Ron Paul Can't Win

#726
#726
volinbham said:
What you are leaving out is how much of the enthusiasm for Obama was about him being a different kind of politician.

There is considerable buyer's remorse from the middle that went his way. His base will support him but the middle is looking for an Obama alternative - just as they looked for a Bush 2.0 alternative last time.
Click to expand...


I agree with the highlighted portion. And I agree that the swing voters are going to be pretty lukewarm about continuing with him.

I don't know about an Obama alternative, however. I would phrase it more in terms of looking for someone to jump start things again. And I mean that both in terms of the economy and culturally/socially, however you want to phrase it.

Not sure Romney fits the bill. For one thing, in terms of economics, he is very susceptible to attacks for being part of the elite that so many in the country blame for the current situation. Does not help that he made so much personal money on breaking down companies and creating employment problems for so many people.


I do think that is kind of a bum rap. I mean, as a small business person I just had to let go about a third of staff. And we did that for a number of reasons, including decreased need for help given technological advances, the salary and expense associated with employees, etc. So I don't blame someone like Romney for making a company healthier.

But when you say the line that corporations are people -- and I understand the context -- that's just not very smart given how betrayed people feel right now by big business.

And culturally/socially? That is probably Romney's biggest weakness. While he can play the family card well, and deservedly so, he's just not got any energy to him.

Obama won largely on optimism. Has he failed to live up to the billing? Sure. But he still has some gravitas on that score and Romney is just so ... boring.
 
#727
#727
lawgator1 said:
I agree with the highlighted portion. And I agree that the swing voters are going to be pretty lukewarm about continuing with him.

I don't know about an Obama alternative, however. I would phrase it more in terms of looking for someone to jump start things again. And I mean that both in terms of the economy and culturally/socially, however you want to phrase it.

Not sure Romney fits the bill. For one thing, in terms of economics, he is very susceptible to attacks for being part of the elite that so many in the country blame for the current situation. Does not help that he made so much personal money on breaking down companies and creating employment problems for so many people.


I do think that is kind of a bum rap. I mean, as a small business person I just had to let go about a third of staff. And we did that for a number of reasons, including decreased need for help given technological advances, the salary and expense associated with employees, etc. So I don't blame someone like Romney for making a company healthier.

But when you say the line that corporations are people -- and I understand the context -- that's just not very smart given how betrayed people feel right now by big business.

And culturally/socially? That is probably Romney's biggest weakness. While he can play the family card well, and deservedly so, he's just not got any energy to him.

Obama won largely on optimism. Has he failed to live up to the billing? Sure. But he still has some gravitas on that score and Romney is just so ... boring.
Click to expand...

Obama didn't just fail to live up to expectations - it's clear to many of the middle that supported him that his schtick was just that; schtick. His domestic record is horrible and he's been as slimy as all the politicians he claimed to be unlike.

The Dem base will vote for Obama. The Rep base will vote Romney (maybe while holding their nose but they want Obama gone). Romney is a great choice for the middle - credible on the economy, not too socially conservative and not too hawkish. Boring is fine if perceived competence and seriousness come along with it.

Depending on the electoral map, I could see a major popular vote advantage for Romney over Obama and possibly a big electoral win as well.

Put it this way; if Romney wins it will be by a bigger margin than Obama would beat Romney by.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#728
#728
GAVol said:
Sane judicial appointments, Entitlement and tax reform, getting rid of czars, a clear economic policy and killing the CFPB are enough for me.
Click to expand...

the USSC is about the only reason I would consider him. No way anyone rational person wants Obama filling those spots. I get what you and bham are saying but "likely" doesn't get me excited. Maybe he'll just spend 8 years rolling back Obama policies and the next guy can enact real change
 
#730
#730
volinbham said:
Look, everyone thinks their view is the most intellectually superior and well thought out. For every "thinking" libertarian there is someone that just likes the position because it's the anti-authority default.

Likewise with Republicans and Democrats. All groups think they have the most reasoned viewed and in truth all groups have deep thinkers and sheep.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about reason and intellect. I'm talking about knowledge.
 
#734
#734
volinbham said:
Doesn't change my answer. I see no compelling evidence that Libertarians or Paul supporters are more knowledgeable than other groups.
Click to expand...

Something objective. This poll was conducted to evaluate economic aptitude....

Zogby researcher Zeljka Buturovic and I considered the 4,835 respondents' (all American adults) answers to eight survey questions about basic economics. We also asked the respondents about their political leanings: progressive/very liberal; liberal; moderate; conservative; very conservative; and libertarian.

Consider one of the economic propositions in the December 2008 poll: "Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable." People were asked if they: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure.

In this case, percentage of conservatives answering incorrectly was 22.3%, very conservatives 17.6% and libertarians 15.7%. But the percentage of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly was 67.6% and liberals 60.1%. The pattern was not an anomaly.

How did the six ideological groups do overall? Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.
Click to expand...

So it looks like the libertarians scored the best (very conservative + conservative + some moderate = GOP base).

Daniel Klein: Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? - WSJ.com
 
#735
#735
nbakerld said:
Something objective. This poll was conducted to evaluate economic aptitude....



So it looks like the libertarians scored the best (very conservative + conservative + some moderate = GOP base).

Daniel Klein: Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? - WSJ.com
Click to expand...

This is simply looking at economic issues - not sure how you are claiming libertarians score better than Republicans on this list. Looks pretty even to me.

