that deliberately undercount Paul's vote. (Best I could gather from in-the-know campaign officials indicates that no one thinks there's enough evidence on the table of deliberate cheating to raise a public stink.) Some precinct irregularites might have resulted in precincts being "thrown out," reports the Las Vegas Sun, and Washoe County claimed the state was misreporting results and Clark County's counting process was suspiciously drawn-out over days.

What went wrong for Paul's team? Paul's vaunted ground game did what it usually did in terms of input--lots of bodies on ground, and calls made--100,000 of them in the three days prior to the vote, a one-day possible world record of 40,000 calls made from one location, according to one volunteer.

The campaign had identified as many as 24,000 supposedly committed voters in their phone call operation (that's far more than the 16,486 Romney got, which explains why wild dreams of a win for Paul's people were not so outrageous). But only a bit more than 6,000 actually voted. Unlike the Paul campaign's success in actually generating turnout in Iowa and New Hampshire, that final crucial step, the one that's up to the voters themselves, the one that no amount of Ron Paul campaign staff or volunteer work can do for them--getting off their ass and going to the caucus meeting--was neglected by far too many voters.

The result was a huge morale blow to the campaign and the candidate. It was also somewhat confusing and infuriating. "I don’t know, 6,000 just seems astonishingly low," one volunteer on the ground there says. "Out of all the different public events I went with him to, I swear well more than 6,000 attended those events. And I didn't even go to Reno and the west side of the state." This same activist said that though his and many other fans heads can't wrap their heads around how this happened, "I know the campaign's mentality is, just move on to the next state and get to work."

But the campaign did collect five committed delegates to Gingrich's six, Paul supporters (though bound to the state's proportional results at the Tampa national convention, if those candidates are still running) did their usual game of waiting it out to make sure delegates to the convention are disproportionately from the Paul movement, which will effect the shape of the party's ideology down the road in interesting and likely good ways whether or not Ron Paul is the GOP candidate. Maine and Minnesota and Colorado loom ahead, all nonbinding straw poll caucuses, where Paul is expected by some in the know to wrack up a possible win in Maine, very likely second places in at least Maine and Minnesota (and probably not much in straw vote terms in Colorado), with the usual caucus game of making sure Paul people move ahead to their state and later national GOP conventions as delegates.

In total, the result was disappointing, and bad for media expectations, and surely disappointing and aggravating to Ron Paul himself. (I witnessed in the Ames straw poll in Iowa how let-down he can feel when he has a realistic expectation of doing much better than he does.) All the campaign can tell their supporters is: it's great to express your support for Paul; please try to do it by showing up to vote for him.

And the larger game continues, with no foregone conclusions: collecting delegates, making sure Ron Paul people begin inhabiting the Republican Party in greater numbers, and showing the importance of the ideas of limited government, fiscal sanity, sound money, and sane foreign policy to politicians and media of all parties via the vehicle of Ron Paul. Candidates do not have to win elections to shape political parties and the political future, and despite Gingrich's "in it for the long haul" bravado, right now Ron Paul still seems like the most likely not-Romney to have the cash and juice to do it, because Paul people don't just give because they think he might or will win--they also give because they want to show their support for the ideas he uniquely represents in American politics.

Media bias lesson via Politico: When Paul people are well organized enough to show up and win a caucus, that means they "hijacked" it. CNN reports from that Paul-dominated late-night caucus:

My forthcoming book, Ron Paul's Revolution.

UPDATE: Some relevant info I didn't have in front of me when I posted this originally: youth turnout, always good for Paul, was dismal in Nevada Saturday; only one percent of under 30s voted, compared to 5 percent in 2008. And yes, Paul dominated that one percent, getting 41 percent of their vote.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    This is all your fault, Doherty.

  • ||

    What a ridiculous thing to say.

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    Is it? Why would Doherty be reporting negative things about Paul unless he has an agenda against him? Think about it.

  • ||

    Um, because negative things happened to Ron Paul in Nevada? Is there any way to spell it out to you that the article doesn't already do?

  • ||

    You're getting trolled.

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    I'm sorry, I was desperately wishing that a "/paultard" wouldn't be necessary, but I've read the past few Paul threads and I should have known better.

  • ||

    Yeah, I figured it out right after I posted my second reply.

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    I was inspired by the characters on the Saturday thread. If I remember right, you were trying to talk sense into them. You can probably chalk it up to PTSD.

  • lily||

    Bi-sexual information?Seeking for the people have the same sexual orientation. please consult the site ---datebi*cO'm---, you will find the like-minded people!

