Bio not provided
@Patrick McEwen You are probably right. I'm an ideologue but you seem to be more of a numbers guy (no offense to either of us). What do you think the implications of all this are? That not enough people have woken up? You did say we need a new strategy. Any ideas? What was the problem, in your opinion, with C4L's strategy? I just read your piece on a tipping point strategy. That's good, but like you said, it is more short term.
2 years, 2 months ago on Liberty Republicans Fell Flat on Tuesday
@Patrick McEwen Please ignore the part that says "I know the commenter above also brought this up, but I wanted to go a little more in depth." A good portion of the response above was copied and pasted from another site where I also had this discussion, and I forgot to delete the parts that were only relevant to that site.
@Patrick McEwen But now (unless I misunderstand you) you are talking about what the "Ron Paul effect" did (or did not do) to Romney. I'm still talking about what the "Ron Paul effect" did (or did not do) to LIberty Republicans. In other words, I am saying that Liberty Republicans may have lost because Ron Paul people DID NOT vote for them, while it appears that you maintain that whether they voted for them and it had no impact. I am also saying that "neocons" would have gotten out to vote in droves, even if Ron Paul was the nominee. They might not have actually voted for Ron Paul, but they still would have voted down the party line, as true loyalists, for every single other office.
If we want to talk about the "Ron Paul effect" impact on the actual presidential election, consider this:
The theory about Ron Paul is that not only would most loyal Republicans vote for him (obviously a few neocons would rather vote for Hillary Clinton than ever support a noninterventionist), that his base (not all of them are loyal Republicans, not even all the ones registered as Republicans) would vote for him, that Independents and Democrats that supported him (or at least preferred him to Obama and the rest of the GOP line-up) but were unable to vote for him in the primary would vote for him, and that even some wishy-washy moderate Democrats and undecided Independents could in theory have been won over.
Now obviously, there was no way in heck that Ron Paul would have ever gotten the GOP nomination, but these votes also apply, though to a slightly lesser degree, to the Republican ticket if Ron Paul had been selected as Romney's running mate (also not very likely), or at the very least if Ron Paul (along with his delegates and supporters) hadn't been mistreated, not just at the Republican National Convention, but at state and county conventions and caucuses.
So, anyways, a number of these disenfranchised people not only would not have voted for Romney (which is him down one vote per person), some of them may have actually voted for Obama (which is Romney down two votes per person). If we take the 332 to 206 electoral votes tally, this scenario need to have played out in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and New Hampshire, although there are other possible permutations) to cost Romney the election.
I know the commenter above also brought this up, but I wanted to go a little more in depth. And I don't even pretend to know that this is what did happen. I couldn't possibly have enough information to be that definitive. I just think it is still possible that the Ron Paul effect, albeit with a stretched definition, did cost Romney the election. At the very least it was one of the voting blocs that Romney could have had, and used a few more votes from. What do you think?
Patrick, I will admit to you here that I do indeed "want" Ron Paul to be relevant, and to have an impact on the election. So obviously I am biased. I may even be predisposed towards subconsciously cherry-picking data that suits my hypothesis. But I also think these are fairly good arguments. If you think there are holes in them, you are likely far more objective than me and thus more capable of finding them. I hope you don't think I am beating a dead horse by keep coming back here. I do enjoy discussions such as this, so I would be enthused if you would continue to humor me. Whether you say "well, I suppose that's what happened", or "well, its not likely, but its possible," or you shoot it down entirely, I will be happy.
@Patrick McEwen Well there are Neocons and then there are neocons. For every neocon that likes Ron Paul for everything but his foreign policy and would never vote for him because of it, there was a neocon that hated everything about all the other candidates except for their foreign policy. And more often than not, they were the same people. I think you are wrong though that there are really that many of them. Anybody But Obama was the slogan of the decade. And the attitude that "I'm going to stay home" is way more prevalent in people who reject the premise that the state is the end all be all than it is in people who worship and are prepared to kill for the state. These are party line voters. They may have voted for Obama or wrote in Gingrich or Snatorum if Ron Paul was the nominee but they still would have gotten out there to vote for their McConnells and their Boehners and their Ryans and their Bachmanns. Nothing would have kept them from doing their "civic duty" to keep the house and take back the Senate from the "Muslim" "Communist" in the White House, even if they still had to live with the man himself for four more years.
edit: make that Ron Paul endorsed candidates.
In other words, this election was not just a referendum on those in the GOP who ignored an entire wing of their base, it is a referendum on any part of the GOP that even dared to associate with these creeps. no matter how tenuous the link.
I think you are missing something. I think it is possible for Romney to have lost because liberty minded people didn't vote for him and for Ron Paul endorsed to have lost. In fact, it makes perfect sense.
Why? Because people who stayed home because they didn't like Romney also didn't vote for these candidates. Because people who voted for Gary Johnson might just have voted straight down the libertarian ticket. And people (you can count me in) who voted for Ron Paul in the primary REFUSED to vote for ANY republican who witnessed the cheating that went on and did nothing about it. Ron Paul, my hero endorsed Denny Rehberg. But because Rehberg voted for NDAA, the patriot act, and stood idly by while Ron Paul delegates at the county, state, and national level, were cheated and defrauded, I wrote someone in instead. The only Republicans I voted for were county commissioner, local senator, local rep, county clerk, and school superintendent. Governor, Senator, Congressman, Secretary of state be damned.
I'm so buying this. Michael Maharrey, you've been great!
2 years, 3 months ago on This is Our Last Hope
Great piece, Mike.
2 years, 8 months ago on If the Feds Won't Stop the TSA, the States Should
#RonPaul's foreign policy defended:
3 years, 1 month ago on Michael Scheuer Endorses Ron Paul for President