# Start Here > Ron Paul Forum >  Mitt Romney lost because he ostracized us

## BSU kid

Can you imagine if our supporters had voted for Romney in Ohio and Florida...lets just say tonight would be much different.

----------


## sailingaway

because he CHEATED us.  

And because he was Mitt Romney.  Seriously, he's like that joke about a shoe made by people who had had a shoe described to them in detail but had never actually seen one.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Dr. Paul got 111,238 votes in the OH GOP Primary.  
The difference between Obama and Romney right now is 29,897 in favor of Obama.
We ARE the difference.

----------


## sailingaway

> Dr. Paul got 111,238 votes in the OH GOP Primary.  
> The difference between Obama and Romney right now is 29,897 in favor of Obama.
> We ARE the difference.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Willard lost because he played a game he couldn't ever win. Shouldn't send a raider to do a Statesman's job...silly wabbits.

----------


## freeforall

I'm from Ohio and voted against both of them.  I seriously stood at the booth and considered writing in Vermin Supreme as a way of giving both parties the middle finger.

----------


## thoughtomator

To be honest it's more than just us.

There's a large segment of evangelicals who vote in no small part on the issue of abortion, given the pro-abortion Romney.

Then there is the large segment of 2nd Amendment supporters, given the anti-gun Romney.

Throw in the liberty supporters given a pro-NDAA Romney, and there's no possible coalition that gives the GOP a win.

----------


## sailingaway

> To be honest it's more than just us.
> 
> There's a large segment of evangelicals who vote in no small part on the issue of abortion, given the pro-abortion Romney.
> 
> Then there is the large segment of 2nd Amendment supporters, given the anti-gun Romney.
> 
> Throw in the liberty supporters given a pro-NDAA Romney, and there's no possible coalition that gives the GOP a win.


Ron Paul could have.  Just not Romney.  Try Ron's positions against all those groups. Only the neoconservatives would be homeless and they can go back to the DNC whence they came.

----------


## RickyJ

That and the fact that he is was such a weak candidate. Flip-flop Mitt really never should have even been considered as a nominee by the Republicans.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

Haha! LMAO! $#@! Romney! Hey GOP, I thought you didn't need Ron Paul supporters to win?

This is what happens when you cheat Ron Paul, his supporters and his Primary delegates and try to force us to vote for the Obama clone uber liberal Romney!

$#@! YOU!

----------


## Fredom101

> Can you imagine if our supporters had voted for Romney in Ohio and Florida...lets just say tonight would be much different.


Bingo. I've been saying this all along to everyone who's been going along with the MSM's story line. Without the Ron Paul support, Romney was doomed from the start. Why intelligent people couldn't see this is beyond me.

----------


## BSU kid

Our supporters would have also put him over in Virginia. Bet the party feels stupid now.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Dr. Paul received 117,100 votes in the GOP FL Primary
The difference between Obama and Romney in Florida is 48,262 in favor of Obama
#weAREthedifference

----------


## Brent H

> Bet the party feels stupid now.


I don't think they have sufficient intelligence to feel stupid.

----------


## affa

We warned them.

NOBP

----------


## BSU kid

Paving the way for Rand.

----------


## NorfolkPCSolutions



----------


## No1butPaul

> Willard lost because he played a game he couldn't ever win. Shouldn't send a raider to do a Statesman's job...silly wabbits.


omg - now that the campaign is over, I have the best nickname for Romney (triggered by your post): 
willtard. Lol

----------


## tsetsefly

THey also lost because they are wildly out of touch, abortion aside(which is clearly a 50/50 issue) you can't run on not allowing consenting adults of he same sex to get married, it's a dumb stance and one that must change if they wish to win some swing states.

Also ROmney offered nothing different than Obama, but we all know that...

----------


## The Free Hornet

> Dr. Paul got 111,238 votes in the OH GOP Primary.  
> The difference between Obama and Romney right now is 29,897 in favor of Obama.
> We ARE the difference.


Also, about half the actual Gary Johnson vote in Ohio could have turned the tide:




> D	Winner B. Obama (i)	49.4%	2,371,472
> R	M. Romney	48.9%	2,348,896
> L	G. Johnson	0.9%	43,005
> G	J. Stein	0.3%	15,980
> O	R. Duncan	0.2%	11,068


There may be follow-up stories looking at both RP write-ins and GJ votes beyond what the LP candidate normally gets (1% instead of 0.5%).

----------


## singe22

Burn in hell Establishment GOP.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

You can call me a conspiracy nut all you want, but the truth is Romney lost because it was the plan.

----------


## BSU kid

> Burn in hell Establishment GOP.


Now we can finally rise from the ashes, and try to make this party into what it was originally intended. Freedom, fiscal responsibility, civil liberties and non-interventionism.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

> Now we can finally rise from the ashes, and try to make this party into what it was originally intended. Freedom, fiscal responsibility, civil liberties and non-interventionism.


That takes too long, we need a better plan.

----------


## Zee

> You can call me a conspiracy nut all you want, but the truth is Romney lost because it was the plan.


Ive always thought that might be the case.

----------


## samforpaul

> because he CHEATED us.



sailingway, could you give me your top 3-5 examples?   I too certainly feel like there were shananigans so I'm not at all trying to challenge you.  I simply would like to cite examples to people demonstrating why many RP supporters were disgruntled and weren't excited or willing to throw our support behind Romney.
Thanks!

----------


## eleganz

> Dr. Paul got 111,238 votes in the OH GOP Primary.  
> The difference between Obama and Romney right now is 29,897 in favor of Obama.
> We ARE the difference.


We need more analysis like this in several states and make it go viral.  Showing dominance after a devastating loss for Romney would be great for our movement.

----------


## sailingaway

> sailingway, could you give me your top 3-5 examples?   I too certainly feel like there were shananigans so I'm not at all trying to challenge you.  I simply would like to cite examples to people demonstrating why many RP supporters were disgruntled and weren't excited or willing to throw our support behind Romney.
> Thanks!


not tonight, but there is a thread stickied to the top of the page, I suggest you start with the first 3 to 5 posts and work your way through.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...OP-conventions

----------


## Zee

> sailingway, could you give me your top 3-5 examples?   I too certainly feel like there were shananigans so I'm not at all trying to challenge you.  I simply would like to cite examples to people demonstrating why many RP supporters were disgruntled and weren't excited or willing to throw our support behind Romney.
> Thanks!


Here is a pretty good read that might help with some examples. 
http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/glenn-j1.1.1.html

----------


## cajuncocoa

> We need more analysis like this in several states and make it go viral.  Showing dominance after a devastating loss for Romney would be great for our movement.


Those were the two main states (OH & FL) where our votes would have made a difference in the outcome.   The margin of victory for Obama in PA was more than the votes Dr. Paul received in the PA primary.

----------


## Todd

> You can call me a conspiracy nut all you want, but the truth is Romney lost because it was the plan.


Yes.  Our plan.    Mwuaaaahaaaaaa!

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> We need more analysis like this in several states and make it go viral.  Showing dominance after a devastating loss for Romney would be great for our movement.


Oh yes

----------


## acptulsa

> Yes.  Our plan.    Mwuaaaahaaaaaa!


No.

Romney lost because he's a dweeb and a jackass and a liberal fighting a liberal.  It was NOT our plan.  It was Rupert Murdoch's Fox News plan.  The yellowcake uranium journalism people planned both Obama's wins.

Our plan, if you'll recall, was to run the Unelectable Ron Paul.  The same Unelectable Ron Paul Who Would Have Won Today.




> We need more analysis like this in several states and make it go viral.  Showing dominance after a devastating loss for Romney would be great for our movement.


You know what would be better for our movement?  Putting together an analysis that proves that we won over enough Blue Republicans that Ron Paul would have kicked Obama's ass _even if none of us voted at all._

----------


## eleganz

come on, we gotta make our influence viral #libertariansDECIDE

----------


## eleganz

> Dr. Paul received 117,100 votes in the GOP FL Primary
> The difference between Obama and Romney in Florida is 48,262 in favor of Obama
> #libertariansDECIDE


We need to spread this everywhere!!!

----------


## MozoVote

I'm willing to accept that Romney lost from a multitude of causes. Yeah, "us". But also conservatives of various stripes that did not trust him after too many changes on the issues. I also think the Akin and Mourdock comments threw some "stink" on the Republican brand. Those were written up nationally.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

I think if Romney didnt cheated or treated our delegates like trash... it may have changed things.

I think a lot more people may have CONSIDERED voting for Romney if he wasnt such a douche.

----------


## MozoVote

> I think a lot more people may have CONSIDERED voting for Romney if he wasnt such a douche.


Yeah, how many clumsy statements can you pin on the guy?

"We didn't raise taxes, we raised fees"
"I like to fire people"
"47% of the country"

And that's just off the top of my head, late at night, while I'm sleepy. (yawn)

He was repeatedly needing to recover from things that he said on tape!! Just very bad message management.

----------


## squarepusher

I certainly did not vote for Romney

----------


## sailingaway

> Those were the two main states (OH & FL) where our votes would have made a difference in the outcome.   The margin of victory for Obama in PA was more than the votes Dr. Paul received in the PA primary.


Yeah, and they won't give credit for the fact that Romney had already been media declared 'nominee' months before that.

----------


## puppetmaster

> No.
> 
> Romney lost because he's a dweeb and a jackass and a liberal fighting a liberal.  It was NOT our plan.  It was Rupert Murdoch's Fox News plan.  The yellowcake uranium journalism people planned both Obama's wins.
> 
> Our plan, if you'll recall, was to run the Unelectable Ron Paul.  *The same Unelectable Ron Paul Who Would Have Won Today.*
> 
> 
> 
> You know what would be better for our movement?  Putting together an analysis that proves that we won over enough Blue Republicans that Ron Paul would have kicked Obama's ass _even if none of us voted at all._


I believe this to be true

----------


## Constitutional Paulicy

> You can call me a conspiracy nut all you want, but the truth is Romney lost because it was the plan.


If by plan you mean he was shoved down our throats by the insider establishment because they knew he wasn't a threat to their grip on power, then I agree. They favored a reelection of Obama since he has been the good old boy they knew he would be. Why would they value a change when they have exactly what they want with Obama. Romney was never truly, "The change we have been looking for".

----------


## eleganz

> No.
> 
> Romney lost because he's a dweeb and a jackass and a liberal fighting a liberal.  It was NOT our plan.  It was Rupert Murdoch's Fox News plan.  The yellowcake uranium journalism people planned both Obama's wins.
> 
> Our plan, if you'll recall, was to run the Unelectable Ron Paul.  The same Unelectable Ron Paul Who Would Have Won Today.
> 
> 
> 
> You know what would be better for our movement?  Putting together an analysis that proves that we won over enough Blue Republicans that Ron Paul would have kicked Obama's ass _even if none of us voted at all._


Yea it would be great but its too complicated for many people to comprehend.

Oh and btw everybody, Romney's facebook is losing likes like crazy while Ron Paul steadily goes up.

----------


## sailingaway

> Yea it would be great but its too complicated for many people to comprehend.
> 
> *Oh and btw everybody, Romney's facebook is losing likes like crazy while Ron Paul steadily goes up.*


now where is that thread where we tracked that....?

----------


## BucksforPaul

> now where is that thread where we tracked that....?


Here it is, but someone else will have to update it because I do not use Facebook.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...facebook-likes

----------


## eleganz

> now where is that thread where we tracked that....?


too many threads on RPF   plus we didn't track Romney's rise in likes since his nomination...hes got like 12M currently but thats soon to be all in the past.

----------


## sailingaway

> Here it is, but someone else will have to update it because I do not use Facebook.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...facebook-likes


thank you! I'd plus rep you for the effort but I've given out too much rep today.

