Romney Moving Ahead in South Carolina Too?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those are my personal assessments of agreement or disagreement with the given candidate's positions (or at least the position attributed to them on the survey) on the given issue. Bright green = strongly agree, bright red = strongly disagree, and black = indifferent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. From what I gather you like the guy that has absolutely no chance (unless the electorate is restricted to people who post on the Internet). [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

Will you still believe he has no chance if he's the leading fundraiser in quarter four on the Republican side? He's certainly going to raise more than any Republican candidate did in quarter three.

[/ QUOTE ]

Despite the rants on 2+2 the only way raising more money gives him a chance is if he raises about 10k per voter and buys the votes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Copernicus,

The story is different now because the Internet solved a coordination problem amongst libertarians, who are different from other political constituencies in that are not easily segregated (and thus controlled) by geography. As a pragmatic Paul supporter, I think it's very unlikely he'll get the nomination. There are still far too many ordinary people support their pet political projects and aren't actually libertarians - I think it's laughable to suggest Paul will ever enjoy true popular support. Libertarianism in general isn't a stable evolutionary political strategy. But on the national stage Ron Paul's candidacy can give libertarianism the kind of political heft like that enjoyed by the Miami Cuban ex-patriates in Floridian politics, for example. The ardent supporters, kooks, tax-protestors, New Racialists, whatever, aren't going away because geographic gerrymandering isn't as effective in this digital age and there are big single issues each is interested in that requires the rolling back of government power.

My aim as a RP supporter is to destroy the modern Republican party in its current incarnation. I've offered my thoughts on realignment and alliance between the "technology" Democrats and the leaner Republican party who deals with immigrants and other new demographics. I think it's a step in the right direction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont disagree with any of that, since your ultimate conclusion is he won't win the nomination. What I think you're discouting too much is that while the Internet has solved a coordination problem, it is still coordination of extreme views that can't withstand a nominating convention.

RP could garner more votes in more states than any other candidate, and the Republican party will still not nominate him. His nomination would ensure a Democratic victory in '08. The turnout from both sides will set records with a more conventional candidate. RP would kill the Republican turnout and ensure a Dem victory.

[Bedreviter]

But later on in the primaries several of the candidates that have underpreformed in the first primaries are likely to withdraw from the process, and then Romney and Guiliani (who I assume will be in the race to the very end) will probably get the support of those who would have voted for Thompson, McCain, Tancredo and Hunter, while Ron Paul probably will not win over many of them.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Those are my personal assessments of agreement or disagreement with the given candidate's positions (or at least the position attributed to them on the survey) on the given issue. Bright green = strongly agree, bright red = strongly disagree, and black = indifferent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. From what I gather you like the guy that has absolutely no chance (unless the electorate is restricted to people who post on the Internet). [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

~ Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

Will you still believe he has no chance if he's the leading fundraiser in quarter four on the Republican side? He's certainly going to raise more than any Republican candidate did in quarter three.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look. I'm sort of Libertarian on the margins and for some issues. For example, I'd get rid of public funding for TV (PBS) and radio (NPR). I'm relatively sure you guys would agree that Ken Burns and his contemporaries would still get funding for his fine programming and the left would eventually find someone as engaging in talk radio as Dennis Miller, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly (BTW, haven't listened to Rush in ages but like the other two guys).

Regarding foreign policy I'd take our "trip wire forces" out of Korea; if an economy as large as South Korea can't defend itself against a North Korea that can't even keep the lights on then something is very wrong.

But the broad Libertarian themes Ron Paul advocates are simply unacceptable to the population at large. Americans tend to want change that comes from the middle; in a way a divided government with little difference between Democrats and Republicans suits us just fine. Ron Paul represents radical change. He has no chance no matter how effective his Internet fund raising campaign becomes.

~ Rick

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
But the broad Libertarian themes Ron Paul advocates are simply unacceptable to the population at large.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think as people get the chance to actually listen to what Ron Paul has to say, and think it over, his themes increasingly resonate with many people.

[ QUOTE ]
Americans tend to want change that comes from the middle; in a way a divided government with little difference between Democrats and Republicans suits us just fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's the way it's been, and will be - until we more fully wake up. People are starting to wake up and realize we can't forever keep on the path we've been on (for one thing, it's the road to eventual genuine economic ruin. lso, I think most Americans are getting the deep down sense that something is very basically wrong economically in America and that bad things are looming; gas prices, high "real" inflation, the mortgage debacle and falling dollar are symptoms most are aware of).

