Ron Paul

Ron Paul Finishes Third in Alaska

|

Scratch another state off the candidate's wish-list. From The Hill:

With 96 percent of precincts reporting, Romney had 33 percent of the votes cast, followed by former Sen. Rick Santorum at 29 percent.

Paul, who has performed well in past caucus contests, finished third with 24 percent. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich earned 14 percent.

The state's 27 delegates will be awarded proportionately later this month. […]

The result will be a disappointment for Paul, who is still looking for his first victory in the 2012 nominating race. The Texas lawmaker's strategy was to focus on geographic pockets in his pursuit of delegates, and he was the only candidate to campaign in Alaska ahead of the vote.

Related Reason coverage yesterday from Garrett Quinn, Brian Doherty, Lucy Steigerwald, Mike Riggs, and Shikha Dalmia. Read Brian Doherty's April-issue cover story on "The Ron Paul Moment."

NEXT: Jacob Sullum on the Myth of 'Reproductive Justice'

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.

  1. It looks like Ron Paul did the worst in the South, overall. I hate to be a bigot, but maybe people in the South really are the dumbest Americans out there.

    1. I think the Midwest might win at least 2nd for the dumbest part of the nation this year. I can at least understand the rationale for voting Romney, because of the electability of his electableness. But Santorum? Even though he didn’t win Ohio, the fact that he got so many votes is depressing. Why would a part of the country with failing industry vote for someone who seems to think people only care about social issues this election.?

      1. Maybe the people who voted for Sen. Frothy live in failing parts of the country because they only cared about social issues for a very long time…

        1. No, you silly fool. They just can’t read.

    2. No Sherma, we are just not the antisemites you were banking on.

      1. Then why vote for a good Catholic boy?

    3. People who don’t agree with you must be stupid. Are you sure you’re not a liberal? Because that type of thinking is pretty prevalent at say TPM or Salon. I thought libertarians are supposed to be above the partisan bullshit and understand that reasonable people are allowed to have disagreements. Apparently, I thought wrong.

      1. “Reasonable people” don’t vote for control freaks like Santorum.

      2. Those are two different things.

        Reasonable people are able to have disagreements, but that’s not the same as conceding that the other guy’s not stupid.

        I don’t immediately start arguments with retarded kids on the street. We can actually get along swimmingly, as long as they aren’t the drooly kind of retarded kid. We can be perfectly friendly. That doesn’t mean they aren’t stupid, though.

        Don’t confuse “Not having a reason to fight with this dude” with “Not thinking this dude is a moron”.

        1. Reasonable people are able to have disagreements

          Reasonable people are able to have reasonable discussions about their disagreements. When one’s arguments boil down to ad homs, “Fuck you, that’s why”, etc., “stupidity” is kicking in.

          1. He wasn’t arguing or having a discussion, “genius”. He was making a generalized affirmation with reference to a perceived stereotype.

            But by all means continue discussing something completely irrelevant.

      3. Da Nile, you haven’t been around these parts too often if you think that libertarians don’t engage in ad hominems as much as any other group. Perhaps the difference is that we don’t ONLY stick to ad hominem attacks, straw men, or sarcasm. In any case, my comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I don’t actually think the average Southerner is dumber than people in other parts of the country. Just the average Southern voter.

    4. No, the dumbest Americans out there are the dumb fucks who keep expecting Ron Paul to win.

      1. You forgetting those who believed (still believe?) Obama/Democrats/Necons can do any good overall. They’re missing at least a couple chromosomes. Wait…now your troll-dickery makes perfect sense.

    5. Perhaps, but at least they didn’t vote for Obama.

  2. The Alaska result isn’t that much of a surprise is it? I thought it was the state which got the most federal funding per person. Which makes Ron Paul the Grinch trying to steal Christmas

    1. I dunno, 24% is a fairly decent showing for Paul, comparitvely. Alaska conservatism isn’t primarily run by so-cons as it is in, say, the South.

      1. Paul increased his turnout by about 50% over 2008, despite very little (less) campaign activity. Paul will get 6 of 24 delegates, with Romeny and Santorum getting 8 and 7.

        Based on my district, it looks like 40-50% of the state convention delegates will be sympathetic to Paul.

    2. Good observation.

    3. Alaska’s federal and state funds go mostly to the military installations (highest percentage per population of active duty and retired military of any state), the oil industry, infrastructure and the natives. Alaska is a glorified military base, but even under a Ron Paul administration, it would still get back more than it puts in per dollar because of the necessity of the military/oil industry system in place and the simple fact that no white man will ever tell all the natives that they should stop living on the Bering Strait if they want modern amenities.

      Alaska is still very much in “Wild West” mode, and its free market development would take a slower pace than the gummit operating at a loss to develop roads and bridges to nowhere that make people in the lower 48 incredulous. Joe Miller’s candidacy was sort of a bellwether for Alaskan libertarianism and it just did not fly.