Here's the party affiliation

The survey also asked about party affiliation. Those responding Democratic averaged 4.59 incorrect answers. Republicans averaged 1.61 incorrect, and Libertarians 1.26 incorrect.
Click to expand...

Not much difference between R and L here and again this only deals with knowledge of basic economic principles.
 
Last edited:
#737
#737
volinbham said:
This is simply looking at economic issues - not sure how you are claiming libertarians score better than Republicans on this list. Looks pretty even to me.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I recognize that it's just economics, but it is one of the more difficult topics where people tend to be less informed.

Libertarians scored a 1.38

Very Conservative scored a 1.30
Conservative a 1.67
Moderate a 3.67

Average those out and libertarians easily outscore Republicans (the lower the score, the better). The only way my math doesn't work is if the sample is something absurd like 1500 "very conservatives", 3 "conservatives", and 3 "moderates".

I would also point out that there isn't a lot of difference between those that are "very conservative" and libertarians. In 2008, when this poll was conducted, my Father (a Phd economist) would have self-identified as "very conservative". After years of conversation with him (but probably mostly because he watches Stossel) now both my parents both call themselves "libertarian-leaning conservatives".

Barry Goldwater walked that fine line, too. Russel Kirk was the Father of traditional conservatism, and he was basically a libertarian.
 
#738
#738
volinbham said:
Not much difference between R and L here and again this only deals with knowledge of basic economic principles.
Click to expand...

On a 100 question quiz, that's the difference between an 84.3 and 79.8. I'd say it's a significant difference.
 
#740
#740
Virginia GOP to require loyalty oath from primary voters | Jay Bookman


Virginia GOP to require loyalty oath from primary voters.
Can the GOP party legally do this?


Gingrich has already publicly stated that he will not vote for Paul as president should he somehow win the nomination, explaining that “Ron Paul’s views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American.“ (You gotta love that Gingrich mentality: in his mind, there are decent Americans, and then there are Ron Paul supporters.)
Click to expand...

Per Newt, RP supporters are not descent Americans.... Wow.... He is a real douchebag.
 
#742
#742
Have the Democrats ever required someone to take an oath to support someone they don;t want to be president in order simply to vote?

If so, as a Democrat, I would vehemently disavow that.

Seems to me that this proposed oath is basically a reiteration of the party's mantra that, no matter who the nominee is, you have to support him to get rid of Obama.

Basically screws over moderates because it is certainly conceivable that someone voting for Romney in the primary, for example, might decide in the general to vote for Obama. Likewise, someone voting for Perry or Bachmann might not be able to stomach voting for a Mormon in the general, no matter what.

I wonder if it requires you to vote, i.e. can you vote for Perry, and then refuse to vote in the general for the guy from that cult.
 
#744
#744
Top Republican presidential contender Congressman Ron Paul has been endorsed by former head of the CIA’s “Bin Laden Unit” Michael Scheuer, reports Revolution PAC. In his endorsement, Scheuer backs Paul’s longstanding non-interventionist foreign policy views and warns of bankruptcy and increased hostility toward Americans both at home and abroad should current bipartisan foreign adventurism continue.

Nice..

Ron Paul gets endorsement from former CIA agent in "Bin Laden Unit" - West Palm Beach Libertarian | Examiner.com
 
#745
#745
refresh my memory, but did Ron Paul vote to authorize military action in Afghanistan or did he push for a congressional declaration of war?
 
#746
#746
I'm starting to read a little bit more about Santorum as his religious-conservative views have not really been explored in all the focus on economy and foreign policy.

My gut reaction is that he is unpalatable in the general. Utterly unelectable.
 
#747
#747
MG1968 said:
refresh my memory, but did Ron Paul vote to authorize military action in Afghanistan or did he push for a congressional declaration of war?
Click to expand...

Mg. I looked back just to make sure and it looks like he as most of the people authorized military action, you are right. Here is what I found.

Congressman Paul supported going into Afghanistan and attacking those who attacked us on 9/11. He voted to give the President the authority to use force there. However, Congressman Paul noted that using force against the Taliban was not a declaration of war. He stated that to declare war against a group that is not a country makes the clear declaration of war more complex. Congressman Paul argued that the best tool the framers of the Constitution provided under those circumstances was the power of Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisals. He cautioned against entering into such a vague and undefined war, but in the end supported the resolution to use force as it was the only option available and doing nothing was unthinkable. Congressman Paul's desire was to have clearly defined objectives that would be provided in letter of reprisal or a declaration of war. An authorization to use force provides no clarity as to scope and purpose.

Ron Paul - The War in Afghanistan
 
Last edited:
#748
#748
MG1968 said:
refresh my memory, but did Ron Paul vote to authorize military action in Afghanistan or did he push for a congressional declaration of war?
Click to expand...

In almost any case he would push for a declaration of war, but this was not a case where a declaration of war was possible. The US government wasn't going head-to-head with the government of Afghanistan. They were going after Osama and his crew, so there was no nation against whom to declare war.

Paul voted for military action...the proposed surgical operation (in and out). He did not anticipate the nation-building that would follow.

First and foremost he supported issuing a letter of marque and reprisal which is still an aggressive action and would've possibly kept troops out of Afghanistan.
 
#749
#749
with all the trouble that Blackwater found themselves in and the subsequent embarrassment that followed, using mercenary forces to carry out foreign policy sounds as unpalatable as using the military for nation building
 
#750
#750
Is a third place Iowa finish a positive that legitimizes Ron Paul or is it a little bit of a disappointment?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top