[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul represents radical change. He has no chance no matter how effective his Internet fund raising campaign becomes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do agree his chances are considerably less than the frontrunners, but his appeal is also widely based and cuts across all demographic groups.

Let things get a heck of a lot worse over the next 5 or 10 years, and let his message get out more fully, and Americans might actually then be ready for Ron Paul's prescriptions for America.


P.S. IMO the Demopublicans are actually ruining America; the economic rot goes very deep. SS is just one symptom, and most of our late prosperity is due to borrowing rather than to increased production. The current system is on path to economic disaster. Couple that with an insane foreign policy in Iraq, which includes the pillar of unquestioned faith that Iraqis will get along with each other just fine if only the U.S. tells them to and stays for an indeterminate amount of time playing peacekeeper, and the spending in Iraq funded by megabucks borrowed from the Chinese - well, the phrase "coming recession" might easily be seen in hindsight as am enormous understatement.

All of the mainstream candidates will continue to bankrupt America's future. The young folks where Paul has been speaking in colleges and town halls are taking this terrible mortgaging of America's future especially to heart, because after all it's their future.

As people see and feel what's happening, and worry more (and realistically so), Paul's message will attract increasing attention.

Also, Ron Paul's positions on illegal immigration and the Iraq War are very important; most Americans want out of Iraq and to vastly restrict illegal immigration. Those are two major issues of concern for most Americans, and only Paul shares the average American's sentiments on both issues. He's actually on the right side of major mainstream public opinion on these two, while the other candidates are out of sync with the voters on at least one of these two key issues.

Finally, look at how the major candidates evade, flipflop, and typically BS their way through routinely. Hillary recently caught injcreasing flak for some of that. Paul will refresh voters who actually take the time to hear him, because here you have that immense rarity, a truly honest and principled politician who says exactly what he thinks. And he was elected and re-elected in Texas for how many terms?

So, while I agree that his chances are not high, I think his chances are be higher than you think they are, and that he is certainly not an "impossible" horse to win.

Finally, I'll add that far from throwing away one's vote by voting for Ron Paul, I think a vote for any of the mainstream Demopublicans is a thrown away vote, because, as you point out, their differences are relatively minor in the larger scale of things. So if you vote for Rudy or Hillary, you're voting to spend a bundle, keep the Iraq War going, etc. etc. etc. Same for Romney et al, although Obama might get us out of Iraq. He'd still spend fortunes, though.

It's time for a real change (IMO) and the main question is how much of America will think so by election time. My guess is rather low (just not as low as yours) but give it 5 or 10 years and we'll see. And who really knows what the Internet, debate exposure, etc. might achieve.

Thanks for reading.

[manbearpig]

Great post JK.

This has been my contention all along. That if people understood the issues and voted on the issues Paul's support would be a ton higher then it is. The majority of people dont know who Ron Paul is or what he stands for. But they recognize the name Hillary or Rudy even if they dont know where they stand on the issues.

More and more people are becoming educated everyday, but time is obviously the biggest factor.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the broad Libertarian themes Ron Paul advocates are simply unacceptable to the population at large.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think as people get the chance to actually listen to what Ron Paul has to say, and think it over, his themes increasingly resonate with many people. <font color="red"> Depends on how you define "many". The real issue is whether there will be any snowball effect resulting from his more reasonable ideas. People see through rhetoric like eliminating agencies M-Z and it taints his overall message.</font>

[ QUOTE ]
Americans tend to want change that comes from the middle; in a way a divided government with little difference between Democrats and Republicans suits us just fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's the way it's been, and will be - until we more fully wake up. People are starting to wake up and realize we can't forever keep on the path we've been on (for one thing, it's the road to eventual genuine economic ruin. lso, I think most Americans are getting the deep down sense that something is very basically wrong economically in America and that bad things are looming; gas prices, high "real" inflation, the mortgage debacle and falling dollar are symptoms most are aware of). <font color="red"> They may "sense" those things, but there is nothing in RPs message that he has any real answers to the problem that differ from any other Republican. </font>

[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul represents radical change. He has no chance no matter how effective his Internet fund raising campaign becomes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do agree his chances are considerably less than the frontrunners, but his appeal is also widely based and cuts across all demographic groups. <font color="red">I havent looked at the polls that closely, I tend to doubt that he has much appeal in the 35-54 group. </font>