  • ||

    They didn't think abandoning their booze, blow, and bitches for a night was worth it, I guess.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Of course there was voter fraud in Nevada. It's Nevada. Come next week we'll find out the true winner there was Santorum.

  • ||

    I sure hope so. I read some other stuff alleging there was fraud, but it's hard to know if that's really the case without more information.

  • cynical||

    That's fairly stupid on the GOP's part, considering that he probably wouldn't have won either way. I can't think of anything more likely to provoke him into a third party run than the idea that the GOP was cheating.

    Not saying that means they didn't do. They aren't called the stupid party for nothing.

  • ||

    But if Paul had finished a strong second that would have proved there was no fruad.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    There's always fraud. It's Nevada.

  • Bam!||

    There's always fraud: It's an election.

    Fixed it for ya.

  • WWNGD?||

    If you look at most conservative or republican blogs the ideas of limited government, less spending, more freedom, are openly mocked. We are that far gone.

  • ||

    The original question still stands though. Were those ideals ever fully embraced by Team Rojo?

  • Bingo||

    Beware, somewhere a TEAM RED cheerleader is mistakenly digging up the corpse of Reagan as a counter-example.

  • ||

    I still find it hilarious that Reagan is the best example of limited government Team Red can conjure up.

  • WWNGD?||

    It is only because they have been told by others that he is a limited government person so it gets repeated. They don't bother to research it.
    If you want to have fun ask a fan of Reagan what is their favorite way Reagan cut government or reduced spending. They try so hard to think of something. I was told, "Give it a rest the guy died years ago."

  • ||

    Yeah, both the Republican and Democratic parties are fiscally liberal now, just in somewhat different ways. And the only difference between the parties on social issues is the values they endorse. They both embrace social engineering via government interference.

  • ryan||

    Since your graph is defined by relative vote totals instead of percentages, the Nevada vote would still appear dinky had he improved significantly. It doesn't change the facts, but showing those tiny bars juxtaposed to Florida's bars makes them seem pathetic.

  • ||

    You're reading it wrong. Look at the red vs blue bar comparison. That's what should stand out. He's significantly increased votes everywhere but Nevada. That's the story.

  • ||

    Ron Paul is a "leftist" now according to GOP rivals. I am a leftist according to H&R rivals. Hayek is a leftist according to Rothbard purists. We are all leftists except for the glorious wonderful Atilla the Hun - true libertarian and goldbug.

  • ||

    H&R rivals? No one here considers you a "rival." You're just that babbling crazy dude.

  • ||

    Tell us about your Wall Street experience Mr shrike, oh please sir?

  • ||

    You know who else was a leftist according to his rivals....

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    None of the cliques you mentioned sound like people who have a clue and want to see a strong libertarian elected to anything...regardless if they can agree on anything or not. Hope you all like having four more years of Obama/Romney to complain about.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Shit, shrike, you shill for Obama. What the fuck do you expect?

  • ||

    shrike is the second coming of Hayek!

  • Christfag||

    If you are not a communist, shrike, then why do you feel it is necessary to lie about what you are? Only a communist would need your level of duplicity to get by in life.

  • ||

    I live in LV. A large city needs more than an hour to vote. This needs to be changed! There were people coming in to vote as we were closing. People simply didn't know they only had a couple of hours to vote. This should be an all day event and should allow absentee voting. Some people had to work and many were out of town. Sadly, i know of about 40 voters in my own precinct that told me they were voting...but they didn't show. I don't want to hear a SINGLE complaint in November from non voters. These 4 men are working their asses off for us, and all you have to do is show up for an hour.

  • ||

    It won't matter much. This country will be fortunate to survive until the next election. If and when things start to REALLY unravel we'll get to experience what it's really like to live under martial law. I only wish I were younger ... wars and revolutions are best fought by young people. And I'm not sure how long I can survive in the U.S. Gulag without my nightcap!

  • Max||

    Yes, Ron Paul's dismal showing in Nevada just breaks my heart.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Spoof. Max *has* no heart.

  • ||

    I usually steer well clear of conspiratorial-type garbage, including stuff about "voter fraud" and whatnot. God forbid I stain the pseudonymous name and fake email address I use for commenting around here.

    And yet...

    I have to say, there really did seem to be something odd about this Nevada count. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence out there that points to hanky-panky -- or at least official ineptness -- of some sort. I don't blame the Daily Paul denizens for having their brows furrowed over this.