I was really just musing, eleganz is right that we've missed too many interim points ....but we could start now and just  map the decline....

----------


## BucksforPaul

> thank you! I'd plus rep you for the effort but I've given out too much rep today.
> 
> I was really just musing, eleganz is right that we've missed too many interim points ....but we could start now and just  map the decline....


It will be fun to map the decline and I'll +rep anyone who updates it weekly.

----------


## eleganz

> It will be fun to map the decline and I'll +rep anyone who updates it weekly.


I wrote down the numbers for Romney/RP about an hour ago and I'll start a thread on it I guess.

----------


## The Freethinker



----------


## bunklocoempire

> Mitt Romney lost because he ostracized us truth


FIFY

----------


## eleganz

Even if we can explain Ohio and Florida, we need to overcome the difference of 290-203 to prove a true point.  I wonder if anybody is writing about this as we speak.

----------


## HigherVision

> Willard lost because he played a game he couldn't ever win. Shouldn't send a raider to do a Statesman's job...silly wabbits.


Yeah man, down with capitalism.

----------


## WarAnonymous

> I'm from Ohio and voted against both of them.  I seriously stood at the booth and considered writing in Vermin Supreme as a way of giving both parties the middle finger.


I am also in OH and stood against both. I will not be apart of the fall of America in either candidate.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> That takes too long, we need a better plan.

----------


## WarAnonymous

> 


THIS!

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> We need more analysis like this in several states and make it go viral.  Showing dominance after a devastating loss for Romney would be great for our movement.


Why do we want to perpetuate the meme that we're spoilers?

----------


## WarAnonymous

I would however like to take the time to thank the ones for asking for the Tyrant slate. OH will keep a house full of tyrranical Republicans.

----------


## S.Shorland

The trouble is that Socialism exists today and people BELIEVE that theft is acceptable and indeed moral.They consider it quite normal that they should be subservient to other men without question.


>

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

It was Election FRAUD... at all levels during the Primaries/Caucuses.

Should be a Felony that includes the Racketeering/Corruption and Lies of Hannity, O'really, Krauthammer$#@!, Wallace, Cameron, Krystal, the BeeAtches with the Fake Eyelashes, and that Eddie Haskel looking anchor with the 2 bit rug, his memorable Ames Iowa Straw Poll BLACKOUT and GOP debate moderator *sigh* to a RP response/coverage.

Let's not leave out a of "Rag Print" like, Alexandria's TEAM POLITICO that started their sabotage game on Ron Paul in 2011.

Joe Scarborough/Mika Bullshitski and the Klan of Communists/CFR masters @ NBC/MSNBC/New York City...  How's China Jon, Joe?

Amy Walter's Political World and the Fascist/Propagandists out of New York City/Washington called, Capitol Cities Corp. aka ABC

Morbid Shaeffer and the New Yorks Mecca of CBS brainwashing...

And of course, who can't forget the Fraud of CNN aka Obama reelection channel and the whole Wolf Biltzer/Dana Bash/John Whatever/and the cast of puppets that parrot the teleprompters for 5, 6 and 7 figure salaries, depending on your so-called importance level of manipulations, lies, Film editing of newsletters.

TAMPA proved it all with the control of the buses to ensure opponents wouldn't make/vote on rules, meetings, seating arrangements, the John Boehner railroad secession, the goons that eliminated anything 1st amendment in the arena, nothing but the GOP script, right down to the home made phony signs. The fight was over before it even had a chance to battle. Evil motherfuckers to the likes of the Inner Circle of 10 Fat Men: John Sununu and Karl Rove.

America is clueless how this huge political game is play... they are the product of the well controlled 24/7 propaganda channels.


Brings me to SciFi author Ray Bradbury, a story of how the president of the nation wound up celebrating the final square foot of land was filled with concrete, of a completely paved-over nation.  Eventually a parody of a US President, the his staff of fraudulent minions, celebrating one day, when everyone is taxed 100% and only one installed candidate to choose from to oppose the one candidate installed to choose from, Oh Wait... The people will cheer for ZERO CHOICE, like tonight

PS: I say a special '$#@! YOU' to Karl Rove and John Sununu

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Yeah man, down with capitalism.


Do you really think what Romney does is capitalism?  Capitalism implies a free market, not a fascist market.

----------


## devil21

> We need more analysis like this in several states and make it go viral.  Showing dominance after a devastating loss for Romney would be great for our movement.


You gotta be gentle with these things!  Bring it up but do it politically correctly!  Don't "nah nah nah a boo boo" about it.  Show people how the liberty movement helps them win.  Don't be a jerk about it.  Offer a lifeline, not an anchor.

----------


## devil21

Hmmmm.......

Im reminded of a 2008 debate when Romney laughed at Ron for commenting on Iran.  "Congressman Paul has been reading too many newsletters from Ahmadinejad".

"Yea make fun buddy" - RP  (look in Ron's eye said he was going to own Romney's ass one day.....Ron Paul is always right)

----------


## anaconda

> That and the fact that he is was such a weak candidate.


^I think this is correct. Romney was about as inspiring as an wet rag. That said, I think we would need some careful analysis (and polling?) to make a good assessment of whether the Paul supporters votes would have significantly helped Mittens, and to what extent.

----------


## affa

> ^I think this is correct. Romney was about as inspiring as an wet rag. That said, I think we would need some careful analysis (and polling?) to make a good assessment of whether the Paul supporters votes would have significantly helped Mittens, and to what extent.


It's pretty clear to me that it would have made a huge difference.  But the point is that Romney was always unelectable, because he'd never have our support against a (surprisingly) popular incumbent.   Cheating us didn't help his case, but he'd -never- have our votes regardless.

They thought they could do this without us, or that we'd fall in line.  We warned them we wouldn't and they stuck their fingers in their ears.   We didn't, they lost.   No surprise.

----------


## Primbs

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...t-little-time/

Romney could have used the Ron Paul ground game and might have won. The article implies the campaign money was not managed very well.

----------


## MozoVote

> Cheating us didn't help his case, but he'd -never- have our votes regardless.


Not true for me, at least. I had even told my family a few weeks before the convention that'd I had accepted  the inevitable, and would vote for Romney in the general election. He and his RNC cronies screwed that up.

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

> You know what would be better for our movement?  Putting together an analysis that proves that we won over enough Blue Republicans that Ron Paul would have kicked Obama's ass _even if none of us voted at all._


This is so true. I have people tell me everyday that they wish Ron Paul would've won because they would've voted for him. Both on the left and right (they didn't vote).

----------


## LibertyEagle

> THey also lost because they are wildly out of touch, abortion aside(which is clearly a 50/50 issue) you can't run on not allowing consenting adults of he same sex to get married, it's a dumb stance and one that must change if they wish to win some swing states.
> 
> Also ROmney offered nothing different than Obama, but we all know that...


You do realize that Dr. Paul was not for "gay marriage" being forced at the federal level, either, don't you?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You gotta be gentle with these things!  Bring it up but do it politically correctly!  Don't "nah nah nah a boo boo" about it.  Show people how the liberty movement helps them win.  Don't be a jerk about it.  Offer a lifeline, not an anchor.


** this.

----------


## jmdrake

Yeah.  We know that.  But will it get reported?  Last night as I watched the returns come in I saw numbers for Gary Johnson, Virgil Goode and occasionally Jill Stein.  I didn't see any "write in" numbers reported.  I didn't see any "This was the total vote minus the presidential vote" reported.  I didn't see "Here's how much Ron Paul got in the primary in this state" numbers reported.  If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it....

----------


## cindy25

Rand as VP might have made the difference, but the same for different reasons could be said about Rubio

----------


## cajuncocoa

> We need more analysis like this in several states and make it go viral.  Showing dominance after a devastating loss for Romney would be great for our movement.


Something else I found:




> Iowa and Nevada, where Ron Paul supporters gained control of the state party, both went to Obama after the Romney campaign actively fought to disenfranchise Ron Paul supporters. I guess the GOP got what it wanted there.


http://www.infowars.com/gop-in-deep-...-looking-good/

----------


## Pauls' Revere

> Now we can finally rise from the ashes, and try to make this party into what it was originally intended. Freedom, fiscal responsibility, civil liberties and non-interventionism.


Don't bet on it.

----------


## Bossobass

> It was Election FRAUD... at all levels during the Primaries/Caucuses.
> 
> Should be a Felony that includes the Racketeering/Corruption and Lies of Hannity, O'really, Krauthammer$#@!, Wallace, Cameron, Krystal, the BeeAtches with the Fake Eyelashes, and that Eddie Haskel looking anchor with the 2 bit rug, his memorable Ames Iowa Straw Poll BLACKOUT and GOP debate moderator *sigh* to a RP response/coverage.
> 
> Let's not leave out a of "Rag Print" like, Alexandria's TEAM POLITICO that started their sabotage game on Ron Paul in 2011.
> 
> Joe Scarborough/Mika Bullshitski and the Klan of Communists/CFR masters @ NBC/MSNBC/New York City...  How's China Jon, Joe?
> 
> Amy Walter's Political World and the Fascist/Propagandists out of New York City/Washington called, Capitol Cities Corp. aka ABC
> ...


This is hands down the best post I've read on RPF since May, 2007. ^^^^^^^

They maneuvered the weakest candidate possible into the 'other' parties nomination to oppose the guy they wanted back in for 4 more years of HOPE (I don't lose my great fighter jet/drone factory job) and CHANGE (the ME into an Exxon subsidiary), just like pulling McCain out of the basement in Dec '07 to win the nomination despite the fact that only his 8th wife would vote for him.

I would only add that the simplest way for a "I'll spend the $ I save from ending the wars to pay down the deficit" bull$#@! artist to be re-elected is to grow the government into an unbeatable voting block of employees who actually want zero change to their "I get paid and I don't hafta do $#@!" job security.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Why do we want to perpetuate the meme that we're spoilers?


Beats the hell out of me.  Those in the establishment already know it...we don't need to prove anything.  Rubbing it in their faces might make some feel good temporarily but it would be counter-productive.  Plausible deniability has it advantages when it comes to the average GOP voter.

----------


## jmdrake

> You do realize that Dr. Paul was not for "gay marriage" being forced at the federal level, either, don't you?


+rep.  Probably not.  I bet he didn't know that Ron Paul went as far as to say that he wouldn't want judges in Texas forcing gay marriage on the people there either.  

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html
_If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress's constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts' jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state._

Besides, if you don't Mitt Romney's position on gay marriage, just wait a week.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/1...its/?mobile=nc

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Even if we can explain Ohio and Florida, we need to overcome the difference of 290-203 to prove a true point.  I wonder if anybody is writing about this as we speak.


The final electoral total is Obama 303 - Romney 206

So far, the 4 states mentioned in this thread so far (Ohio, Florida, Iowa, and Nevada) have a total of 59 electoral votes among them; if shifted from Obama to Romney, the totals would be:  Obama 244 - Romney 265 

Obviously, that's not enough to win...he would need 5 more.

----------


## A. Havnes

> Dr. Paul got 111,238 votes in the OH GOP Primary.  
> The difference between Obama and Romney right now is 29,897 in favor of Obama.
> We ARE the difference.


How many of those were hard-core supporters, though?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> How many of those were hard-core supporters, though?


If you recall the climate under which he ran, you had to be a pretty hard core Paul supporter just to cast a vote for him in the first place.

----------


## jbauer

> Haha! LMAO! $#@! Romney! Hey GOP, I thought you didn't need Ron Paul supporters to win?
> 
> This is what happens when you cheat Ron Paul, his supporters and his Primary delegates and try to force us to vote for the Obama clone uber liberal Romney!
> 
> $#@! YOU!


