• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Ron Paul voters

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
As if they didn't have troubles enough, the Republicans have not one, but two Ron Paul problems.

The first is a cranky congressman from Texas named Ron Paul who won't disown a third-party spoiler candidacy. The second problem is the Ron Paul vote, which as we'll see has little to do with Ron Paul.
The congressman named Ron Paul has served in the House off and on since the 1970s to no discernible effect. Every four years he runs for president, tapping into a vestigial base of Newsletter Libertarians, whose support qualifies him for the debates.

Let no one deny that swimming eternally amid the rightward waves of American politics is an ever-present school of fish that would solve Washington's spending problem mainly with cuts in the defense budget (ending foreign "entanglements"), set a place at the nuclear table for Iran ("Who are they going to bomb?"), cut Israel loose, cut the Federal Reserve loose, and legalize many currently controlled substances.

The Ron Paul vote is a separate matter. In June, polling put the familiar Mr. Paul at about 5.5% for the Iowa caucus and 8% nationally. That would be his normal ceiling. Suddenly, Ron Paul is the Iowa front-runner at over 22.5% and is up to 12% nationally. Why?


Is this surge a vote for the congressman named Ron Paul? Impossible. It's in fact the Republican Party protest vote. Since summer, this block of votes has jumped from one candidate to another, desperate for an anti-Obama champion whose anti-Washington intensity matches its own.

In July the Republican protest vote fixed on Michele Bachmann, who materialized in the No. 2 spot. In September it became the Perry vote, cresting at 31%. He couldn't debate, so in October it became the Cain vote. When he collapsed, the "left for dead" Gingrich candidacy miraculously rose to 35%. With Newt carpet-bombed and again left for dead, the GOP protest vote mounted its last pony, the Ron Paul campaign.

The policy set of any of these candidates has been of minimal importance to voters who've boiled down their beef with Washington to one idea: Attack.

Meanwhile Mitt the Whale swims serenely onward at 25%, month after month, dipping occasionally to feed on these pilot fish. But the whale should be worried. These Republican protest fish have sharp teeth. Unless fed something soon, they may tear the Romney campaign to pieces. And there are a lot of them.
Political commentary sometimes refers to one of these second-tier candidates as appealing to "the tea party vote." This is intended as condescension—you know, it's those people who gave the Republicans Christine O'Donnell, Joe Miller and Sharron Angle in 2010. Ah, yes, 2010.

In the no-longer-mentioned November 2010 elections, the often disrespected "tea party vote" handed the Republican Party a victory of historic magnitude and depth. Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives but also won state offices on a scale not seen since the Great Depression.

The 2010 election was the result of a coalition that extends well past the formal tea parties. It combines Republicans of all stripes, libertarians, independents and worried centrist Democrats. They all are "fiscally conservative" and socially all over the map. The Republican nominee, however, will be produced by only one part of this fiscal-conservative coalition—the angriest, most politically committed Republicans and libertarians.
The Paul candidacy is of course doomed. But the Paul vote won't die. This vote has been building in the depths of the American political ocean since the spending spree of the second Bush term. These people see the upward spending trend in annual outlays and accumulated commitments not as a "problem," as the Beltway prefers, but as a threat to their well-being.

The Romney campaign may assume that this vote must land by default in their man's lap. By the relentless logic of the Romney camp, that's true. But if we've learned anything the past several months, it's that this is one of the most volatile Republican electorates in a long while.

Mr. Romney is running a campaign strategy indeed targeted at the broad fiscal conservative coalition that emerged in 2010: Hold the worried independents and centrist Democrats by avoiding what in his Dec. 24 Wall Street Journal Weekend Interview he called "incendiary things." OK, we get that. Independent voters are easily flustered, dependent as they are on the policies of strangers.

But if the former Massachusetts governor doesn't reach out pretty soon to the Paul-Perry-Bachmann Republican protest voters, he may never get them. The longer he waits, the more pressure will build for a third-party challenge that will cost him the election. That it would be led by a Ron Paul or Donald Trump is irrelevant to why these people would vote third party—or stay home.

Mr. Romney is going to have to take a risk with some piece of his locked-down strategy—the RomneyCare denial, the "middle-class" ceiling on his tax cut, naming a running mate who could have beaten him in the primaries.

