Romney Beats Santorum by 8 Votes and Ron Paul Finishes with Strong Third Place

[sigmtnman]

Maybe if you're a RP supporter, but RP will never be in the same position.

that's it?

[kieefer]

that's it?

All hell is going to be cut loose on Rick, one of RP's endorsers with a camera in his face makes no difference to me (a lot like a RP supporter? ).

I think he'll be better than Romney.

Edited January 6, 2012 by kieefer

[Oh Shoot]

....Democrats also voted in this primary, which makes no sense to me ...

Anybody can vote in either primary in TN, too.

With the Dem unopposed this year, I expect LOTS of Dems to vote in GOP TN primary. I assume it's similar in many if not most states.

- OS

[kieefer]

Anybody can vote in either primary in TN, too.

With the Dem unopposed this year, I expect LOTS of Dems to vote in GOP TN primary. I assume it's similar in many if not most states.

- OS

There's a few states that have resgistered republican only voters, should be that way in every state I think. It's our candidate anyway, allowing unresgistered R's just pisses in the punch.

[sigmtnman]

I reckon this forum is not representative.

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/national-politics-legislation/65955-2012-presidential-primary-poll.html

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Democrats also voted in this primary, which makes no sense to me but could be the reason RP placed 3rd.

TN has the same setup. Many times in the past I voted either in the D or R primaries if one party I didn't care about or if it looked like the result was "locked" on one party regardless how I would vote.

Sometimes I would vote for the least-bad-looking candidate "on the other side" in case that side would win. Other times would vote for a candidate least likely to win, in case I preferred the candidate on the other side. Increasing numbers of voters self-identify as Independent, and so it seems most fair to let the independents pick which primary they want to vote in. Otherwise they would be locked out of primary voting entirely, unless they "fake register" one way or the other for each election.

Rush Limbaugh in the 2008 cycle encouraged listeners to switch party and vote Hillary, and apparently many did. One motivation seemed to be just spitefully screw with the Democrats' primary, and another motivation seemed a feeling that Hillary would be bad if she won, but Obama would be even worse.

Similarly, it is possible that McCain won the 2008 primary because of D crossovers.

For whatever crossover support Paul enjoys in states which allow crossover votes in primaries, there could be at least four strategies being played (by various different voters)--

-- Democrats who don't have a primary because Obama is locked-in, so they just want to screw with Republicans.

-- Democrats voting RP because he looks like the least-offensive Republican, in case Republicans win.

-- Democrats voting RP because he looks least-electable if he happens to win the nomination.

-- Democrats who actually like RP better because:

---- Centrist Democrats

---- Democrats most interested in Personal Freedoms who don't care about economic issues.

---- "Closet libertarian" Democrats who can't stomach the Rudy Giulliani, Peter King and Rick Santorum wing of the Republicans so they remain reluctant Democrats by default.

Perhaps democrats playing the "least likely to beat Obama" strategy would vote Santorum rather than Ron Paul, because Santorum looks too right-wing and unlikely palatable to a majority?

Young voters seem more likely sympathetic to Libertarianism. Am not certain that one could classify a 22 year old or even a 25 year old definitely one party or the other. Young people often switch back'n'forth. So whatever youth support RP receives, I don't know if you could classify it "crossover voting" even if a kid voted Obama last time? They still have very plastic political attitudes at that age.

One thing fer sure-- Most people who crossed over to vote for RP sure ain't gonna vote Santorum in the final election, and things will have to get incredibly bad before they would vote Romney or Gingrich in the final election.

Supposedly the average age of Iowa republican caucus voters is in the ballpark of 60 years old, but they are doing their dam-dest to offend young voters and chase off new blood?

And...RP is nothing like Reagan and sees his only chance of getting in office is by being on the R ticket.

The same could be said for Reagan. Third-party prez candidates never win so far. Thats why he had to change the R party.

Reagan was not liked by traditional blue blood country club republicans. Reagan's winning coalition included economic libertarians, repressive theocrats of the moral majority, and USA gingoists & cold warriors who saw little to draw them to the Democrat party of that time.

