Will Paul voters fall in line?

[Truthmatters]

hahahahah

looks like they are starting to FEAR each other.

I doubt it'll be all that divisive. In the end, Paul is a Republican and he will deliver his flock for Rand's sake.

Dont be so sure.

there is a new crop of Rs coming into office who are NOT following the mandates from the top of the party

 

[Ernie S.]

The Paulites will support Romney, or they will have no positive influence.

It's the opposite actually. Supporting Romney would betray everything we've worked for.

So, in stead, you will support obama? Perhaps some will, others will stay home, but the vast majority will support Romney.
Go ahead. Be steadfast and stick to your principles. It will get you nothing and may just land you in a place you'd rather not be.
Ron Paul throwing his support behind the GOP nominee and asking his supporters to do the same, is the only way he will have any influence in a Romney administration.

 

[dblack]

hahahahah

looks like they are starting to FEAR each other.

I doubt it'll be all that divisive. In the end, Paul is a Republican and he will deliver his flock for Rand's sake.

Exceedingly unlikely. Even if he tried. The movement isn't about him.

 

[The T]

The Paulites will support Romney, or they will have no positive influence.

It's the opposite actually. Supporting Romney would betray everything we've worked for.

So, in stead, you will support obama? Perhaps some will, others will stay home, but the vast majority will support Romney.
Go ahead. Be steadfast and stick to your principles. It will get you nothing and may just land you in a place you'd rather not be.
Ron Paul throwing his support behind the GOP nominee and asking his supporters to do the same, is the only way he will have any influence in a Romney administration.

Principle are great...they really are. Voting for people that don't have a chance at this juncture in our history is suicide.

Why not keep fighting to change the two-party system?

 

[dblack]

The Paulites will support Romney, or they will have no positive influence.

It's the opposite actually. Supporting Romney would betray everything we've worked for.

So, in stead, you will support Obama...

No. Try to follow along.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

It's the opposite actually. Supporting Romney would betray everything we've worked for.

So, in stead, you will support Obama...

No. Try to follow along.

A write in vote for Paul is essentially a vote for Obama. You may twist it anyway you like but that will be the end result.

 

[dblack]

It's the opposite actually. Supporting Romney would betray everything we've worked for.

So, in stead, you will support obama? Perhaps some will, others will stay home, but the vast majority will support Romney.
Go ahead. Be steadfast and stick to your principles. It will get you nothing and may just land you in a place you'd rather not be.
Ron Paul throwing his support behind the GOP nominee and asking his supporters to do the same, is the only way he will have any influence in a Romney administration.

Principle are great...they really are. Voting for people that don't have a chance at this juncture in our history is suicide.

Why not keep fighting to change the two-party system?

That's exactly what we're up to. And it won't happen by falling in line behind shills like Romney.

 

[Avorysuds]

Some here seem to think the bulk of Ron Paul supporters will fall for some kind of lesser-of-two-weevils nonsense and begrudgingly support Romney. I think you're wrong:
Eric Wen: Can The Romney Campaign Co-opt The Ron Paul Movement? Fat Chance | The New Republic

Can the Romney Campaign Co-opt the Ron Paul Movement? Fat Chance
Eric WenMay 19, 2012 | 12:00 am


When Ron Paul released a statement earlier this week informing supporters that “moving forward … we will no longer spend resources campaigning in primary states that have not yet voted,” it was easy to imagine Mitt Romney’s campaign staff quietly rejoicing. The Congressman’s staff was quick to clarify that he was not officially suspending his efforts for the nomination, but it was hard to see this as anything other than the end of the Paul campaign—and, in turn, the beginning of Romney’s cooptation of it.

As Barack Obama’s campaign proved in 2008 after its bruising primary fight against Hillary Clinton, a party that’s been unified in time for the national convention is its own reward. But bringing Paul’s supporters into the fold would also seem to have a special attraction for the Romney campaign: The Massachusetts governor earned plenty of votes in the primary, but he never quite inspired the enthusiasm of the Paul movement, which has regularly attracted thousands of committed supporters to rallies. It’s only reasonable for Romney to hope he can transfer some of that fervor—especially from young people, a demographic President Obama himself seems to be targeting—to his own campaign.

Having spoken with a wide swathe of young Paul voters, however, I’ve learned that’s an exceedingly unlikely proposition. Paul may have been running for the Republican nomination, but what he produced was a movement whose identity revolves around his own personality and his professed libertarian ideology. It’s a movement with hardly any affinity for the GOP—and for a man like Romney least of all.

