Ron Paul's constituents vote for him, but not for president. Why?

New American, The, March 31, 2008

When voters opt for candidate A over candidates B, C, or D, does that mean that they reject the messages of candidates B, C, or D? Not necessarily. Consider the March 4 primary results in the 14th District of Texas, where Congressman Ron Paul came in third in the presidential race with 12 percent of the vote (and a much smaller 5 percent statewide) while winning reelection to Congress in a landslide 70-30 percent victory.

What this means, of course, is that the majority of those constituents who voted to keep Ron Paul in Congress voted against him for president. Why? It wasn't a rejection of his positions in the presidential campaign. Those positions mirror his positions in Congress. Moreover, Ron Paul's congressional opponent, Chris Peden, criticized Paul for his opposition to the Iraq War as well as other positions at odds with current Republican orthodoxy, hut to no avail.

A more credible explanation as to why Ron Paul did not do better in the presidential race--whether in Texas or elsewhere--may be found in the fact that the mainstream media marginalized him as a fringe candidate who did not have a chance of winning. That perception undoubtedly caused many who liked Ron Paul--including many of his own constituents--to vote for their second choice for president.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]