Fox Admits Romney Cannot Win With Out Ron Paul Supporters

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uihLGk1ZQo

[Guest bkelm18]

I think we've been saying that all along...

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So, what are we doing now? Extorting Romney or something? If the GOP put Ron Paul up for the election against

Obama, how does that make him any more electable than Romney? All those primaries should convince a sane man

that dog won't hunt.

[Smith]

I think we've been saying that all along...

Some folks are just slow to the party. However, I fear some are so "principled" they will cut their nose off to spite their face. "Give me liberty or give me death!" They just don't realize a slow agonizing death is NOT better than a slow gradual healing. Peaceful revolutions are slow and tediuos, but lasting. With the one exception of ours, every other violent revolution has ended in the misery and suffering of the people and their country. France, England, Russia, Italy, Afganastan, India, all of Africa, China, all of South America, Cuba, Mexico, ...... The fact that ours was the only one that resulted in a positive, reinforces the idea that it is the principles that cause stable change not the revolution for revolution sake. Violent revolution is a last option by a principled people and the first by the mindless.

[E4 No More]

Duh!!

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I don't quibble with what anyone says. The following animated gif map shows the states who will elect the next president. People in TN, NY, TX or IL have no say in determining the next president, presuming the voter turnout stays "about the same".

I looked up the percentage of votes cast for Paul in the swing states, multiplied by the number of delegates in each state, and calculate that 14.6 percent of swing state voters (the ones who matter) voted Paul. Because the swing states are effectively 50-50 R vs D, that might be about 7.3 percent of Paul supporters among the overall voter pool in the swing states? But of course it could swing either way because of independents and such.

If many of those voters get disgusted and stay home then Obama wins. If virtually all those voters would suck it up and vote Gary Johnson, then Obama would likely win but that large of a libertarian vote would send shock waves thru both parties re future wooing of voters and future party platforms. I say that Obama would likely win only because if voter dissatisfaction with the major party candidates were so high that Gary Johnson gets 7.3 percent from R primary voters, then several percent of independents and D's would also defect and vote Gary Johnson. The R party is not the only party with dissatisfied voters. Which would even the odds between D and R election results, but realistically I'd expect more R defections and therefore a win for Obama.

I don't think that voter dissatisfaction has got that high as of yet, so most likely Gary Johnson will get maybe 1 percent max as usual for libertarian pres candidates. In that case maybe he wouldn't make much of a diff because he would draw SOME from independents and libertarian D's, and SOME of that 1 percent would be people who would have stayed home and not voted had Gary Johnson not been on the ballot.

====

Now one interesting thing I noticed when tabulating swing state primary percentages. I don't have time to go poking around on the stats any further, but in VA, where only Romney and Paul were on the ballot (due to VA arcane election rules)-- Paul got 40.5 percent of the primary vote.

Because candidates were dropping out as different states had their primaries, a fella might be able to break out Paul's percentage versus how many other names were active on the ballot. To attempt to measure the strength of the "anybody but Romney" vote. If the "anybody but Romney" voters are STRONGLY "anybody but Romney" then it will suppress the R vote in the general election.

In VA Gingrich and Santorum would have knocked down both Romney's and Paul's percentages, had they been on the ballot. So maybe with some analysis one could guestimate which way a "values voter" would go if he doesn't have a "values candidate" to vote for and is forced to pick either a libertarian or RINO. Now Ron Paul is a principled moral man, and so an INFORMED values voter wouldn't nix Ron Paul according to Paul's personal morals, but if a values voter believes strongly that the government should dictate people's lifestyle, then they might reject a moral candidate who opposes government enforcement of morals at gunpoint.

And then there is the foreign policy split between "relative isolationists" which was the old-time traditional R attitude, compared to meddlers who believe it desirable to invade third-world nations, and meddlers who believe we should, if necessary, gladly fight WWIII in defense of Israel. Just sayin, among republicans, if VA is a typical data point then perhaps the party is about equally split between libertarian and RINO, if those are the only two available choices?