    And yeah: The notion that Paul's support in Nevada grew by all of 88 votes since 2008 is pretty ludicrous. It seems incontrovertible that Paul's following has grown significantly, across the board, in the past four years. And somehow that's being reflected everywhere except the most libertarian state in the nation?

    Maybe it's fraud, maybe it's not. But it's definitely weird.

  • ||

    You can't compare raw numbers and expect it to be meaningful.

    Romney's vote total actually went down too, despite him being the "anointed frontrunner" this time and no McCain stealing votes. I guess the conspirators are against him, too?

  • ||

    Look.

    I'm not a Paul-fanatic (-tard, -bot, -ite, -onulan). I like Ron Paul, and he'll get my vote, but I'm not one of those people whose life is devoted to him and his campaign. I was a libertarian before Paul emerged as a national figure in the late '80s, and I'll be a libertarian long after he's gone.

    I'm just pointing out that, yeah: The whole Nevada vote-count process seemed pretty fucked up this weekend, and that Paul's numbers seem weirdly static from 2008. Whether or not those two things are related, I have no idea, but it's worth at least stopping and wrangling with for a minute or two.

    In the grand scheme of things, I have absolutely no doubt that vote-tinkering shenanigans have occurred at various points in the story of American politics. Whether one of those points was this past weekend in Nevada, I have no idea. But I'm not going to blithely dismiss it as a possibility.

  • ||

    Yes, I agree with this. It might be, might not be. The outcome certainly seems strange to me, but then again I don't live in Nevada.

  • Jumbie||

    Sadly, the entrance polls seem to indicate that the caucus results are honest. Paul didn't get close to the strong second they expected.

  • ||

    It took 2 days to count 30,000 votes. Fraud. The biggest precinct had 100 voters at the most? Either Navadians are really bad at math or something fishy`s going on. I`m sure Sheldon Adelson secured Gingrich that 2nd place victory. Gingrich 6,956.. Paul 6,175. Wow that wouldn't be hard to fix. Just switch some ballot boxes. Iowa felt really shady. There`s still missing precincts. In SC Newt had to cancel events because of empty rooms. Yet he wins? We all know the history with Florida. I think the only clean contest so far has been NH.

  • ||

    I think the only clean contest so far has been NH.
    Yeah about that....
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

  • ||

    And when Paul loses in Minnesota, Missouri, Maine, Virginia, etc, that's going to be fraud too.

    I've heard this tune before.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tulpa,

    And when Paul loses in Minnesota, Missouri, Maine, Virginia, etc, that's going to be fraud too.


    Depends on by how much. If Paul obtains the very same number of votes he obtained 4 years ago, that would be more than mere coincidence.

    "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything," Joseph Stalin is purported to have said.

  • tarran||

    Jeremy, given that the straw vote is meaningless from a delegate perspective, I doubt there was systematic intentional fraud - no real benefit at a risk of devastating costs if caught.

    Nah, this has poorly planned cluster-fuck written all over it. I expect that there were many Frances O'Brians messing things up.

  • Killazontherun||

    Would not a wrong door knock down at Gracie Manson be the ultimate form of cosmic justice?

  • Killazontherun||

    Speaking of wrong door knocks!

  • RON PAUL, SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE||

    http://www.lewrockwell[dot]com/paul/paul148.html

    "The War on Religion" by Dr. Ron Paul

    "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life."

    Looks like Santorum isn't the only one who wants the "freedom to impose values"! LOLOLOLOL FREEDOM FOR CHRISTIANS, NOT FOR MUSLIMS, HINDUS, ATHEISTS, BUDDHISTS!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Direct Result Of The Amerikan Pulbic Skool Seistem,

    The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.


    Your first mistake is believing the statement is intrinsically wrong. Your second mistake is believing anybody else would simply believe that it's wrong at face value. Your third mistake is assuming people that would not care otherwise would see the error in that statement without an argument from your part to explain why. Your fourth mistake is not forwarding any argument to support your belief that the statement is factually or historically wrong. Your fifth mistake was posting here. Your sixth mistake is thinking you're smart because your mommy (who I am sure loves you very much) tells you that.

    You sure make a lot of mistakes, you direct result of the Amerikan Pulbic Skool Seistem.

  • ||

    Alas, my parents were Paul voters in 08, but both jumped ship because Romney is "electable" and they're too anti-Obama to care about, you know, principles.

    Speaking of which, what's the only difference between a Romney administration and a second term for Obama?

