From DP: The Ron Paul Factor (vote tallies)

[squarepusher]

Ron Paul would have had a higher independent vote

 

[jmdrake]

I didn't look specifically for gJ at all, which is the point.

Right. And assuming that there were enough "Ron Paul" votes out there to swing the election to Obama, if those votes had gone to Gary Johnson and/or some other 3rd party candidate it would be front page news. And that is the point. You put your eggs in a basket that wouldn't be counted and now your excuse is "Well the other basket didn't get notice either because there weren't a lot of eggs in it."

But GJ didn't excite people to support him and some absolutely didn't want to support him. I don't get being pissed at someone for voting for the person they actually want.

I'm not "pissed" at people for not voting for Gary Johnson. I didn't vote for Gary Johnson. Nor am I "pissed" at those who stayed home or wrote in Ron Paul. What I'm saying, and you are dodging, is that you pushed a strategy that I and others told you early on wouldn't have the desired results of actually letting anyone other than us know that we made a difference in the election. Fine. You can choose whatever strategy you want. The problem is, some people were misled into thinking their "write in Ron Paul" actually meant something. This from another thread.

Candidate Party % Popular Vote Popular Vote Electoral Vote
Winner B. Obama (i) Dem 62.7% 3,860,144 29
M. Romney GOP 35.9% 2,210,485 0
G. Johnson Lib 0.7% 42,100 0
J. Stein Grn 0.6% 35,342 0
V. Goode CST 0.1% 6,321 0
P. Lindsay PSL 0.0% 2,107 0

what the fuck I don't see any write in counts for Ron Paul how do they factor that in??? that is for New York which is where I live....... so basically my vote didn't count at all?

^See? He thought he'd get a mention on election night. He didn't.

Now here's your bigger problem. (And yes it's a problem). Having pushed a strategy with a result that on the day after the election the liberty movement gets no real mention as to affecting the election, how do you propose to change that? What active steps are you proposing to take to "get the word out" about the Ron Paul undervote? You've basically ignored my question on that. Crossposting from DP to RPF doesn't cut it. Did you not think that part through? Are you going to call into talk radio? Write letters to the editor? Take out ads in the NY Times saying "This is the effect Ron Paul voters had on the election? Or is this something just for us to sit around and feel smug about? Like I said (and I will keep saying until you acknowledge the truth of this) if the Ron Paul voters had voted for a recognizable (as in "on the ballot") third party candidate, and if there were actually enough of us to swing the election, that would be front page news. The media wouldn't be covering it up. They couldn't cover it up. We complain about "media blackouts". Well this time we created our own media blackout. In 2008 Ron Paul suggested that we vote for whatever 3rd party candidate we choose to avoid this same problem. And even then there were those who insisted on writing in Ron Paul. If that makes you feel good, fine. But what's your plan for capitalizing on your "success"?

 

[Qdog]

^^^^^^This^^^^^ +rep X1000

 

[sailingaway]

I disagree. I think it would be just like now.

Neither of us can prove it, but my vote was still my vote and I voted for the candidate I want, which is how I always want to vote.

 

[jmdrake]

I disagree. I think it would be just like now.

Neither of us can prove it, but my vote was still my vote and I voted for the candidate I want, which is how I always want to vote.

I can prove my position by looking at what happened in the past when 3rd party candidates actually cost one party or the other the election. I can also prove my point by looking at this election cycle where months, weeks and days before the election there were MSM articles pointing to the fact that the GOP was concerned that Goode and/or Johnson might cost Romney the election. If it turned out that they did cost Romney the election, that would have been front page news no doubt about it. That said, you voted for the candidate you wanted. You're happy with the results. You have yet to articulate a strategy for broadcasting those results.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

Johnson got 1%, the only results for Goode I saw were 3.something - pretty good, but it was his home state. I think I heard of results other than that at 1%. I never saw result numbers for Steins.

