Ron Paul in 1988

[buritobr]

Why did Ron Paul have so few votes in 1988?
He was one of the worst third party candidates.

He could have the vote of the Republicans who dislike the Christian Right, but he didn't.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Worst? He placed third. That made him the strongest third party candidate that year. He may not have reached Wallace/Perot levels, or even Nader levels, but he didn't underperform by any stretch of the imagination.

1988 wasn't the right time for any third party candidate. Bush had enough appeal to keep the moderates and the Christian right under one big tent. Had Robertson won the nomination, things would have been differant.

[buritobr]

Worst? He placed third. That made him the strongest third party candidate that year. He may not have reached Wallace/Perot levels, or even Nader levels, but he didn't underperform by any stretch of the imagination.

1988 wasn't the right time for any third party candidate. Bush had enough appeal to keep the moderates and the Christian right under one big tent. Had Robertson won the nomination, things would have been differant.

I am not comparing him to other small candidates in 1988.

I am telling that Ron Paul performed worse than Thurmond, Wallace, Wallace, McCarthy, Anderson, Perot, Nader and Gary Johnson.

[BaconBacon96]

So? He performed as expected for a third party. The last time a third party broke 1% was in 2000, when Ralph Nader got about 2.7%.

[Hamster]

Worst? He placed third. That made him the strongest third party candidate that year. He may not have reached Wallace/Perot levels, or even Nader levels, but he didn't underperform by any stretch of the imagination.

1988 wasn't the right time for any third party candidate. Bush had enough appeal to keep the moderates and the Christian right under one big tent. Had Robertson won the nomination, things would have been differant.

I am not comparing him to other small candidates in 1988.

I am telling that Ron Paul performed worse than Thurmond, Wallace, Wallace, McCarthy, Anderson, Perot, Nader and Gary Johnson.

I am an English tutor. If you are interested in improving your written or spoken English, shoot me a PM.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Worst? He placed third. That made him the strongest third party candidate that year. He may not have reached Wallace/Perot levels, or even Nader levels, but he didn't underperform by any stretch of the imagination.

1988 wasn't the right time for any third party candidate. Bush had enough appeal to keep the moderates and the Christian right under one big tent. Had Robertson won the nomination, things would have been differant.

I am not comparing him to other small candidates in 1988.

I am telling that Ron Paul performed worse than Thurmond, Wallace, Wallace, McCarthy, Anderson, Perot, Nader and Gary Johnson.

Ron Paul had Cynthia McKinney's level of influence and respect in 1988; he didn't really become the Ron Paul we know and love (or laugh at and hate ) until 2007.

[MATTROSE94]

Nobody knew about Ron Paul until 2007 tbh

Viewers of C-SPAN might have known about him in the 1980s, but other than that he wasn't that well-known in mainstream circles.

[bedstuy]

His campaign couldn't find any youtube comment threads to spam because youtube wouldn't be invented for 18 years. 

[Hodges98]

The internet wasn't a thing in 1988, so neither was Ron Paul.

[Dr. Cynic]

In 1988, Ron Paul was just another loser Libertarian candidate in the mold of Harry Browne. Nobody knew him or gave a damn about him. The only reason the Libertarians did well in 1980, was that Ed Clark had Koch money backing him up, allowing him to be a lot more visible. Gary Johnson has had the most exposure by far of any Libertarian candidate since Clark because Johnson was a public figure. Ron Paul, at that time, was nobody. Just another loony toon. Kinda like now, except now he has exposure.

[Fuzzy Bear]

For a third party candidate to make a spash, one party has to be particularly divided, or when a party’s nominee is significantly out of sync with a significant constituency in the party.  If a major party’s coalition is such that one element of the coalition finds it poles apart from the rest of the party on a number of issues, a third party candidacy may be a precursor to a realignment (e. g. Wallace in 1968). The other example would be if a wealthy individual with the capability to self-finance and is essentially running as an Independent (e. g. Ross Perot).  This usually happens only when there is widespread dissatisfaction with the reponse to BOTH major parties on a major issue.

The problem with Ron Paul’s 1988 candidacy was that 1988 was part of our most recent “Era of Good Feeling”.  Bush was a VP for an administration that most folks were satisfied with, and Dukakis appeared to have a chance to actually win at one point.  Paul’s big qualification was that he was a former Congressman who actually held Federal office and he was a former elected Republican, but there was no dissatisfied faction of the GOP (or the Democrats for that matter) to provide Paul with a following.

Had Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian or Constitution Party candidate in 2008, I believe he would have gotten 5-10% of the vote.  He was genuinely popular and likeable, and there were a lot of Republicans that didn’t like John McCain.  There were also a number of voters that were anti-war, but who didn’t agree with the Democrats on the whole spectrum of issues to whom Paul may well have proven a viable alternative.  (IMO, that moment has come and gone; Republicans of libertarian bent will support the nominee as the less of two evils vs. the Marxist from Kenya or HRC.)