Let things get a heck of a lot worse over the next 5 or 10 years, and let his message get out more fully, and Americans might actually then be ready for Ron Paul's prescriptions for America. <font color="red">Elect Shrillary and thats a given, the country will be ready for "anything but". </font>


P.S. IMO the Demopublicans are actually ruining America; the economic rot goes very deep. SS is just one symptom, <font color="red"> rofl, youve been spending too much time here apparently </font> and most of our late prosperity is due to borrowing rather than to increased production. <font color="red"> uhhhh, no it isnt. </font> The current system is on path to economic disaster. Couple that with an insane foreign policy in Iraq, which includes the pillar of unquestioned faith that Iraqis will get along with each other just fine if only the U.S. tells them to and stays for an indeterminate amount of time playing peacekeeper, and the spending in Iraq funded by megabucks borrowed from the Chinese - well, the phrase "coming recession" might easily be seen in hindsight as am enormous understatement. <font color="red">I think your crystal ball is cloudy. </font>

All of the mainstream candidates will continue to bankrupt America's future. The young folks where Paul has been speaking in colleges and town halls are taking this terrible mortgaging of America's future especially to heart, because after all it's their future. <font color="red">That varies widely from campus to campus. At my son's school the general opinion is that he's a clown. </font>

As people see and feel what's happening, and worry more (and realistically so), Paul's message will attract increasing attention. <font color="red">So would his running around the Senate floor naked. </font>

Also, Ron Paul's positions on illegal immigration and the Iraq War are very important ; most Americans want out of Iraq <font color="red"> By the primaries that statistic will likely have changed </font> and to vastly restrict illegal immigration. <font color="red">but by admitting that deporting the current illegals RPs positions arent noticeably different from the mainstream Republicans. When you get to some of his specifics (eg no need for a border fence, and that you can solve the immigration problem by cutting back on Welfare, he just isnt credible </font> Those are two major issues of concern for most Americans, and only Paul shares the average American's sentiments on both issues. He's actually on the right side of major mainstream public opinion on these two, while the other candidates are out of sync with the voters on at least one of these two key issues.

Finally, look at how the major candidates evade, flipflop, and typically BS their way through routinely. Hillary recently caught injcreasing flak for some of that. Paul will refresh voters who actually take the time to hear him, because here you have that immense rarity, a truly honest and principled politician who says exactly what he thinks. And he was elected and re-elected in Texas for how many terms?

So, while I agree that his chances are not high, I think his chances are be higher than you think they are, and that he is certainly not an "impossible" horse to win. <font color="red"> Again, even if he won the majority of states, he will not win the nomination. The Republicans will NOT nominate someone who is perceived as unable to beat Hillary. You can take that to the Fed. </font>

Finally, I'll add that far from throwing away one's vote by voting for Ron Paul, I think a vote for any of the mainstream Demopublicans is a thrown away vote, because, as you point out, their differences are relatively minor in the larger scale of things. So if you vote for Rudy or Hillary, you're voting to spend a bundle, keep the Iraq War going, etc. etc. etc. Same for Romney et al, although Obama might get us out of Iraq. He'd still spend fortunes, though. <font color="red"> Wrong, vote for Shrillary and the only thing your assured of getting is higher taxes. </font>

It's time for a real change (IMO) and the main question is how much of America will think so by election time. My guess is rather low (just not as low as yours) but give it 5 or 10 years and we'll see. And who really knows what the Internet, debate exposure, etc. might achieve. <font color="red">If it achieves anything it will be incrementally and wont look anything like Ron Paul. </font>

Thanks for reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
People see through rhetoric like eliminating agencies M-Z and it taints his overall message.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. When people who don't know much about him hear stuff like "Abolish the IRS and Dept of Education" their initial reaction is that he is completely insane.

[XXXNoahXXX]

Something tells me Huckabee is going to start polling much better....or else

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

But the broad Libertarian themes Ron Paul advocates are simply unacceptable to the population at large.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, cause most people have serious issues with the concept of "don't initiate force".

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But the broad Libertarian themes Ron Paul advocates are simply unacceptable to the population at large.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, cause most people have serious issues with the concept of "don't initiate force".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they do. Child predators, anyone?