Presidential Election: 2012

[Bram Turismo]

Not even close. In fact, no state rewards even close to half of all delegates. In Florida, Romney won 50 delegates. To become the nominee, they must win a total of 1,144 delegates.

My bad, I read my news website incorrectly. It indeed said 50 "delegates", and not percentage. Silly me.

 

[Keef]

Ploitico talks about how Ron Paul is ready for the caucus states.

Did any of you remember that Paul finished 2nd in Nevada...in 2008? One of his best showings. Of course, Mitt Romney also won Nevada in 2008. It's likely they'll both be high on the list once again, with Ron Paul being the only one of the two who has really gained anything in the last 4 years. And Paul has already spent plenty of time campaigning in Nevada, as well as running ads. I have high hopes for that state.

 

[Sam48]

And Paul has already spent plenty of time campaigning in Nevada, as well as running ads. I have high hopes for that state.

I believe Paul even flew out to Nevada to begin campaigning there before the Florida Primary even began. I believe he also gave his Florida campaign speech in Nevada. (I might be wrong on that, but I'm pretty sure that's what I read)

 

[Keef]

Yep, that's what he did. Not only Nevada, but while the others were bickering in Florida and the media was reporting on it, Dr. Paul was cruising through Maine, then Nevada and Colorado, to apparently very favorable crowds.

 

[Jubby]

Yep, that's what he did. Not only Nevada, but while the others were bickering in Florida and the media was reporting on it, Dr. Paul was cruising through Maine, then Nevada and Colorado, to apparently very favorable crowds.

Paul seems to be huge here in Maine. The state is fairly down the middle. We've had an Independent, Democrat, and Republican as governor for the last 3, respectfully. Our senators are republicans, but they are more towards center. I believe I remember reading that we technically lean a bit right in presidential elections, but it's close. Since most of us are sick of the crap currently in DC, I'm sure someone closer to center like Paul would be appropriate for us to favor.

 

[Sam48]

Since most of us are sick of the crap currently in DC, I'm sure someone closer to center like Paul would be appropriate for us to favor.

I wouldn't call Ron Paul "Closer to the center". If liberalism if far left and conservatism is far right, libertarianism is... North east, if you know what I mean. But you're right in saying the majority of moderates favor Paul (In fact I think roughly 40% of them favor Paul).

 

[Keef]

It's difficult to think of the political spectrum as being left and right. You're onto something with your "northeast"...

A Nolan Chart is the best way to look at it.

If you turn it on its side you can put it in a "left/right" context. This particular chart splits the four Nolan categories into more which are more applicable to the terminology we hear.

As you can see, the majority of our politicians (establishment Democrats, establishment Republicans) aren't really left and right...they're actually a bit bottom left and bottom right. They south of the midpoint, actually more statist/authoritarian than libertarian, believing that government must control and organize society more than people choosing freely.

 

[Omnis]

I'm a militia commander.

 

[dautolover]

I wouldn't call Ron Paul "Closer to the center". If liberalism if far left and conservatism is far right, libertarianism is... North east, if you know what I mean. But you're right in saying the majority of moderates favor Paul (In fact I think roughly 40% of them favor Paul).

Libertarianism is fiscally on the right. In terms of civil issues, it's on the left.

Libertarianism is all about open markets... letting the market regulate itself, having no government say on anything related to wealth, taxes, and distribution of wealth. Libertarians usually side with Republicans in terms of tax cuts, loosening of regulations, and establishing a pro-business front (which is why I don't like Paul).

At the same time, libertarianism is about you picking your poison. Want to smoke pot? Go ahead, it's your choice! Want to drive your bike with no helmet? Your choice. You have an accident and die, no one to blame but yourself. Gay rights? Sure, they can do what they want! Immigration? People are free to move (though Paul's stance is an unusual one). War on crime? That's too much government power. War on drugs? Too much money, too many deaths. Not working. War on terror? What is terror? Just a bs term invented to intervene in someone else's sovereignty. This, for me, is Paul's good side.

Ambiguous, in terms of where to place him. In all honesty, I can't envision him in the middle, because that's where all the boring moderates are at. He's a schizophrenic extremist (in a good way) that shifts from left to right in ways that Democrats and Republicans are often too timid on doing. He is a little conservative, a little liberal. But scholars are more comfortable pooling him with fellow Republicans, particularly because of his distaste of the welfare state, and regulations.