Couldn't have said it better myself

----------


## liveandletlive

how is Rand taking this?

why is Lew ripping Rand apart like Rand destroyed his career

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> how is Rand taking this?
> 
> why is Lew ripping Rand apart like Rand destroyed his career


Because libertarians eat their young.

Which has to stop, or we will never win.

----------


## jbauer

> We need more analysis like this in several states and make it go viral.  Showing dominance after a devastating loss for Romney would be great for our movement.


Or really bad for us!!!  The last thing we want to do is take credit for the loss.  We want the GOP to own this baby

----------


## jmdrake

> how is Rand taking this?
> 
> why is Lew ripping Rand apart like Rand destroyed his career


Link on Lew?

----------


## sailingaway

> Not true for me, at least. I had even told my family a few weeks before the convention that'd I had accepted  the inevitable, and would vote for Romney in the general election. He and his RNC cronies screwed that up.


I'd grudgingly decided if he made RON VP I'd have voted for RON (I find it hard not to vote for Ron.) 

but he screwed that up....

----------


## sailingaway

> Or really bad for us!!!  The last thing we want to do is take credit for the loss.  We want the GOP to own this baby


They do. Because they didn't include us fairly in the process, and because special interests manipulated the outcome to a nominee only the beltway wanted.

The two go together.

----------


## puppetmaster

*I believe that If Ron Paul had been the nominee that we would retain most all the republican votes and pick up several million independent votes and win this by a large margin*.

I think they(TPTB) know this and did not allow it to happen. This is an orchestrated event. They are very good at what they do and people in general are clueless.

----------


## Okie RP fan

> how is Rand taking this?
> 
> why is Lew ripping Rand apart like Rand destroyed his career


Because Rand chose to play the game that ultimately, after last night, made him look like a fool. He CHOSE to play for the losing team to temporarily save face. 

I have faith that Rand can come back to his senses. We need him for 2016, whether people agree or not. Our field is already extremely narrow.

----------


## Mini-Me

> Because Rand chose to play the game that ultimately, after last night, made him look like a fool. He CHOSE to play for the losing team to temporarily save face. 
> 
> I have faith that Rand can come back to his senses. We need him for 2016, whether people agree or not. Our field is already extremely narrow.


...guys, are you for REAL?  Rand was EXPECTING Romney to lose.  He was HOPING for Romney to lose, and I've been saying this ALL ALONG.  He made his endorsement at a time when Romney looked completely unelectable to almost our entire camp, like there was no chance in hell he could win, with the expectation that Obama would crush him in the debates (which didn't happen, so it was a closer call than he had calculated).  He knew in advance that the vast majority of us would not actually listen to him and vote for Romney, and if we had, the whole thing would have fallen apart.  His words were not meant for us, and they weren't to fool the establishment either (because he never could).  It was for the benefit of the Fox News-watching Republican base.

In what world would it have been better for Rand if Romney won?  Seriously, think about it.  The way things went, he now looks to be a "team player" to the Republican base, and that will be fresh in their minds for 2016 (in the sense of, Fox has no "traitor" ammo to hit him with), while he has four years to prove himself to us with his voting record...and hopefully, enough people in our camp are smart enough to actually pay attention to that instead of what he's saying to get a broad support base.  Too many people here are being led by their emotions like dogs on a leash.  If Romney had won, Rand's next shot would be 2020 at the earliest, and the "team loyalty" points would have long worn off after a grueling four years (at least) dealing with Romney's *awful* Presidential record.  Consider:  This election cycle, the neocons may have been following Bush's platform, but nobody exactly went out of their way to seek some highly coveted Bush endorsement, and they kind of tried to pretend like he never existed and hadn't already had his chance as President.  They distanced themselves from Bush despite the obvious connections, because it was the only way to sell themselves as a new solution.  If Romney had become President, the same would have happened to him by the time Rand ran.  Rand is not playing checkers.  He's playing chess.  He's not always playing it in a way that sits well with our trust issues, and his choices aren't my favorite for that reason, but he's still a great deal smarter than some of you are giving him credit for.

----------


## A. Havnes

> Or really bad for us!!!  The last thing we want to do is take credit for the loss.  We want the GOP to own this baby


I don't mind taking credit for part of it, but we need to frame it differently.  As it stands right now, the GOP looks upon us as sore losers and the enemy of their party.  We're worse than democrats to them right now.  We want to the GOP to embrace us, not fight against us every step of the way.  This election every single candidate strove to be the anti-Romney, and the pro-Tea Party.  We want to continue that tradition.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Why do we want to perpetuate the meme that we're spoilers?


We weren't the spoilers.  *They* were the spoilers; they spoiled it for themselves when they disenfranchised us.

If I'm understanding eleganz correctly, in the post to which you responded, we want them to know they can't win by locking us out.  

I probably would not have voted for Romney anyway, but other Ron Paul Republicans may have voted for him if they hadn't treated our delegates the way they did at the convention.  It would not have cost Romney anything to seat our delegates, but it may have cost him the election by NOT doing so.

----------


## affa

> Why do we want to perpetuate the meme that we're spoilers?


I can answer that.   If we say nothing, in time, we're going to get scapegoated, blamed, and generally thrown under the bus.    Heck, people still call Perot a spoiler.  It's an easy out for people that don't want to take responsibility for a badly run campaign or a poorly selected nominee (or that don't understand the fix was in, but that's a different story).

That is why we need to get out in front of this.  We need to point out that their mistreatment of us cost them the election.  We need to point out that their 'electable' nominee was massively disliked, and had more of an anti-Obama fanbase than a pro-Romney fanbase.... while they squelched a once-in-a-lifetime massive grassroots force named Ron Paul as 'unelectable'.     

If we are upfront about it, and our reasons then we own it and it empowers us.  We are not spoilers, but defenders of liberty.  We warned them, and they didn't listen.  We followed their rules, and they cheated us.  We showed our numbers, and they insulted us.    

They spoiled this election, not us.   We need to define the narrative, or we give up that power and we actually will end up being 'spoilers' when they get around to playing the blame game.

----------


## VBRonPaulFan

just worked the numbers out for VA.

Dr. Paul received 107,470 votes in the GOP VA Primary
The difference between Obama and Romney in Florida is 107,337 in favor of Obama

----------


## twomp

They CAN NOT win without us. Last night proved this. The GOP will go the same way as the Whig party if they continue to ignore us. It's already too late. We have the right ideas. We have the youth on our side. We will only continue to grow. Do they really think that in 2014 and 2016 we will simply forget about our liberties, our foreign intervention, or the Federal Reserve?

WE ARE THE FUTURE and we are only going to grow bigger. VIVA LA rEVOLution!

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't mind taking credit for part of it, but we need to frame it differently.  As it stands right now, the GOP looks upon us as sore losers and the enemy of their party.  We're worse than democrats to them right now.  We want to the GOP to embrace us, not fight against us every step of the way.  This election every single candidate strove to be the anti-Romney, and the pro-Tea Party.  We want to continue that tradition.


Every candidate strove to be Ron Paul's platform without being Ron Paul.  It is the last part that is the problem. We need sincere candidates.

----------


## jolynna

> Every candidate strove to be Ron Paul's platform without being Ron Paul.  It is the last part that is the problem. We need sincere candidates.


Maybe IF nominee Romney had strove HARDER and been AGAINST the NDAA instead of trashing the bill of rights as happily as his opponent did, voting for Romney would have been a consideration. 

You can't win people to your side (not the ones that have "don't tread on me" flags waving in their yards) by saying in advance of the election you are anti-freedom. 

The "establishment GOP" did NOTHING to woo us. They didn't offer up so much as a stick of gum, let alone dinner before they expected us to hop in bed with them. (They COULDN'T give Dr. Paul a 15 minute speech at the convention??? Or get the bus to the convention on time???)

The establishment GOP *LOST* when they chose the most pro-bank, big government, freedom-stealing candidate they could find and then shoved him down our throats by CHEATING and then called us sore losers when we didn't jump on their bandwagon and thank them for making such a wise decision for us. 

They EARNED the results they got.

In my opinion.

----------


## sailingaway

> Maybe IF nominee Romney had strove HARDER and been AGAINST the NDAA instead of trashing the bill of rights as happily as his opponent did, voting for Romney would have been a consideration. 
> 
> You can't win people to your side (not the ones that have "don't tread on me" flags waving in their yards) by saying in advance of the election you are anti-freedom. 
> 
> The "establishment GOP" did NOTHING to woo us. They didn't offer up so much as a stick of gum, let alone dinner before they expected us to hop in bed with them. (They COULDN'T give Dr. Paul a 15 minute speech at the convention??? Or get the bus with to the convention on time???)
> 
> The establishment GOP *LOST* when they chose the most pro-bank, big government, freedom-stealing candidate they could find and then shoved him down our throats by CHEATING and then called us sore losers when we didn't jump on their bandwagon and thank them for making such a wise decision for us. 
> 
> They EARNED the results they got.
> ...


Actually, I think that speaks for a lot of us.

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

'GOP's Star Chamber of 10 Fat Men'... wish someone that's on the inside, would eventually sell the script for a movie. BlackOut on what turned the GOP win into a Loss continues.

FOX Kabuki Theater continues: 


> Krauthammer: *There is no need for the GOP to rethink anything.* Romney is  a northeast liberal who "spoke conservatism as a 2nd language."


As for FOX Poll Propagandist Rasmussen, how bad they were off:  CT -10, CO -7, IA -7, NH -7, WI -7, VA -5, NV -4, MI -4, FL -3, NC -3, MN -3, OH -2. Avg: 5.3% off per state.  Well above the margin of error.

----------


## TheTexan

I just hope they give us credit for his loss.  They'll probably just blame Hurricane Sandy or something and call it a day.

----------


## CPUd

> I don't mind taking credit for part of it, but we need to frame it differently.  As it stands right now, the GOP looks upon us as sore losers and the enemy of their party.  We're worse than democrats to them right now.  We want to the GOP to embrace us, not fight against us every step of the way.  This election every single candidate strove to be the anti-Romney, and the pro-Tea Party.  We want to continue that tradition.


The way some of them are acting right now, I don't think they're gonna be able to say anything about RP folks being sore losers.  Last night I watched a group of people who put all their trust in Karl Rove and Dick Morris, and when Mitt said he only wrote 1 speech for last night, they started having victory parties at their homes.  Over the course of the evening, the fear and doubt started to creep in.  The ones who were most vocal about it got kicked off the chat.  Then it started turning ugly, with half in denial and the other half blowing sunshine and lollipops up their asses.  Then their true nature started creeping out, the hate started showing.  First it was Dick Morris, then it was Christie, the hurricane, the voting machines, Bill OReilly, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, the tea party, evangelicals, the illegals, the communists, the libertarians, the young voters, the state of Wisconsin, the Bushes, ... the list is still getting longer.

But what I noticed the most was, once the Mitt staff abandoned the site, a few tiny voices coming through all the hate getting louder, questioning the media, their elected leaders, the monetary system- there was even someone questioning themselves, and whether or not some of the stuff they pulled during the primaries was the right thing to do.  Some of them vow to turn off the TV, and go outside, learn to do things on their land.  Many similarities with some of the things that we talk about over here.  And keep in mind, the hardcore Mittsters have been campaigning since 2007, just like some of the folks in here, and their campaign came to a suudden and unexpected end last night.

A handful of people who were over there, I had some issues with, because I know they were behind some of the $#@! that got pulled during the conventions, in particular, the fearmongering, and the drowning out of any opinion contrary to the approved opinion.  I did get some satisfaction last night at their expense, and they'll go back to Boston and DC, until 2016 when they sign on with the next neocon.  

But the rank and file over there, I think some of them are getting good and woke.  Just like some of the folks here now did after voting for McCain.  They'll be along soon.  Some of them wish to rebuild the party and do it right, others will just be looking for someone besides themselves to blame.  For the latter, direct them to the vote flipping thread LOL they will stay down that rabbit hole for months.

