Did Ron Paul fail miserably?

[Thy_Kingdom]

Well, the last thread was closed for reasons unknown(I suspect the title).

Now that the Ron Paul revolution is effectively over, the time has come for a levelheaded assessment of the pluses and minuses of the single largest movement that modern libertarianism has ever engaged in.

Any rational approach to life must seek objective answers to puzzling questions ? we must steadfastly refuse to make up answers, but rather humbly look for them in the evidence.

Now that the Ron Paul revolution has failed in its stated objective ? to increase political liberty by getting Ron Paul elected president ? our great temptation will be to either make up answers as to why, or rewrite history by substituting another objective.

However, we owe it to the principles of liberty ? if not truth ? to reject easy or pat answers, but rather examine the root causes of such an enormous failure, so that we can do better next time.

The Premises

To begin, we must examine the central premises held by Ron Paul supporters.

In general, the basic beliefs were these:

1. Ron Paul is the most credible candidate that libertarianism has to offer.

2. The general electorate will respond to Ron Paul?s message of liberty.

3. Ron Paul can be elected.

4. If Ron Paul is elected, political liberty will increase substantially.

All of the above beliefs support the core approach, which is that political activism can achieve liberty ? and also, for many Ron Paul supporters, only political activism can ever achieve liberty.

In this essay, we will have a look at the first two points, since the last two are immaterial.

1. Ron Paul is the most credible candidate that libertarianism has to offer.

In many ways, I believe that this is entirely true. Ron Paul is a doctor, a multi-term congressman with military experience, and a member of the Republican Party. It is inconceivable that a candidate even remotely as credible can arise over the next generation or so. Even if some magic genius exists somewhere in the party at the moment, it will take him decades to accumulate the same level of experience and credibility as Ron Paul.

This is a central reason why the emotions surrounding the Ron Paul candidacy were so volatile. In our hearts, we all knew that if it wasn?t going to be Ron Paul, it just wasn?t going to happen. This is why so many libertarians and minarchists threw themselves heart and soul into his campaign, donating millions of dollars and countless hours to spreading the word about the Ron Paul revolution. Furthermore, since as credible a candidate is unlikely to arise within the next generation, if Ron Paul did not succeed, most of his supporters would not live to see any of the real freedoms that they believed could be achieved through political success. Finally, it seems highly unlikely that the existing political and financial system can possibly last for another generation ? thus it truly was ?Ron Paul or bust!?

In addition to his political and medical credibility, Ron Paul is a Christian ? a prerequisite for participation in American politics ? as well as being hostile towards illegal immigrants, which is also required. He is not a pacifist, but rather is pro-military ? again, a required position.

The tens of millions of dollars raised by Ron Paul is also highly unlikely to be replicated any time soon. The fervor which accompanied his campaign will be almost impossible to replicate in the future ? particularly since a far less credible candidate will doubtless be at the helm.

2. The general electorate will respond to Ron Paul?s message of liberty.

This turned out to be entirely false. Ron Paul never polled more than a few percentage points at any time ? and these poll numbers were entirely mirrored by the actual votes that he received in the primaries. The famed ?Internet polls? that indicated far greater support turned out to be falsified after all.

This is essential information for us to process. The communication of libertarian values has always been one of the greatest challenges of the movement. It is essential to remember not only that Ron Paul had unprecedented access to the mainstream media, but also that the medium of the Internet was available in full force for the first time in history. Given the degree that Ron Paul supporters used this medium to spread the message, the fact that the message failed to get through is highly significant.

This indicates that the barriers to the general acceptance of libertarian values are far greater than is generally supposed. If we look back at the methods of communication available to von Mises or Rothbard ? limited print books, small classrooms and specialized magazines ? and compare those to the instantaneous and universal Internet email/broadcast options available today, I think that it is safe to say that additional methods of communication will not solve the problem.

Of course, the additional mediums available to Ron Paul supporters are also available to every other candidate?s supporters, and thus cannot be considered any kind of key differentiator.

The great danger of post-Ron Paul libertarianism is that we will simply make up answers as to why the message failed to resonate rather than examine the facts. We can blame the mainstream media, the apathy of the general electorate or traitorous intellectuals all we like, but that will not move us one step closer to actually achieving our goals of political liberty.

Revolution?

In my view, it is not accurate to view Ron Paul?s candidacy as a revolution, but rather as a mystical devolution. The desire to return to the Constitution is really the desire to return to American political institutions as they stood in the early 19th century. (Sans slavery, of course ? and with rights for women and children, but without unrestricted immigration ? okay, it?s a bit of a mishmash, but that?s the general idea.)