It’s telling that Paul supporters almost uniformly refer to Paul’s bid for the presidency as a “movement” or “revolution,” rather than a “campaign.” To ask about their allegiance to the party is, for many of them, to make a category mistake. “It’s not a matter of partisan politics,” says Casey Given, an organizer for the University of California Berkeley chapter of the Youth for Ron Paul group. “It’s more about the ideas than the party.” Indeed, a common refrain among Ron Paul supporters is that the Republican Party needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.

Generally, Paul’s supporters speak of his campaign as something more akin to a political science or philosophy seminar, than a campaign for public office. Paul’s message has always encouraged his supporters to believe there’s much more at stake than temporary occupancy of the Oval Office. “It’s not designed to win votes, it’s designed to illuminate the right path forward for both the U.S. and its role in the world and how we manage the economy,” says Jacob Arluck, an organizer for Cornell University’s Youth for Ron Paul chapter.

In the words of Cliff Maloney, the former Pennsylvania Campus Coordinator for the Paul campaign, who has since been hired by Paul’s congressional office, “They don’t want anybody that’s going to give them rhetoric, they want someone that will give them the truth.” And, having been given access to the “truth,” Paul’s supporters are refusing to abandon their candidate. “They will stick with him until he says he drops out of the race or when he wins the race,” Maloney says. “[Ron Paul supporters] would do anything for Dr. Paul’s message.”

But even if they’re reconciled to the fact that Paul won’t win this year, many young voters don’t think of their support for Paul as a lost cause. The college-aged students who comprise the Paul campaign’s base was attracted to him in part because they hoped even if he didn’t win him the election, his organization could at least shape the political discourse for years down the line. “Being the party of old white rich men will not be a winning strategy in the future,” says Given. But that’s a strategy that depends on their staying firm to their principles and not transferring their allegiance to another candidate this year. “After 2012 is over, the Republican Party is going to have no choice but to realize that the future of the party is in more of a classically conservative libertarian direction,” says Pinter. “That’s where the youth is voting.”

Unsurprisingly, then, when I asked Paul supporters whether they would be voting for Romney this year, every single one of them said definitely not, and they insisted other Paul supporters they know wouldn’t either. “I think it would be very difficult for Ron Paul supporters to sleep at night and support someone that represents a lot of the principles that they disagree with,” said Tyler Koteskey, who called Romney a “liberal in conservative sheepskin.” Indeed, for some, the very suggestion that they might vote for Romney was an insult. “Personally, I would not vote for Romney,” said Mike Pinter of UC Davis. “I have conservative principles that can, under no circumstances, rationalize a vote for Romney.”

Needless to say, Barack Obama faced nothing like these challenges when he wooed disaffected Hillary supporters in 2008. Paul’s fans, it seems, will insist on continuing to divide the GOP, unless, and until, they can take it over entirely.

Some here seem to think that Ron Paul supporters are somehow a special group of voters that are supposed to be bowed to. I disagree. While I agree that Paulbots will not budge I think the normal Paul supporters will so whatever they deem is best for their wallet and lives like the rest of us. You may label that logic anyway you like but I prefer the term "reality"

All I can say is keep hoping man, cuz that's all the GOP has got these days. The average voter who just happens to make up 90% of the voter base does not think Obama is the devil here to destroy America. This election is not about how good Mitt is but how bad Obama is because the GOP needs to keep the focus off Mitt... For Mitt, talking less about himself is the best option, kinda sad.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So, in stead, you will support obama? Perhaps some will, others will stay home, but the vast majority will support Romney.
Go ahead. Be steadfast and stick to your principles. It will get you nothing and may just land you in a place you'd rather not be.
Ron Paul throwing his support behind the GOP nominee and asking his supporters to do the same, is the only way he will have any influence in a Romney administration.

Principle are great...they really are. Voting for people that don't have a chance at this juncture in our history is suicide.

Why not keep fighting to change the two-party system?

That's exactly what we're up to. And it won't happen by falling in line behind shills like Romney.

So you'll vote for Paul, get Obama and then what? Were right back where we started 4 years ago. Only this time the reins of reelection won't be on Obama.

Your logic is severely flawed.

 

[dblack]

So, in stead, you will support Obama...

No. Try to follow along.

A write in vote for Paul is essentially a vote for Obama. You may twist it anyway you like but that will be the end result.

There's no 'twisting' involved. Voting for neither Obama nor Romney supports neither. Twisting is required to suggest otherwise, no matter how often it's parroted as 'common knowledge'.

