Look Who's Unelectable Now

The damning "unelectable" label has been most often applied to Rep Ron Paul, usually with no rational argument about why that label is appropriate.  Now that actual results from actual voters are starting to come in, we can test some of these proclamations about electability against reality.

Rick Santorum's last minute surge brought him to a virtual tie with Romney for first place  in the Iowa caucuses with about 24.5% of the vote each.  Ron Paul's third place finish, at about 21.5%, put him twice as close to the winners as to the fourth place finisher (Newt Gingrich at 13.3%).  Quite respectable, in any realistic accounting.  The only candidate who determined she was unelectable was Bachmann, who dropped out of the race after finishing sixth with only 5% of the vote.  If any of the lower-tier players weren't in this race, would their voters have gone for Romney?  Not likely in my opinion, except maybe the Newt supporters. While I believe Paul's showing legitimizes his campaign, Santorum's does not.  The reason is the same, and it's the very different results these two candidates are seeing in New Hampshire.  While Santorum's harping on the evils of gay sex may play well in Iowa, New Hampshire's "Live Free or Die" residents don't appreciate that kind of paternalistic government intrusion.  He is being heckled, jeered, and badgered by freedom-loving citizens across the state.  This type of unwanted attention would dog him on both coasts and in other liberal enclaves nationwide, should he go on to get the Republican nomination.  This baggage, not to mention Santorum's "Google Problem" make him very, very unlikely to prevail over Obama in the general election.

Dr. Paul, on the other hand, appeals quite strongly to the libertarian-minded, independent folks in New Hampshire.  If the Occupy Movement ever realizes how strongly Rep. Paul has supported their causes for decades, his appeal on the left could catapult him past Obama, who is being abandoned by principled liberals who supported him in 2008.  The fact is, Paul is to the left of Obama on war, civil liberties, and drug policy.  Paul voted against the bank bailouts, and opposes all corporate giveaways.  Due to the diversity of his message, Dr. Paul can appeal to people across the political spectrum.  This makes him eminently electable, compared to a one-sided conservative candidate like Santorum.

We'll see what happens on Tuesday, but I predict Paul finishing a close second behind Romney, cementing his status as a viable alternative to the painfully unlikable Mitt.  Santorum finishing a distant third or forth should take the wind out of his sails, though he may stick in for the long haul, hoping some good showings in very conservative states will give him the air of electability.  He will eventually be destroyed on Super Tuesday, when a variety of states vote, and the candidate with the broadest appeal has the advantage.

Only Romney and Paul can claim to have broad appeal, and I believe the latter has the best chance to beat Obama.  Romney is simply too similar to Obama to give anyone a good reason to switch.  Paul, on the other hand could legitimately capture the "Change" badge Obama won with in 2008, riding the wave of discontent of which the Occupy Movement is a symptom.