In other words, the goal was to return to the past, and restrict the US government to the size and role mandated in the original Constitution. This is not so much a step forward as it is a step backward ? an attempt to ?rewind the movie? in the hopes of somehow getting a different ending.

In most horror films, some hapless optimist always tells the others: ?You go for help, I?ll follow the bloody footprints!? Attempting to return to the original Constitution ? especially one that never actually existed ? is like starting the movie over so that this time the optimist will not get an ax in the head.

The Backup Story: The Educational Outreach Program?

The failure of the Ron Paul revolution to achieve anything close to electoral success will undoubtedly give rise to a ?backup story? which will attempt to reframe the candidacy as some sort of ?educational outreach program.? (?Look at the number of people who have been exposed to libertarian ideas through Ron Paul! A presidential campaign provides unparalleled access to the general media, and the interest in the candidates exposes many new people to the message of freedom!?)

Unfortunately, this position has remained utterly untested, and so remains firmly in the land of vain assertion rather than empirical knowledge. It is certainly true that some people have been exposed to certain kinds of libertarian ideals through the Ron Paul campaign ? but it is equally true that many people have been turned off libertarianism through exactly the same campaign. Secular thinkers scorn Ron Paul?s fundamentalist Christianity and rejection of evolution. Advocates of multiculturalism and visible minorities thoroughly dislike his attacks on illegal immigrants. Many women fear his approach to abortion; poverty advocates fear his approach to the welfare state ? the list goes on and on.

The central question then remains ? what is it about Ron Paul message that has drawn some people towards his brand of libertarianism? Is it his rational and consistent arguments from first principles? Of course not ? he has made no such arguments whatsoever. Thus people must be drawn to his positions for emotional reasons ? they are not swayed by the rational truth of his propositions, but rather because those propositions mesh with particular biases they hold already, such as a dislike of the federal government, a fear of illegal immigration, a frustration with taxation or the invasion of Iraq and so on.

This is not the spread of philosophical knowledge, but rather the exploitation and exacerbation of already-existing biases.

It is fundamentally impossible to call this progress.

To the untutored, an obvious inconsistency in one area of a thinker?s philosophy implies inconsistencies in other, less familiar areas. As a strong atheist, if I knew nothing about Dr. Paul?s positions on economics, I would look at his views on evolution and note that they were utterly untutored and incorrect.

If a thinker is incorrect in topics that I know something about, I am not likely to grant him credibility in topics that I know little to nothing about.

Thus while it is certainly true that some people have been emotionally drawn to Dr. Paul?s brand of libertarianism, it is equally true that many others have been driven away, never to return to libertarianism of any kind. There is no way to know for sure which way the pendulum has swung overall, but we can be certain that the more critical thinkers have kept their distance, while the more superstitious, emotional and credulous have not.

Thus reframing Dr. Paul?s candidacy as an ?educational outreach program? does not transform his failure into a success. First of all, people primarily donated to his campaign because they wanted him to be elected president, not because they wanted him to educate other people about libertarianism.Secondly, the number of compromises required to sustain a political campaign dilute principled libertarianism into a kind of xenophobic nostalgia-for-a-country-that-never-was. If you can only access a widespread audience by saying things that are not true, you are doing far more harm than good.

Information Versus Propaganda

Particularly in economics, libertarianism has always had the best arguments. Over 300 years ago, Adam Smith clinched the case for free trade in ?The Wealth of Nations? ? today, we have less free trade than his contemporaries.

[Thy_Kingdom]

Continued..

If a superior argument has failed to win for several hundred years, simply repeating that argument and hoping for a different outcome is an act of rank foolishness and self-willed blindness.

The greatest tragedy of libertarianism is that we continue to pursue the course of intellectual arguments, despite the clear and empirical fact that intellectual arguments do not carry the day.

Libertarian economics and political theories may be right, but the simple truth is that they are not effective. Coffee table conversations about free trade, property rights and the gold standard have done nothing to reverse the accelerating growth of state power ? yet still, that is the approach taken by almost all libertarians. Debating, arguing, reasoning, citing facts ? these are all empty intellectual exercises, which do nothing to advance the cause of liberty.

Libertarianism as we know it was born over 300 years ago ? slightly after the scientific and medical revolutions. When we compare the progress of libertarianism to science and medicine, it is clear just how dismal our advance has been. Other rational disciplines have made staggering leaps forward, transforming the world in unimagined ways ? while we continue to repeat the same stale and ineffective arguments that do not work and think that we are somehow changing the world.

