Skip to comments.'Mischief' voters push Paul to front of GOP race
Posted on 12/26/2011 4:38:21 PM PST by TBBT
Ron Paul is surging in the Republican presidential race. Just not among Republicans.
The Texas congressman is leading some polls in Iowa and is in a tie for second in New Hampshire. A candidacy once dismissed as sideshow is now being taken very seriously; the front page of Monday's Des Moines Register featured a huge spread under the headline "COULD RON PAUL WIN?"
Given Paul's views on the Fed, the gold standard and social issues, not to mention his isolationist foreign policy, the polls have left some politicos wondering whether Republican voters have somehow swerved off the rails. But there's another question that should be asked first: Who are Ron Paul's supporters? Are they, in fact, Republicans?
In an analysis accompanying his most recent survey in Iowa, pollster Scott Rasmussen noted, "Romney leads, with Gingrich in second, among those who consider themselves Republicans. Paul has a wide lead among non-Republicans who are likely to participate in the caucus."
The same is true in New Hampshire. A poll released Monday by the Boston Globe and the University of New Hampshire shows Paul leading among Democrats and independents who plan to vote in the January 10 primary. But among Republicans, Paul is a distant third -- 33 points behind leader Mitt Romney.
In South Carolina, "Paul's support is higher among those who usually don't vote in GOP primary elections," notes David Woodard, who runs the Palmetto Poll at Clemson University.
(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ...
More evidence for closed primaries/caucuses?
Yes, and he may well end up winning VA too! (snicker)
The GOP does not want them all closed.
They feed on having cross-over and Independent votes in blue and purple states. Otherwise, they’ll be stuck with very Conservative candidates.
I agree - close the votes. Leftists have no business voting in GOP elections.
I am a strict-constructionist conservative who has voted for Ron Paul every time I see his name on the ballot. Then again, I have admitted defeat to the marxists who have been overtaking our government and culture for decades. We live in interesting times. Tweeking will not solve our problems and overhaul will be met with anarchy due to the now dominant dependent class that we have so laboriously constructed.
I’m no fan of Paul but the GOP is going to self destruct in their rabid attempt to destroy him.
I see him as a symptom of our problems, not the cause.
There is a serious consideration that everyone should make about Ron Paul. First make a list of things he is advocating that you *like*, and the things you *don’t like*.
Second, and this is the important part. Which items on *both* lists can a president actually do? Remember that the POTUS is *not* omnipotent, nor as much as Obama wants, he is not a dictator.
The president does not appropriate money, nor does he really write a budget, other than a wish list. This is why so many presidential budgets are called “dead on arrival”, because congress quite properly ignores them.
In fact, if you look at the office of the presidency, what presidents enjoy most is doing the *unconstitutional* things that they are doing. And they do plenty of them.
Importantly, if Ron Paul stands for anything, it is opposition to the blatantly unconstitutional. So ask yourself, will he do what other presidents have done and ignore the constitution?
Will he issue the horribly unconstitutional “presidential signing statements” that Obama railed against as a candidate, but just a day or two ago went hog-wild with?
The bottom line, that many voters may grasp, is that for his many faults, he has made a career about following the constitution, not evading it.
Can any other Republican be trusted to do that?
And in the final analysis, if the president does not obey the constitution, does it matter what else he does?
Personally I think its because Paul only serves to help elect RINO frontrunners. If it weren’t for him, rationale might prevail and many of his votes would likely go to the reasonable conservatives in the race.
“Im no fan of Paul but the GOP is going to self destruct in their rabid attempt to destroy him.”
Probably, and the irony is that RP already has talked at length about the concept of “blowback.” Can’t say as I hope the gop will get a clue. Better they end up on the trash heap of history with the whigs and we get a new, better party that might actually represent conservatives.
Me too. I vote for him to send a message. But now the message is = Ron Paul will be the Republican candidate!! and every one will gather in behind to support this intellectual giant. Now before you criticize my opinion— I want you to tell me who you really want. (so I can bash the hell out of he or she) And it better not be romney. Romney isn’t liked here and you would be well advised not to come out for him on this web site. You need some socialist website for that. WE ARE CONSERVATIVES.
Would they be similar to "compassionate conservatives"?
“They feed on having cross-over and Independent votes in blue and purple states. Otherwise, theyll be stuck with very Conservative candidates”
That is a very good observation. It is one way the RINO establishment has to keep the Conservatives at bay. Anothers is to change the voting rules in mid-steam ala (Virginia).
Open political associations are stupid.
It’s like living in a big house on the edge of the ‘hood, and putting a big sign in the front yard that says, “Anyone who wants can live here.” And then acting shocked when you can’t stand living in your own house any more because the riff-raff have taken over.