    Whether or not the Daily Show reverts back to being watchable.

  • ||

    Nevada-residing parents. Grr.

  • Killazontherun||

    I don't watch it often, but the few clips I catch every week, I still find Stewart to be amiable and funny. If you're funny I can over look a lot of defects, like that gal in Funny Girl. Yeah, like you wouldn't have done her in her prime around the time she did Meet The Fokkers.

  • Attila the Huh||

    Huh?

  • Killazontherun||

    Don't be scared. Just grab on and go with it!

  • Troll||

    Clever, but I'd say it's whether the Colbert Report is watchable again. Jon Stewart has remained pretty funny since 2009, regardless of his personal beliefs. But Stephen Colbert has just become... painful.

  • ||

    There you have it. I think its because people are more interested in winning with their team than being principled; that and old media attention still making the difference.

    The problem is that it is a weak choice, because Obama will more likely capture the independent vote than romney against the libertarian candidate Johnson.

    Also mitts own healthcare boondoogle will be of more interest in the actual election.

  • ||

    Mr Doherty, you should be more responsible than to reinforce the Paul-worshippers' tendency toward conspiracy theories as an explanation for their idol's electoral failures.

    Unless the conspirators were also fixing the PPP and other opinion polls in the days leading up to the caucus, that's not a plausible explanation. If anyone is in a position to be alleging conspiracies it's Gingrich (and he isn't).

  • Killazontherun||

    Can you actually point to something BD wrote that was irresponsible? Anything that was not balanced as tightly with an 'on the other hand' as a Cathy Young article, or are you trying to shit a big duce into BD's mouth while pretending to be the adult surrounded by Paultard children?

  • tarran||

    or are you trying to shit a big duce into BD's mouth while pretending to be the adult surrounded by Paultard children

    Nice imagery.

  • ||

    Repeating conspiracy theories with no evidence beyond innuendo is irresponsible, unless you're explaining how implausible they are.

    Doherty spends a paragraph and several links on coddling the Paul-worshippers' fantasies without stating the obvious as I did above: Paul was behind Newt in the opinion polls too. That's irresponsible imho.

  • Killazontherun||

    Tulpa you are so full of shit. Your description in both instances in no way resembles what BD wrote above. You came to fight the Paultards in your head, and even when you had no cause, you went ahead with the ridiculous taunt.

  • ||

    the adult surrounded by Paultard children

    If that's what it takes, that's what I'll be.

  • ||

    We certainly read different articles. He notes that some Paul fans in the state have suspicions, but notes there isn't any evidence of fraud. Pretty fair if you ask me.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    So, you're saying politicians and powermonger party hacks, are incapable of fraud, Tulpa?

  • David||

    I was shocked how poorly Paul did in Nevada. All the online support in the world does you no good if your supporters won't actually leave their computers to go vote. I hope this is a wake up call to Paul supporters in other states who are thinking complacency on voting day won't make a difference.

  • twistedcross||

    Team Red. Team Blue. All I see are a bunch of clueless purple faggots.

  • ||

    Faggots is a nice touch. #GoBackToTheFrat

  • anon||

    Ron Paul's loss does not surprise me; most of his "dedicated supporters" are twenty-somethings that don't show up (ie; wake up in time) to vote.

    Although, for a state with 2.6 million people, I'd expect more than 30000 to vote in the primary. I mean really, ONE PERCENT of the fucking entire state population voted!? Yeah, I can really tell you guys hate Obama.

  • anon||

    In contrast, 120,000 people voted in Iowa, for a total of 4% of the population.

  • anon||

    Yeah, and yet somehow 10 percent of Florida and 25 percent of New Hampshire voted.

    If the results are serious, Fuck You Nevada.

  • Robert||

    Caucusing involves considerably more commitment than does voting in a primary.

  • Old Mexican||

    I come from a country where voter fraud was the daily staple of political life. I saw and was a witness to shenanigans that would make a Chicago politician turn green with envy.

    I am sorry to say this but those results reek of voter fraud. There is NO WAY a presidential candidate that has triplicated his support from 4 years ago only obtained the EXACT SAME AMOUNT of votes of 4 years ago in that state. That cannot be explained by mere incompetence or even low turnout.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Tulpa says that is unpossible.