Thus libertarianism has for hundreds of years sought to advance its agenda through education and political action. Indeed, such is the paucity of imagination within our movement that if we were somehow barred from pursuing either education or political action, we would literally have no idea what to do.

(In my podcast series at Freedomain Radio, I talk about the ?third way? of advancing the cause of personal and political liberty. To be clear, I view this ?third way? as the only way.)

Ron Paul and Closure

I have had my disagreements with Ron Paul supporters ? and the Ron Paul candidacy in general ? going back over a year, but I think that the time has now come to praise these starry-eyed political activists.

There is a kind of peace that comes from giving it your all, which libertarianism as a movement has gained from the highly committed focus of all of the Ron Paul supporters.

If the Ron Paul candidacy had received only a few hundred thousand dollars in donations, then the ?answer? to the question of why his candidacy failed would be: ?Because we didn?t have enough money.? If only a few volunteers had shown up to lick envelopes, make phone calls and pound lawn signs, then the candidacy would have failed because, ?We didn?t have enough manpower.? If Ron Paul had been shut out of all of the major debates, his failures would have been blamed on a lack of media exposure.

However, none of those conditions arose ? Ron Paul had access to tens of millions of dollars, tens of thousands of volunteers, many hours of mainstream media coverage ? and unprecedented access to potential voters through blogs, podcasts, e-mails, videos and so.

Thus the intense and unwavering efforts of his supporters have removed all of the obvious reasons as to why his candidacy failed. No one can now seriously argue that if Ron Paul had only had another few million dollars, or another few hundred volunteers, he would have made it to the White House.

Thus, since the single greatest chance that libertarianism ever had ? and will ever have ? to achieve freedom through political activism and education ? has utterly failed, we can now turn our attention towards how we can actually succeed.

What Went Wrong

The central problem with the Ron Paul candidacy can be summed up by a two sentence exchange that the congressman had with Jon Stewart on ?The Daily Show?.

Ron Paul said that the government did everything badly, and that everything should be privatized. Jon Stewart asked if that included the military. ?Oh no!? exclaimed Dr. Paul.

There you have it, in a nutshell.

Propaganda is by its nature highly inconsistent ? if it were consistent, it would be science, philosophy or just truth.

Citizens have been conditioned by statist propaganda for many, many years by the time they become politically active. They are able to hold opposing Orwellian ?doublethink? principles without even noticing the inconsistencies. ?The government that steals half my property at gunpoint is designed to protect my property? and so on.

Propaganda feels consistent to people, because it is consistent with the propaganda that everyone else believes. The only way to oppose propaganda is through complete consistency. The moment that inconsistent principles arise in any philosophy that opposes the general mythology of society, that opposing philosophy will inevitably fail. (We have seen the same phenomenon with Objectivism, the philosophy that utterly opposed the initiation of the use of force, but then supported the existence of a government.)


If you want to sell a product on the intellectual marketplace, it either needs to be highly beneficial or highly consistent. (Unfortunately, it cannot be both in our world as it stands.)

Highly beneficial beliefs are those that ease social interactions with those around you, or help advance your intellectual career. Highly consistent beliefs do quite the opposite ? they irritate others, and tend to stall intellectual careers.

When the choice is between a highly advantageous inconsistent position (Republican/Democrat), and a highly disadvantageous inconsistent position (Libertarian), how many people will choose the latter?

Well, as we have seen from the numbers, all too few.

Consistency and Integrity

Libertarianism ? even the economic aspects ? is fundamentally based upon moral principles such as property rights and the universal validity of the nonaggression principle.

The only way that we can bring freedom to this world is to live by valid moral principles. Since taxation is the initiation of the use of force, then those who advocate taxation are either ignorant of its evil, or evil themselves.

Thus our first goal must be to educate people on the immorality of the system that we live in. However, libertarianism has for 300 years gotten stuck in a ?broken record? repetition of its first five minutes. After communicating to people the basic reality that taxation is evil, libertarians then just repeat that argument ? and a thousand others ? without ever acting on that belief.

If you truly believe that taxation is evil, then those who advocate taxation ? the initiation of force against you ? are evil. If taxation is evil, but those who advocate it are not, then belief and action become completely disconnected, and ethics cease to exist.

