Is A Ron Paul Double-Digit Surprise In New Hampshire’s Future?

So far in actual polling numbers he has remained mostly in the single digits. He has raised whopping sums of money on the Internet and is the candidate with the most zealous and motivated supporters. Will he remain the passion of loyal followers — or the biggest political surprise story of the year?

Andrew Kline, editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader, believes there’s a good chance Paul will surprise everyone (except his own supporters) and get a double digit vote there. Towards the end of his must-read column in the Wall Street Journal he writes:

National attention is focused on the horse races between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and between Messrs. McCain and Romney. But the shy obstetrician from Texas could be the surprise story of the New Hampshire primary.

Paul has become the wild card for mainstream reporters, a constant source of quirky news (“mavericks,” even libertarians, get a certain kind of story that has a certain kind of tone in most news outlets), and a bane and blessing to political weblogs. Some weblogs have seemingly figured out that if they run a post favorable to Paul their hits go up and they get adoring feedback. If they run one that isn’t, they get nasty comments, comment spam and insulting emails.

(We recently ran a post that simply did not mention Paul and got three insulting emails. Then TMV ran a column that praised him but said he didn’t have a chance of winning and got 10 personally insulting emails. “Corrupt” and “hypocrite” were the nicer words aimed at TMV for daring to run a flattering column saying present polls indicate he will not win the White House).

Yet, the pivotal question, — if you ignore apolitical politeness, his impressive campaign bankroll and enthusiastic supporters — is this: can he GET SUBSTANTIAL VOTES in a primary election? Editors, reporters and weblog writers look at polls as indicators. And the answer, from what they have seen from polls so far, is: NO.

But Kline, echoing the view of Paul’s supporters, suggests that this may be a case of the media and political talking heads truly missing what is going out there. He notes Paul’s incredible grass-roots support in New Hampshire:

That spontaneous grassroots support is why Mr. Paul, an obstetrician from Lake Jackson, Texas, could pull off a stunner on Jan. 8 and place third in New Hampshire’s Republican primary. If he does, he would embarrass Rudy Giuliani and steal media limelight from John McCain and Mitt Romney, who are battling for first place.

Many Republican operatives in New Hampshire, even those affiliated with other campaigns, think Mr. Paul is headed for an impressive, double-digit performance. That he has been polling in the high single digits for months is discounted, because the polls may be missing the depth of his support.

Why?

For starters, he appears to be drawing new voters. Polls that screen for “likely” voters might screen out many Paul supporters who haven’t voted often, or at all, before. Many of Mr. Paul’s supporters appear to be first-time voters. They will be able to cast their ballots because New Hampshire allows them to register and vote on the day of an election.

And that sounds LOGICAL: Paul’s most fervent supporters appear to be young people who are sick of politicians from both parties, or liberals or conservatives, who say things you know they’re going to say before they even open their talking points brimming mouths.

One way of looking at Paul’s popularity is that American politics in the past decade has devolved into a big, fat national version of the unlamented CNN screechfest talk show “Crossfire” where a liberal (seemingly sent from central casting) argued loudly and talked over a conservative (seemingly sent from central casting) who argued loudly and talked over the liberal. Paul doesn’t fit the usual partisan or ideological mode. Central casting, he ain’t.

So do polls matter on Paul? Again, Kline argues polling may not be recording how Paul is doing (something we will find out soon enough):

There is another reason to discount the polls on Mr. Paul. The one thing that unites his supporters is a desire to be left alone, not only by government, but by irritating marketers and meddling pollsters, too. Mr. Paul’s supporters might well be screening their calls and not-so-inadvertently screening out pollsters. Still, some observers of the primary race here downplay this support, noting that a lot of the activists who show up in news stories are not state residents and won’t be voting.

It is true that Paul supporters from New York, New Jersey and even California are prominent at campaign rallies. But volunteers and campaign staffers say that, although out-of-state volunteers often are the most flamboyant and can attend daytime rallies while local supporters are at work, they do not outnumber the locals.

So if Kline is indeed correct, and if Paul does emerge with far more support than existing polls show, then it would mean that the media (and bloggers) have been trying to listen to FM radio on the AM band.

There’s more in the Wall Street Journal piece that explores why Paul could be a totally different kind of political animal — one not recognized to exist and/or understood by the mainstream media, blogs (like this one) or pollsters.

And, indeed, there are examples throughout history and political history where something new was not recognized because everyone was so fixated on the existing order or prevailing perception.

So Paul’s followers, in Kline’s view, could be onto something. And the definitive, concrete answer over whether Paul’s support is being understated by others or overstated by his supporters will come soon enough.