Will Paul voters fall in line?

[dblack]

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.

This is why the real agenda of the Paul movement is so much more important. Gaining control of the party infrastructure is vital.

 

[dblack]

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.

I suspect you'll be proven wrong. Real change is possible. We'll see how it plays out.

 

[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.

THIS^^^ The direct link to the people.

This is why the real agenda of the Paul movement is so much more important. Gaining control of the party infrastructure is vital.

You need to moderate your goals. Taking control of the GOP will never happen. Gaining major influence however is completely possible and the smart approach. Paul had a chance to really push his platform when the tea party rose but he chose to remain on the sideline. Which really makes me wonder what his real motives are.

 

[Zander]

Paul's supporters will overwhelmingly support Romney. There will be a few that are too stupid....but there's always a few dummies in every group.....

End.

Of.

Story.

 

[dblack]

THIS^^^ The direct link to the people.

This is why the real agenda of the Paul movement is so much more important. Gaining control of the party infrastructure is vital.

You need to moderate your goals. Taking control of the GOP will never happen. Gaining major influence however is completely possible and the smart approach. Paul had a chance to really push his platform when the tea party rose but he chose to remain on the sideline. Which really makes me wonder what his real motives are.

The goals are moderate. We don't need complete control.

I think Paul correctly recognized the TP as a campaign to co-opt the liberty movement and steer it toward neo-con priorities, and prudently pulled away from it. His real motives are libertarian, which may keep you "wondering".

 

[Mr.Nick]

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.

I'm a Paul supporter, I nominated him here in Illinois - but I'm not going to waste my vote on Mickey Mouse if it comes down to Romney or Obama.

I want that tyrannical pseudo-socialist, pseudo-fascist Obamafuck out of office...

Romney is a twisted fuck, but he's way less twisted than Obama. Obama is doing everything in his power to create an authoritarian fascist USA. I don't think Romney has the balls to pull big government bullshit - Romney would be nothing more than a placeholder, then finally in 4 years we may get another libertarian or Tea Party candidate to back as libertarians...

I suppose my point is that I'm not going to waste my vote. I'm voting AGAINST Obama....

Any smart individual would not waste their vote to get that tyrannical fuck out of office.

 

[dblack]

Paul's supporters will overwhelmingly support Romney. There will be a few that are too stupid....but there's always a few dummies in every group.....

End.

Of.

Story.

For you, maybe.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

You don't have to vote for Obama, only actively oppose Romney. You are supporting Obama.

Completely specious. By this tortured "logic", actively opposing Obama (which I'm doing) is the same as supporting Romney. Which is it? What you can't fit in your head is that it's possible to oppose them both.,

Yes, you are specious, dblack. The logic is a vote not for Romney is one less vote that Obama needs to worry about. Yes, you need to quit being a lunkhead and vote for MR.

But the same can be said in reverse. By not voting for Obama, that's one less vote that Romney needs to worry about.

 

[PredFan]

This long-time Libertarian, who voted for Ron Paul in the Florida GOP primary will hold his nose and vote for Romney. I have to. As much as I have a problem with a lot of the GOP establishment and Romney, I cannot let Obama have another term. The GOP does a lot of things that we Libertarians can't stomach, but the Democrats and especially the progressives and Obama, are 10 times worse.

Obama is the opposite of everything Ron Paul stands for.

 

[PredFan]

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.

I'm a Paul supporter, I nominated him here in Illinois - but I'm not going to waste my vote on Mickey Mouse if it comes down to Romney or Obama.

I want that tyrannical pseudo-socialist, pseudo-fascist Obamafuck out of office...

Romney is a twisted fuck, but he's way less twisted than Obama. Obama is doing everything in his power to create an authoritarian fascist USA. I don't think Romney has the balls to pull big government bullshit - Romney would be nothing more than a placeholder, then finally in 4 years we may get another libertarian or Tea Party candidate to back as libertarians...

I suppose my point is that I'm not going to waste my vote. I'm voting AGAINST Obama....

Any smart individual would not waste their vote to get that tyrannical fuck out of office.

Obama is the opposite of everything we Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters stand for.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

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 is some logic to this dblack, but it's a big "if" Gramps.

IF the person in question supported and voted for republicans in the past, and is now writing in or not voting, then that is a vote taken away from republicans which helps democrats. BUT, if that person never supported or voted for republicans, or at least voted for varying parties, then it isn't a vote taken away from republicans because it was never there in the first place.

It all depends on whether or not it was a vote that republicans could count on.

 

[dblack]

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

I'm a Paul supporter, I nominated him here in Illinois - but I'm not going to waste my vote on Mickey Mouse if it comes down to Romney or Obama.

I want that tyrannical pseudo-socialist, pseudo-fascist Obamafuck out of office...

Romney is a twisted fuck, but he's way less twisted than Obama. Obama is doing everything in his power to create an authoritarian fascist USA. I don't think Romney has the balls to pull big government bullshit - Romney would be nothing more than a placeholder, then finally in 4 years we may get another libertarian or Tea Party candidate to back as libertarians...

I suppose my point is that I'm not going to waste my vote. I'm voting AGAINST Obama....