----------


## ninepointfive

> I'm from Ohio and voted against both of them.  I seriously stood at the booth and considered writing in Vermin Supreme as a way of giving both parties the middle finger.


He's a tyrant you can trust!

----------


## supermario21

Just figured it out. If you assume that less than 1% of RP supporters in the primaries voted for Romney, Paul's support would have allowed Romney to carry Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, and New Hampshire. That would have been enough. We did make a difference. And now we have 5 senators to count on (Flake, Cruz, DeMint, Lee, and Rand).

----------


## SpiritOf1776_J4

> And keep in mind, the hardcore Mittsters have been campaigning since 2007, just like some of the folks in here, and their campaign came to a suudden and unexpected end last night..


Is the wicked witch of the *right* at last dead?

----------


## sailingaway

> The way some of them are acting right now, I don't think they're gonna be able to say anything about RP folks being sore losers.  Last night I watched a group of people who put all their trust in Karl Rove and Dick Morris, and when Mitt said he only wrote 1 speech for last night, they started having victory parties at their homes.  Over the course of the evening, the fear and doubt started to creep in.  The ones who were most vocal about it got kicked off the chat.  Then it started turning ugly, with half in denial and the other half blowing sunshine and lollipops up their asses.  Then their true nature started creeping out, the hate started showing.  First it was Dick Morris, then it was Christie, the hurricane, the voting machines, Bill OReilly, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, the tea party, evangelicals, the illegals, the communists, the libertarians, the young voters, the state of Wisconsin, the Bushes, ... the list is still getting longer.
> 
> But what I noticed the most was, once the Mitt staff abandoned the site, a few tiny voices coming through all the hate getting louder, questioning the media, their elected leaders, the monetary system- there was even someone questioning themselves, and whether or not some of the stuff they pulled during the primaries was the right thing to do.  Some of them vow to turn off the TV, and go outside, learn to do things on their land.  Many similarities with some of the things that we talk about over here.  And keep in mind, the hardcore Mittsters have been campaigning since 2007, just like some of the folks in here, and their campaign came to a suudden and unexpected end last night.
> 
> A handful of people who were over there, I had some issues with, because I know they were behind some of the $#@! that got pulled during the conventions, in particular, the fearmongering, and the drowning out of any opinion contrary to the approved opinion.  I did get some satisfaction last night at their expense, and they'll go back to Boston and DC, until 2016 when they sign on with the next neocon.  
> 
> But the rank and file over there, I think some of them are getting good and woke.  Just like some of the folks here now did after voting for McCain.  They'll be along soon.  Some of them wish to rebuild the party and do it right, others will just be looking for someone besides themselves to blame.  For the latter, direct them to the vote flipping thread LOL they will stay down that rabbit hole for months.


I agree. Once again, the election aftermath is a teachable moment, if we can manage not to be $#@!s about it.

----------


## sailingaway

> Just figured it out. If you assume that less than 1% of RP supporters in the primaries voted for Romney, Paul's support would have allowed Romney to carry Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, and New Hampshire. That would have been enough. We did make a difference. And now we have 5 senators to count on (Flake, Cruz, DeMint, Lee, and Rand).


Flake voted to extend the Patriot act and played establishment games once he decided to run for Senate.  He was better than the alternative, but I wouldn't call him someone to count on.  DeMint is a work in progress but I agree he is principled.  Lee can be counted on to be Lee, which is in the top three of the Senate.  Cruz, I'll watch but I won't count on him until he has a record.  Rand is the best we have in the Senate.

----------


## CaptainAmerica

Mitt Romney seized political power at the RNC through his lawyers and I am not the least bit sorry for him or anyone who voted for him.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj



----------


## ninepointfive

> 


I love the internet

----------


## DeMintConservative

> I just hope they give us credit for his loss.


I have talked to and read dozens of republicans about this and I've yet to meet one who mentioned Ron Paul voters (or, for that matter, Gary Johnson). 

I don't think anyone will believe this was a factor - I doubt people will even think about it - except some of you here. 

Reasons:

1 - The numbers don't even come close.  Even a 51%-48% Romney win in the popular vote wouldn't be enough to win the election. The tipping state is Colorado that he'll lost by almost five points. 

2 - There is a huge credibility problem. Romney didn't lose because he ostracised you. Most of you would never vote for Romney - or any other Republican except Ron Paul - regardless of what Romney had done: just read this forum. This is just a pretext. 

3 - This is hugely important: Romney over-performed the "liberty candidates", candidates endorsed by Ron Paul and candidates endorsed by Rand Paul. Bentivolio and Amash. The down ticket candidates in New Hampshire (that were decimated). Those Senate candidates that Ron Paul endorsed like Connie Mack and Denny Rehberg. He did better than Rehberg by 14 points. Better than Flake by 7 points. Better than Mack by 13 points. 

Rand Paul cut robocalls and spent money helping Mourdock and Akin. Romney over-performed them by gigantic margins.  And Kurt Bills lost his race by 35 points - while Romney lost MN by 7 points. You can do the math. 

What people are thinking when they look at the results is that candidates to the right of Romney did even worse. And at least in swing states, they did. Ron Paul endorsements proved to be worth very little - which is not surprising to me as I've been reading this site lately. 

In the end, most hardcore Ron Paul supporters (his soft supporters voted Romney) and Libertarians will never vote for a GOP candidate, regardless of who that is (I'd comfortably include Rand Paul in here). The later are just sectaries - I was just checking results and they run a candidate against Amash who got 3% of the vote!! Not even Amash is good enough for them. That's just the "Chirping Sectary" vote. Most Ron Paul hardcore supporters are a bit like that too or they simply don't have any solid affinity with conservatism in terms of ideology  and happen to support Ron Paul because they like his positions on foreign policy and mistake his position on fiat currency and his attacks on rent-seeking with the typical economic populism. 

So there's basically no reason to go after those voters when not only they'd refuse to reach any type of compromise, it'd imply losing much more voters in the middle. The trade-off just isn't worth it.

----------


## sailingaway

CO was only the tipping point because he lost Florida and Ohio.  Check out the numbers there.

Your bias is to minimize our influence. I really wonder why you come here, to be honest.  I'm not suggesting you be kicked off, it just puzzles me.

----------


## DeMintConservative

> CO was only the tipping point because he lost Florida and Ohio.  Check out the numbers there.
> 
> Your bias is to minimize our influence. I really wonder why you come here, to be honest.  I'm not suggesting you be kicked off, it just puzzles me.


I don't think you understand. CO is the tipping point_ after_ winning FL and OH. Winning FL and OH wouldn't be enough. Plus, do you really want me to believe the same Ron Paul supporters who wouldn't vote a guy personally endorsed and commended by Paul like Mack would actually vote for a moderate pragmatic like Romney if it wasn't for the "ostracized" factor? C'mon. 

I have no idea what do you mean with the 2nd sentence. You have the influence you have. I used facts, not wishful thinking.

----------


## twomp

> I don't think you understand. CO is the tipping point_ after_ winning FL and OH. Winning FL and OH wouldn't be enough. Plus, do you really want me to believe the same Ron Paul supporters who wouldn't vote a guy personally endorsed and commended by Paul like Mack would actually vote for a moderate pragmatic like Romney if it wasn't for the "ostracized" factor? C'mon. 
> 
> I have no idea what do you mean with the 2nd sentence. You have the influence you have. I used facts, not wishful thinking.


You sure about that? You seem to WISH you were an American lololol

----------


## Czolgosz

I love the idea this race was close enough that we may have had a major influence on their loss.  Douchebags.


Just means I'll be rocking my RP2012 sticker for a long time...trolling for anger.

----------


## supermario21

DeMint is wrong on several extents and here is why.

1) The Liberty candidates had stronger Democratic opponents given their district. Would you really expect any Republican to outperform a conservative Democrat in a state like Kentucky? Keep this in mind: Kentucky is a pretty Democratic state. It's just that they don't support liberals. Any blue dog is going to outperform the top of the ticket. Same with Amash. Amash's opponent was a conservative who was trying to play the neocon card by being a supporter of Israel and supposedly more pro-life.

2) Name recognition and campaign strength. Kurt Bills was overmatched by an opponent who had experience, more money, and a better campaign machine. If anything, it's a knock on the Romney campaign that they never did anything for Bills.

----------


## acptulsa

> I don't think you understand. CO is the tipping point_ after_ winning FL and OH. Winning FL and OH wouldn't be enough. Plus, do you really want me to believe the same Ron Paul supporters who wouldn't vote a guy personally endorsed and commended by Paul like Mack would actually vote for a moderate pragmatic like Romney if it wasn't for the "ostracized" factor? C'mon. 
> 
> I have no idea what do you mean with the 2nd sentence. You have the influence you have. I used facts, not wishful thinking.


I have no idea what you meant by the fourth sentence.  It was such a long and run together collection of phrases I'm wondering if you're German.

As for wishful thinking, today DeMint is wishing the Republicans had listened to us so they could have won a few more races.  If you're still interested in his opinions...

----------


## TheGrinch

> This is so true. I have people tell me everyday that they wish Ron Paul would've won because they would've voted for him. Both on the left and right (they didn't vote).


This. Haven't read the rest of the thread, but it's a mistake to just focus on the votes for Johnson, Goode, etc., and write-ins for Dr. Paul. 

I do not beleive at all that they're the only voters that Romney lost and the republican party could have gained by nominating Dr. Paul. There were plenty who assuredly stayed home rather than making a protest vote that wouldn't change the outcome, and most likely plenty who voted for Obama, but would rather not have had it been for a better candidate on either side of the aisle. 

Go out and talk to people and see how sick most are about the hacks the establishment on both aisles push out. People are definitely waking up, and the establishment can only maintain their control for so long... Keep fighting the good fight folks!

----------


## CPUd

> I don't think you understand. CO is the tipping point_ after_ winning FL and OH. Winning FL and OH wouldn't be enough. Plus, do you really want me to believe the same Ron Paul supporters who wouldn't vote a guy personally endorsed and commended by Paul like Mack would actually vote for a moderate pragmatic like Romney if it wasn't for the "ostracized" factor? C'mon. 
> 
> I have no idea what do you mean with the 2nd sentence. You have the influence you have. I used facts, not wishful thinking.


LOL your namesake begs to differ:

----------


## acptulsa

> This. Haven't read the rest of the thread, but it's a mistake to just focus on the votes for Johnson, Goode, etc., and write-ins for Dr. Paul. 
> 
> I do not beleive at all that they're the only voters that Romney lost and the republican party could have gained by nominating Dr. Paul. There were plenty who assuredly stayed home rather than making a protest vote that wouldn't change the outcome, and most likely plenty who voted for Obama, but would rather not have had it been for a better candidate on either side of the aisle. 
> 
> Go out and talk to people and see how sick most are about the hacks the establishment on both aisles push out. People are definitely waking up, and the establishment can only maintain their control for so long... Keep fighting the good fight folks!


Romney didn't lose because he ostracized us.  He lost because he was the same thing as Obama only more frightening.

The G.O.P. couldn't have squeaked this out by nominating Ron Paul.  The G.O.P. could have kicked Obama's dog ass out in a most astoundingly resounding manner by nominating Ron Paul.

Fox wasn't mistaken about who was and who wasn't electable.  They lied outright about it.

And that's the way it is.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> CO was only the tipping point because he lost Florida and Ohio.  Check out the numbers there.
> 
> Your bias is to minimize our influence. *I really wonder why you come here, to be honest.*  I'm not suggesting you be kicked off, it just puzzles me.


You're not alone.  I've wondered that for awhile now.

----------


## DeMintConservative

FYI, DeMint said that almost 1 year ago. I agree with him - I even agree wrt what the important aspects are. But how is that related to the thesis that Romney lost because he that ostracism thing?