  3. Sometimes, you do get the gubmint you deserve. Good and hard.

    Fuck the GOP and its authoritarian minions.

    1. Shut up, conservative. You fucking GOP shill.

      1. The GOP shilling usually doesn’t really kick in til about 9.

      2. Warty, methinks thou dost protest too much. Everyone knows you carry water for the GOP Establishment. This is why no one takes libertarians seriously; you’re just Republicans who want to smoke crystal meth.

        1. I especially like this from the libertarian and regular CPAC attendee Blue Moon…

          Yup, no GOP leaning libertarians round these parts!

          1. I can’t speak to the Rev’s station in life but who would deny the presence of more GOP-leaning libertarians round these parts since a Democrat has been President?

            1. Oh, lots of people will deny it.

              I expect more of that when a Dem is in office, libertarianism is about hating the goverment to some extent. But it’s gotten pretty Free Republic-y in here lately in all kinds of other illogical ways (notice the recent Iran threads where about half of the commenters beat the war drums).

              1. Or just look at morning links. Basically there are 3 types of comments:

                1. Links to articles bitching about progressives
                2. Commentators bitching about progressives
                3. Daily Mail T&A links

                Other than the masthead, there’s no reason to think you’re at a libertarian website instead of a conservative blog.

                1. Other than the masthead daily Ron Paul hosannas, the pro-drug articles, the anti-war pieces, and the anti-Republican op-eds, there’s no reason to think you’re at a libertarian website instead of a conservative blog.

                  Yeah, no reason at all.

                  1. Nice try, but while the main posts by the Reason staff are like that the commentariat is not quite matching. Our Iran threads now are about half and half war drums…

                  2. I notice you left out the part of my post that specifically mentioned that I was talking about morning links. The people who write for this site are pretty even handed, the commentators, not so much.

                    1. Then, “Da Nile”, the comment about the masthead makes no sense. Do the Commentariat somehow demonstrate that “but for the masthead, this would be a conservative blog”?

                      English, base knave, dost thou speak it?

                    2. Don’t expect them to look at what you actually said, they don’t want anyone to notice how they’ve been shifting the tenor of the site, so it’s full press if you point it out.

                      He clearly said the commentariat in Morning Links.

                    3. …they don’t want anyone to notice how they’ve been shifting the tenor of the site…

                      Conspiracy!!!!! Cancel my subscription!

                2. It’s essentialy become like Michelle Malkin writ large. All Obama hate, all the time.

                  Certainly Obama has given libertarians virtually no reason to support him, but one would think libertarians have other things to talk about than exactly what Michelle Malkin would be talking about at the same time….

                  1. Michelle Malkin goes on SWAT raids and shoots dogs?

                    Wow, she’s really branching out.

                    1. I’ll give you the commentariat here does not have the cop love that the usual GOPer does. But you don’t think things have tilted a bit right here as of late fluff? In the past the kind of war drumming and general Islam-bashing, to take just one example, would be reserved for a lone Donderdo type; in recent threads its made up about half of posts.

                    2. Michelle Malkin goes on SWAT raids and shoots dogs?

                      Wow, she’s really branching out.

                      Fluffy, didn’t you know that the regular calls of “Fuck Da Police” and worse whenever a police officer is even mentioned proves were just Michelle Malkin wannabes?

                      Damn conservatives and their cop-hating, war-hating, state-hating ways.

                3. Other than the masthead, there’s no reason to think you’re at a libertarian website instead of a conservative blog.

                  The Daily Mail T&A links show this is not a conservative blog.

                4. Or you could just stop bitching and tell us where we can read Real, Approved Libertarian Commentary?.

                  1. Well, I don’t think there is any such animal as Party Line Libertarianism. But a guy can’t note the increase in Free Republicers here?

                    1. I don’t even know what Free Republic is. Probably doublespeak for something.

                    2. I don’t even know what Free Republic is. Probably doublespeak for something.

                      That just proves even further that you’re a Manchurian Libertarian for the evil GOP Media Establishment.

                      How many traktor pulls have you been to this year? I bet it’s a lot, isn’t it, you poor piece of trash! Go make more money.

                    3. The Right Rev would love to change the subject here. He’s a regular CPAC attendee, someone who can usually be counted on to play a very interested Devils Advocate for the traditionalist Reaganite background he’s from after he starts with a “I’m an atheist, but even I….[insert defense of traditional values here]”

                      He’s the kind of Reagan objectivist you’d read in the Peikoff journals.

                    4. You should check it out, it’s pretty nutty over there.

                    5. My day goes a lot better when I’m not constantly reminded how stupid, inconsistent, and wilfully ignorant are my fellow Americans. I really hate politics; this place is like a safe zone from the normal full retard of American public life until people start spending more time accusing each other of party shilling than having a discussion on issues and how to address them.