Mr. Romney needs to give these Republicans a reason to come in his direction, before they walk away from him forever
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
this will certainly cause all of the Ron Paul supporters to surge over to Newt:

When asked who he would choose in an Obama-Paul race, Gingrich says "I don't know, but I think Barack Obama is very destructive to the future of the United States. I think Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American."

So basically newt is saying if you support Ron Paul your not a decent American. :???: :???:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
this will certainly cause all of the Ron Paul supporters to surge over to Newt:

When asked who he would choose in an Obama-Paul race, Gingrich says "I don't know, but I think Barack Obama is very destructive to the future of the United States. I think Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American."

So basically newt is saying if you support Ron Paul your not a decent American. :???: :???:


Newt cares only for one person- Newt!
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
1
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Lonecowboy said:
this will certainly cause all of the Ron Paul supporters to surge over to Newt:

When asked who he would choose in an Obama-Paul race, Gingrich says "I don't know, but I think Barack Obama is very destructive to the future of the United States. I think Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American."

So basically newt is saying if you support Ron Paul your not a decent American. :???: :???:

it was nice of newt to remind most conservatives of that the old newt wasn't gone,

you often hope a man has matured and changed in a real and genuine way.. but change and hope seem to be just a political slogan these days..
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
1
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
With Newt carpet-bombed and again left for dead, the GOP protest vote mounted its last pony, the Ron Paul campaign.

it seems that the undecided have another few last horses left.. Rick Santorum seems to be "surging"

either way, I hope Paul sticks it out and really shakes up the electorate and gives the DC party elites a heart attack..
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Could the decent American comment from Newt mean anyone that thinks the US as the only super power has a responsibility to protect those being attacked by their own leaders, terrorist groups or a lunitic dictator from a neighboring country. Whether it is a Republican or a Democrat in the Oval Office the party supporters have always supported intervention on humanitarian reasons. The right supporters Bush when he went into Iraq to protect that country's citizens from the Genocide by Saddam while the Dems b*tched about him going in to protect US oil interest. But when the tables were turned and it was Obama that went into Libya, a country with more oil, the Dems claimed he did so to protect the citizens from the Gadaffi's military that was killing Libyan citizens. These two examples show both party supporters support humanitarian intervention but will Ron Paul intervene with his attitude that if US interest are not in danger then no US military action will be taken? Sorry but turning your back on genocide because the victims are not US CITIZENS is not decent and that is what Ron Paul in promoting is he not? He says he doesn't care if Iran gets a Nuke and will not stop them as he doesn't THINK they will use it. This after the leader of that country claimed he wanted nothing more than to wipe another country off the map, But as long as it is not the US Ron Paul has said he will not send in US troops.

Lonecowboy you keep saying that Ron Paul is a principled man and he stands by what he believes so I have to ask you why is Ron Paul still in Washington? :?

According to the article you posted
The congressman named Ron Paul has served in the House off and on since the 1970s

Wouldn't a man that believes in term limits and has proposed a term limit bill several times live up to his beliefs and leave DC after a couple terms? Yet he is still there after 4 decades so does he really believe in term limits? He also claims there should be no career politicans but look at his family he is still in Congress after 4 decades and now his son is in Washington. What does that say about his belief on no career politicans?

Then we have the newsletter he started under his name that printed racist comments and he claims he doesn't know who wrote the offending comments. Would a principled man allow racist remarks be REPEATEDLY printed under his banner without ever finding out who wrote them and stop them if he didn't agree with said comments?
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
3,662
Reaction score
28
Location
South Central Montana
IMHO, Ron Paul scares me. His foreign policy scares me. His blind followers are scary. He thinks 9/11 was an inside job. I haven't decided who I want for president. I will keep on listening and researching.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Hanta Yo said:
IMHO, Ron Paul scares me. His foreign policy scares me. His blind followers are scary. He thinks 9/11 was an inside job. I haven't decided who I want for president. I will keep on listening and researching.