  • ||

    Hey Mex, I feel like you are as close to me philosophically and temperamentally as anyone in here. There is little I have ever read from you that I disagree with. I have little doubt that there has been significant fraud in many of the contests so far. The problem with this is not Ron Paul not winning, per se. It's that, like everywhere where political fraud is a fundamental component of the system, people recognize the futility of even participating. In such a system there is no hope for any change except through violence. As far as I am concerned, if that is what this is all eventually coming down too, then why even continue with the charade of politics anymore?

  • Robert||

    Do you think it possible that libertarians deliberately hid their support for Ron Paul, the better to take over the Nev. GOP? That is, in order to get elected to party offices that will last past the Nov. election, they tried to appear to be anything but radical.

  • ||

    Voting irregularities or outright fraud is the only conclusion I come to.

  • leoT||

    This is really tragic...for a while there I had real hope that we could use Paul's strong showings to get the word out about the strategic benefits of divisive, racist rhetoric. Alas.

  • leoT||

    This is really tragic...for a while there I had real hope that we could use Paul's strong showings to get the word out about the strategic benefits of divisive, racist rhetoric. Alas.

  • ||

    Ron Paul couldn't even beat Rick Santorum in SC. What happened to the independents and disgruntled democrats who were supposed to flock to his side in the open primary?

    There's no real surprise - Paul's core base, although bolstered by recent surge of independents and purism driven tea party types, wasn't quite enough.

    Romney will get at least 40% of the vote in the general election. Paul's base is the extra 5-7% that would put him on top. Come on, Ron Paul's pushing 80. A VP slot or an endorsement would add something to his legacy.

  • 0x90||

    Ron Paul, first, cannot be the nominee, and second, cannot be the president. If, by freak chance, both of these things were to occur, he could not succeed in implementing his ideas. Why? Take it to a concrete scenario: dissolution of one (pick one) executive bureaucracy. Look at what happens in Wisconsin when one tiny entitlement is revoked, and extrapolate. The likely progression of a Paul presidency involves recall, impeachment, or assassination, in relatively short order.

    The people are simply not ready for this yet. Politics cannot be fixed from the top down, because it is an expression of the current state of mind of the populace. The numbers suggest positive movement, but there is yet a long way to go. The things to do at this point are a) expand your sphere of influence, and b) minimize the state's ability to intrude on your own life.

  • smartass||

    The people are simply not ready for this yet.

    And they never will be. The State runs the educational systems and the media is in favor of The Big State, whoever it may be that actually controls them.

    Politics cannot be fixed from the top down...

    Attila the Hun would disagree.

    The things to do at this point are a) expand your sphere of influence, and b) minimize the state's ability to intrude on your own life.

    I get it. You mean we should a) talk louder and then b) hope we don't get hauled away by The State.

  • 0x90||

    First, as I wrote, there is positive movement here, but it is still far from reaching a critical mass. Second, in what way did Attila fix politics? Third, no, and I might suggest you consider developing a more subversive thought process.

  • smartass||

    Sorry, it's just that I'm a smartass, you know?

    Attila fixed politics by wiping out the old political order of the places he conquered, which had become rotten corrupt weak etc.

    Read some history. Invasions are a proven method for wiping out the weak, the old, and the inept.

  • killazontherun||

    Doesn't matter if they are ready for it or not. Fiscal reality is already hitting them like a motherfucking two by four and all they are doing is curling up like a fetus. This is far more a loss for the general public that they are choosing either Obama or Romney than it is our loss. We're prepared to fight for the future and they are not. I'm an AnCap by nature, and I was prepared to sacrifice that ideal in order to see them have a bare semblance of a functional government given they are not ready for the responsible alternative. Unfortunately, they don't understand how out of control their own lives are due to the puppeteeering of an omnipotent government to any degree that will salvage their well being in the long run.

    They go for the safest choices possible in terms of the limits of what they know and understand while still assuming they can have a life resembling what they had. For some that may even be true given the wealth of the nation isn't even close to being entirely depleted, but the percentage of those who can live like their fathers and can afford the expenses their father's afforded, mortgage payments, college tuition, medical insurance and do so autonomously has already changed remarkably in my life time. That is not going to improve until they are willing to fight for their future, and they are not. Supporting Paul was more for their benefit than it was for my own.

  • 0x90||

    I also support Paul, in that he is a politician for which I will actually vote, if presented with the opportunity. I am not so much ancap, or any other thing, as I am deliberately agnostic, politically speaking. Observing the landscape, I would not put money on his being elected, though, and even if he were to be, as I wrote, I think it would basically come to nothing in the end. What is required is a sea change, and I think it will be awhile yet before things have reached a state degraded enough for that to occur. The ability to simple-mindedly choose, as you say, the "safe" solutions (which usually boil down to wishful thinking, implemented), is at its core, a luxury; at some point, that luxury is no longer affordable. This is a long road, though, when you consider, for example, how long the Soviet system was able to remain in existence, and what comes after, is an unknown.