Any smart individual would not waste their vote to get that tyrannical fuck out of office.

Obama is the opposite of everything we Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters stand for.

So is Romney.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

This long-time Libertarian, who voted for Ron Paul in the Florida GOP primary will hold his nose and vote for Romney. I have to. As much as I have a problem with a lot of the GOP establishment and Romney, I cannot let Obama have another term. The GOP does a lot of things that we Libertarians can't stomach, but the Democrats and especially the progressives and Obama, are 10 times worse.

Obama is the opposite of everything Ron Paul stands for.

I understand how you feel, but you have to look at the big picture. This happens every time. How much longer will we let politicians set up the situation where the lesser of two evils is the better choice? When will we stop settling for a lesser destruction of our country, and start demanding they fix this shit?

Every time we vote in the lesser of two evils, we send the signal that it's okay to do it again next time too. We have to send the signal that we demand someone better, that we won't settle for one douche just because he is slightly better than the other douche. Until you send that signal, you're going to be holding your nose every election.

I look at things very simply, the wrong direction is the wrong direction, even if it's a slower pace. I can't vote for Romney or Obama because they're both the wrong direction.

 

[Zoom]

The larger question is the survival of this Republic and getting the current wrecking crew out of power.

Yeah. Bring back Bush! He worked out so well last time.


(Fucking idiots).

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The larger question is the survival of this Republic and getting the current wrecking crew out of power.

Yeah. Bring back Bush! He worked out so well last time.


(Fucking idiots).

They make a pill for your condition. Spies used it with great success when captured back in the day.

 

[The T]

The larger question is the survival of this Republic and getting the current wrecking crew out of power.

Yeah. Bring back Bush! He worked out so well last time.


(Fucking idiots).

NOT what I alluded to at all...but yew knew that, didn't yew?

*Idiot*

 

[Mr.Nick]

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

I'm a Paul supporter, I nominated him here in Illinois - but I'm not going to waste my vote on Mickey Mouse if it comes down to Romney or Obama.

I want that tyrannical pseudo-socialist, pseudo-fascist Obamafuck out of office...

Romney is a twisted fuck, but he's way less twisted than Obama. Obama is doing everything in his power to create an authoritarian fascist USA. I don't think Romney has the balls to pull big government bullshit - Romney would be nothing more than a placeholder, then finally in 4 years we may get another libertarian or Tea Party candidate to back as libertarians...

I suppose my point is that I'm not going to waste my vote. I'm voting AGAINST Obama....

Any smart individual would not waste their vote to get that tyrannical fuck out of office.

Obama is the opposite of everything we Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters stand for.

Absolutely....

That's why I'm voting against him...

I had the same problem a couple years back with Mark Kirk (Romney clone) vs Alexi Giannoulias (Obama clone) here in Illinois....

I had to vote against the Obamafuck clone..... I wasn't going to waste my vote.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Completely specious. By this tortured "logic", actively opposing Obama (which I'm doing) is the same as supporting Romney. Which is it? What you can't fit in your head is that it's possible to oppose them both.,

Yes, you are specious, dblack. The logic is a vote not for Romney is one less vote that Obama needs to worry about. Yes, you need to quit being a lunkhead and vote for MR.

But the same can be said in reverse. By not voting for Obama, that's one less vote that Romney needs to worry about.

Not when that vote was not going to go for Obama anyway,

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'm a Paul supporter, I nominated him here in Illinois - but I'm not going to waste my vote on Mickey Mouse if it comes down to Romney or Obama.

I want that tyrannical pseudo-socialist, pseudo-fascist Obamafuck out of office...

Romney is a twisted fuck, but he's way less twisted than Obama. Obama is doing everything in his power to create an authoritarian fascist USA. I don't think Romney has the balls to pull big government bullshit - Romney would be nothing more than a placeholder, then finally in 4 years we may get another libertarian or Tea Party candidate to back as libertarians...

I suppose my point is that I'm not going to waste my vote. I'm voting AGAINST Obama....

Any smart individual would not waste their vote to get that tyrannical fuck out of office.

Obama is the opposite of everything we Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters stand for.

So is Romney.

Not quite. You can make the argument so we can knock it down.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I'm a Paul supporter, I nominated him here in Illinois - but I'm not going to waste my vote on Mickey Mouse if it comes down to Romney or Obama.

I want that tyrannical pseudo-socialist, pseudo-fascist Obamafuck out of office...

Romney is a twisted fuck, but he's way less twisted than Obama. Obama is doing everything in his power to create an authoritarian fascist USA. I don't think Romney has the balls to pull big government bullshit - Romney would be nothing more than a placeholder, then finally in 4 years we may get another libertarian or Tea Party candidate to back as libertarians...

I suppose my point is that I'm not going to waste my vote. I'm voting AGAINST Obama....

Any smart individual would not waste their vote to get that tyrannical fuck out of office.

Obama is the opposite of everything we Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters stand for.

So is Romney.

Romney will at least lessen the tax burden on businesses, which will in turn start to hire again - and will start investing in labor again....

That will create jobs, hence help the economy.

Obviously he will rule like a neo-con but it's better than what Obamafuck is doing.

At least Romney knows how to create jobs...