He scares me too as he is to far out of the mainstream to be a true Republican. What I don't understand about him is why is he even running in the Republican primaries? He is a Libertarian and they have their own party so why not run for his own party's nomination?
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
6,060
Reaction score
0
Location
The Dark Side
Tam said:
Hanta Yo said:
IMHO, Ron Paul scares me. His foreign policy scares me. His blind followers are scary. He thinks 9/11 was an inside job. I haven't decided who I want for president. I will keep on listening and researching.

He scares me too as he is to far out of the mainstream to be a true Republican. What I don't understand about him is why is he even running in the Republican primaries? He is a Libertarian and they have their own party so why not run for his own party's nomination?

To create chaos and dissention amongst the actual Republicans. A vote for Paul may as well be a vote for Obama. Divide and conquer.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TRENDING: Top Bachmann aide out after flap over campaign switch


CNN Political Unit
(CNN) - Michele Bachmann confirmed Thursday that another key member of her presidential campaign was no longer working for her.
"He quit," Bachmann said of former Political Director Wes Enos. Bachmann was speaking on CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer." The Ron Paul campaign put out a release noting that he was "recently terminated" by the Bachmann campaign.


The move is the latest development over the last day that has rocked Bachmann's Iowa organization. Late Wednesday, former Bachmann state chairman Kent Sorenson showed up on stage at an event for rival Ron Paul, declaring he had switched allegiances just days before the first-in-the-nation caucus.


Well if Paul scares you- this nutcase gal should have given you grey hair !!! :wink: :p At least her own people are seeing the true Michelle Bachmann and jumping ship to Paul...
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
29,486
Reaction score
669
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
Oldtimer said:
TRENDING: Top Bachmann aide out after flap over campaign switch


CNN Political Unit
(CNN) - Michele Bachmann confirmed Thursday that another key member of her presidential campaign was no longer working for her.
"He quit," Bachmann said of former Political Director Wes Enos. Bachmann was speaking on CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer." The Ron Paul campaign put out a release noting that he was "recently terminated" by the Bachmann campaign.


The move is the latest development over the last day that has rocked Bachmann's Iowa organization. Late Wednesday, former Bachmann state chairman Kent Sorenson showed up on stage at an event for rival Ron Paul, declaring he had switched allegiances just days before the first-in-the-nation caucus.


Well if Paul scares you- this nutcase gal should have given you grey hair !!! :wink: :p At least her own people are seeing the true Michelle Bachmann and jumping ship to Paul...

Being right is not always popular; being popular is not always right.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Just wondering if buying off an opponents State Campaign chairman just days before the causus is a good way to get support? :?

As that is what Paul did with Sorenson according Bachmann. Kent told her Paul offered him alot of money and he was going to flip his support just like everyone else does. MONEY TALKS Sorenson walks it seems. :roll:

Sorenson was on America Live today and called Bachmann a liar when Megan Kelly asked him about the claims that he personally told Michelle he was offered a large sum of money to flip over to Paul's campaign. Megan asked him to confirmed he was calling her a liar about the conversation she claimed they had and he did. Then Megan asked him why if he had not been paid off was his own campaign manager saying he told her the same thing. That Paul offered him alot of money to come over to his campaign team.

Sorenson's Campaign manager was on Cavuto a couple hours later and she backed up Bachmann version of the story and said she was getting emails from people that worked on his campaign and they were plenty mad about his actions.

Seems Paul bought himself a Iowa Senator's endorsement but that Senator's actions just cost him a pile of respect among those that voted for him.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
Tam said:
Could the decent American comment from Newt mean anyone that thinks the US as the only super power has a responsibility to protect those being attacked by their own leaders, terrorist groups or a lunitic dictator from a neighboring country. Whether it is a Republican or a Democrat in the Oval Office the party supporters have always supported intervention on humanitarian reasons. The right supporters Bush when he went into Iraq to protect that country's citizens from the Genocide by Saddam while the Dems b*tched about him going in to protect US oil interest. But when the tables were turned and it was Obama that went into Libya, a country with more oil, the Dems claimed he did so to protect the citizens from the Gadaffi's military that was killing Libyan citizens. These two examples show both party supporters support humanitarian intervention but will Ron Paul intervene with his attitude that if US interest are not in danger then no US military action will be taken? Sorry but turning your back on genocide because the victims are not US CITIZENS is not decent and that is what Ron Paul in promoting is he not? He says he doesn't care if Iran gets a Nuke and will not stop them as he doesn't THINK they will use it. This after the leader of that country claimed he wanted nothing more than to wipe another country off the map, But as long as it is not the US Ron Paul has said he will not send in US troops.