Lets punt and say at least 3% for GJ/Goode/Steins. I saw a lot of O/R results and the numbers never added up to 100% so the gap is "voted for someone else". One comes to mind that had a 7% spread. So lets say 3-7% and that's a lot of extra third party votes, write ins for RP or votes for Micky Mouse (Though I bet a lot wrote in Big Bird this year...)

Then there were a bunch of ppl that stayed home or held their noses and voted for Obomney. How many would be interesting to know. How much does it cost to do a respectable poll? Something the papers would publish? Or seed the papers with stories via friendly reporters wondering which way the election would have gone if they had the option of voting for RP? 3-way race, RP/O, RP/R... Maybe a polling company would pick it up if the story took off.

Does anyone have a link for the second third party debates? I missed it.

Dr Paul was encouraging us to form coalitions. Thinking of all the major third parties out there, we all have things in common. We could focus on those and agree to disagree on the things we don't agree on. Imagine something like a RP/Nader (He'd probably wnat CPSC) or Kucinch (He'd want the Dept of Peace) or Grayson?(Pentagon papers/congress/frmr prez candidate). The Green party has hit critical mass where they automatically get on ballots, but it's a holding pattern. They allways run candidates but don't campaign. Just accept TV spots, when invited and try and stay in the news. I imagine the Greens would want the EPA, DLM and the forest service at a minimum. (but put them on a leash!) lol! Run it under the LP, so they hit critical mass and get on the ballot every year. Etc.

Yes, purists! - I hear you scream. The point here is to establish a larger third party that seems viable to the public and can, when needed vote as a block. This would go a long way. If we are going to actually "win", it's going to take decades and be accomplished a step at a time.

I have to kind of wonder if Dr. Paul might have done better if he switched to the Dem party...

thoughts?

-t

 

[AdamL]

I have to kind of wonder if Dr. Paul might have done better if he switched to the Dem party...

How would Ron Paul have done better in a party that vehemently opposes nearly everything he stands for? He wouldn't even manage to get 1% of the vote in a Democratic primary...

 

[sailingaway]

I can prove my position by looking at what happened in the past when 3rd party candidates actually cost one party or the other the election. I can also prove my point by looking at this election cycle where months, weeks and days before the election there were MSM articles pointing to the fact that the GOP was concerned that Goode and/or Johnson might cost Romney the election. If it turned out that they did cost Romney the election, that would have been front page news no doubt about it. That said, you voted for the candidate you wanted. You're happy with the results. You have yet to articulate a strategy for broadcasting those results.

Broadcasting them was always a bigger deal to you than me. I said if the numbers were large we could. that was YOUR reason why I should vote.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

How would Ron Paul have done better in a party that vehemently opposes nearly everything he stands for? He wouldn't even manage to get 1% of the vote in a Democratic primary...

A lot of Dems/Progressives like Dr. Paul. End the wars, Fed gvmt off our backs, legalize pot, etc. He's been on the cover of "High Times" and The Rolling Stone". What the hell do you think Dr. Paul stands for?

-t

 

[eleganz]

this is not convincing enough, somehow tying in the fact that we controlled the nevada and iowa state gop apparatus and forced those two states to suffer major losses would be convincing with the above.

i don't think the virginia argument would be good enough since it was only ron on the ballot

 

[erowe1]

Big assumption there. I'm not sure why so many who are NOBP think that most of those who voted for Paul in the primaries were also NOBP.

You're completely right to question that assumption.

 

[erowe1]

Now here's your bigger problem. (And yes it's a problem). Having pushed a strategy with a result that on the day after the election the liberty movement gets no real mention as to affecting the election, how do you propose to change that?

I propose that we not worry about getting mentioned as to affecting general elections and instead worry about making an impact in the primaries.

 

[coaster]

While it doesn't change the point, I just want to point something out here.