A coalition between libertarians and theocrats is uneasy at best, though many theocrats more-or-less agree with libertarians on economic issues. That is why Reagan was such a contradiction.

The theocrats ought to be really offended by the Republicans by now, because the R's keep promising social repression in order to win theocrat votes, but the R's never deliver except symbolic bills which never pass. Eventually the theocrats will jump ship to the Constitution Party or maybe even the Democrat party if the D's would ever make a serious effort to woo them.

RP is very similar to what Reagan SAID about limited gov, though in practice Reagan grew the gov, merely slower than previous Democrats. RP would have problems attracting theocrats to a coalition, except the ones more interested in small gov rather than running their neighbors lives. Also perhaps he could attract theocrats more interested in pacifism/non-intervention than running their neighbors lives.

So RP (or any other "libertarian republican") would need a slightly different coalition to get to a majority of votes.

Just sayin, the theocrats didn't join the R party en masse until Reagan "changed" the R party. So if RP or some other libertarian eventually "changes" the R party, it will lose some theocrats and will need to attract new blood to the "big tent" to compensate for the loss. Such a change will necessarily have to peel off some current democrats. Not all democrats vote thataway because they are commies!

[RobertNashville]

There is hypocrisy regarding RP being a libertarian in republican clothing. For instance Mark Levin criticizes RP for daring to be in the R party, but in the next breath Levin brags that Reagan refused to leave the R party, instead choosing to change the R party!

Isn't that EXACTLY what Paul is trying to do? If it was OK for Reagan to try to change the R party, then why ain't it OK for Paul to do the same?

Reagan had some notable quotables which sounded quite libertarian. Not quite as libertarian as Goldwater but getting in the ballpark. Reagan had undesirable "conservative repressive" social inclinations along with the libertarianism. A weird mix. As always with all of em, Reagan did some good stuff and some bad stuff.

If RP does go third party, I think it would be a last-ditch strategem to earn libertarian principles at least a little bit of respect from one of the parties. With a closely-matched stalemate of socialist voters versus theocratic voters, at least one of the parties needs to realize that they can't win without the libertarians. The R party seems marginally more "salvagable" than the D party, but only marginally so.

I mean, the R party is hard-core anti-gay-marriage and hard-core anti-abortion just to lock-up a few percent of voters to tilt the balance one way. And the D party is hard-core pro-gay-marriage and hard-core pro-abortion to lock-up a few percent to tilt the balence the other way. But the libertarians don't get no respect from either party.

For decades libertarians don't get no respect, but they pay taxes just like everybody else. If lack of libertarian support causes one or the other major parties to lose an election or two, then eventually one party or the other might "get it".

What I think RP is trying to do is become President and he sees that running as a Republican is the most expedient way to make that a reality. Then again, he said just recently that he can't really see himself in the oval office which causes me to wonder just what the hell he is running for???

I don't know if he IS a Libertarian or not but it seems to me that many or his views align with a libertarian viewpoint than the do with either a Republican or a conservative one.

As for libertarians getting respect; the respect they get is mostly a result of their views...some of the libertarian positions are good...they resonate with many; on the other hand I think other positions are simply unworkable and don't and never will resonate with a majority of people.

[mcurrier]

Anybody can vote in either primary in TN, too.

With the Dem unopposed this year, I expect LOTS of Dems to vote in GOP TN primary. I assume it's similar in many if not most states.

- OS

That's how the left saddled us with McCain. The left has done this many times in the past 20 years. Primaries should be closed to party registrants only.

[Oh Shoot]

That's how the left saddled us with McCain. The left has done this many times in the past 20 years. Primaries should be closed to party registrants only.

As not being enamored of either one, why should I be locked in beforehand as to which one I vote in any given year?

YOU can vote in Dem primary for same influence, ya know. Wouldn't matter this year, but many years it would.

- OS

Edited January 6, 2012 by OhShoot

[seez52]

Thumbs up to Lester!

