A Romney win will be a crippling blow to the liberty movement

[sailingaway]

It's amusing watching the people supporting Romney and the people supporting Obama argue this point.

 

[supermario21]

The only problem is that our electoral system is not designed for a government to make sweeping changes. Unless the stars align like they did in 08 for the Dems, and even then it was a stretch, we're never going to get to that breaking point which ushers in a GOP House, White House, and 60+ Senate, let alone get all of them to agree upon everything we want. As Obama implements more left wing policies in his 2nd term, our powers to undo them in the future will be limited. Heck even Ron talks about preserving social security and medicare, whereas if he were in the debate in the 60s he would have definitely been in favor of never instituting the programs. So even perfect guys like Ron are forced to deviate somewhat from the ideal position of complete abolishment of those programs. Our best chance is to bully the tea party now before they get sucked into the establishment too much. They need a leader and Rand is positioning himself to be one of them. We need to act now before this movement becomes too comfortable in Washington much like the Gingrich Revolution freshmen eventually became.

 

[Number19]

- Reaffirms the GOP establishment's belief that they can win without us.

- Confirms the fact that the Ron Paul vote/wing of the party is insignificant, at least at this stage.

- Guarantees a liberty Republican running for POTUS would have to wait until 2020 - and even then it's likely moderate voters will be looking for "change" once again and would look to the democrats like in 2008.

- The crash will happen under the Romney administration and the free market (and Republicans) will be blamed ushering in grand socialism.

...and it's all seeming like a real possibility Romney will win now. Thoughts?

Why do you think Romney has a chance to win? We still have two weeks, but the popular vote doesn't count. It's the electoral vote which counts. Obama has a pretty solid lead here, counting strong Obama states and leaning Obama states, already has sufficient electoral votes to win . It's going to come down to only three states - maybe four: Ohio, Virginia and Florida. Ohio leans Obama and Virginia/Florida are toss-ups. Romney must win two to have any chance of winning. You also might toss North Carolina, an undecided state, into the mix and of these four, Romney must win three. Also, from what I hear, Gary Johnson is running strong in Virginia - 9% in a few polls. He won't get this in the election, but if he pulls 4-5% he may swing the state to Obama. There is a good chance that Romney could win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote.

Republicans will keep control of the House but the Senate has begun to swing toward the Democrats again. Control of the Senate is what this election is about, for two main reasons : Supreme Court appointments and treaty ratification. From the perspective of the liberty movement, the best outcome would be for Obama to win and for the Senate to swing Republican.

 

[jmdrake]

- Reaffirms the GOP establishment's belief that they can win without us.

- Confirms the fact that the Ron Paul vote/wing of the party is insignificant, at least at this stage.

- Guarantees a liberty Republican running for POTUS would have to wait until 2020 - and even then it's likely moderate voters will be looking for "change" once again and would look to the democrats like in 2008.

- The crash will happen under the Romney administration and the free market (and Republicans) will be blamed ushering in grand socialism.

...and it's all seeming like a real possibility Romney will win now. Thoughts?

Meh. You play the hand you're dealt. We as a movement spend to much time worrying about things we can't control. Will Santorum stay in? In 2008 it was will Huckabee stay in? And consider this concern you listed:

The crash will happen under the Romney administration and the free market (and Republicans) will be blamed ushering in grand socialism.

Well imagine what would have happened if Ron Paul had won? Part of Ron Paul's prescription for fixing our financial woes is to let the correction (crash) happen.

I ain't voting for Romney or Obama so it doesn't matter to me who wins. And my not voting for Romney has nothing to do with what happened at the RNC. His policies suck. So do Obama's.

But here's the bright side of a Romney victory. We quit obsessing over 2016. You hit the nail on the head that a liberty candidate running against a GOP POTUS incumbent is unthinkable and unworkable. So yeah, Rand 2016 would be gone. That would leave more time for him to gain experience. It would also give the grassroots time to get its act together on supporting local candidates, getting our individual fiscal houses in order, and figuring out how to work together for something other than a POTUS campaign without killing each other. And if Obama wins? Everything accelerates towards POTUS 2016. It's simply a matter of playing the hand you get rather than the one you wish you had.

 

[jmdrake]

There is a good chance that Romney could win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote.

I'd LOL if that happened. Then watch liberals who've been hating on the electoral college since 2000 all of a sudden love it.

 

[supermario21]

Republicans will keep control of the House but the Senate has begun to swing toward the Democrats again. Control of the Senate is what this election is about, four two main reasons : Supreme Court appointments and treaty ratification. From the perspective of the liberty movement, the best outcome would be for Obama to win and for the Senate to swing Republican.