 

[dautolover]

It's difficult to think of the political spectrum as being left and right. You're onto something with your "northeast"...

A Nolan Chart is the best way to look at it.

If you turn it on its side you can put it in a "left/right" context. This particular chart splits the four Nolan categories into more which are more applicable to the terminology we hear.

As you can see, the majority of our politicians (establishment Democrats, establishment Republicans) aren't really left and right...they're actually a bit bottom left and bottom right. They south of the midpoint, actually more statist/authoritarian than libertarian, believing that government must control and organize society more than people choosing freely.

A fancy way of graphing all I said (and you did it first!). The second graph shows why Ron Paul will never win. He is outside the center, and has not tried to make his way into it. I don't like his politics, but he is the most honest candidate out there. Which sucks, cause it reveals the pitfalls of our American democracy.

 

[livemusic]

Immigration? People are free to move (though Paul's stance is an unusual one)

I don't think it's unusual. Ideally he's for free borders, but as the States works right now (welfare state) he doesn't want illegal immigrants who don't pay taxes getting things at the expense of tax payers.

That's what I understand his view as, could be wrong though.

 

[Keef]

The second graph shows why Ron Paul will never win. He is outside the center, and has not tried to make his way into it. I don't like his politics, but he is the most honest candidate out there. Which sucks, cause it reveals the pitfalls of our American democracy.

Will you be voting for him? I have to assume you won't be because you referred to our government as a democracy.

 

[Jubby]

Libertarianism is fiscally on the right. In terms of civil issues, it's on the left.

Libertarianism is all about open markets... letting the market regulate itself, having no government say on anything related to wealth, taxes, and distribution of wealth. Libertarians usually side with Republicans in terms of tax cuts, loosening of regulations, and establishing a pro-business front (which is why I don't like Paul).

At the same time, libertarianism is about you picking your poison. Want to smoke pot? Go ahead, it's your choice! Want to drive your bike with no helmet? Your choice. You have an accident and die, no one to blame but yourself. Gay rights? Sure, they can do what they want! Immigration? People are free to move (though Paul's stance is an unusual one). War on crime? That's too much government power. War on drugs? Too much money, too many deaths. Not working. War on terror? What is terror? Just a bs term invented to intervene in someone else's sovereignty. This, for me, is Paul's good side.

Ambiguous, in terms of where to place him. In all honesty, I can't envision him in the middle, because that's where all the boring moderates are at. He's a schizophrenic extremist (in a good way) that shifts from left to right in ways that Democrats and Republicans are often too timid on doing. He is a little conservative, a little liberal. But scholars are more comfortable pooling him with fellow Republicans, particularly because of his distaste of the welfare state, and regulations.

I don't think it's unusual. Ideally he's for free borders, but as the States works right now (welfare state) he doesn't want illegal immigrants who don't pay taxes getting things at the expense of tax payers.

That's what I understand his view as, could be wrong though.

No, I don't think his view is unusual either. Look up my governor (if you wish, of course) if you haven't already heard of him- Paul LePage. It's a titter. From time to time he's been very outspoken, including welfare/immigration.

 

[dautolover]

I don't think it's unusual. Ideally he's for free borders, but as the States works right now (welfare state) he doesn't want illegal immigrants who don't pay taxes getting things at the expense of tax payers.

That's what I understand his view as, could be wrong though.

You got it dead on. I say that it's unusual because his old Libertarian Party was specifically open borders. While I respect Paul's open minded view of the world, his view of immigration, in the context of welfare, are off, because he attributes undocumented immigration to the presence of the welfare state. For Paul, in other words, immigrants come to the US simply for the benefits, something which is false (data has shown that immigrants underutilize services that the pay to, through taxes (cause many pay them, in order to establish a paper trial if congress decides to pass immigration reform) and through sales and property tax.

His statements on immigration, further, show that he is more concerned with border enforcement than welfare reform. Thus, his stance is a bit off from his overall world view.

 

[dautolover]

Will you be voting for him? I have to assume you won't be because you referred to our government as a democracy.