Lonecowboy you keep saying that Ron Paul is a principled man and he stands by what he believes so I have to ask you why is Ron Paul still in Washington? :?

According to the article you posted
The congressman named Ron Paul has served in the House off and on since the 1970s

Wouldn't a man that believes in term limits and has proposed a term limit bill several times live up to his beliefs and leave DC after a couple terms? Yet he is still there after 4 decades so does he really believe in term limits? He also claims there should be no career politicans but look at his family he is still in Congress after 4 decades and now his son is in Washington. What does that say about his belief on no career politicans?

Then we have the newsletter he started under his name that printed racist comments and he claims he doesn't know who wrote the offending comments. Would a principled man allow racist remarks be REPEATEDLY printed under his banner without ever finding out who wrote them and stop them if he didn't agree with said comments?

Tam- find in our Constitution where the president has the authority to send our troops to police a foreign country and post it please.

term limits- now there is a catch 22, if you are no longer there to push the bill- hmmmmmmmmmmmm.


Would a principled man allow racist remarks be REPEATEDLY printed under his banner without ever finding out who wrote them and stop them if he didn't agree with said comments

is 22 years ago long enough? :shock:


Tam - which dog do you like in this fight?..... and why? What makes them any different than what we've had for the last 20 years?
 

djinwa

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Messages
100
Reaction score
0
Location
WA
So Ron Paul isn't perfect.

I vote on his policies.

I would like to remind people who want us all over the world saving people, that we are bankrupt.

If you want to save the world, feel free. There is no reason you can't grab a gun, get a plane ticket and go save anyone you want. But I'm guessing you only care about it as long as it's someone else's neck on the line, or someone else paying for it.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
djinwa said:
So Ron Paul isn't perfect.

I vote on his policies.

I would like to remind people who want us all over the world saving people, that we are bankrupt.

If you want to save the world, feel free. There is no reason you can't grab a gun, get a plane ticket and go save anyone you want. But I'm guessing you only care about it as long as it's someone else's neck on the line, or someone else paying for it.


There is no reason you can't grab a gun, get a plane ticket and go save anyone you want

TSA djinwa! TSA! :D :D LOL

you are spot on with your comment- if you want to save the world do it with your own money and your own neck and may God Bless You!

Gee I think that is what some tried to beat Ron Paul down for saying as quoted on another thread!

Going broke is a real game changer.
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
3,662
Reaction score
28
Location
South Central Montana
Tam said:
Hanta Yo said:
IMHO, Ron Paul scares me. His foreign policy scares me. His blind followers are scary. He thinks 9/11 was an inside job. I haven't decided who I want for president. I will keep on listening and researching.

He scares me too as he is to far out of the mainstream to be a true Republican. What I don't understand about him is why is he even running in the Republican primaries? He is a Libertarian and they have their own party so why not run for his own party's nomination?

As Loomixguy says, we can't afford a 3rd party. It will only split up the votes and Obama will get re-elected. Ross Perot was on a third party ticket and Clinton beat George H W Bush when he was seeking his 2nd term.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
The third party guy who is really a third party I don't have much problem with. The guys I will not vote for or support are the guys who are one party affiliation and when they get rejected they jump ship to a third party.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
1
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
hypocritexposer said:
3rd, or even 4th parties, work great in Canada.....we even kill off the odd liberal type party ever once in awhile :lol:

we could have a vibrant third party system with a small change to election law.. a runoff of the top two if the top vote getter fails to get 50.1 %
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Steve said:
hypocritexposer said:
3rd, or even 4th parties, work great in Canada.....we even kill off the odd liberal type party ever once in awhile :lol:

we could have a vibrant third party system with a small change to election law.. a runoff of the top two if the top vote getter fails to get 50.1 %


How about a system where whatever party gets what ever % they get? The minority can can throw them out if they have enough seats to vote "no confidence"

Why does the "winner" have to get 50%? How about just gaining the majority/plurality of votes?
 

Latest posts

Top