I think the mischief slows down in South Carolina, which is an open primary state, but one I believe has less Paultards than IO & NH. And the mischief comes to a complete halt - at least temporarily - in Florida, where only Republicans can vote in the primary, and registration closes a few weeks before Florida’s January 29 primary, at January 3rd.
But Paul can do a lot of damage in the meantime. If Paul deprives Gingrich of victories in both IO & NH, then Gingrich will have to hang on and maintain momentum sufficient to win South Carolina & Florida, states where he is presently the polling favorite. I hope Gingrich makes it; but if he doesn’t, it will be Paul who caused Romney to win the nomination.
Well, it surely ain’t Democrats.
Nearly all Democrats are totally against 95% of what Ron Paul stands for, and for what Ron Paul is going to do.
The Democrats do not want to eliminate 5 federal departments, the Democrats do not want strict Constitutional Supreme Court Justices, the Democrats do not want a repeal of the 1934 and 1968 Gun Control Acts, they do not want a trillion dollar cut in federal spending, they do not want the income tax eliminated, the Democrats do not want welfare eliminated, etc etc etc
>>I am a strict-constructionist conservative who has voted for Ron Paul every time I see his name on the ballot.<<
With Pat Paulson dead, what else could you do?
As I just posted on another thread:
"The last thing the Republican party, and some here on FR, want is a candidate who is a principled, consistent conservative."
No, it will be all the people who vote for Romney, same people who brought McCain back from oblivion in 08 when he was broke after NH.
Please, the Republican elite will choose the nominee for you. They do it every cycle. How hard is it to understand?
Romney has all the Mormon votes in the bag, he just needs to find someone else to support him. That has been pretty difficult so far.
“Mischief” voters can elect a transexual as their high school Prom Queen and Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor of California, and so I have little doubt they can keep pushing Ron Paul into the limelight. But get him elected President? I don’t think so.
Electing a “community organizer” from Chicago as President and Commander-in-Chief took a lot more than just “mischief” voters - - it took a carelessness and stupidity among the general electorate that portends the decline of a once proud and great nation. America is most certainly in decline, but Ron Paul is simply not as funny as a transexual, an Austrian action movie star, or a community organizer from Chicago.
“Even if magical fairies made him president, he would be rendered ineffective by congress. “
If Ron Paul was elected President, then we would not have the same liberal over-spending Congress either. Ron Paul said himself he could not change anything if he was the only one elected who believes in the US Constitution.
Anyways, Ron Paul is 76 years old. He will die of old age pretty soon, and then everyone will be happy that we will finally have no one at all in Washington DC who really wants to cut the federal budget by 1 trillion dollars,we will have no one who wants to eliminate the income tax, we will have no one who wants to get rid of the IMF, UN, Federal Reserve, and the World Bank.
“Electing a community organizer from Chicago as President and Commander-in-Chief took a lot more than just mischief voters - - it took a carelessness and stupidity among the general electorate that portends the decline of a once proud and great nation. America is most certainly in decline, but Ron Paul is simply not as funny as a transexual, an Austrian action movie star, or a community organizer from Chicago.
IMO, I personally, would not want a community organizer from Chicago to nominate the next 3 Supreme Court Justices.
Who do you think would pick the best, most conservative, most limited government, most pro-individual liberties, Supreme Court Justices?
Like a typical Paul supporter, you impugn the motives of those with whom you disagree, because you cannot say something rational to support Ron Paul. I don’t let anyone tell me how to vote; I was supporting Gingrich when he was at 3%, and the whole time - from 3% to frontrunner - the ‘establishment” did nothing but criticize Gingrich.
Ron Paul is OK, except for the completely deranged whack-job freak part.
In the following clip, Ron Paul is QUITE SYMPATHETIC with 9-11 Truthers who claim not merely that the USA “inspired” 9-11, but that we literally, physically executed it. Ron Paul here explicitly supports a Congressional “investigation” to see if the USA did it:
Here’s Ron Paul praising Bradley Manning as a “true patriot.” Manning is the alleged traitor who leaked literally thousands of military & diplomatic secrets, getting both Americans & our allies killed:
Here’s a longer clip of the same event this year, for those who would claim the 1st clip is out of context:
So you can claim many things, but anyone supporting Ron Paul cannot claim to be a thinking person.
I believe that if Ron Paul were given a thorough, professional, unswerving mental exam he would be found to be crazier than an outhouse rat! That being the case, what does that say for Iowa voters if they would waste their vote on a turdbrain like that?
Oooops! Never mind! They wasted it on a previous turdbrain for POTUS in 2008! It must be congenital!