 

[The T]

So, in stead, you will support obama? Perhaps some will, others will stay home, but the vast majority will support Romney.
Go ahead. Be steadfast and stick to your principles. It will get you nothing and may just land you in a place you'd rather not be.
Ron Paul throwing his support behind the GOP nominee and asking his supporters to do the same, is the only way he will have any influence in a Romney administration.

Principle are great...they really are. Voting for people that don't have a chance at this juncture in our history is suicide.

Why not keep fighting to change the two-party system?

That's exactly what we're up to. And it won't happen by falling in line behind shills like Romney.

So just throw a fussfit?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The change we need won't start at the presidential level anyhow. Even if Paul somehow got elected you think the gridlock and partisanship in congress would magically disappear? We need to flush congress.

 

[Avorysuds]

So, in stead, you will support Obama...

No. Try to follow along.

A write in vote for Paul is essentially a vote for Obama. You may twist it anyway you like but that will be the end result.

Actually Gramps a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Ron Paul… But a vote for Mitt is a vote for a self described Progressive. To resort to claiming I or someone else is voting for Obama because we don’t support Mitt is a bit on the desperate and disgusting side man. We as Americans should be allowed to vote for who we want without being told we are the problem because we don’t get on board with people we want nothing to do with.


When Mitt losses I want you to know that because you supported such a bad candidate you helped get Obama elected Gramps… That is fact. =D See how easy that was?

 

[Truthmatters]

flush Norquist.

its started already

 

[The T]

The change we need won't start at the presidential level anyhow. Even if Paul somehow got elected you think the gridlock and partisanship in congress would magically disappear? We need to flush congress.

THIS^^^ The direct link to the people.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

No. Try to follow along.

A write in vote for Paul is essentially a vote for Obama. You may twist it anyway you like but that will be the end result.

Actually Gramps a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Ron Paul… But a vote for Mitt is a vote for a self described Progressive. To resort to claiming I or someone else is voting for Obama because we don’t support Mitt is a bit on the desperate and disgusting side man. We as Americans should be allowed to vote for who we want without being told we are the problem because we don’t get on board with people we want nothing to do with.


When Mitt losses I want you to know that because you supported such a bad candidate you helped get Obama elected Gramps… That is fact. =D See how easy that was?

It really doesn't matter what I do Suds. My state will vote republican like they usually do weather or not I do. Mitt will win Missouri easily without my vote. If you live in a similar state then you can make a protest vote without consequences. It's not like Paul has the kind of support Perot did.

 

[Avorysuds]

The change we need won't start at the presidential level anyhow. Even if Paul somehow got elected you think the gridlock and partisanship in congress would magically disappear? We need to flush congress.

The power the President wields as a single person who does not have to debate his vote to anyone else is incredible. The fact that when the President speaks most of the country listens and news papers report on it is HUGE.

The President could vote bad budgets and bad bills alone, that is HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE…

 

[dblack]

Principle are great...they really are. Voting for people that don't have a chance at this juncture in our history is suicide.

Why not keep fighting to change the two-party system?

That's exactly what we're up to. And it won't happen by falling in line behind shills like Romney.

So you'll vote for Paul, get Obama and then what? Were right back where we started 4 years ago. Only this time the reins of reelection won't be on Obama.

Your logic is severely flawed.

No it's not. You're just starting with different assumptions. You're assuming Romney is significantly better than Obama. I'm not. If I was I'd vote for him.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The change we need won't start at the presidential level anyhow. Even if Paul somehow got elected you think the gridlock and partisanship in congress would magically disappear? We need to flush congress.

The power the President wields as a single person who does not have to debate his vote to anyone else is incredible. The fact that when the President speaks most of the country listens and news papers report on it is HUGE.

The President could vote bad budgets and bad bills alone, that is HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE…

Paul would grind against both parties with his power of veto. Seems to me congress would unite to over ride the veto of their bills. Worse gridlock than we have now if both parties are against the president.

 

[Greenbeard]

Exceedingly unlikely. Even if he tried. The movement isn't about him.

I expect that Ron Paul will appear on no ballots this fall and that we'll see somewhere between 1 and 1.5 percent of the vote going to someone other than Romney or Obama, in keeping with the past two cycles. So either 1) the movement stays home (in which case it would seem it is about Ron Paul), 2) there isn't much of a "movement" to speak of, or 3) Paul voters will be absorbed into the two parties, preferentially--one would assume--the Republican party.