My Response to Ron Paul being blamed for Mitt's loss.....

[CaptUSA]

+rep.

Pay attention folks. This is how you explain things to republicans. You don't insult. You don't call them idiots. You explain the appeal of Ron Paul's ideas across the spectrum.

FWIW, I probably fit into the libertarian or independent group, but I wrote in Ron Paul.

 

[acptulsa]

Not a bad start.

Based on your explanations, I would say it's more like:
5% General Republicans
15% Disenfranchised Republicans
15% Disenfranchised Democrats
20% Libertarians
15% Independents
30% Once Apathetic who gave up on voting period, before Ron Paul.


But based on my own view:
30% Who sought after the Peace Message
30% Who sought onto the Freedom message
30% Who were both
10% who panicked and voted for the status quo anyways.

Maybe. But I gave him a +rep anyway. Who cares what the percentages were, or how you can divide us up more? He was offering an explanation, and he did it tactfully and well.

This wasn't about details. This was about teaching rank and file Republicans how to grow their dying party.

If this can be improved, more accurate demographics isn't the key. They key is mentioning integrity. That's why many who Ron Paul brought into the party didn't stick around for the general; integrity is why the GOP is shrinking like the dollar.

 

[belian78]

But conservatives are not for Ron Paul and his ideas.How does that help the cause of liberty?Conservatives that I know are no more liberty minded then liberals.

Then those are not truely conservative people, end of story. A true conservative is almost at the point of hyperventilation just thinking about the amount of money and liberties this country is losing at it seems, and hourly rate anymore.

 

[Lord Xar]

But conservatives are not for Ron Paul and his ideas.How does that help the cause of liberty?Conservatives that I know are no more liberty minded then liberals.

He was talking a true conservative, I believe, not what the establishment / media deems conservative nowadays.. ala, endless wars, big government, bailouts, empire building and be anti-"Something" in social realm.

Ron Paul is a real conservative, which is really just an extension of libertarianism.. I believe.. perhaps someone can be succinct in an explaination of real conservative vs. todays watered-down establishment listing of one.

 

[TomtheTinker]

my response

We told you..NOBP[SPECIAL][/SPECIAL]

 

[sailingaway]

I think I'll put this on the front page.

 

[Todd]

I think some are missing another perspective floating around in the last days as to the reason Romney lost. There's a large segment of the population who are concluding that Socialism has it's heels firmly dug in and that conservatives can no longer compete with the tens of millions who are now on the dole and vote for more welfare

At least that's what I'm hearing on other message boards.

 

[sailingaway]

I think some are missing another perspective floating around in the last days as to the reason Romney lost. There's a large segment of the population who are concluding that Socialism has it's heels firmly dug in and that conservatives can no longer compete with the tens of millions who are now on the dole and vote for more welfare

At least that's what I'm hearing on other message boards.

and Ron says that to some extent. However, that ignores how attractive liberty is if there is someone who truly understands it and explains it as Ron does. Media should have been TRUMPETING Ron's message, not burying it, in order to protect thier own private property interests. After all, they have more than we do. But wanting to control ours too, through raiding taxation and barrier to entry regulation, was like the monkey grabbing so many bananas he can't get his hand out of the jar, and refusing to let any go.

 

[cajuncocoa]

and Ron says that to some extent. However, that ignores how attractive liberty is if there is someone who truly understands it and explains it as Ron does. Media should have been TRUMPETING Ron's message, not burying it, in order to protect thier own private property interests. After all, they have more than we do.

Mainstream media depend on advertising revenue. Advertisers look for the media outlets that can deliver more viewers (or readers, listeners). If there are more people who are on the dole and looking for more welfare (and I believe there are) those are the people the mainstream media are going to play their message to. It's just basic math.

 

[thoughtomator]

I think some are missing another perspective floating around in the last days as to the reason Romney lost. There's a large segment of the population who are concluding that Socialism has it's heels firmly dug in and that conservatives can no longer compete with the tens of millions who are now on the dole and vote for more welfare

At least that's what I'm hearing on other message boards.

I would say the fact that Romney offered no alternative at all played no small part in the decision of that segment to stay home, or even vote Obama - the "get it over with" crowd.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I would say the fact that Romney offered no alternative at all played no small part in the decision of that segment to stay home, or even vote Obama - the "get it over with" crowd.

That's true too. The Left and the media continued to hammer Romney for his wealth and instead of coming out and saying "yeah, I'm wealthy; I worked for it and I'm going to stand for others who do too" he seemed to cower in the face of their criticism. He did nothing to offer an alternative to the class warfare Obama was pitching.

 

[american.swan]

I don't think anyone has any hard evidence Paul support caused Romney to lose. But if by some chance it is true, haha screw you.

 

[sailingaway]

I don't think anyone has any hard evidence Paul support caused Romney to lose. But if by some chance it is true, haha screw you.

It's never hard evidence, it can't be, as a practical matter. There is a good case for it, though. And particularly if you add in the other grass roots with their own anti-Romney principles, which people absolutely made clear in the primaries, I think it is hard to argue against.

 

[Athan]

That is actually pretty accurate OP. Good job!

 

[seraphson]

I love how they bitch and piss when you don't vote and when you do vote and it isn't for their guy it's a "waste". It's self entitled narcissism at it's finest. They don't want to just have their cake and eat it. They want the whole damn bakery shop.

Also, in regards to "blame". My response:

 

[klamath]

Tactful response though I disagree with the Percentages. GJ got about 120% more votes than almost all the libertarian candidates except Ed Clark. Those extra votes weren't libertarian votes they were RP disinfranchised voters. I voted and my brother voted for GJ but not because of GJ but because GJs extra votes would tell republican leaders exactly where our votes went. I am very unlikely to vote libertarian again unless they truely do have a good candidate and the Republican sucks.
I also agree that the politics of the convention did very little to drive people away from voting for Romney. They weren't going to vote for him no matter what but that gave them a nice excuse.
It boils down to this.
Romney was for bailouts. (Killed him with free Enterprise republicans)
Romney painted himself as more prowar than obama. (killed him with independents)
Romney invented the mandate. (Killed him with democrats, independents & true conservatives)

Republicans voted for Romney because they were told by the polls he could beat Obama. Anybody but obama was not a winning strategy. In the primaries Reagan was NOT by the polls the leading candidate against Carter and many estabishment Republicans were screaming we were throwing the election because we nominated Reagan.
What happens in the fall is an entirely different from what is being read from the primary time polls.

 

[Michael Landon]

The percentages I used were a rough estimate and were not meant to be highly accurate, I didn't want to overload his brain with a more concise breakdown of the demographics of Ron Paul supporters. The percentages were a minor part of my reply and the primary focus should be that we, as Ron Paul supporters, don't fit into one specific category of voter but rather a multitude of categories. When I stated 25% for Democrats, I lumped of them together instead of breaking it down to 15% that went back to voting for Obama, 5% that wrote in Ron Paul and 4% that voted for Jill Stein and 1% that voted for Rocky Anderson. If I had done that with each of the four categories, I would have lost him, so I simplified it. Please don't read too much into the percentages I gave.

Thanks for all the +reps, by the way.

- ML

 

[truthspeaker]

You missed the fiscal conservatives. I'm assuming I'm not the only one.

Hear, hear! Ron Paul rallied the fiscal conservative wing of the GOP.