                    6. until people start spending more time accusing each other of party shilling than having a discussion on issues and how to address them.

                      I would put MNG into your filter immediately if you find that sort of thing tiresome. He’s the HNIC of Partisan Bickering (well, he and John).

                    7. John just looms so large for you, doesn’t he?

            2. Bee, sure there are more of them. I am just not one of them.

              1. He just attends CPAC regularly for the aesthetics…

                1. It’s Sandy Vagina Day!

                  That shall be my name for you, from now on, MNG.

                  SVD

                  1. But the singular value decomposition is a perfectly useful thing! Why taint it???

                  2. But the singular value decomposition is a perfectly useful thing! Why taint it???

                    1. And why taint it twice?

                      I definitely only clicked once. Fuck you, server.

        2. Don’t say this too loud, but I’m no libertarian. In fact, I’m a sitting Republican senator. And I would never use crystal meth; that’s just what I use to bait my boytraps.

          1. I always knew Rob Portman was sketchy as fuck.

          2. Ah, HA!!

    2. Warty makes a joke after JW’s clear and unequivocal anti-GOP statement.

      Da Nile and (presumably) his little troll buddy spend 20 minutes trying to prove that “Fuck the GOP” really means we want to sleep with the GOP.

      You can’t make this shit up.

      1. GOP shill.

        1. No, you’re the shill, shill.

        2. “You’re a towel!”

          /nevergetsold

          1. Go back to Wal-Mart, old man!

            1. Don’t you work as a greeter at Free Republic, you fucking GOP shill?

              1. Am I a GOP shill? I guess I’ll never know until The One True Arbiter of Libertarianism makes a ruling.

            2. Oh look here comes TweedleGOP and Tweedledumb to ruin the thread with their glibness.

              Why are you both so terribly, terribly racist?

              1. I’m the devolution of this place, Rev.! How dare you talk to me like that!

                1. Fuck you. I have studied this place extensively.

                  1. I actually considered taking a GOP ballot yesterday for the first time in 32 years of voting. I didn’t, but I guess I’m part of the problem.

                    Speaking of which, now that any kind of Paul hope seems to have been shattered, I can now concentrate my Conservative Republican support fully on Gary Johnson.

                    1. That’s just part of your double-secret Shill Trickery, CN.

                    2. Triple-secret: I once voted for a Green candidate, you see. But that was just to throw the Bilderbergers off my trail.

  4. the guy’s really running on fumes at this point.

    1. Marijuana fumes.

  5. Morning Links in the morning.

  6. This is the third time I’ve gone to bed with Santorum leading throughout and woke up to Romney winning (Iowa, Michigan, Ohio). One wonders if Santorum has enough people to be looking over the vote counting, or if they have to get to bed early or something…

    I really don’t get Romney winning so big in Idaho of all places. That is a pretty conservative place, how does the most moderate GOP candidate get 70% of the vote there?

    1. This is the third time I’ve gone to bed with Santorum

      Ew.

      1. You can get an infection if you don’t wash that stuff off down there.

    2. I believe there are a lot of Mormons there.

      1. Oh yeah, I forgot that completely, good point.

        Still, enough to get 70% of the vote out for a moderate candidate in a GOP primary? That’s some busy Mormons!

  7. If this doesn’t seal a Paul third party run, nothing will. He still has a chance to affect the discussion at the convention but that power is slipping away fast. At some point he needs to decide which route is best for gettng out the message of liberty and fiscal discipline.

    1. It would be nice but I don’t see him running third party…They say he’s actually good friends with Romney apart from politics, their wives are friends. He’ll get his message out via the nomination process. After that it’ll have to be Johnson to get the same message out.

      1. I don’t necessarily think it’s likely, because he still has a glimmer of hope to get a good speaking spot and get some if his people involved in positions of influence. I’m still holding out hope for a Romney offer of VP or a cabinet spot. No way should Romney offer santorum any of that.

        1. I don’t think he will be offered either VP or a cabinet spot. Rand might be offered a lesser cabinet spot though, but I’d rather he stay in the Senate and keep “speaking truth to power.”

          Instead Paul should ask for a good speaking spot and a concession on one big issue, but what would it be? Most of his supporters say Fed reform, but I think that would be so esoteric to most folks out there it would not get any message out…

    2. He still has a chance to affect the discussion at the convention but that power is slipping away fast

      This is true, but if my occasional trips to DailyPaul reveal anything it’s that Paul supporters are reaching peak disappointment/vindictiveness. More and more calls to screw over the GOP and the horse they rode in on. Maybe that fades, but maybe this is the time to throw these potential GOP voters a bone before you lose them for good.