No, because I don't believe in his fiscal policy of heavy deregulation. Many people just focus on his foreign policy and civil rights stances. I agree with them, but fiscal policy is important too, and should not be overlooked.

Back in the 08 election. Dennis Kucinich was a powerhouse when it came to the issues... He was honest and I agreed with his policy stances. He would've been the ideal candidate for me. But it is not to be this time around.

Frankly, I think neither party is there for my vote. It's a waste of resources to direct campaign money on someone like me, who is most sure on what he wants. It's the center, the undecided people that candidates try to appeal. That's the nature of American democracy. There's a video on YouTube that describes the major drawbacks of our democracy, namely because its first past the post electoral system inevitably leads to a two party system that speaks to only a few voices.

 

[livemusic]

His statements on immigration, further, show that he is more concerned with border enforcement than welfare reform. Thus, his stance is a bit off from his overall world view.

Not sure he's more concerned on that, seems to me that it's just easier for him as a president to bring the troops home and put them on the US borders than to get rid of the welfare state.

And too bad you don't agree with him on economics. That's his strongest area IMO.

 

[YSSMAN]

The second graph shows why Ron Paul will never win. He is outside the center, and has not tried to make his way into it.

Its much more complicated than that. Shifts in demographics, information on the internet, voting trends of younger Americans, and certainly the urban vs suburban vs rural political landscape that is significantly fracturing some states. Ron Paul could win provided the appropriate political and economic landscape, or for that matter support within his own party... But, in a simple, round-about way, he won't win because he won't carry union-friendly states in the Mid-West, most of New England, the Pacific coast, and it is questionable if he'd be able to take traditional, Conservative southern states based on his open stance on drug policy, gay marriage and an anti-war policy on a global scale.

It really doesn't matter what WE think of his politics, but to the average American out there... They probably (A) Don't know who he is (B) Don't understand why he thinks the way he does or (C) Just doesn't care, and votes based on party alone.

 

[Adamgp]

Don't know if this was posted here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-paul-and-romney-a-strategic-alliance-between-outsider-and-establishment/2012/01/20/gIQAf8foiQ_story.html?sub=AR

A Romney/Paul alliance, possibly Ron Paul as Romney's VP choice?

 

[YSSMAN]

A Romney/Paul alliance, possibly Ron Paul as Romney's VP choice?

They could do it, but I doubt it. Even if it did happen, I'm doubtful the hardcore Ron Paul supporters would help put a man like Mitt Romney in office.

 

[Sam48]

They could do it, but I doubt it. Even if it did happen, I'm doubtful the hardcore Ron Paul supporters would help put a man like Mitt Romney in office.

Any chance Ron Paul has to make it into office, either by becoming vice president, president, the first lady, or what have you, you know Ron Paul supporters will vote for it. This is pretty much Paul's last chance at become the big man, so any higher position would do at this point.

Also, I just heard that Trump endorsed Romney.

 

[Keef]

Trump can go ahead and endorse my ass while he's at it.

 

[ChaosStar79]

I have a lot of reservations about a Romney/Paul ticket and I would seriously hate to be a part of continuing Mitt's career, BUT if the ticket were RP as pres and Romney as vp I would vote for it. Grudgingly. But yes I would support that and consider it a far better choice of leaders than those that we have now. I would not be interested in settling for RP as VP though, being that VP is usually just a figurehead position and would better serve our country if it were filled by someone who is used to doing nothing. Perfect job for Romney. I doubt Paul would ever align with Mitt though in the first place.

 

[Liquid]

I think Sam48 is right though. Paul is 76. He'll be 80 by the next election. Too old to run? A definite possibility.

If he can get into office in some capacity, it's surely a good thing. That's assuming Romney could beat Obama, if Paul misses out on nomination.

Trump can go ahead and endorse my ass while he's at it.

Hahaha. This really made me laugh.

 

[dautolover]

Not sure he's more concerned on that, seems to me that it's just easier for him as a president to bring the troops home and put them on the US borders than to get rid of the welfare state.

And too bad you don't agree with him on economics. That's his strongest area IMO.

On first point, yes! That's why he's such an unusual libertarian. Precisely because his stance on immigration conflicts with every other idea he has.

He has some economic ideas worth attention, specifically in regards to the Federal Reserve. But that's it for me.

