Ron Paul’s top strategists are confused and frustrated that the wild enthusiasm they see at their campaign rallies and events is not translating into votes.
Thousands turned out to see the Texas congressman at events in Alaska, Idaho and North Dakota in the days before Super Tuesday. Paul said publicly and believed privately that he could win all three states outright. When the votes were counted, though, he finished third in Alaska and Idaho and second in North Dakota.
I don't know. I was honestly shocked by Ralph Nader's votes in 2008. I do not believe all the votes were counted. Sorry. That of course (the same problem) would not explain a caucus.
I have no idea why he's not performing better. He's not performing awful. I believe he has something like 47 delegates. I wish it were more. A lot more. But there's a rush to say, "He's doing awful!"
He's not doing awful. This is acceptable. But if they can sell: "He's doing awful," then what?
People stop turning out to vote for him because they think it won't make a difference.
Never expect a candidate who campaigns on peace to be properly portrayed by the press. Always expect them to repeatedly undermine such a candidate.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):