You can't turn a big ship on a dime. And while RP may not win, he is in the process of turning a big ship. And I'm paddling just as fast as I can to help him. And yes, part of my paddling may cause another round of the Obumer, but a vote for Romy, Santi or Ging just means it's going to take longer to get this ship turned around.

If we don't get back on constitutional footing there will be nothing of what we have enjoyed in our lifetimes to hand down to our children and grandchildren.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

What I think RP is trying to do is become President and he sees that running as a Republican is the most expedient way to make that a reality. Then again, he said just recently that he can't really see himself in the oval office which causes me to wonder just what the hell he is running for???

I don't know if he IS a Libertarian or not but it seems to me that many or his views align with a libertarian viewpoint than the do with either a Republican or a conservative one.

As for libertarians getting respect; the respect they get is mostly a result of their views...some of the libertarian positions are good...they resonate with many; on the other hand I think other positions are simply unworkable and don't and never will resonate with a majority of people.

Hi Robert

I tend to agree that possibly Libertarianism will never be a majority viewpoint in the USA. Too many nannies and meddlers exist among both liberals and conservatives.

Well, RP once ran for president on the libertarian ticket. It is not exactly a secret!

Libertarians don't all have exacting cookie-cutter views. For instance the classic libertarian party position believes in completely open borders and zero tariffs. I understand the logic though it doesn't seem practical. Regardless of the "classic" libertarian position on open borders, many otherwise-libertarians are anti-illegal-immigration.

Reagan also believed in zero tariffs and persued "unilateral economic disarmament" policies. Reagan was the beginning era of Ross Perot's "giant sucking sound."

Maybe Reagan was not completely pro-open-border, but then again he amnestied a whole bunch of illegals. Perhaps Reagan was privately pro-open-border but was less than honest with his public opinions. Dunno.

Many libertarians are not as hard-core non-interventionist as RP. Some libertarians are about the same as GW Bush PROMISED to be in the Y2K election. GW Bush PROMISED to close bases and avoid meddling in other nations' business. Maybe he actually would have followed that policy if not rattled into very bad judgement calls after 9/11. Then again, maybe GW Bush was intentionally lying in Y2K when he PROMISED a non-interventionist foreign policy. I'm not a mind-reader, dunno.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[sigmtnman]

What I think RP is trying to do is become President and he sees that running as a Republican is the most expedient way to make that a reality. Then again, he said just recently that he can't really see himself in the oval office which causes me to wonder just what the hell he is running for???

I don't know if he IS a Libertarian or not but it seems to me that many or his views align with a libertarian viewpoint than the do with either a Republican or a conservative one.

As for libertarians getting respect; the respect they get is mostly a result of their views...some of the libertarian positions are good...they resonate with many; on the other hand I think other positions are simply unworkable and don't and never will resonate with a majority of people.

It's not like he just became a Republican.

Republican 1976–1988, 1988–present in 1988 he ran for pres as a libertarian.

[mav]

It's not like he just became a Republican.

Republican 1976–1988, 1988–present in 1988 he ran for pres as a libertarian.

The response I usually hear from your statement is that Paul was a Republican in name in only. He really wasn't a Republican.

[USMCJG]

I can only say this- If Ron Paul runs on a 3rd party ticket, I will vote for him and the Republicans will lose one vote. And no, I don't consider a vote for a 3rd party Ron Paul as a vote for Obama. It's a vote for individual freedom and fiscal responsibility. I'm sick and tired of having to hold my nose and choose the lesser of two evils every time I walk into a voting booth. I will never do it again if I have a real choice.

[kieefer]

Thumbs up to Lester!

You can't turn a big ship on a dime. And while RP may not win, he is in the process of turning a big ship. And I'm paddling just as fast as I can to help him. And yes, part of my paddling may cause another round of the Obumer, but a vote for Romy, Santi or Ging just means it's going to take longer to get this ship turned around.