  • Max||

    So Ron Paul won't ever be Presiednt then?

  • ||

    ...you thought he would be??

  • Fluffy||

    The reason I think there was no fraud, or at worst limited, local, uncoordinated fraud of the petty variety, is because Nye County underperformed too.

    Paul won it, but didn't get anywhere near the vote totals the campaign anticipated.

    And the Nye County process was run by Paul supporters.

  • Matt||

    Good point, but there is the fact that Nye County isn't very populated to begin with.

    How do NV's demographics look compared to 08? Has the population declined due to the housing crash? That could be a factor in the low turnout.

    It's all very strange, because Paul's improved organization has paid off very well in the previous states and yielded much better results. Odd that it had little effect in Nevada, except to prevent a loss of votes compared to 08.

  • bestkit||

    A real dispointing result.

  • ||

    In percentage terms, Paul's support improved similar to Florida.

    Turnout was down 25%, but Paul's number of voters stayed about the same.

    Paul's core support is divided among Libertarians and Patriots. Patriots, almost by definition, are inclined to conspiracy theory. Of course the secret conspiracy that rules the world is deciding election results. Libertarians tend to be pessimists. Paul got 19%? It's a miracle. A result of 1.9% seems more likely.

    Anyway, I wish Doherty had discovered whether or not observers from the campaign, and particularly the Paul campaign, observed counting at the county level--particularly Washoe, Clark, and Carson City.

    If find it hard to imagine that observers from the campaign were kept out, as appears to be the assumption by the Patriot-wing of Paul supporters.

    By the way, to prove that I am not entirely free from paranoid conspiracy theory, to what degree is the White Power infiltrator wing of the Ron Paul movement promoting conspiracy theory as a calculated attempt to recruit Ron Paul supporters?

    Did each precinct have a voter list and check people off before they voted?

    Were those on the Ron Paul identified voters list told where they were supposed to caucus? If so, and there were no errors by the campaign, the confusion about renumbering precincts would help.

    Being a libertarian, I never thought Paul had a chance to win the Republican nomination. So whether the delegates are pledged on the first ballot or not isn't too important. But none of them are pledged for Vice President or platform planks. I don't expect victories there either, but the bigger the minority support for liberty, peace and freedom, the better.

  • Brian Doherty||

    Bill--While I was only able to speak to a small number of people directly involved in that process on either a high or low level yesterday, I do believe most of the caucuses had RP people/observers involved in the counting process, and indeed the campaign's official line is there were not enough significant "mistakes" or whatever you might call them to question the process officially.

  • beezle||

    The NV results are certainly disappointing but do need to be taken in some context too. As a % of the vote, RP was 5 pts higher (35+% improvement) over 2008. But the overall turnout was (assuming the reported totals are with in reason correct) down significantly from 2008. RP's improvement was not as great as in IA and NH, but he spent months in those states.

    I think you hit it on the head - if people are not willing to get off their ass and go vote (and the caucuses being a larger time commitment than a primary) then they get what they deserve - NewtRomney.

  • ||

    Guessing his views on abortion didnt go over well with the bunny ranch constituency.

  • IceTrey||

    I think the Paul camp was expecting at this point for it to be only him and Romney still in the race. Gingrich and Santorum still being in the race has upset his plans.

  • ||

    I guess vote fraud is beyond Doherty's imagination. In one event alone in Reno, Paul had over 1000 people to hear him speak. If you think that total for Paul is accurate, I have a bridge to sell you.

  • ||

    Hmmmm

    No evidence of voter fraud in Nevada; are your crazy? Or perhaps just a liar. The media called the election with less than 10% of the vote in. Las Vegas had not reported and they still called the election? Come on people there has been massive voter fraud to ensure Ron Paul loses in every single election in this GOP cycle. This is not my imagination this is documented fact. Election officials not just partisan supporters have come forward in droves reporting all manor of voter irregularities and out right fraud in every single state election to date. And the really terrifying problem is that it is against Ron Paul in over 95% of the reported incidents. And yet like the rest of the media this author doesn't just ignore the truth he flat out lies. Good job and a hearty pat on the back to the US Media. Thanks to their direct intervention in this election cycle the fate of the Republic is sealed.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement