Posted on 01/31/2012 12:00:06 PM PST by presidio9
The first primaries of 2012 are complete, but the fight over the proper role of government continues. The question before GOP primary voters is who best reflects their own answer to that question, and then, who is best suited to make that case to the American people?
A clear winner has yet to emerge, but there is little question about who has captured the loyalty of young Republican voters on this issue. Although finishing fourth overall, Ron Paul once again won the youth vote in South Carolina, winning 31% of ages 18-29, compared to Newt Gingrich who won 28%. Paul’s appeal, or more accurately, the appeal of Paul’s limited government message, is a key story to emerge from the Republican primaries.
There’s no mistaking the trend.
Mitt Romney won the New Hampshire primary, getting approximately 39% of the total vote. Ron Paul finished second with 23%, Jon Huntsman finished third with 17%, and Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum each won about 9% of the vote.
Yet young voters would have picked a different winner. According to Fox News exit polls, in New Hampshire, Paul won nearly half (46%) of the votes of people ages 18-29, while Romney won second place with just 26%.
Paul also won the youth vote in Iowa. In the Hawkeye State almost half (48%) of the Republican caucus goers ages 18-29 supported Paul, compared to 23% for the otherwise victorious Santorum, and 14% for Romney.
What is so appealing about Paul to young voters? One answer is that Paul has been the most outspoken candidate defending the importance of free enterprise and the limited role of government. And he has had a
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I talk to younger friend of mine he claim that Ron Paul speak to young people I think he is Ross Perot of millium generation
What's not to like for a young person?
I’m not entirely unsympathetic. Four years of Barack Obama might make me want to hide behind some bong smoke too.
Ron Paul is appealing to green (in the sense of immature) idealists who don’t appreciate that a politician with a huge hole in his policies is just not the person to put in the Oval Office even if he made it to Congress.
You. Nailed. It!
NAILED IT!
Yep. That's the appeal. Sadly.
They like his hippie live and let live anti-war message.
I know of many younger folks who are drawn to him for that reason.
Personally, I think he’s a kook.
Very , very simple. Legalization of drugs. That puts him in their peer group.
Yep, weed.
Of course, his foreign policy lunacy will have the bad guys killing us all and taking the weed.
But logic and forethought are not traits of Paultards.
Ganja.
One word.
Doobie.
Come on, it’s because he’s anti-establishment. Young people tend to be more rebellious by nature.
The same things that make them participate in the OWS camp outs. Anything weird or "edgy" is great by them.
And they believe he will legalize certain controlled substances...duh!
1 - Drug legalization
2 - No troop deployment to foreign countries.
Paul will still be in the race the day after Gingrich drops out and endorses Romney.
Paul will still be in the race the day after Gingrich drops out and endorses Romney.
He is the anti-candidate. He is this generation’s version of the anti-establishment.
It could be worse...in my day the anti-establishment consisted of the dems inside the beltway. Outside the beltway: Bill Ayers, Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, and all of their cohorts.
VERY SIMPLE - HE WANTS TO NOT HAVE US TO BE SLAVES TO DEBT RUN UP BY BOOMERS AND OTHERS AND THE CONFISCATORY TAXES NEEDED TO PAY FOR IT!
Why is that so hard for the rabid RINO/NEOCON/FAUXCONs to grasp?
It’s pretty clear that this millennium generation is sorely lacking any education that relates to history. The public education (indoctrination) system has replaced history with social cometary featuring the progressive concept of feelings are greater than facts.
So, in that light it is possible to say we will end war by not participating. We can pretend to rebel against the man and can smoke our dope in peace.
They simply don’t seem to hear any of the grownup side of Paul’s arguments or else he conveniently fails to share them with the mushheads.
I think it goes deeper than just the legalization of marijuana, though I won’t deny that for some it is the reason for their support.
Ron Paul is far better situated within the Libertarian party than the so-called Libertarian wing of the Republican Party. (And personally I wish he would just go there instead of interfering with a party which he seems to hold in contempt.)
Young people are also iconoclastic. That label fits Ron Paul quite nicely. While he is very specific in describing the icons he wants to destroy, the youth are often less concerned with specificity and just happy to see someone tearing things down.
Finally, young are very often predisposed to libertarian ideology (nobody gets to tell me what to believe in or what to do) even though they often conflate “libertarianism” with “libertinism.”
An excellent conservative idea, whether or not you'd use them yourself.
Simple. He is the only candidate that does not want to dump 50 trillion dollars of debt in their lap. The current generation is the only one in our history that is fine with the fact that the next generation will be worse off than the current one.
In my honest if not very humble opinion, America could do worse than to put many long nationally tolerated herbal medicines and medicinal herbs, at least in the form they were known pre-ban, back into the purview of private doctors, who would have to carry some kind of liability insurance against harm caused to patients by reckless prescribing. One does not want to encourage somebody becoming a perpetually dazed pot head any more than their becoming a liver corroded drunkard, but one thing prohibition should have taught America was that it brings out the worst side of sumptuary items.