Just re-read your comment, and I don’t know who you support. So I was hasty in thinking you’re a Paul supporter; my apologies.
LOL! Ron Paul brings thousands of new voters to the party, and the gop does what it can to bar the doors.
Electing Ron Paul would be suicidal.
“...you can claim many things, but anyone supporting Ron Paul cannot claim to be a thinking person.”
The extreme right and the extreme left are merely flip sides of the same non-rational extremist coin. bttt
Robin Koerner (of Huff-Po) is the main guy spearheading the extreme left “Blue Republicsn” movement to get Democrats signed up as Republicans in order to vote Ron Paul in the __closed-primary states__:
“Blue Republicans”: an Idea Whose Time Has Come
Posted: 07/13/11 By Robin Koerner Publisher, WatchingAmerica.com
“Many people of independent, liberal or Democratic sensibilities voted for Obama in 2008 in the hope of jolting America toward civil liberties and away from war, only to find themselves in 2011 disappointed .....” [snip]
Robin Koerner: If You Love Peace, Become a “Blue Republican” (Just for a Year)
Since you can’t change the Democrat ticket, why not act where you can make a positive change, by telling the Republican party where you really want it to go. I offer you a special moniker to set yourselves apart: the “Blue Republican.”
What is a Blue Republican?
We are former non-Republicans who are joining the Republican party for one year to help Ron Paul win the GOP nomination for President in 2012. Who We Are
Anti-war Ron Paul attracting support from local left
By Michael Kitch
Nov 22, 2011 12:00 am
LACONIA Amid polling last week that showed Ron Paul running into the money in both Iowa and New Hampshire there were also signs that he was tapping support from an unexpected quarter the left-wing of the Democratic Party.
Lynn Rudmin Chong, former chair of the Belknap County Democratic Committee, has publicly endorsed Paul and said that “I have found other kindred souls.” The Sanbornton resident said that she left the Democratic Party and changed her voter registration to “undeclared” in anticipation of taking a Republican ballot in New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary and casting her vote for Paul.
“He is the only one saying no more war,” Chong said. She spent two days in Washington with the “Occupy DC” movement, where she said that she was encouraged to see so many young people holding signs supporting Paul.
“I would definitely call myself a progressive,” said Will Hopkins of Belmont, who returned from a tour as infantryman in Iraq to become executive director of New Hampshire Peace Action, a group seeking to end foreign wars and cut defense budgets. “I supported Obama in 2008, but I’m supporting Ron Paul. That’s where I’m putting my eggs this year,” he said. “A lot of folks in the peace movement are taking a close look at Paul.”
Signs that liberals and progressives were flirting with Paul appeared last spring, when Robin Koerner, a British national who founded “Watching America,” which publishes foreign news about the United States in English, and blogs for the Huffington Post, described Paul as the “conservative champion of liberalism.”
He coined the term “Blue Republican” to brand progressives for Paul, which was promptly promoted on Facebook, where his article was shared 11,000 times in less than a week.
In July. Koerner posted “If you love peace, become a ‘Blue Republican’ (Just for a Year),” telling progressives they do not have to like the GOP “to sign up as a Republican for a year to help make sure that the Republican primaries are won by the one representative who has always been for peace, has always voted against bailouts, and has always opposed the reach of government into your bedroom, your relationships and your person.”
On their website Blue Republicans describe themselves as “people who have never before thought of joining the Republican Party . . . who identify as Democrats or Independents and/or supported Obama in 2008.”
Jim Forsythe of Strafford, the state senator from District 4 and chair of Paul’s campaign in New Hampshire, said that he was aware of independent voters, both conservatives and liberals, either eying or backing Paul. He said that some some liberals and progressives share Paul’s opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, eagerness to reduce the defense budget at home and military footprint abroad, hostility to the Patriot Act and distrust of corporate power.
“I’m being pragmatic,” said Chong, explaining that she would vote for Paul in the primary without showing her hand in the general election. However, she admitted “I am feeling way distanced from Obama.”
Hopkins vowed to support Paul in the both the Republican primary and the general election. However, he said that if Paul loses the nomination to another Republican, he will throw his vote to a third party.
Polls conducted by Bloomberg News last week put Paul in second place behind Mitt Romney in both New Hampshire and Iowa with 17-percent and 19-percent respectively. Unlike several other GOP candidates Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich whose polling numbers have waxed and waned, Paul has polled consistently, without, however, significantly expanding his support.
Another Bloomberg poll indicated that if Paul bolted the GOP to run as a third-party candidate, he would capture 18-percent of the vote, effectively throwing the election to Obama, who would top Romney with 44-percent to 32-percent.