----------


## TheGrinch

> FYI, DeMint said that almost 1 year ago. I agree with him - I even agree wrt what the important aspects are. But how is that related to the thesis that Romney lost because he that ostracism thing?


Call it whatever you want, the cheating sealed it. The lack of even pandering to libertarains, conservatives and swing voters only contributed.

----------


## acptulsa

> FYI, DeMint said that almost 1 year ago. I agree with him - I even agree wrt what the important aspects are. But how is that related to the thesis that Romney lost because he that ostracism thing?


What part of 'a house divided against itself cannot stand' do you not understand?

What part of the fastest way to divide an organization is to say the members with principle will be the death of everyone do you not understand?  Especially when the people of principle know that it's a lie.

What part of you only _think_ you're slick enough to come here and make us look like fools do you not understand?

----------


## BSU kid

I feel the liberty movement appeals to all americans of different races and creeds, something the current party knows little about.

----------


## DeMintConservative

> DeMint is wrong on several extents and here is why.
> 
> 1) The Liberty candidates had stronger Democratic opponents given their district. Would you really expect any Republican to outperform a conservative Democrat in a state like Kentucky? Keep this in mind: Kentucky is a pretty Democratic state. It's just that they don't support liberals. Any blue dog is going to outperform the top of the ticket. Same with Amash. Amash's opponent was a conservative who was trying to play the neocon card by being a supporter of Israel and supposedly more pro-life.
> 
> 2) Name recognition and campaign strength. Kurt Bills was overmatched by an opponent who had experience, more money, and a better campaign machine. If anything, it's a knock on the Romney campaign that they never did anything for Bills.


I'm not sure why you mention Kentucky. There was no other statewide race in KY besides Prez. As for the opponent, I'll give you Amash, but most of the others? And your theory falls apart because Romney over-performed those guys even in states Obama won. See Mack, for example. 

Romney barely campaigned in MN, but then again, that stuff is part of a candidacy. If Bills couldn't even fundraise at decent levels... it's another reason for people to completely dismiss the point I replied to.

----------


## samforpaul

> Here is a pretty good read that might help with some examples. 
> http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/glenn-j1.1.1.html



Excellent. Excellent!
Thank you very much!

----------


## DeMintConservative

> What part of 'a house divided against itself cannot stand' do you not understand?
> 
> What part of the fastest way to divide an organization is to say the members with principle will be the death of everyone do you not understand?  Especially when the people of principle know that it's a lie.
> 
> What part of you only _think_ you're slick enough to come here and make us look like fools do you not understand?


I'm not sure why you keep making personal remarks. You know I never engage in that stuff. 

There are lots of factions who believe they're the only principled ones.

Do you think Romney voters would always vote for the GOP candidate? That they're all party loyalists or something? 

How do you explain so many Romney voters didn't vote for Ron Paul/Rand Paul (and, admittedly, DeMint) endorsed candidates?

----------


## acptulsa

> I'm not sure why you mention Kentucky. There was no other statewide race in KY besides Prez....
> 
> ... it's another reason for people to completely dismiss the point I replied to.


Has anyone else noticed that the doubletalk is getting thicker and thicker this morning?

Oh, and you don't have to _give_ us Amash, DeMint.  We earned him.  Despite your gloomy naysaying discouragement a couple of weeks ago.

----------


## Mini-Me

> I have talked to and read dozens of republicans about this and I've yet to meet one who mentioned Ron Paul voters (or, for that matter, Gary Johnson). 
> 
> I don't think anyone will believe this was a factor - I doubt people will even think about it - except some of you here. 
> 
> Reasons:
> 
> 1 - The numbers don't even come close.  Even a 51%-48% Romney win in the popular vote wouldn't be enough to win the election. The tipping state is Colorado that he'll lost by almost five points. 
> 
> 2 - There is a huge credibility problem. Romney didn't lose because he ostracised you. Most of you would never vote for Romney - or any other Republican except Ron Paul - regardless of what Romney had done: just read this forum. This is just a pretext. 
> ...


You're correct that endorsements mean nothing to our voting in most cases (except to draw attention to candidates we might like), no matter who makes them.  However, it's not because we'll only vote for one man.  It's because we judge candidates based on who they are, and we consider endorsements and obedience to be of little to no value in and of themselves.  You're looking at this through conservative blinders without a proper understanding of our diversity:  Do we have people with a more populist economic sense than conservatives in your mold?  Sure...but our core is full of staunch paleoconservatives and hardcore libertarians with a much deeper sense of economics and what a free market means than anyone that today's "conservatives" call conservative.

Did Romney lose Colorado by 5 points?  Sure.  Is that more than Ron Paul primary votes can account for?  Sure.  However, what you're missing regarding your first point is that a truly anti-war, anti-police-state Presidential candidate carries a great deal of crossover appeal to a lot of independents and Democrats who would otherwise vote straight D (as they did in this election).  A lot of vocal liberals hate Ron Paul (etc.) and others wouldn't bother voting for him in a Republican primary (ew, yucky), but candidates with Paul's views resonate a lot more deeply with the younger liberal crowd than candidates with Romney's views.

What you're missing with your second point is that we DO, and WILL, vote for other people like Ron Paul.  We've voted Amash, Bentivolio, Massie, Rand, etc. into Congress and the Senate, many voted for Cruz, we tried for Kurt Bills, and I voted for Gary Johnson last night (along with other candidates for other positions).  You see all the kneejerk reactions to Rand Paul talking like a politician, which hits emotional sore spots after Ron Paul's boldness, but if you really think we're totally unsatisfiable, I think you've misjudged.  There are four years between now and 2016.

We wouldn't have ever voted for Romney, no...and that's why the Republicans truly lost the Presidency not when Romney failed to woo us, but when they nominated him in the first place.  You can blame whatever you want for Romney's failure, but do not overlook the fact that we TOLD you this would happen, and we told you he was unelectable.  A Republican Bush with a different face was unelectable in 2008 and in 2012.  We also wouldn't ever vote for the neoconservative candidates that ordinary Republicans consider "more conservative" than Romney, like Paul Ryan, or Chris Christie, or Marco Rubio.  For those of us who view conservatism positively, they are not conservative to us...and for those of us with different identity politics, they're even more unacceptable.  Even Flake doesn't inspire us, but it's not because we'll never vote for Republicans other than Ron Paul.  It's because we have a different idea of respectable conservatism than people who have been taking their marching orders from Fox News and talk radio.

For most of us, the critical dividing issues between acceptable and unacceptable Republican candidates are generally *foreign policy and the police state* (and we can also tell the difference between a free market candidate and a corporatist candidate who only pays lip service to the ideals of free enterprise).  Foreign policy is a priority to us...and it's obviously a priority to the Republican leadership, considering it's the primary issue they refuse to compromise on (I mean, look at how much the Republicans have been huge spenders).  The reason for this, of course, is because conservatives have unconsciously allowed themselves to absorb the views of Lieberman liberal Rupert Murdoch.  We will never vote for a Republican who supports a neoconservative foreign policy, so no, the Republican Party cannot capture out vote by trying to churn out another neoconservative puppet.  However, they also cannot win the Presidency without us anymore, which will become more true every year as the baby boomers fade and the younger generations rise.  The time for empire is over, which is why the Republican Party cannot win the Presidency anymore until they allow someone to win the nomination who has a different foreign policy.  That's what it comes down to:  It's not about Ron Paul the man.  It's about respect for the Constitution, and not supporting eternal war.  Those are the concessions the Republican Party must make to capture the vast majority of our voting bloc.

On your third point, Congressional races can be different from Presidential races for a number of reasons.  First, the crossover appeal to independents and Democrats is much greater in a Presidential election, due to the President's foreign policy role.  Second, look not only at how much better the well-funded Romney performed than underfunded Congressional liberty candidates, but how much better he performed with the underfunded Congressional neoconservative candidates in similar districts (of course, bias in funding is going to limit your comparison pool).  I don't have the numbers for you, but I can tell you that it would be a much fairer analysis.

*You have to look at the demographics here:*  Neoconservative foreign policy is not the future.  Federal social conservatism and disrespect for civil liberties is not the future.  Today's younger generations are DRASTICALLY divided regarding our economic outlooks, but the Republican Party's most extreme foreign policy and social views totally alienate the vast majority of entire generations.  The current Republican base cannot see this, because they're so homogeneous, being comprised mainly of middle/upper-middle class baby boomers and their families.  They're vehemently defensive of their social traditions, scared of change, and so scared of changes in the world that they overreact to threats (War on Terror)...and it is primarily stubbornness on THESE issues, not on economic issues, that has catalyzed so much attrition to the Democrats.  Of course, Obama's foreign policy isn't really any better than Bush's, but his rhetoric is marginally better, so the gradient is in his favor.

Without a Republican Party that even remotely speaks to younger generations on issues we consider so "obvious," the Democrats have captured our attention to a huge degree and indoctrinated many of us on more complex economic issues...and Obamabots are the result.  The Republican's replacement of actual fiscal conservatism and free market principles with huge spending and corporatism has made this so much easier as well:  America's youth are more keenly aware of our economic decline than older generations on average, and we know it started long before Obama.  Without a champion of true free market values to set us straight, we have learned to associate Republican economic policies with decline, and too many have fallen into the waiting arms of socialism in search of a solution.  Ron Paul has done a LOT to reverse this process, but the longer the Republicans remain obstinate on foreign policy and refuse to hand us the reins, the faster they will fade into complete irrelevance (to the economic doom of us all, I might add).

----------


## TheGrinch

> I'm not sure why you keep making personal remarks. You know I never engage in that stuff. 
> 
> There are lots of factions who believe they're the only principled ones.
> 
> Do you think Romney voters would always vote for the GOP candidate? That they're all party loyalists or something? 
> 
> How do you explain so many Romney voters didn't vote for Ron Paul/Rand Paul (and, admittedly, DeMint) endorsed candidates?


Right you would never infer that people are sore losers.

So how does it feel now that the shoe's on the other foot?

----------


## supermario21

So why is it that the Democrats are better at coalition building than Republicans? They have everyone ranging from anti-tax blue dogs to avowed socialists in their party. Is it as simple as the fact that we're nominating the wrong candidate? Seemed to me Ron was the candidate throughout the primary with the broadest base of support.

----------


## RonPaul25

Romney's loss had nothing to do with us, your delusional if you think it did

----------


## DeMintConservative

> We wouldn't have ever voted for Romney, no...and that's why the Republicans truly lost the Presidency not when Romney failed to woo us, but when they nominated him in the first place.


Well, that was my main point. Thanks, I was starting to feel awkward. 





> ..but it's not because we'll never vote for Republicans other than Ron Paul.  It's because we have a different idea of respectable conservatism than people who have been taking their marching orders from Fox News and talk radio.
> 
> For most of us, the critical dividing issues between acceptable and unacceptable Republican candidates are generally *foreign policy and the police state* (and we can also tell the difference between a free market candidate and a corporatist candidate who only pays lip service to the ideals of free enterprise).  We will never vote for a Republican who supports them...and the Republican Party cannot win the Presidency without us anymore, which is why the Republican Party cannot win the Presidency anymore until they allow someone to win the nomination who has a different foreign policy.  That's what it comes down to:  It's not about Ron Paul the man.  It's about respect for the Constitution, and not supporting eternal war.  Those are the concessions the Republican Party must make for our vote.


I disagree with you there. There are two problems with that:

1 - When W. was running on a humble foreign policy in 2000, there were still plenty of libertarians/paleos who didn't vote for him and actively opposed him. Again, the LP just ran a candidate against Amash claiming he wasn't a true libertarian or something. 