The 303 - 206 electoral score is short of the total (538) by 29 because most sources are still considering Florida too-close-to-call. So we're taking 29 points away from Obama and Giving it to Romney even though he doesn't have them in the first place. With Florida, it should be 332 - 206; trade 64 and we have O 268 - R 270.

 

[AdamL]

A lot of Dems/Progressives like Dr. Paul. End the wars, Fed gvmt off our backs, legalize pot, etc. He's been on the cover of "High Times" and The Rolling Stone". What the hell do you think Dr. Paul stands for?

The lefties that liked Ron Paul in the primaries were just useful idiots for the most part. If he had won the Republican nomination, just imagine the kinds of talking points we would have heard from the left during the general election:

- Ron Paul would repeal the Civil Rights Act and bring back segregation!
- Ron Paul would have let Hitler kill all the Jews and take over the world!
- Ron Paul would have allowed the southern states to have slavery!
- Ron Paul would let hospitals turn people away to die in the streets!
- Ron Paul would legalize hard drugs like heroin and let our children have them!
- Ron Paul would close down all of our schools!
- Ron Paul would get rid of all airport security and let the terrorist hijack our airplanes!
- etc.

Almost all of them would have realized that they love Big Brother and gone running back to Obama...

 

[angelatc]

Send it to Ben Swann if you want other people to see it.

 

[jmdrake]

Broadcasting them was always a bigger deal to you than me. I said if the numbers were large we could. that was YOUR reason why I should vote.

Let's see. So you really didn't care about the numbers then. What was the point of the whole "we can count the undervote" thing you were pushing then? If it's just about "I want to write in Ron Paul" fine. But to try to claim, as you did prior to the election, that you could get the same effect based on the "undervote" is...well not fully forthcoming in my opinion.

 

[angelatc]

The lefties that liked Ron Paul in the primaries were just useful idiots for the most part. If he had won the Republican nomination, just imagine the kinds of talking points we would have heard from the left during the general election:

- Ron Paul would repeal the Civil Rights Act and bring back segregation!
- Ron Paul would have let Hitler kill all the Jews and take over the world!
- Ron Paul would have allowed the southern states to have slavery!
- Ron Paul would let hospitals turn people away to die in the streets!
- Ron Paul would legalize hard drugs like heroin and let our children have them!
- Ron Paul would close down all of our schools!
- Ron Paul would get rid of all airport security and let the terrorist hijack our airplanes!
- etc.

Almost all of them would have realized that they love Big Brother and gone running back to Obama...

Is that Michael Cole? I had a crush on him as a young girl, but haven't thought about him since I discovered rock and roll...and stuff that goes along with them.

You're exactly right. They sell out everything for a monthly check.

 

[CPUd]

We also have to get the number of total ballots cast. Those may take a few weeks, and will have to be pulled from multiple sources. There were a lot of reports of "high turnout" supposed to be voting for Mitt that didn't deliver, although, those may be wishful thinking trying to figure out how Mitt didn't win. There could be write ins (or left blank) that were not officially tallied, where the ballots had votes in other races. Right now, the only numbers that are out are the people who did vote for President.

 

[jmdrake]

I propose that we not worry about getting mentioned as to affecting general elections and instead worry about making an impact in the primaries.

And if that's your position, fine. But some people were led to believe that they could "write in Ron Paul" and somehow their vote would be counted in a meaningful way. I'm sad to learn that the main person pushing that idea didn't really care.

 

[jmdrake]

We also have to get the number of total ballots cast. Those may take a few weeks, and will have to be pulled from multiple sources. There were a lot of reports of "high turnout" supposed to be voting for Mitt that didn't deliver, although, those may be wishful thinking trying to figure out how Mitt didn't win. There could be write ins (or left blank) that were not officially tallied, where the ballots had votes in other races. Right now, the only numbers that are out are the people who did vote for President.

That's the idea SA was pushing. For what reason....I know longer no. I guess it's all about feeling smug at RPF and DP.