Its much more complicated than that. Shifts in demographics, information on the internet, voting trends of younger Americans, and certainly the urban vs suburban vs rural political landscape that is significantly fracturing some states. Ron Paul could win provided the appropriate political and economic landscape, or for that matter support within his own party... But, in a simple, round-about way, he won't win because he won't carry union-friendly states in the Mid-West, most of New England, the Pacific coast, and it is questionable if he'd be able to take traditional, Conservative southern states based on his open stance on drug policy, gay marriage and an anti-war policy on a global scale.

True, but like you said the political and economic landscape isn't doing him any favors. It's precisely because he alienates huge chunks of the population, moderate lefties and righties, that he won't be able to make it.

They could do it, but I doubt it. Even if it did happen, I'm doubtful the hardcore Ron Paul supporters would help put a man like Mitt Romney in office.

+1. That would doom the Republican ticket. Paul would just make matters worse for Republicans. It would hurt his reputation as well if he accepts.

 

[FoolKiller]

Libertarianism is all about open markets... letting the market regulate itself, having no government say on anything related to wealth, taxes, and distribution of wealth. Libertarians usually side with Republicans in terms of tax cuts, loosening of regulations, and establishing a pro-business front (which is why I don't like Paul).

Me thinks that you don't fully understand the difference between the economic stances of Republicans and/or Libertarians.

There is a huge difference between business favoritism and removing all barrier to competition. Republicans do not want truly free markets. They want pro-established business cronyism, doing favors for the companies that support them (which is very close to how Obama's policies work). Libertarians want to create an environment where any man with a good idea to make a product better can have the opportunity to challenge the well-established businesses that currently make that product. A Republican "free market" would be one where you have to get numerous permits and pass enough inspections that the fees to the government alone make it impossible for an unestablished business to afford it. A Republican "free market" looks like the government created AT&T monopoly or localized government backed private utility monopolies.

If you think that what Republicans want in business is the same as Libertarians, or Ron Paul, just look at who has donations and lobbyists from companies and who doesn't.

I think Sam48 is right though. Paul is 76. He'll be 80 by the next election. Too old to run? A definite possibility.

Ron Paul is not running for re-election for his congressional seat. He has already said it is winning the presidency or retirement.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58802.html

And I think he wouldn't go for a VP run. The VP has very little influence, and is to act as a proponent of the president's policies. He and Romney mike like each other personally, but I doubt he would be comfortable promoting policy he didn't agree with. Besides, it would also get him nowhere as far as the presidency because he would have to wait at least two terms if Romney won.

 

[Dotini]

Apparently WaPo has run a front page article about an heretofore "secret alliance" between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. A deal between the two might include not only a speaking role for Ron at the convention, and inclusion of a Fed audit and "gold commission" study group in the platform, but also the possibility of running Rand Paul for VP. All this in return for supporting Mitt and shutting up on foreign policy.

This in detail, plus a link to the WSJ story is discussed here: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/02/02/can-ron-paul-be-tamed/

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Keef]

Ron Paul would lose so many of his core supporters if that happened. Pure speculation in an attempt to make him look vulnerable, that's what that is. They can't dig any dirt up on this guy so they've been on the racist letters that somebody else wrote for months, and now conspiracy speculation? How the hell did these journalists ever graduate college?

The Anti-War article is a good one though.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

How could any of you knowing what you know believe that article or whatever. The media has lied and blocked out Paul for obvious reasons. Yet all of a sudden he is going to be on the Romney meal ticket? Sounds and reads like more media pandering to derail Paul.

Romney and Paul have massive conflicting ideas on budget and foreign as well as domestic policies. Yet some how Paul, who has been the most consistent person in congress possibly ever is all of a sudden going to sell out just to get a chance to be in the oval office...

Some of you seem to be getting slightly gullible.

 

[Dotini]

I think it is a good sign that the establishment is getting very worried!

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[YSSMAN]

I think it is a good sign that the establishment is getting very worried!

Respectfully,
Steve

They're worried about Paul taking the votes of younger people with him, and in my opinion, its far too late. The "core" of the Republican party no longer appeals to anyone who is young, educated, and capable of critical thinking. They're not worried in any way, shape or form of him winning.