2 - Most importantly, the trade-off isn't worth it for the GOP if you're implying the "purists" need to be satisfied. That platform alienates lots of traditional GOP voters. . Again, would most of those people vote for, say, Flake or Lee? Of course not, it'd be the lesser evil stuff all over again. Did they vote for Connie Mack in FL?

----------


## twomp

> Romney's loss had nothing to do with us, your delusional if you think it did


Says the Romney supporter who signs up on a Ron Paul forum with a RonPaul25 forum name. You really tricked us, we totally believe you are one of us!

----------


## DeMintConservative

> Oh, and you don't have to _give_ us Amash, DeMint.  We earned him.  Despite your gloomy naysaying discouragement a couple of weeks ago.


That's flat out lying and making up stuff. C'mon, you're better than that.

----------


## shane77m

> Haha! LMAO! $#@! Romney! Hey GOP, I thought you didn't need Ron Paul supporters to win?
> 
> This is what happens when you cheat Ron Paul, his supporters and his Primary delegates and try to force us to vote for the Obama clone uber liberal Romney!
> 
> $#@! YOU!


Exactly.

----------


## acptulsa

> I'm not sure why you keep making personal remarks. You know I never engage in that stuff.


Oh, well.  Relieved to hear it.




> Are you guys sure you are Ron Paul supporters?





> What I take from this thread is that you and others must be horrified with Austrian economists and Ron Paul's positions on these issues.





> You probably hate Ron Paul's views on economics, welfare and redistribution of wealth.
> 
> If you, as an Obama booster, want to criticize Romney's policy proposals, that's fine...





> You're a de fact Obama supporter...






> That's flat out lying and making up stuff. C'mon, you're better than that.


Imagined it all, did I?




> Still, it's kind of worrying. Amash should have this wrapped up by now in a district like this.

----------


## CPUd

> Romney's loss had nothing to do with us, your delusional if you think it did


You're probably right. Most of us believe it had to do with the rigged voting machines.  You should check out this thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-vote-flipping

----------


## DeMintConservative

> Oh, well.  Relieved to hear it.


I don't care if  you make that kind of politically related points.

And aren't you more of an economic populist? 




> Yeah I guess this demands some explanation. Basically over the past year I've definitely moved to the left. This means nothing except that my economic views have changed, which I'd be glad to discuss if anyone's interested. The hostile and radically closed-minded attitude that many within the "Liberty movement" take on, while having nothing to do with the reasons for my change of heart, certainly made it easy to walk away once I started questioning. Plus, I'm not the only person I know who has moved to the left after being "awoken" to politics by RP. As nasaal said, if you care about the effectiveness of your movement you ought to be aware of how you approach people who see things differently and what happens in cases like mine. I still respect the hell out of Ron. 
> 
> To dannno and PauliticsPolitics, appreciate your responses!
> 
> To Sola_Fide, no I don't. I don't go on this forum at all actually.


You, in reply:



> That's all fine by me.  Really.  I've said it many times.
> 
> (...)  So, what you want is Ron Paul for president and Jill Stein for governor.  Anything else is a road straight back to ruin--and sooner, not later.

----------


## affa

> I don't think you understand. CO is the tipping point_ after_ winning FL and OH. Winning FL and OH wouldn't be enough. Plus, do you really want me to believe the same Ron Paul supporters who wouldn't vote a guy personally endorsed and commended by Paul like Mack would actually vote for a moderate pragmatic like Romney if it wasn't for the "ostracized" factor? C'mon. 
> 
> I have no idea what do you mean with the 2nd sentence. You have the influence you have. I used facts, not wishful thinking.


You're misunderstanding the point.   We're not saying if he hadn't ostracized us we'd have voted for him.   We're saying if they didn't ram Romney down our throats as a publicly unloved nominee and instead went with the grassroots phenom that is Ron Paul, we'd have had all the party line votes, a big chunk of indies, a small chunk of Democrats, and all of us... and Ron Paul would be president.

There is nothing Romney could have done to get my vote, but there are some on the fence that he certainly ostracized.

But you're here to minimize us, as always, just as SailingAway said.

----------


## Anti Federalist

*GOP in Deep Trouble, Ron Paul Looking Good* 

Posted by Ryan W. McMaken on November 7, 2012 01:35 AM 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/125562.html

Romney lost today to a guy who is overseeing a horrible economy, prosecuting unpopular wars, and who can barely string 5 words together without a teleprompter. This was the best the Republican Party can do. Not only are the Republicans evil, they're evil and contemptible losers, which is far worse.

The biggest losers tonight are of course people who value peace and freedom, but we would have also lost if Romney won. The GOP is right up there in the loser category, however. The GOP lost seats in the Senate, and did little to improve its position in the House. It has served up two ridiculously bad nominees in a row, claiming "electability" and then going down in flames.

Rand Paul certainly came out of this looking very bad as well. He fell in line behind the party masters, banking on some advantage to be gained through an endorsement of Romney. He ended up just looking politically unsavvy and unprincipled. There is little to be gained either, from playing ball with a Party that as inept as the GOP at this point.

It's not beyond the realm of possibility that the GOP may actually show sign of disintegration in the next several years. The GOP has ceased to present any sort of actual alternative, and worse yet, it can't run a winning candidate. Once that happens, the coalition that makes up your political party will begin to fall apart.

The Ron Paul movement is a big winner here. The GOP told the libertarians in the party to get lost, and the GOP paid for it. Interestingly, both Iowa and Nevada, where Ron Paul supporters gained control of the state party, both went to Obama after the Romney campaign actively fought to disenfranchise Ron Paul supporters. I guess the GOP got what it wanted there.

There is exactly one movement that offers any real opposition to the status quo, and it ain't the conservative movement, which is on life support and entering a permanent vegetative state. Ron Paul's libertarian movement, brimming with well-educated young people, is the only thing left standing. The GOP operatives who predicted a big victory tonight just look pathetic.

On foreign policy, if it proves to be true that Obama is truly reluctant to engage in the mass murder of Iranians, that may be a victory there all by itself. Time well tell on that one.

And finally, when the economy enters a deep recession in a couple of years (or sooner), it will be good that Obama will be in office. You all know how it would have gone otherwise: After a couple of years of Romney misrule, the media will decide that Romney was the candidate of "free markets." Then, mired in a depression, our wise overlords will declare that "we tried that free market thing, and look what happened."

----------


## acptulsa

> I don't care if  you make that kind of politically related points.
> 
> And aren't you more of an economic populist? 
> 
> 
> 
> You, in reply:


No, I'm a supporter of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments who knows how to build bipartisan coalitions for liberty.  And I sure don't care if the state next door goes socialist, as it will simply make my own state more competitive.

Now.  Tell me again how you're not bringing this down to a personal level.  I'm just dying to hear it.

----------


## DeMintConservative

> You're misunderstanding the point. We're not saying if he hadn't ostracized us we'd have voted for him.


The thread title is     * Mitt Romney lost because he ostracized us*. 

I don't think I'm misunderstanding anything. 
I have a hard time believing all those people who voted for Romney and then a Dem downticket instead of a Ron Paul endorsed candidate would vote for Ron Paul over Obama. I'm sure you guys can go to those well-known conservative sites (redstate, freerepublic, hotair, etc) and grasp what many think about RP.

----------


## twomp

> The thread title is     * Mitt Romney lost because he ostracized us*. 
> 
> I don't think I'm misunderstanding anything. 
> I have a hard time believing all those people who voted for Romney and then a Dem downticket instead of a Ron Paul endorsed candidate would vote for Ron Paul over Obama. I'm sure you guys can go to those well-known conservative sites (redstate, freerepublic, hotair, etc) and grasp what many think about RP.


LOL you are funny. I hope the GOP listens to your advice and tries to win in 2016 again without us. If you haven't realized it yet, our bloc has all the youth and energy on our side. We have the right (and moral) ideas. We don't need to work with them. THEY need to work with us and until the GOP understands this. They will continue to lose. CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

----------


## acptulsa

> I don't think I'm misunderstanding anything. 
> I have a hard time believing all those people who voted for Romney and then a Dem downticket instead of a Ron Paul endorsed candidate would vote for Ron Paul over Obama. I'm sure you guys can go to those well-known conservative sites (redstate, freerepublic, hotair, etc) and grasp what many think about RP.


I think 'all those people' who voted Romney and a Democrat downticket are mythical.  I know there were polls that proved Ron Paul did better against Obama than Romney did.  And I think we need only look at your posts to realize that some have disdain for Ron Paul--or any other person of character and honesty.




> LOL you are funny. I hope the GOP listens to your advice and tries to win in 2016 again without us. If you haven't realized it yet, our bloc has all the youth and energy on our side. We have the right (and moral) ideas.


And we have the ways to win bipartisan support in favor of liberty that people like DMC prefer to sneer at, but which can and has won elections.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> The thread title is     * Mitt Romney lost because he ostracized us*. 
> 
> I don't think I'm misunderstanding anything. 
> I have a hard time believing all those people who voted for Romney and then a Dem downticket instead of a Ron Paul endorsed candidate would vote for Ron Paul over Obama. I'm sure you guys can go to those well-known conservative sites (redstate, freerepublic, hotair, etc) and grasp what many think about RP.


Who voted for Romney and a Dem downticket? *confused*

----------


## DeMintConservative

> I think 'all those people' who voted Romney and a Democrat downticket are mythical. .


You need to check the results then.

----------


## DeMintConservative

> Who voted for Romney and a Dem downticket? *confused*


Check my first post in this thread. Romney overperformed every single Ron Paul and Rand Paul endorsed candidate for statewide races and most "Liberty Candidates". I left some example with numbers upthread.

----------


## acptulsa

> You need to check the results then.


Oh?  And what 'results' prove that these things were on the same ballot?  Do we have conclusive proof?  Or exit polls?  Do we have specific precincts where Romney results were equal to Democratic votes downticket, and over fifty percent?  Do the totals confirm that everyone who voted in the precinct voted in the presidential election?

And what if some state races did go to yellow dog Democrats?  Or are you unfamiliar with yellow dog Democrats from your insulative position in Europe?

----------


## juliusaugustus

> Now we can finally rise from the ashes, and try to make this party into what it was originally intended. Freedom, fiscal responsibility, civil liberties and non-interventionism.


The party was founded by Lincoln who waged war on his own people, sent opposition writers to prison, suspended habeus corpeus, and built government railroads sounds exactly the opposite of what you are describing.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> The party was founded by Lincoln who waged war on his own people, sent opposition writers to prison, suspended habeus corpeus, and built government railroads sounds exactly the opposite of what you are describing.


This is why I've never understood the meme of "bringing the GOP back to its roots". I know Ron Paul himself has said this, and it may be the only thing he's said that makes me shake my head in disbelief.

----------


## Mini-Me

> Well, that was my main point. Thanks, I was starting to feel awkward. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with you there. There are two problems with that:
> 
> 1 - When W. was running on a humble foreign policy in 2000, there were still plenty of libertarians/paleos who didn't vote for him and actively opposed him. Again, the LP just ran a candidate against Amash claiming he wasn't a true libertarian or something. 
> 
> 2 - Most importantly, the trade-off isn't worth it for the GOP if you're implying the "purists" need to be satisfied. That platform alienates lots of traditional GOP voters. . Again, would most of those people vote for, say, Flake or Lee? Of course not, it'd be the lesser evil stuff all over again. Did they vote for Connie Mack in FL?


I feverishly edited my previous post for about 45 minutes without realizing you responded, and my points about demographics are relevant to our camp's emphasis on foreign policy and such.  I'll restate some of those points and expand on a few in this post.

To start with, old guard Republicans are a mostly homogenous group of middle/upper-middle class baby boomers and their families (with the exception of younger generations lost to attrition), and the Democrats are a mish-mash coalition of interest groups, while our camp is strongly weighted toward younger generations.  It should therefore go without saying that as time goes on, the traditional Republican demographic will continue to shrink, while our camp and the Democrats will both continue to grow.