If we don't get back on constitutional footing there will be nothing of what we have enjoyed in our lifetimes to hand down to our children and grandchildren.

I agree with your analogy but the ship is sinking and will continue to sink with another round of BHO. There won't be any constitutional footing left to save if he gets another 4yrs. Why not stop it and fill the boat with new shipmates in the process?

That's what bugs me about RP, he doesn't care. Assuming he won't gain any more ground he'd rather pull votes away from other republicans by going 3rd party than save the ship.

The honorable thing to do, and it goes for all of them is to support the nominee.

[kieefer]

I reckon this forum is not representative.http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/national-politics-legislation/65955-2012-presidential-primary-poll.html

704 new members since this poll was posted,

wonder how many Ronbots signed on just to vote?

We'll need to do another one around Sept. and see what we got.

[sigmtnman]

704 new members since this poll was posted,

wonder how many Ronbots signed on just to vote?

We'll need to do another one around Sept. and see what we got.

So Ron Paul supporters are all Ron Bots? I'm sure folks joined a freakin' gun forum to vote for Ron Paul.

The other Republican candidates support the policies that are sinking the ship. Which candidate have you moved onto supporting now again?

[kieefer]

So Ron Paul supporters are all Ron Bots? I'm sure folks joined a freakin' gun forum to vote for Ron Paul. The other Republican candidates support the policies that are sinking the ship. Which candidate have you moved onto supporting now again?

:chill:It's slang , surely you've heard all the pet names of RP supporters.

It's also a fact that Paul voters do swamp online polls, just saying, coincidence? I think not.

Libertarian polices BTW will certainly not keep the ship afloat.

Edited January 7, 2012 by kieefer

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I am neither a RonBot or Ronulan. Am a Branch Paulinian.

[kieefer]

I am neither a RonBot or Ronulan. Am a Branch Paulinian.

That's a new on me. Sounds almost amphibian.

Edited January 7, 2012 by kieefer
spelling

[RobertNashville]

It's not like he just became a Republican.

Republican 1976–1988, 1988–present in 1988 he ran for pres as a libertarian.

True and I know he's been running as a Republican for a very long time. What I'm trying to say; probably poorly, is that while he may consider himself a Republican and runs as Republican; a lot of his positions are very "libertarian" - I suspect, if he though it would be meaningful, that he would at least consider a run as a "L".

I think he knows, however, that running on a Libertarian ticket is about the same as not running in terms of actually winning.

Edited January 7, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There is hypocrisy regarding RP being a libertarian in republican clothing. For instance Mark Levin criticizes RP for daring to be in the R party, but in the next breath Levin brags that Reagan refused to leave the R party, instead choosing to change the R party!

Isn't that EXACTLY what Paul is trying to do? If it was OK for Reagan to try to change the R party, then why ain't it OK for Paul to do the same?

Reagan had some notable quotables which sounded quite libertarian. Not quite as libertarian as Goldwater but getting in the ballpark. Reagan had undesirable "conservative repressive" social inclinations along with the libertarianism. A weird mix. As always with all of em, Reagan did some good stuff and some bad stuff.

If RP does go third party, I think it would be a last-ditch strategem to earn libertarian principles at least a little bit of respect from one of the parties. With a closely-matched stalemate of socialist voters versus theocratic voters, at least one of the parties needs to realize that they can't win without the libertarians. The R party seems marginally more "salvagable" than the D party, but only marginally so.

I mean, the R party is hard-core anti-gay-marriage and hard-core anti-abortion just to lock-up a few percent of voters to tilt the balance one way. And the D party is hard-core pro-gay-marriage and hard-core pro-abortion to lock-up a few percent to tilt the balence the other way. But the libertarians don't get no respect from either party.

For decades libertarians don't get no respect, but they pay taxes just like everybody else. If lack of libertarian support causes one or the other major parties to lose an election or two, then eventually one party or the other might "get it".