A child is not a Nazi if he cheers Hitler while knowing nothing of Hitler?s policies and actions. A man becomes a Nazi when he cheers Hitler while knowing what Hitler thinks and does. In the same way, a person is not evil if he advocates taxation without understanding the moral evil of taxation ? however, the moment that he understands this evil, he becomes responsible for his advocacy.

What do libertarians do when they tell someone that taxation is evil, and that person continues to advocate taxation?

Why, in general, they either repeat the argument, or switch to the evils of welfare, the war on drugs, the Patriot Act, the war on terror, fiat currency, public education and so on.

The most basic inconsistency in libertarianism is that morality is considered both essential and immaterial. It is essential, because it underpins the entire philosophy ? it is immaterial, however, in that libertarians continue to associate with people that they define as evil.

If you define a man as evil, and you continue to associate with him ? whether he is your brother, father, friend or whatever ? then all your words and speeches and ethical theories amount to less than nothing.

This is why I say that education and political activism will never advance the cause of libertarianism one single inch.

Freedom will advance only when we act with integrity in our personal relationships ? when we reject those we define as evil.

As libertarians, we expect people to accept wrenching changes in their lives as a result of our philosophy. We expect public sector employees to switch over to the private sector. We expect drug enforcement agents to lose their entire careers. We expect corporate participants in the military-industrial complex to accept catastrophic downsizing. We expect people trapped in the quicksand of the welfare state to claw their way out. We expect a decommissioned soldier to make the transition to a civilian life, even if he wants to spend the rest of his career in the military. We expect those who exploit the existing system ? the financiers, politicians and state-protected unions ? to give up their inflated profits.

We expect so much from everyone else ? and so little from ourselves.

?You should give up your lucrative and comfortable public sector position,? we say, ?though I will not give up spending time with my cousin who supports the war in Iraq.?

?You should give up your war profiteering,? we say to mercantilist corporations, ?though I will continue to party with my friends who fully support the state pointing its guns at my head.?

Is it any wonder that the Ron Paul revolution could never have succeeded?

Is it any wonder that for the past few hundred years, libertarianism has made virtually no progress whatsoever?

The answer is very, very simple.

If we want to free the world, we have to stop lecturing others about our ethics, and start living them ourselves.

If you don?t want to do that, that?s fine of course ? but if you don?t want to live your ethics, can you do the rest of us a favour please?

Please ? just stop talking about ?ethics,? and thus discrediting those of us who are actually trying to make a difference.

http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2008/...ostmortem.html

schadenfreude:
no one said he had a majority of American support, we said he made an impact. He got more votes than had been expected, outraised everyone in the 4th quarter, amassed huge amounts of user media such as youtube (given the young age of the average supporter this is important) became a recognizable name, and has a best selling book because of it. At the very least he did make libertarian/conservative ideals more widely known. I also have a hunch that his staying in the race was part of the reason Giuliani dropped out as early as he did. So the idea that it's a "miserable failure" is a pretty big reach.

Despite all these(huge sums of money, internet voting polls which predicted he'd do great yet did not come close to predictions, youtube videos about him, etc.)Why do you think his campaign failed?

[Gadsden]

In general, the basic beliefs were these:

1. Ron Paul is the most credible candidate that libertarianism has to offer.

2. The general electorate will respond to Ron Paul?s message of liberty.

3. Ron Paul can be elected.

4. If Ron Paul is elected, political liberty will increase substantially.


^ no one ever thought the bolded.

We found that the electorate responded better than hoped for. The electorate (those who were going to vote) were not, and turned out not to be the major block of support anyway. As I was responding before it was locked, we have to build a base before we can begin getting substantial sums of votes. People are egotistical and will often only support a candidate who they think will win, because a. they want to be proven right, b. they think their vote is God's gift to earth.

[Thy_Kingdom]

In general, the basic beliefs were these:

1. Ron Paul is the most credible candidate that libertarianism has to offer.

2. The general electorate will respond to Ron Paul?s message of liberty.

3. Ron Paul can be elected.

4. If Ron Paul is elected, political liberty will increase substantially.


^ no one ever thought the bolded.

We found that the electorate responded better than hoped for.

Ron paul supporters donated tens of millions knowing full well his message of liberty will not be popular with the general electorate? Those same people donated and volunteered knowing he can not be elected?

[TheStender]

Ron paul supporters donated tens of millions knowing full well his message of liberty will not be popular with the general electorate? Those same people donated and volunteered knowing he can not be elected?

Eh, I donated thinking that he wouldn't win the primary. I had hoped he could pull it off, but in reality, I knew it probably wasn't going to happen. I like an underdog victory though.

