Old Guard GOPer's and Ron Paul

Judging by the exit polls conducted by CNN for both Iowa and New Hampshire, 40-60 year old Republicans have yet to be won over to the Ron Paul bandwagon. While a younger audience shows a desire to connect with the message of a speaker over their chances of winning and even to the point of becoming involved with a grassroots revolution to see the message get out, the old guard baby boomers say they want a revolution......well, you know, we all want to change the world.

Many of the 40-60 market are frustrated and annoyed, fighting indifference to support the "lesser of two evils" -- the problem is, they also pride themselves on having a sense of reality and reasonability. They want change only if change has a chance. They may agree with Ron Paul's free market health care solutions, but what if Paul can't get the GOP nomination and they failed to help pick a "real frontrunner" and unify the party to eventually defeat a Democrat who seeks to implement a dangerous universal health care plan? Then where would they be?

There is a strong conglomeration of Issues and Electability in the average party goer's mind. It doesn't help that mainstream media tries to streamline the party's candidates as quickly as possible through name recognition polling early in the process, which leads to perceptions of frontrunner status in the middle of the process through further polling and then finally selective reporting all throughout but particularly toward the end of the process to help buffet the perception of electability which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Smear campaigns and televised debates are a whole other matter that play into the candidate's likability.

It is my contention that if Ron Paul wants to win the election by increasing his electability, he obviously needs to win or show a viable candidacy in the primaries, but more importantly, he needs to win over the people who are the bleeding heart and corrupted soul of the party.....if he can. There are many mainstream Republican voters out there who don't like the options they've been given. What they mean is they don't like Rudy, McCain, Romney or Huckabee. Thompson maybe. Duncan Hunter has absolutely no chance and Ron Paul is a longshot too with some possibly troublesome libertarian aspects to his platform.

The biggest irony of this whole thing is the mainstream voters demand more of a detailed explanation of practical policy and theory before they can feel comfortable voting for a supposed party dissident (connecting to the historical party helps only insofar as you can play into Reagan's iconography). How can you just get rid of established government institutions? How do you just end involvement in a foreign conflict? How do you just stop spending money or cut taxes? They will continue to buy into McCain's 100 years war because he seems to have a more practical approach to the matter. "What happens when we leave?" he says. It isn't detailed nor does it give one an understanding of practical policy. But no one will call McCain on it. It just plays into an averagely informed American viewpoint of a war none of the mainstream will ever really see. Of course, the great unasked question is "what happens if we stay?"