Hey Lester

I think you're right about a hypocrisy, but Reagan knew how to get a message across. Ron Paul is like an angry child throwing a temper tantrum. It has nothing to do with his ideas, as far as I'm concerned. I like damned near everything he has to say. That's how I will always differ with anyone comparing someone to Reagan. He earned the title "Great Communicator".

The only other thing you state I could disagree with is the fact that there is only a marginal difference between the two parties. The vast majority of the modern day Democratic Party are also members of the Socialist Party in this country. they have for all intents and purposes become the Communist Party of the United States. The Republican Party is chock full of big government type progressives, but not to the extent of bringing us into a Stalinist style of

government. There is still plenty to be done to clean up the Republican Party, but I think the Democrat Party has already made the ultimate leap into the land of Karl Marx and there ain't no looking back. John Maynard Keynes(?) was considered by Stalin to be a useful idiot. I can see why.

Just for the record, I took that test Beck had a link to, a while back, that surveyed and let you know what kind of political leaning you have. Mine was as libertarian as could be. All the way up in the corner by itself. My wife's was, also. I think it was called the Nolan test.

I will never question Paul's intellect and am amazed at his enthusiasm on the subjects he speaks of, but he needs a handler in the worst way. I love the bland articulate people at Reason.com. Maybe they could help him.

Edited January 7, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest Lester Weevils]

That's a new on me. Sounds almost amphibian.

Heard it on Mark Levin's show, but dunno if Levin invented the term. A play on words of Branch Davidian (of Waco Siege fame).

[kieefer]

Ran across this at Front Page magazine;

Selected highlights from the George Soros profile: In 1979 Soros established the Open Society Institute (OSI), which serves as the flagship of a network of Soros foundations that donate tens of millions of dollars each year to a wide array of individuals and organizations that share the founder’s agendas. Those agendas can be summarized as follows:

promoting the view that America is institutionally an oppressive nation

promoting the election of leftist political candidates throughout the United States

opposing virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by U.S. government, particularly the Patriot Act

depicting American military actions as unjust, unwarranted, and immoral

promoting open borders, mass immigration, and a watering down of current immigration laws

promoting a dramatic expansion of social welfare programs funded by ever-escalating taxes

promoting social welfare benefits and amnesty for illegal aliens

defending the civil rights and liberties of suspected anti-American terrorists and their abetters

financing the recruitment and training of future activist leaders of the political Left

advocating America’s unilateral disarmament and/or a steep reduction in its military spending

opposing the death penalty in all circumstances

promoting socialized medicine in the United States

promoting the tenets of radical environmentalism, whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner has explained, is â€not clean air and clean water, [but] rather … the demolition of technological/industrial civilizationâ€

bringing American foreign policy under the control of the United Nations

promoting racial and ethnic preferences in academia and the business world alike

promoting taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand

advocating stricter gun-control measures

advocating the legalization of marijuana

I guess George Soros would also endorse RP?

[RobertNashville]

I can only say this- If Ron Paul runs on a 3rd party ticket, I will vote for him and the Republicans will lose one vote. And no, I don't consider a vote for a 3rd party Ron Paul as a vote for Obama. It's a vote for individual freedom and fiscal responsibility. I'm sick and tired of having to hold my nose and choose the lesser of two evils every time I walk into a voting booth. I will never do it again if I have a real choice.

A third party candidate...any third party candidate is not a "real choice".

I'm sick and tired of holding my nose too but we DO have a at least one Conservative candidate left in the race and if enough people support him we can have a decent Republican ticket...it wont' be perfect ticket but no ticket ever has been or ever will be. None of the candidates left are my first choice...for that matter, neither my first, second or third choice even ran; but any of the ones left (with the possible exception of Huntsman) would be a hell of a lot better than the coward in chief socialist dictator want-a-be traitor currently occupying the White House.

I'm tired of holding my nose from all the s**t coming out of Obummer's administration and, while you may not "consider a vote for a 3rd party Ron Paul as a vote for Obama" that is precisely what it is...if you want Obama to get a second term than voting for anyone but the Republican candidate will get it for you.