[Gadsden]

Continued..

http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2008/...ostmortem.html


Despite all these(huge sums of money, internet voting polls which predicted he'd do great yet did not come close to predictions, youtube videos about him, etc.)Why do you think his campaign failed?

if by failed you mean didn't garner 80% of the popular vote, sweep over the nation in a conservative geist and immediately axe the federal reserve, I think you know the answer to that.

We don't agree that it failed, so it's impossible to answer. No poll ever placed him above 10%, and he typically polled and was voted for in similar percentages.

Youtube videos is important, because it builds a base, as I described in my previous post. People aren't going to vote for something they don't understand (...mostly) so the information is important to get out.

Overall, a disappointing finish because of money which I think could have been spent better, but compared to where we were a year and a half ago, I never imagined at all that "Ron Paul" could become a household name.

I asked my dad a year and a half ago "...who is Ron Paul" and he responded "Some idiot from Texas".

glad I didn't listen

[Gadsden]

Ron paul supporters donated tens of millions knowing full well his message of liberty will not be popular with the general electorate? Those same people donated and volunteered knowing he can not be elected?

they knew it wasn't likely. The money was donated imo because you have to get the message out somehow. There's no way to tell what the reception will be until you distribute it. The public still has a pretty bad understanding of conservative principles, but the conservative/libertarians are more in number, more vocal, and the public better informed than before the campaign.

You can still try something even if you know the odds are against you. Olympic swimmers don't pull out of races just because they are racing Ian Thorpe. You try your hardest, and then you can't try any harder, and that's that.

[Thy_Kingdom]

if by failed you mean didn't garner 80% of the popular vote, sweep over the nation in a conservative geist and immediately axe the federal reserve, I think you know the answer to that.

We don't agree that it failed, so it's impossible to answer. No poll ever placed him above 10%, and he typically polled and was voted for in similar percentages.

Youtube videos is important, because it builds a base, as I described in my previous post. People aren't going to vote for something they don't understand (...mostly) so the information is important to get out.

Overall, a disappointing finish because of money which I think could have been spent better, but compared to where we were a year and a half ago, I never imagined at all that "Ron Paul" could become a household name.

I asked my dad a year and a half ago "...who is Ron Paul" and he responded "Some idiot from Texas".

glad I didn't listen

By 'failed' I mean despite the vast amounts of resources and internet polls/support he recieved, his performace was pretty poor. I expected him to at least do better than he did.

From what I've read this question was removed from MSM, asking RP if he was electable.

You can still try something even if you know the odds are against you. Olympic swimmers don't pull out of races just because they are racing Ian Thorpe. You try your hardest, and then you can't try any harder, and that's that.

I find it strange you'd use that comparison. Most olympic swimmers are near each other in terms of skill/training/funding, they often win or lose by fractions. If we were to use the same comparison, ron paul would be drowning.

[Spetsnazos]

LOL @ the ron paul supporters right now saying that they never expected him to win....

Ron Paul supporters are some of the most fanatical people ive ever met. The guy had no hope of winning.

His idea on economics screams flaws and holes which he refused to address and Ron Paul supporters failed to address.

reps on recharge

[Gadsden]

By 'failed' I mean despite the vast amounts of resources and internet polls/support he recieved, his performace was pretty poor. I expected him to at least do better than he did.

I'm sorry he wasn't up to your expectations

[Thy_Kingdom]

I'm sorry he wasn't up to your expectations

He wasn't up to america's expectations either from what I read...

[Spetsnazos]

LOL even more @ the polls and threads of RP supporters saying he had all this massive support that was going to show up in the actual real POLLS.

Ya rite, he got like 2%

[Gadsden]

He wasn't up to america's expectations from what I read.

So America expected something from him?

[TheStender]

LOL @ the ron paul supporters right now saying that they never expected him to win....

There's a big difference between "hoped to win" and "expected to win."

His idea on economics screams flaws and holes which he refused to address and Ron Paul supporters failed to address.

What didn't he address? Is it the same as Obama not addressing how he plans to pay for all his changes? Like that sort of not addressing? And I sure the hell can't address them, because even if I could, I'm just a paultard who knows nothing about nothing.

[hugeness]

Ron paul supporters donated tens of millions knowing full well his message of liberty will not be popular with the general electorate? Those same people donated and volunteered knowing he can not be elected?

Yes because we were basically giving a big middle finger to the establishment. Ron Paul fans are not sheep.

[hugeness]

LOL even more @ the polls and threads of RP supporters saying he had all this massive support that was going to show up in the actual real POLLS.