If you look at the younger generations, you'll see a huge simultaneous increase in both libertarian and liberal views at the expense of neoconservative or even paleoconservative views compared to the baby boomers or even the 40-50-year-old crowd.  Why is this?  It's because the younger generations first and foremost oppose the current Republican Party for their extreme stances on foreign policy, civil liberties (vs. "national security"), and social issues, and we consider these to be "obvious" areas where the Republicans are hugely wrong.  We're largely united on these issues as a generational thing, because younger generations share a different culture with each other than the baby boomers do.  This may not be true of teens in strongly Republican families, but the older they get and the more they're influenced by peers and outside influences, the more it becomes true.  For instance, I do not know a single person between fifteen and thirty-five in real life (not the Internet) who opposes marijuana legalization...and I grew up in an almost homogeneously conservative setting.  While there are far more important issues and almost nobody bases their vote on that, my point is a more general one about a cultural disconnect between young people and the Republican Party.  (Obama is a worse drug warrior than Bush by far, but a lot of things are about image, and the Republicans and Democrats project very different images.  Plus, Republicans are more gung-ho about this kind of stuff on average.)  While young people may be more likely to adopt their parents' foreign policy views than social views, they are still drifting away from the Republicans one-by-one, and pretty much nobody is drifting in the other direction.  Younger generations are strongly rejecting neoconservative foreign policy with increasing frequency, and the gap is widening.  Many of us have seen pointless and endless obscene war and conflict for the entirety of our adult lives, and we're growing increasingly sick and tired of it.

Economic issues are more complex, but we (we as in younger generations) became keenly aware of America's economic decline during the Bush years, and so we associate establishment Republican economic policies with that decline.  Ultimately, this association is largely correct, due to the Republican Party's own corruption and insistence on corporatism and enormous spending...and Republicans are so obviously wrong to us on foreign policy and civil liberties that it's all too easy to simply drift left.  (Side note:  If there's any economic issue that young people overwhelmingly agree on, it's abject disgust with the excesses of copyright and patent law.  Most believe in the concepts in principle, but few to none agree with what the copyright lobby has turned this country into.)  Liberals easily mistake Republican corporatism with capitalism in its entirety, so without someone like Ron Paul to set people straight, this has made entire generations extremely vulnerable to socialist indoctrination.  I mean, if you were a teenager or 20-something trying to reconcile conservative economic views with our economy in 2008, and you considered the Republican Party to be completely bat$#@! crazy on foreign policy and social policy, who would you turn to?  The younger generations were already gravitating left due to a shared disdain for pretty much everything George W. Bush stood for, so with the Democrats presenting the appearance of inclusivity on the issues we consider to be no-brainers, it was all too easy for full-blown leftist views to flourish...hence the rise of the Obamabots.

As time goes on, older generations will die and younger generations will rise to prominence, and so the Republican Party will only find it harder and harder over time to sell a belligerent foreign policy and coercively socially conservative agenda.  They'll just continue to lose voters by attrition until they fade to oblivion.  The Republican Party HAS to change to sell themselves to younger generations, and thus far they've continually drifted left on fiscal conservatism to try to make up for this...but this is the road to economic devastation, and Republicans still aren't making any inroads, because it's their foreign policy, civil liberties, and extreme social views that are more fundamentally at odds with the younger generations.  Now, our camp in particular, the Ron Paul/libertarian/etc. camp, is more accomodating toward non-coercive social conservatism than the liberal youth, and a lot of that has to do with the influence of our older members (not least of which include Ron Paul himself).  Many of us are socially conservative ourselves, except in the sense of forcing it on others.  Ron Paul epitomizes the fusion of social conservatism with social tolerance, and as a voting bloc, we have no problem teaming up with people with socially conservative leanings...but they can't be repressive like Santorum, either.

Just to be clear, I should point out that when I say young people are more socially liberal than old guard Republicans, I am not counting the issue of abortion or asking conservatives to sacrifice that for the sake of appealing to younger generations.  We - not only young people as a generation, but libertarians as well - as just as divided as any generation on that issue.  There will always be room in a major political party for pro-life views, because it involves a debate far more fundamental than arbitrary religious or cultural behavioral standards.  (For instance, I'm religiously agnostic, but I'm strongly pro-life in every case except when the mother's life is in danger.  At the same time, I do differ from a lot of more religious types in the sense that I think pushing for life to be defined by the moment of conception is unnecessarily polarizing, since it's the opposite extreme from, "as long as the head's not out, you can jam scissors into the base of the baby's neck and suck its brains out, and it's not murder."  Defining life as brain waves and a heartbeat would make it a whole lot harder for extreme pro-choicers to argue that chopping a baby into bits or burning it to death with chemicals is morally acceptable.)  In short:  "Pro-life" is not the kind of social conservatism that alienates entire generations...not by a longshot.

My point in all of this is that the youth are the future, and there are things that mainstream Republicans do and stand for that totally alienate them (and us), but those do NOT include fiscal conservatism.  Fiscal conservatism should be the unnegotiable core of the Republican Party, and policies inconsistent with it (like spending more than the rest of the world combined on the military) should be discarded...but Republicans have instead sacrificed all genuine small government ideology for the sake of the neoconservatism and extreme social conservatism that younger generations simply won't abide by.  The youth have drifted left in many ways, but as Ron Paul has shown, today's younger generations are capable of enormous enthusiasm for free market ideals that are far more ideologically consistent and conservative than anything the Republican Party leadership is selling!  We're just not capable of enormous enthusiasm for Santorum, or war, or torture, or a surveillance state, or the eradication of the Bill of Rights.  (The more liberal crowd is fooled enough by Obama's rhetoric to stand for a lot of it under the Democratic banner, but the same goes for conservatives fooled by Romney or Paul Ryan's rhetoric on fiscal conservatism.)  That doesn't mean all young people love fiscal conservatism:  They've indeed drifted left economically, and we have our work cut for us if we're going to reverse that, but the most important thing for Republicans to understand is that the rise of socialist ideology is largely a result of Democrats exploiting their greater appeal other areas.

Back to your points, the shifting demographics mean that our camp is quite a bit more diverse than hardcore libertarians from twelve years ago.  There are a lot more hardcore libertarians today, but there are also a lot more Constitutionalists, who are somewhat less picky regarding conservative candidates.  That said, "liberaltarian" element cannot be ignored either:  Ask yourself, "Why do they like Ron Paul?"  Obviously, they prioritize foreign policy and civil liberties so highly that they're willing to accept and gradually learn to trust an economic program that goes against their instincts.  The "liberaltarians" will vote for someone who supports the free market *if sold correctly*, but they will run like hell from obvious corporate shills...unlike, say, the conservatives in the Republican base, who immediately swallow "lower taxes and less regulation" rhetoric from neoconservatives as sufficiently capitalistic.

For instance, conservatives seem to worship Paul Ryan as this great hope for fiscal conservatism, but all of us in the Ron Paul camp - libertarians, paleocons, Constitutionalists, and liberaltarians - take just one look at his support for the bailouts and immediately think, "What a fraud."  There's no going back from there:  We know he's full of crap, and so there's no way we can support him.  We'd reject him even if he started speaking like Bush did in 2000 on foreign policy, but it's not because we wouldn't support any Republican but Ron Paul, or because we have an unattainable standard for purity.  It's because unlike most conservatives, we demand someone that means what they say about supporting the free market...otherwise, what's the point?  (This goes doubly so for trying to win back the rest of the youth who have been seduced by heavily interventionist or socialist economic thought.)

The problem libertarians had with Bush was they saw through him.  He talked a great game about foreign policy, and I think a lot may have believed him on that point, but his connections to the military-industrial complex and government-bedding energy industry created a huge trust deficit.  His VP choice was Dick Cheney, and he had more neoconservative connections than Rainman could count.  Keep in mind, libertarians are not prone to easily buying politicians' rhetoric about lower taxes and cutting back on regulations, because we've heard it all a million times before:  Usually, if Republican politicians are fighting regulations, they're highly selective and spend the bulk of their efforts fighting the specialized ones that primarily affect their corporate buddies...or they just try to reword them and create special exceptions for them.  Libertarians oppose pretty much all regulations, but we're not going to be impressed if Republicans spend all their time defending Halliburton or Monsanto.  We're mindful of where the efforts are really being spent, and we can tell when the Republicans aren't bothering to fight for all the small businesses that are crushed by red tape, regulations, legal costs of proving compliance, etc., and all the small farms that are being raided and shut down due to big agriculture's influence on food regulations.  When Republican politicians come off as corporate shills rather than genuine defenders of free market capitalism, they're not going to earn the enthusiasm of our camp.

There are varying degrees of libertarian purism, and it's multidimensional as well:  I'm an an-cap on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but I'd vote for Rand Paul in a heartbeat anyway...but Jeff Flake?  Patriot Act...dealbreaker.  Jim DeMint?  Same deal.  I can respect Jim DeMint for being a real human being with a conscience (as opposed to a sociopathic narcissist like most politicians), but he differs from me too much on lynchpin issues to have my support.  Some libertarians are more judgmental, and the "liberaltarian" crowd needs some massaging before they'll support someone who markets themselves primarily as a conservative...but understand that it can be done, as long as the rhetoric comes off as earnest and believable enough instead of a George Bush rehash (which is what Romney, Christie, Rubio, Jeb, Ryan, etc. are like).  In short, yes, I'll agree with you that "just changing foreign policy" isn't enough:  Conservatives need to revise their sales pitch for fiscal conservatism, reducing regulations, etc. into something that sounds earnest...and the closer they come to sounding like Ron Paul, the more people will be receptive to conservative economic policy.

Ron Paul won over so many of us when Bush 2000 couldn't because he is so unmistakably genuine.  You don't have to be Ron Paul to get most of our votes, but an obvious charlatan isn't going to cut it, no matter what he says.  Regardless, our purity tests are neither here nor there:  *You seem to be thinking, "Why on Earth should the Republicans try to appeal to some niche group of extreme libertarians?"  Taking that attitude, it's easy to come up with a hundred excuses why they shouldn't.  What they really need to do is appeal to young people in a genuine non-gimmicky way, and it "just so happens" that libertarianism is where the overlap lies between the younger generations and conservative views.*  What's most important to understand is that we are not some static demographic...we're a growing demographic, but so are young liberals, whereas the old guard is shrinking.  The common thread here is that younger generations absolutely cannot stand Republican foreign policy and civil liberties stances (Obama's hardly better, but he talks a good enough game that liberals are fooled, much like conservatives are fooled by guys like Paul Ryan).  Republicans can win over our camp - *and eventually even liberal youth* - by selling the free market earnestly, but they can't be full of crap...and entire generations won't even start to be receptive until Republicans cave in to an extreme makeover on foreign policy and civil liberties (and their most extreme social views, like federal bans on XYZ, whether it's pot or gay marriage; I mean, that's just senselessly alienating people out of spite).  That is why I place the emphasis on foreign policy (etc.):  It's not only the glue that holds our camp together and makes the more "liberaltarian" elements more receptive to conservative or libertarian economic policies, but it's also one of the biggest reasons people started going Democrat in the first place and accepting their economic indoctrination.  Change in the Republican Party must start here, or its generational deficit will continue to worsen.