      1. And if Ron Paul were actually winning the nomination and the neocons and theocrats were upset about it, the Paul people would be chiding them for not uniting behind the nominee.

    3. Or he could throw his support behind Gary Johnson, but I guess that Johnson’s positions on immigration, gay marriage, and abortion won’t satisfy the good doctor’s more crazed supporters.

  8. It’s because everyone knows Ron Paul is unelectable.

    We are so screwed.

    1. Meh, this idea that he is unelectable is largely supported by the circular argument that, well, he’s unelectable. The guy is being outspent and virtually ignored by the media and running a party that is increasingly being defined by a belligerent foriegn policy that Paul opposes. I’m surprised he’s doing as well as he is. That he is shows he has appeal.

      1. My exact point.

      2. More than just ignored by the media. They often won’t even mention the factual news events about him that they are supposed to cover as part of, you know, their job.

  9. You know, if it wasn’t for the endless hit pieces you probably wouldn’t be running stories about Ron Paul at all. For a magazine called reason, I would think there would be a little more love for the only man who can get this country back on track. I’m betting that if Virginia Postrel were still around things like this wouldn’t be happening.

    1. Goddammit, it’s 8:30 in the fucking morning! How Irish are you exactly?

      1. I just wanted to get everyone’s livers conditioned for a long day of Ron Paul coulda, shoulda, woulda write-ups.

        1. It’s gonna be a long day. Better put on the kettle for Max and White Indian.

          I don’t want anything but boiling water in their faces when they show.

          1. The Albino Autochthon is already shitting up the Fluke thread. Max is still passed out facedown in the semen-spattered corpse of his mother at this point.

            1. “Autochthon”

              I learned a new word today. Amazing, considering how I’m allegedly in the sack with you all day.

              1. Having a large vocabulary is just a right wing meme.

                1. Are you claiming to have studied the dictionary?

                  1. Well, he is a librarian *snicker*.

                    1. OTOH, he’s probably more proficient with html tags than I.

    2. I wasn’t aware that Johnson’s abortion position was all that different from Pauls. I thought Paul wanted to turn it back to the states, which would certainly allow a lot of abortion (hell, even Mississippi couldn’t pass a personhood bill), while Johnson has supported abortion restrictions.

      I think they both would agree no government should subsidize abortion.

      1. Leave it to you to miss the subtle sarcasm.

  10. I think what we have here guys is a crisis of rising expectations.

    In 2006, if you told me that an elderly former LPA Presidential candidate would run for the GOP nomination in 2008, I would have assumed that unnamed candidate would get Gary Johnson numbers. Paul vastly overperformed my expectations.

    But I like many believed that 2008 represented Paul’s limit within the GOP primary electorate. And now in 2012 he has blown through that limit and established himself solidly in the 20’s outside of the deep south.

    All of a sudden we’re disappointed because he’s not outright winning. WTF, guys? Look at the vote totals and say, “In quite a few states Paul ended up a few hundred or thousand votes from winning.” That’s fucking shocking by the standard of what our realistic expectations should have been.

    1. “I think what we have here guys is a crisis of rising expectations.”

      +1

      Paul is being outspent by enormous factors, ignored by the media and undermined regularly by the GOP establishment and he is still pulling consistent double digit figures with a remarkably in your face libertarian message. This is a high point for you guys, don’t be down.

    2. The key is — what happens to those voters now? I thought Paul had completely wasted his 2008 effort and was happy to be proven wrong. But I’m worried about the same thing this time.
      What happens to Paul’s 2012 voters? Can that base keep building without Paul?

      1. For myself, I’m penciling in Ron Paul’s name, and then I’m done with the GOP forever.

    3. Wasn’t Maine like 80 votes?

  11. Why do we find the libertarian message so appealing but 80% of Americans don’t? Can the message be tweaked and made appealing or not? Or was 1776 just a lightning strike we will never see again?

    1. 1776 had little to do with libertarianism.

  12. Can the message be tweaked and made appealing

    Sure. We just embrace the nanny state and militarism and everyone will love us!

    1. “The average man doesn’t want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.”
      -H.L. Mencken

  13. Ron Paul is not out to win as much as he is trying to build a movement. In that respect he is succeeding greatly. Most Young people get it and that will continue to build over time. Remember-if it were easy everyone would be doing it.

    1. Yeah, and Ron Paul is building a movement despite having a shit load of racist, homophobic baggage that everybody knows won’t bother young people.

      1. So who’s perfect?

        1. Max is the Platonic ideal form of a troll.

          1. He might be if his trolling was at all original

    2. It’s a shame Paul isn’t 20 year younger. He could at least make another run or two and utilize the momentum he’s built from the last two elections.

      In 4 years shits only going to get worse with the pinheads in Washington

  14. This just in. Democracy doesn’t work because people are F’in stupid

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.