====

On the other hand, having little to do with disgusted R-leaners or disgusted D-leaners-- Poll results so far have stayed pretty steady both nationwide and in the swing states. The polls seem stuck either "too close to call" or "leaning Obama". So possibly Obama wins regardless how many disaffected voters hold their nose and vote Romney in the swing states? Of course elections have contradicted polls in the past. I decided a few years ago to refuse to speak to pollsters. For awhile I was signed up with a couple of legit "big name" internet pollsters whose results are posted on RCP, but I quit reponding to those as well. Dunno how many people quit talking to pollsters. Dunno if the ratio would be different for R versus D versus L. However, if enough folks have quit talking to pollsters then the polls might be completely worthless?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, how can you call a presidential candidate who is not on all the ballots a serious contender in the race to become the nominee?

Gingrich, Santorum and the others not on the ballot evidently were in the running only on the installment plan, which tells me how

serious they were, only after the fact. I never thought about them like that until after I learned they weren't on those ballots and I

could be wrong.

I find the argument of Paul somehow becoming the nominee as being extremely disingenuous, especially at this point. That's why

I asked if this is some childish attempt at extortion. Ron Paul could have a very important role in a Romney administration, but why

does it have to be all or none? If it were up to me, it would be none because of stuff like this.

ArmyVeteran, you finally succeeded in one thing. I will never vote for Paul. Period. Thank God Rand Paul is different.

Split this party up and split the country up. Keep up the good work.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Well, how can you call a presidential candidate who is not on all the ballots a serious contender in the race to become the nominee?

Gingrich, Santorum and the others not on the ballot evidently were in the running only on the installment plan, which tells me how

serious they were, only after the fact. I never thought about them like that until after I learned they weren't on those ballots and I

could be wrong.

I find the argument of Paul somehow becoming the nominee as being extremely disingenuous, especially at this point. That's why

I asked if this is some childish attempt at extortion. Ron Paul could have a very important role in a Romney administration, but why

does it have to be all or none? If it were up to me, it would be none because of stuff like this.

ArmyVeteran, you finally succeeded in one thing. I will never vote for Paul. Period. Thank God Rand Paul is different.

Split this party up and split the country up. Keep up the good work.

Yep, RP won't be the nominee unless they start dispensing ice cream in hell. At this point I doubt if it matters what RP tells voters to do. The voters who will defect will defect regardless of RP's endorsement or lack therof. If RP endorses Romney and urges his followers to vote Romney rather than Gary Johnson, the Paulbots will get real mad and declare RP a sellout.

Folks are just naturally ornery. The bestest way to make a typical fella do B is to command that he better do A or else. Even if the fella had decided to do A before being commanded to do so. PaulBots are not the only people with that flavor of orneryness.

[bigwakes]

Who cares. Paul will be ashes long before he could ever be the nominee. If he runs on a third party ticket he will be just as responsible as Obama for driving this country further into the ground.

[RobertNashville]

Romney can't win without Ron Paul Supporters? Is that really supposed to be news?

I dare say there are other special interest groups that Romney needs in order to win as is pretty much the case in every election and candidates on either said of the political spectrum.

I guess all the Paul faithful have a choice to make; they are going to have to decide what's more important to them...

1. Promoting their candidate who is never going to be President, OR

2. Trying to save the country be getting the communist out of the oval office.

Edited July 19, 2012 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

...ArmyVeteran, you finally succeeded in one thing. I will never vote for Paul. Period. Thank God Rand Paul is different.

I couldn't agree more. ArmyVeteran has actually been fairly unobtrusive compared to many I've dealt with - I have been beaten over the head, called names, put up with condescending attitudes, called ignorant and just plain insulted by Paulbots because I don't worship at the feet of Ron Paul that I'd have trouble voting for Ron Paul if he were the only candidate for office and running unopposed.

I understand supporting one's candidate but some of these people have taken "support" to the level of a religious fervor.

Edited July 19, 2012 by RobertNashville

[hornett22]

I supported Ron Paul. I still support him as well as several others who ran. I do not support Romney and never will. If the Repubs want my vote they better find someone who is not a wishy washy robot to force down on me.

Edited July 22, 2012 by hornett22

[RobertNashville]

We support Romney or we lose the country...it's a very easy choice for me.

Supporting one's candidate during the primary is a great thing; continuing to do so, after he/she has lost and to the exclusion of the obvious best choice after the primary is not a good thing. In this case, the alternative is further progress toward socialism, trillion dollar deficits, more and more gun control legislation, and a bankrupt country with a third-world economy. The only good ting I suppose that you won't have time to grieve over our lost liberty because it will take 24/7 focus just to subsist...or maybe good 'ol Uncle Sam will send me a welfare check every month (paid for by the suckers still actually working thank you very much) and I can just sit at home and play COD all day and occasionally march on DC now and then whenever I want more money...yeah...that sounds good.