So, if many Republicans & many Democrats support Ron Paul, why couldn’t he take Obama? I think he has the best chance of doing just that.
See my post #31 immediately above. :)
I have been saying for months that cross-over Democrats will be choosing the GOP candidate in NH’s open primary...here you go.
I agree - close the votes. Leftists have no business voting in GOP elections.
We could just ignore NH. Who in the hell cares what 10,000 people in NH think?
“I agree - close the votes. Leftists have no business voting in GOP elections.”
Not that simple. See my post #31 above.
Newbie Paulie plant begone - we don’t want you here.
So who is supporting Paul? In New Hampshire, Paul is the choice of just 13 percent of Republicans, according to the new poll, while he is the favorite of 36 percent of independents and 26 percent of Democrats who intend to vote in the primary. Paul leads in both non-Republican categories.
"Paul is doing the best job of getting those people who aren't really Republicans but say they're going to vote in the Republican primary," explains Smith. Among that group are libertarians, dissatisfied independents and Democrats who are "trying to throw a monkey wrench in the campaign by voting for someone who is more philosophically extreme," says Smith.
Paul tops the field when pollsters ask Republicans which candidate they are certain not to support. "When you ask people which candidate they are least likely to vote for, Ron Paul is pretty high, because most Republicans here really don't want to vote for him," says Smith. "His support is not coming, by and large, from Republican voters."
This is an intriguing premise. Paul gets many Democrat and Independent votes in the GOP primary. So if Paul were to run as an independent, he probably would get those Democrat and Independent voters. This overstates his support in the primaries, and he probably wouldn't hurt the GOP much in the general election, either.
Seems like this would help conservatives. If the liberal, open-primary states go for Paul, that would deal greater blows to Romney than to Newt. If Newt wins the conservative states then it would seem he is thrust to frontrunner status. I’m not sure if Paul would come out on top if he won every blue state or not, which I guess would be the only danger. Newt can make Romney his V.P. to assuage the establishment if he doesn’t get over 50%.
Why is it that whenever I read posts from Paulbots, the tone, structure and wording of them sounds very reminiscent of the couple who named their kid Adolf Hitler and the members of the Westboro Baptist Church?
The left-hand side of the Dem Party is antiwar—like Paul. And anti-Zionist. That’s a very strong motivation for those who believe in it. Of course they’re smoking something, but that’s a plus in the Paul column too.
An election lawyer informed me that the crossover voting has been around for quite a while, but it is only lately that it has become abused in order to cause mischief, or to pick a candidate who can’t win in the general.
Also people are swallowing the Dem propaganda and developing a stronger fear of conservatives. So they use the open primaries to keep the most conservative candidates out. This is not news to anyone, of course, but since the fear is now stronger, the effect is now greater.
It’s possibly time to end this opportunity for election chaos and go back to simply voting for the person we really believe in. In other words, change the laws back toward more closed primaries.
Since the Democrats are the party more often involved in voter fraud, we have that magnifying factor to consider as well. Didn’t we have busloads of dubious voters coming into NH from Vermont in 2008?
There is NO way "Real" Conservatives would ever support the Anti-Semite, Isolationist, Truther, Nutcase.
As his support comes mostly from young people; and as younguns don't usually tend to be Republicans or lean Conservative, this was not that difficult to conclude that it was more than likely independents and Liberal Tools who wanted to create mischief and influence the outcome of the primaries.
After knocking off Bachman, Perry and Cain, the only "somewhat" Conserevative left is Newt and as the RATS and Dear Leader (aided and abetted by the biased, Lame Stream Media) want Mittens to get the nod, they will stoop to any level to see that comes to pass
The answer? Closed primaries everywhere!
It has to be RATS voting for the NUT CASE.
I never understood why all states don't require closed primaries.
They're no different than many others, except they're LOUD sheep on steroids. :) bttt
"....One cannot simply blindly apply first principles to every situation, for this ends in a dogmatic and false absolutism.
"This is, for example, what creeps people out about Ron Paul.
"He says plenty of things -- derived from first principles embodied in the Constitution -- that make perfect sense. However, he always goes too far, in that half of what he says results from a blind application of first principles, irrespective of empirical reality.
"The same moral confusion afflicts leftists who wouldn't waterboard a known terrorist with information about an imminent attack, owing to an unthinking allegiance to the principle of "non-torture" -- which any normal person shares, up to a point, the point of suicidal insanity. ..."
Just so! Ron Paul doesn't so much think or reason; he mainly doctrinalizes. I do not believe he is in very good contact with actual Reality....
He's a really "horizontal" kind of guy.... IMHO
Thanks so much, dear Matchett-PI, for the link to another thought-provoking article from GagDad Bob!