You can argue, "Well, in that case, we'll lose the social conservatives and hawks!  They're a larger demographic than libertarians, so what would we do without them?"  To that, I'd say, "How is relying on that voting bloc working out for you?"  Those views may seem popular in your own social circle, and they're hugely popular in the Republican Party due to its relative homogeneity compared to the Democrats...but the old guard is aging fast, and the old guard is dying, and if you want fresh blood, you HAVE to appeal to younger generations.  You can try to do that by drifting left economically and sacrificing small government and fiscal conservatism, sure...but what's the point of Republicans winning elections if the result is crushing poverty?  Currently, that's the direction Fox News is leading you, because Rupert Murdoch is a Lieberman liberal.  So, you can listen to the bought-and-paid for "conservative leaders" and sacrifice fiscal conservatism...or you can listen to us.  If you sacrifice the other superfluous stuff - like everything Santorum stands for, basically - then suddenly you're appealing to younger generations enough to spread fiscal conservatism...and you end up sounding suspiciously like the liberty movement. 

Republicans have to come to us, not the other way around, and if they refuse to change, they'll start losing elections worse and worse as time goes on.  If you're lucky, you'll simply lose minds to our camp, and we'll finally be able to bring true economic sanity someday.  (This is simply not possible with the neoconservative foreign policy, so supporting guys like Romney to "stop the Democrats" is wholly counterproductive to us.  Not only will it not work, but it will further tarnish the name of fiscal conservatism.  This is a huge reason we weren't all tripping over ourselves to support "anybody but Obama.")  If we're all unlucky, you'll lose more and more young minds to the Democrats and worse, and they will be indoctrinated to believe more and more in socialism every day.  The clock is ticking here:  The longer the old guard remains stubborn and refuses to hand over control to younger generations of fiscal conservatives (that would be us) so we can present a credible alternative, the more minds will be lost to leftist ideology in the meantime.

*TL;DR:  To summarize, don't just look at the numbers today, and don't frame the problem in terms of, "What would it even take to please extreme libertarians, and what would it cost?"  Instead, recognize the Republican Party's woes as a generational issue, and the long-term way forward should be clear:  If the Republican Party wants to survive, it MUST start appealing to younger generations, or the party will continue to die a little more every time someone dies or turns 18.*  Since compromising on fiscal conservatism and small government is the road to famines, it's a complete non-starter...what's the point of winning elections if the result is crushing poverty?  You have to pick something else to compromise on and woo people back to fiscal conservatism, or the human race is screwed.  Once you let go of the other stuff - all the stuff Santorum stands for, basically - then you suddenly start sounding like Ron Paul, or Rand Paul, or others associated with the liberty movement.

...wow, okay.  I think I'm done editing now...maybe.

----------


## sailingaway

> This is why I've never understood the meme of "bringing the GOP back to its roots". I know Ron Paul himself has said this, and it may be the only thing he's said that makes me shake my head in disbelief.


If it makes the GOP rank and file realize it shouldn't be taboo to think about becoming what the rhetoric says the GOP is, it's a fine slogan.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> If it makes the GOP rank and file realize it shouldn't be taboo to think about becoming what the rhetoric says the GOP is, it's a fine slogan.


LOL...we should revise it then to say "make the GOP into the party they *think* they are!"

----------


## acptulsa

> LOL...we should revise it then to say "make the GOP into the party they *think* they are!"


It's cute and it's honest, but I don't know if it's a good sell.  Except, perhaps to Blue Republicans.  It's interesting to note that the Republican Party has its roots in abolitionism.  That's hardly a bad thing, after all.

Perhaps what Ron Paul should be saying is we're trying to bring the GOP back to not its roots, but its trunk.  But that doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?  Even so, it's true.  There was a time when the GOP grew quite a bit, and it wasn't recently...




> '[Coolidge] was just the man we needed.  He didn't do nothin' but that's just what we wanted done.'--_Will Rogers_





> "Coolidge is the first president to figure out that what Americans want is to be let alone"  _--Will Rogers 1924_


I think what we're trying to do is drag it, kicking and screaming, back to the wisdom of Silent Cal.  The history books, however, refuse to do him justice.  He's just not proactive enough to suit the average academic 'educated fool'.  Not that this is a bad thing, either.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> ...guys, are you for REAL?  Rand was EXPECTING Romney to lose.  He was HOPING for Romney to lose, and I've been saying this ALL ALONG.  He made his endorsement at a time when Romney looked completely unelectable to almost our entire camp, like there was no chance in hell he could win, with the expectation that Obama would crush him in the debates (which didn't happen, so it was a closer call than he had calculated).  He knew in advance that the vast majority of us would not actually listen to him and vote for Romney, and if we had, the whole thing would have fallen apart.  His words were not meant for us, and they weren't to fool the establishment either (because he never could).  It was for the benefit of the Fox News-watching Republican base.
> 
> In what world would it have been better for Rand if Romney won?  Seriously, think about it.  The way things went, he now looks to be a "team player" to the Republican base, and that will be fresh in their minds for 2016 (in the sense of, Fox has no "traitor" ammo to hit him with), while he has four years to prove himself to us with his voting record...and hopefully, enough people in our camp are smart enough to actually pay attention to that instead of what he's saying to get a broad support base.  Too many people here are being led by their emotions like dogs on a leash.  If Romney had won, Rand's next shot would be 2020 at the earliest, and the "team loyalty" points would have long worn off after a grueling four years (at least) dealing with Romney's *awful* Presidential record.  Consider:  This election cycle, the neocons may have been following Bush's platform, but nobody exactly went out of their way to seek some highly coveted Bush endorsement, and they kind of tried to pretend like he never existed and hadn't already had his chance as President.  They distanced themselves from Bush despite the obvious connections, because it was the only way to sell themselves as a new solution.  If Romney had become President, the same would have happened to him by the time Rand ran.  Rand is not playing checkers.  He's playing chess.  He's not always playing it in a way that sits well with our trust issues, and his choices aren't my favorite for that reason, but he's still a great deal smarter than some of you are giving him credit for.


This.  I don't for the life of me know how this is not obvious.

----------


## anaconda

> This.  I don't for the life of me know how this is not obvious.


It's obvious to me.

----------


## Korey Kaczynski

> Can you imagine if our supporters had voted for Romney in Ohio and Florida...lets just say tonight would be much different.


Partially true, but I think there is a divide between libertarian conservatives and GOP conservatives that needs to be ironed out. Otherwise the leftists will just overtake us and dance in their little gender*****/antiheteronormative/egalitarian fantasy.

Romney was a good candidate: in the four years from 2008 he did learn to respect Ron Paul. I remember him and Giuliani laughing while Ron Paul spoke, but that didn't happen this cycle and in fact Romney (or Paul) invited the other to have dinner together. They're both good people but the conservative movement in america is so $#@!ing lost that we focus on bull$#@! issues while ignoring the important ones, thinking that the psychos are the key to success.

----------


## Korey Kaczynski

> because he CHEATED us.  
> 
> And because he was Mitt Romney.  Seriously, he's like that joke about a shoe made by people who had had a shoe described to them in detail but had never actually seen one.


Doubt it was Romney. More likely, the GOP securing Romney as the nominee.

Who can blame them? The entire field was a joke save Johnson, Paul, and Romney, and the former two weren't proven/too radically ideologic to put themselves behind. Their mistake was discounting their supporters for TWO election cycles. Idiotic.

----------


## twomp

> Partially true, but I think there is a divide between libertarian conservatives and GOP conservatives that needs to be ironed out. Otherwise the leftists will just overtake us and dance in their little gender*****/antiheteronormative/egalitarian fantasy.
> 
> Romney was a good candidate: in the four years from 2008 he did learn to respect Ron Paul. I remember him and Giuliani laughing while Ron Paul spoke, but that didn't happen this cycle and in fact Romney (or Paul) invited the other to have dinner together. They're both good people but the conservative movement in america is so $#@!ing lost that we focus on bull$#@! issues while ignoring the important ones, thinking that the psychos are the key to success.


Yeah, you are right, he TOTALLY respected Ron Paul this cycle. HE cheated our delegates out of their seats and decided that he'd rather have Clint Eastwood speak then let Ron Paul speak....

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Yeah, you are right, he TOTALLY respected Ron Paul this cycle. HE cheated our delegates out of their seats and decided that he'd rather have Clint Eastwood speak then let Ron Paul speak....


This.  I was a delegate to Tampa.  I know better.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Partially true, but I think there is a divide between libertarian conservatives and GOP conservatives that needs to be ironed out. Otherwise the leftists will just overtake us and dance in their little gender*****/antiheteronormative/egalitarian fantasy.
> 
> Romney was a good candidate: in the four years from 2008 he did learn to respect Ron Paul. I remember him and Giuliani laughing while Ron Paul spoke, but that didn't happen this cycle and in fact Romney (or Paul) invited the other to have dinner together. They're both good people but the conservative movement in america is so $#@!ing lost that we focus on bull$#@! issues while ignoring the important ones, thinking that the psychos are the key to success.


Dude, Romney was never a conservative.  Even Krauthammer called him what he really is, last night.  A Massachusetts liberal.  Romney is exactly what his father before him was; a big government Rockefeller-Republican.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> This is why I've never understood the meme of "bringing the GOP back to its roots". I know Ron Paul himself has said this, and it may be the only thing he's said that makes me shake my head in disbelief.


Once upon a time, there was a huge faction in the GOP who believed in limited constitutional government, free markets, individual liberty, a strong national defense (not offense), personal privacy, personal responsibility and states' "rights".

These people are part of the remnant that Ron Paul so often talks about.

----------


## BucksforPaul

> I wrote down the numbers for Romney/RP about an hour ago and I'll start a thread on it I guess.


+rep Thanks

----------


## parocks

> Once upon a time, there was a huge faction in the GOP who believed in limited constitutional government, free markets, individual liberty, a strong national defense (not offense), personal privacy, personal responsibility and states' "rights".
> 
> These people are part of the remnant that Ron Paul so often talks about.


those are the true conservatives

----------


## parocks

> I feel the liberty movement appeals to all americans of different races and creeds, something the current party knows little about.


When the policies of both candidates are basically the same, the only differences are stylistic, and it just appears that Romney appeals to Rich Old White Christians and Obama appeals to other than that.  But they're selling the same thing.  Obama has been in charge of the worst economy since the depression and Romney could barely improve on McCain.  If you look at the number of votes, Romney got fewer of them than McCain did in a lot of places.  People were really not having either one of these guys.

----------


## parocks

> Or really bad for us!!!  The last thing we want to do is take credit for the loss.  We want the GOP to own this baby


We don't want to say "Ron Paul Supporters" did this.  We want to say "Conservatives" did this.  Turnout was down.  Romney did worse than McCain in terms of the number
of votes in many places.  McCain was running against a historic first.  Romney was running against 4 years of the worst economy since the depression.  It should've been
easier for Romney, and he did worse.  Democrats and Republicans and Independents did stay home.   New York Times website has a county by county map where you can compare the number of votes in 2008 and 2012 for the candidates.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/states/maine  - there are also some exit poll year comparisons there.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

Mitt Romney lost because fewer people voted for the Republican, or more precisely, fewer people are voting Republican, period. Perhaps in response to the lack of a true GOP conservative being on the ballot, increasingly over the past few election cycles, conservatives have stayed home.

2004: *62 million* voted for Bush, 59 million voted for Kerry.

2008: 69 million voted for Obama, *59 million* voted for McCain.

2012: 59 million voted for Obama, *57 million* voted for Romney.

If just the missing 2 million from '08 had shown up, the outcome might have been different for Romney. Despite all the get out the vote talk, the growing trend is that Republicans are not coming out to vote for lackluster, establishment moderates. Hmmm, what candidate would have changed this trend?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012...2008-and-2004/

----------


## itshappening

I'm not convinced Ron would have beaten Obama.  The Democrat smear machine would have been out in force over the newsletter's and telling Ohioans they cant have an autio bailout is a tough sell.

Being able to logic bomb Obama in the debates would have been entertaining but the debates rarely swing elections.

People are not ready for Ron Paul yet, he's way before his time.

----------