We need to prioritize this, but you still have a bunch on here not even willing to throw support behind guys like Mourdock, Flake, Mandel, etc..If anything the Republican pickups are going to be the moderates. Don't know much about Berg and Rehrberg.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

There is no good prospect policy-wise for liberty with either a Romney or a Obama victory, only a tactical one if Obama wins. Tactically, a GOP defeat will discredit (once again) the establishment party leaders' strategy of foisting another moderate loser on the Republican rank and file. At the very least, come 2016, real conservatives will have the fine talking point that, "we bit on McCain, then Romney, they failed, so it's our turn now."

The coming economic collapse, after a Obama victory, will discredit Democrats nationally for years to come. Republicans will sweep to a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in 2014, perhaps even a veto-proof majority. This sets up a victory for a breakthrough liberty candidate in 2016, riding the coat tails of the meltdown, two nationally discredited major parties, and the momentum of a change year.

 

[supermario21]

There is no good prospect policy-wise for liberty with either a Romney or a Obama victory, only a tactical one if Obama wins. Tactically, a GOP defeat will discredit (once again) the establishment party leaders' strategy of foisting another moderate loser on the Republican rank and file. At the very least, come 2016, real conservatives will have the fine talking point that, "we bit on McCain, then Romney, they failed, so it's our turn now."

The coming economic collapse, after a Obama victory, will discredit Democrats nationally for years to come. Republicans will sweep to a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in 2014, perhaps even a veto-proof majority. This sets up a victory for a breakthrough liberty candidate in 2016, riding the coat tails of the meltdown, two nationally discredited major parties, and the momentum of a change year.

You bring up an interesting point about the 2014 Senate map. Just took a look at it and Republicans should have a shot to pick up 10 seats. I would argue that the map is way more favorable than this map was ever pegged to be. Montana, South Dakota, Iowa, WV, Virginia, NC, Ark, La, Colorado, and New Hampshire. Throw in Minnesota (Coleman v Franken II) and New Jersey (Christie) if they get interested as options for 11 and 12.

 

[thequietkid10]

- Reaffirms the GOP establishment's belief that they can win without us.

Well the GOP establishment are idiots anyway besides with the economy the way it is, it would be hard for Romney not to win.

- Confirms the fact that the Ron Paul vote/wing of the party is insignificant, at least at this stage.

We are insignificant, at least the puritans. To borrow a "Pro Wrestling" term, If Gary Johnson breaks 5% this board will mark the fuck out.

- Guarantees a liberty Republican running for POTUS would have to wait until 2020 - and even then it's likely moderate voters will be looking for "change" once again and would look to the democrats like in 2008.

I would love to see a primary challenge from the right when Romney fails to control the budget, and even better, if he fails to bring down unemployment.

- The crash will happen under the Romney administration and the free market (and Republicans) will be blamed ushering in grand socialism.

possible, it might also create a "come to Jesus" moment for the right

...and it's all seeming like a real possibility Romney will win now. Thoughts?

I suppose your being the pessimist, I"m being the optimist.

 

[Keith and stuff]

- Reaffirms the GOP establishment's belief that they can win without us.

Not in New Hampshire. The national GOP establishment is trying somewhat to encourage liberty voters to support Romney. Here is the blog post about it. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry....-for-Romney-or-himself-in-New-Hampshire-Video

I'm not saying that I'm voting for Romney, I'm not. However, if Romney wins NH, the GOP establishment will think that Romney won NH partly because of liberty people voting for him. Whether that will actually be the case or not, I don't know as I may only speak on how I'm voting.

 

[thoughtomator]

The only problem is that our electoral system is not designed for a government to make sweeping changes. Unless the stars align like they did in 08 for the Dems, and even then it was a stretch, we're never going to get to that breaking point which ushers in a GOP House, White House, and 60+ Senate, let alone get all of them to agree upon everything we want.

This happened for the GOP in 2000; it's more common than you might expect. And 60 in the Senate is not necessary either, 51 or 50+VP will do. They just need to have the courage of their convictions on day 1 of the new session and not allow the filibuster for the session.

I expect that the first indicators will come in the House, that's how it went during the last Republican Revolution - if not for the historic betrayals of Newt Gingrich, much of what we want to get done now could have been done then. The House with its 2 year terms is specifically designed to be closest to the people. I had some hope that 2010 was the start of a new Republican Revolution, but it petered out when so many "Tea Party" candidates became business-as-usual officeholders. 2014 is a better bet, if we still have an electoral system, as the big shocks are going to hit between this election and then.