[mikegideon]

Looks like our buddy Ron is turning into a traitor. I expected more. He can't be that dumb.

[jumprun13k]

1. Promoting their candidate who is never going to be President, OR

2. Trying to save the country be getting the communist out of the oval office.

This

We support Romney or we lose the country...it's a very easy choice for me.

And this.

The Paulbots and the hard line Gary Johnson Libertarians are really pissing me off with their sanctimonious bullcrap. They say they care about the country, but if they did then they would realize that getting Obama out is the first, very necessary, step. So what if Romney wasn't your first choice.

[sigmtnman]

Yeah and the Repub-bots, their false conservatism and blaming other's for the results of the previous lesser of two evil choices are really pissing me off.

You say the same crap the dems said about Bush while he wiped his butt with the Constitution and stood around letting it happen.

Wash, rinse and repeat.

[sigmtnman]

Actually, it doesn't piss me off. I just feel sorry for the irrational thinking that being sold up the river helps you out somehow.

[Guest adurbin]

Really dude? You're just as brainwashed as Anyone else who believes that ANY politician, from ANY party has your best interest in mind, Ron Paul as well, he just plays to a different crowd, and apparently you love the flavor of the bait he's casting. Every politician, has only THIER personal interest in mind. Government is a business. Hell, Ron Paul is probably the worst of them, because he panders to the vulnerable who are fed up with the system. I'm fed up with it too, but at the same time I realize, wasting a vote, or kissing the feet of some third party that plays on your emotions does nothing to correct the problem at hand.

[DaveTN]

Well, if it’s Ron Paul or nothing; welcome to four more years of Obama. But I believe a large number of the Ron Paul supporters are Patriots; and Patriots won’t turn their back on their country by throwing their vote away.

Even with the Ron Paul supporters this will be a bitter battle.

[jumprun13k]

Don't get me wrong. I am not thrilled with Romney. And I am not thrilled with the way the establishment Republicans have been acting either. And Bush did a lot of harm.

But that being said, with the choices I have, I am more interested in getting rid of Obama than anything else.

Johnson and Paul have some great ideas for personal liberties and jump starting the economy. And I would love to see Romney work with both of them. But Paul's foreign policy is not great, and Johnson's is worse.

[sigmtnman]

You mean the foreign policy where we support the Taliban in the 80s, then have them turn on us? Or the foreign policy where we support Saddam Hussein in the 80s then have him turn on us?

Paul believes that if need be, you declare an enemy, declare war, win, then return home. What we do now is nation building and control countries so that multi nats can gain access to sell goods.

And don't give me the whole new age nebulous terrorist enemy crap either. If another country came into our country and setup shop, we would terrorize them, or at least true patriots would.

My understanding of Johnson's policy is that it is pretty much the same as Paul's.

Besides, with trillion dollar deficits from Tarp1 (Bush) and the other bailouts (Obama) we won't have a foreign policy before long.

Edited July 22, 2012 by sigmtnman

[Smith]

At least this has stayed civil .....

[sigmtnman]

At least this has stayed civil .....

What? The war between the States was portrayed as civil.

[Smith]

What? The war between the States was portrayed as civil.

Haha, well ... "civil" in the sense of within the same country.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Really dude? You're just as brainwashed as Anyone else who believes that ANY politician, from ANY party has your best interest in mind, Ron Paul as well, he just plays to a different crowd, and apparently you love the flavor of the bait he's casting. Every politician, has only THIER personal interest in mind. Government is a business. Hell, Ron Paul is probably the worst of them, because he panders to the vulnerable who are fed up with the system. I'm fed up with it too, but at the same time I realize, wasting a vote, or kissing the feet of some third party that plays on your emotions does nothing to correct the problem at hand.

Actually, even though he and I disagree about it, he has taken it a lot deeper philosophically and has come to

a different conclusion than you or I. Ain't no brainwashing involved, friend, but the realization of probable events

could very well be unavoidable and one way would get to a solution quicker than the other.

If it were Rand and not Ron, I would be saying the same thing, primarily because of the delivery.

The more pure one's beliefs are the more frustrated with the situation one will have. A=A