Ya rite, he got like 2%

2% of what?

[Thy_Kingdom]

So America expected something from him?

With the amount of money donated to his campaign I'd say so.

While Paul was a leading 2008 presidential candidate in some Republican straw polls, he saw substantially less support in landline opinion polls and in the actual primaries. Strong internet grassroots support was indicated by his popularity as a web search term, his lead in YouTube subscriptions, and, on December 16th 2007, the largest one-day fundraiser in U.S. political history, netting over $6 million in 24 hours through an independently organized effort.

Though projections of 2008 Republican delegate counts have varied widely, Paul's count has consistently been third among the three candidates remaining after Super Tuesday. According to CNN[127] and the New York Times,[128] through Super Tuesday, Paul had received 5 delegates in North Dakota, and was projected to receive 2 in Iowa, 4 in Nevada, and 5 in Alaska based on caucus results, totaling 16. However, Paul's campaign projected 42 delegates based on the same results, including delegates from Colorado, Maine, and Minnesota.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Pau...ntial_campaign

[Spetsnazos]

2% of what?

of the votes

[Gadsden]

With the amount of money donated to his campaign I'd say so.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Pau...ntial_campaign

I just don't know how America could be let down if they still don't know he exists (your thoughts summarized, not mine)

The campaign was optimistic, and for a reason. You get more votes when you're predicted to do better. They were wrong, and it's unfortunate. Obviously we still have work to do.

btw, the predictions by the campaign fly in the face of your assertion that people expected him to be elected.

[hugeness]

of the votes

In what state? There were several states where he got between 15-20% of the vote but the MSM always left those little tidbits out.

[Gadsden]

of the votes

not really.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election...tes/index.html

[TheStender]

of the votes

What they didn't say was that was just 10 hackers voting repeatedly and screwing up the polls.

[Thy_Kingdom]

I just don't know how America could be let down if they still don't know he exists (your thoughts summarized, not mine)

The campaign was optimistic, and for a reason. You get more votes when you're predicted to do better. They were wrong, and it's unfortunate. Obviously we still have work to do.

The same americans' I'm describing are those who supported him online. Even his campaign thought he'd have a higher delegate count. He recieved less than half the projected delegates...

[Spetsnazos]

In what state? There were several states where he got between 15-20% of the vote but the MSM always left those little tidbits out.

in the grand scheme of things his support is minimal at best.

Things wrong with his campaign
-this isnt the 1800's
-doing away with fed
-doing away with most government positions
-lowering taxes
-no socialized health care
-isolationist foreign policy
-conspiracy theorist

[Gadsden]

The same americans' I'm describing are those who supported him online. Even his campaign thought he'd have a higher delegate count. He recieved less than half the projected delegates...

ok?

[Gadsden]

in the grand scheme of things his support is minimal at best.

Things wrong with his campaign
-this isnt the 1800's
-doing away with fed
-doing away with most government positions
-lowering taxes
-no socialized health care
-isolationist foreign policy
-conspiracy theorist

fail. especially on the bolded. If you can't understand or listen to the distinctions he made in his policy vs. isolationism, your opinion on the campaign doesn't really matter.

[Thy_Kingdom]

ok?

You would not consider that a failure?

[Gadsden]

You would not consider that a failure?

an inaccurate prediction (which could very likely have been strategic as I described previously) doesn't render an entire movement/campaign a "miserable failure", so no.

[TheStender]

in the grand scheme of things his support is minimal at best.

this isnt the 1800's

Not the 1800s? You don't say!

doing away with fed

What's wrong with doing away with the Fed? It's not like he'd one day say "POOF! Begone Fed!" And it just disappears.

doing away with most government positions

What's wrong with doing away with most government positions? Actually, what positions did he want to do away with? I know he was for some reorginzation, which I think we really need, but what did he want to do away with?

lowering taxes

How dare he want to lower taxes! HOW DARE HE! Doesn't Obama want to lower taxes too? What a nutjob!

no socialized health care

Why do we want socialized healthcare again? I sure the hell don't want it.

isolationist foreign policy

Non-interventionist is not an isolationist policy. And we COULD intervene if Congress voted to. That's not isolationist. Sorry.

conspiracy theorist

What conspiracy theories would that be?

[Thy_Kingdom]

an inaccurate prediction (which could very likely have been strategic as I described previously) doesn't amount to a "miserable failure", so no.

Instead of denying that his campaign was a miserable failure, would you not want to find out why he did so poorly then attempt to do better next time?