The electoral goal, IMO, should be to obtain a solid House majority of reps willing to impeach anyone and everyone who doesn't obey the Constitution, whether that be a President or all the Supreme Court justices (or lesser judges). The core problems with the structure of law these days are not things that can be fixed legislatively, there are core principles (e.g. the Bill of Rights) that need to be reaffirmed. The interesting thing when you study the details of our system of checks and balances is that Congress really holds all the cards if it has a majority with courage. The other branches only seem more powerful because we haven't had that in such a long time. A historic economic shock, as I expect to come within the next year or two, is the kind of event which could produce such a Congress.

 

[McChronagle]

doubt it. a gop sitting on the sidelines can throw all the blame on the dems. putting the gop in the spotlight puts the pressure on them and if anything will only prove further how inept and destructive they are, especially if a financial collapse occurs under their watch.

 

[thequietkid10]

I'm sorry, this whole "If Romney looses it will discredit the establishment" is bunk. The GOP put up JOHN FRIGGEN MCCAIN in 2008 and lost. They put up Bob Dole in 1996. How many more moderates have to loose before the establishment changes it's mind? Besides if you ever got the Kingmakers to move from the McCain/Romney/Dole types to something else, they would most likely put up a Huckabee or Santorum. At this point your best bet would be that the evangelical get's beat even worse. Of course the problem with that is, is that if the GOP's current infatuation with Romney and McCain are any indication, it will take another two decades for them to move on from the evangelical candidate.


Our best bet (IMO) is to get President Romney to piss off the tea party with inadequate cuts to government and then offer our candidates as a solution

 

[Origanalist]

I'm sorry, this whole "If Romney looses it will discredit the establishment" is bunk. The GOP put up JOHN FRIGGEN MCCAIN in 2008 and lost. They put up Bob Dole in 1996. How many more moderates have to loose before the establishment changes it's mind? Besides if you ever got the Kingmakers to move from the McCain/Romney/Dole types to something else, they would most likely put up a Huckabee or Santorum. At this point your best bet would be that the evangelical get's beat even worse. Of course the problem with that is, is that if the GOP's current infatuation with Romney and McCain are any indication, it will take another two decades for them to move on from the evangelical candidate.


Our best bet (IMO) is to get President Romney to piss off the tea party with inadequate cuts to government and then offer our candidates as a solution

Just playing devils advocate here, But what did 8 years of GW do?

 

[thoughtomator]

Just playing devils advocate here, But what did 8 years of GW do?

made a fuck ton of money for the creeps who bought our political system

 

[Origanalist]

made a fuck ton of money for the creeps who bought our political system

While the GOP faithfull went along to get along.

 

[scrosnoe]

Maybe Rand Paul has more sway than some here give him/us GOP liberty minded types credit for...

 

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

Why do you think Romney has a chance to win? We still have two weeks, but the popular vote doesn't count. It's the electoral vote which counts. Obama has a pretty solid lead here, counting strong Obama states and leaning Obama states, already has sufficient electoral votes to win . It's going to come down to only three states - maybe four: Ohio, Virginia and Florida. Ohio leans Obama and Virginia/Florida are toss-ups. Romney must win two to have any chance of winning. You also might toss North Carolina, an undecided state, into the mix and of these four, Romney must win three. Also, from what I hear, Gary Johnson is running strong in Virginia - 9% in a few polls. He won't get this in the election, but if he pulls 4-5% he may swing the state to Obama. There is a good chance that Romney could win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote.

Pretty much what I was going to post. Fox talking heads are saying Romney's strategy hinges on winning Ohio, and he's still behind in the polls there. I don't see last night's debate helping his cause. He came off as weak and too similar to Obama on foreign policy. I think Obama squeaks it out in OH. *crosses fingers*

 

[supermario21]

I think we play a dangerous game just running around saying we anticipate a great economic collapse within the next year or two. Yes, it may be correct, and Ron has always been correct in predicting various bubbles bursting, but we should probably moderate our message just a tad to appeal to the masses we will need. We just need to run on a message of warning and true leadership, rather than running around saying "I expect a collapse." In essence it's the same thing but we cannot afford the outside media to label us as extremists early in the game. I also feel that a Romney win in NH would be credited to liberty activists. Because of Romney's pragmatism I honestly think that he would be more open to the tent of the party (us) than someone like McCain would have been.

 

[Ivash]

then the GOP will keep losing.

You don't really win points by implying we are all fringe freaks.

Just sayin'.....

That is... unlikely. If Obama is reelected, the Republicans will win in 2016 unless the economy significantly improves. Given the instability in the world that type of improvement is unlikely. Even if it were to improve Republicans would have the upper hand.