No. he missed it.
If those kids didn't believe in limited government, they would be manning the ramparts with the Occupiers.
Instead, they are reading Human Action and Atlas Shrugged.
In time, many will join the Conservative movement.
We need every one of them.
h/t to Gov. Palin
Major clue: When Snoop Dogg comes out in support of an ancient, shriveled, white, raving madman, you KNOW its the possibility of drug legalization.
“I think it goes deeper than just the legalization of marijuana, though I won’t deny that for some it is the reason for their support.”
Bingo.
To really get some valid data on this, you would have to talk ask young people that would vote for him. How many of them do you think are freepers?
Gee, maybe it’s because young people see the writing on the wall, that their future is being eviscerated by the extravagances and idiocy of the current generations in power. I fall into the 18-29 demographic and this is how I see it.
Like him or not, Ron Paul is one of the only ones talking about serious reforms to taxes, entitlement programs, curbing the nanny state, etc. So it’s a no-brainer that young people would find him appealing. The only other one talking about serious reforms of this scale is Newt Gingrich.
That’s not only why the “young” like him. There is a huge bloc of voters in America, of all ages, who will ALWAYS vote for the guy who says he wants pot legal. Classic single-issue voters.
no doubt there is a lot of those supporters in that group, there are many others who don't quite know they are Conservative.
I know quite a few clean-cut, hard working young people who support Paul. They have latched onto Paul's general anti-big government (low taxes/cut spending) themes. I have learned that what attracts them to Paul is they believe he's the only one being honest about the fiscal mess.
so while it's fun to needle the Paul supporters, a good bit will definitely vote for Newt it he get's the nomination. That's why Sarah, Newt and others don't criticize Paul too much. I think that Paul and many of his supporters can be folded into our camp.
of course...
our culture needs more poison in the system,
it’s important to send the message that being out of your mind relieves you of any responsibility,
and as long as there are some poisons available, let’s promote an ever expanding array of poisons with which to undermine ambition and productivity.
nice.....very “conservative”.....
Yep. It’s all about the drugs, man!
Drug legalization is NOT a conservative idea. It is a libertarian and liberal idea. It is a bad idea!
To many, religion, marriage, and abortion are big barriers.
two words
legal drugs
Kids are as nutty as he is.
The establishment Republican party has lost all credibility on “small government” and “fiscal responsibility”. That leaves an opening for somebody like Paul to exploit.
We're doing much better with the poison alcohol than we did with the "progressive" policy of banning it.
it’s important to send the message that being out of your mind relieves you of any responsibility,
It’s important to send the message that your mind belongs to you and not the government.
and as long as there are some poisons available, let’s promote
Legalization is not "promotion" - it's perfectly legal to insult one's wife.
an ever expanding array of poisons with which to undermine ambition and productivity.
It's not within the legitimate authority of government to compel ambition or productivity.
they think RP is going to legalize their weed.
Of course it is - just like opposition to alcohol Prohibition was a conservative idea. Drug criminalization, like Prohibition before it, is "progressive" social engineering that has succeeded only in enriching criminals.
To many, religion, marriage, and abortion are big barriers.
Ron Paul is pro-life.
I think they have a healthy anti-government mentality. That’s why the pro-government republican establishment is so intent on destroying or at least marginalizing them.
My daughter, I’ll admit, is a Ron Paul supporter.
And she’s squeaky clean. And incredibly smart, and successful. Works in New York, in the financial district. She’s only 24. That’s all I will say about her. Most of her friends like her also support Paul.
She FERVENTLY believes Ron Paul is the ONLY one who speaks to the deficit, to the Federal Reserve issues, and to the spending problems. She sees him as consistent, pro-life, and generally a good man who lives a humble life. She believes that he means what he says.
I can’t say I disagree with her on any of those points.
Where we diverge is when it comes to foreign policy. But she sees the run up of debt from the military/industrial complex thing is sees even more reasons to vote Ron Paul. She’s not anti- war ...she’s just against unconstitutional wars and “military welfare.”
I mean — not all these kids are pot heads. I think, personally, if Newt courted kids like my daughter, and at least convinved them to compromise a tad ...we’d gain their trust and their votes. There IS a way to compromise with them. I also met many Ron Paul supporters in line to see Herman Cain in the past.
Really — you’ve got to admit ...NEITHER side, over the years, has put the breaks on any real spending cuts. It just keeps going up, up, up — admittedly to an obcene level after Obama, who is THE WORST.
And she WILL admit that.
But she has also told me that (brace yourself), Newt is a “communist.” That’s what she believes, for some nutty reason.
It’s twisted, I know ... and believe me, we’ve had several heated arguments. I don’t want to alienate her too much ..so I’m careful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.