The Elephant in the Room: Romney is losing to his 2008 self.

[affa]

After Iowa 2012, I wrote a little essay called
The 30k ceiling; Or, Mitt's dirty little secret
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?346760-The-30k-ceiling-Or-Mitt-s-dirty-little-secret

in which I discussed Mitt actually losing 6 votes from 2008 to 2012, winning with 30,015 votes. Then the GOP did a recount, and now his 'official total' is only 29,805... somehow Romney managed to lose another 210 votes.

Interestingly, despite this primary being far more 'exciting' to journalists this time around, and voter turnout generally being up, Iowa has proven to be the norm for Romney.

He's lost votes in 6 of the 9 states so far, sometimes by a considerable amount. In both Missouri and Minnesota, for example, Romney lost OVER 60% of his base!

Ron Paul? He's increased in all 9 states, though in a couple it was negligible. Oddly, his smallest gain (1.5%) was in Nevada, which was considered to be one of his strongholds. Of course, that was also the scene of the most blatantly disastrous vote counting incident of an election cycle full of them. But his biggest gains? He's doubled, tripled, and even almost quadrupled his votes in some states.

For example? In New Hampshire, he jumped from 18,308 votes to a whopping 56,848 to take second place.

So, with that, I present to you the three stories the mainstream media is avoiding like the plague, because it destroys their narrative:

1) Romney can't even beat his 2008 self. He's losing voters, and the fact that he can't energize the GOP Base means he's dead in the water should he get the nomination. How is a man that can't turn out the same numbers he did in a primary he lost to McCain possibly going to beat Obama? Answer: He can't, and he won't, should he be nominee.

2) Ron Paul, recognized even by antagonistic media as having a 'passionate' base, is seeing an explosion in support... despite a concentrated effort to at times ignore him, at times marginalize him, and at times smear him. This is the kind of Rocky Balboa story that, if only the media embraced him like it does his opponents, would see his support hit the stratosphere. Instead? They ask him if he's going to run third party. Over. And Over. And over.

Ron Paul brings the youth and independent vote into the GOP fold.

Romney? Loses establishment votes from 2008.

Oh, and that 3rd story? Rachael Maddow covered it briefly. Ron Paul's got the delegates.

If we allow this nomination to go to Romney, they will be handing 2012 to Obama.

This is a rEVOLution, people. If you're bummed about losing by 200 votes in Maine, be it a legitimate loss or Establishment shenanigans (we're looking at you, Washington County GOP), then you're not paying attention. We doubled our votes, gaining almost 1000 new ones... and just missed first. Romney? Yea, he's down 650 from 2008.

We're winning. Stop yer bellyaching. Nobody said this was going to be easy. Nobody thought the Establishment would play fair. Nobody expected the media to cover Ron without bias.

Nobody expects us to win.

But they have another thing coming, because we ARE going to win. And the Establishment is pissing its collective pants, because they see the same numbers we do. Heck... they probably see even better numbers for Paul (cough cough).

Also of note? Ron Paul took 36% of the vote in Maine. So much for your ceilings, talking heads.

NUMBER CRUNCHING

2008 / 2012 / Percent Gain or Loss

Maine
Ron Paul 1002 1996 99.20%
Romney 2837 2190 -22.81%

New Hampshire
Ron Paul 18308 56848 210.51%
Romney 75546 97532 29.10%

Missouri
Ron Paul 26464 30641 15.78%
Romney 172329 63826 -62.96%

Iowa
Ron Paul 11841 26036 119.88%
Romney 30021 29805 -0.72%

Colorado
Ron Paul 4670 7759 66.15%
Romney 33288 23012 -30.87%

Nevada
Ron Paul 6084 6175 1.50%
Romney 22646 16486 -27.20%

Minnesota
Ron Paul 9856 13228 34.21%
Romney 25990 8222 -68.36%

Florida
Ron Paul 62887 117104 86.21%
Romney 604932 775014 28.12%

South Carolina
Ron Paul 16154 77993 382.81%
Romney 68142 167279 145.49%

 

[ericthethe]

Nice post.

If only the majority of people could see this. The "Romney is losing to his 2008 self" line is awesome, though. Spread that far and wide.

 

[cindy25]

just wondering if the real candidate of the elites is not Romney, but Jeb or Christie.

and Romney just another fall guy

 

[Mark37snj]

Well Jon Stewart did say that 2012 Mitt Romney's biggest ideological opponet is Mitt Romney from 2008.

 

[affa]

just wondering if the real candidate of the elites is not Romney, but Jeb or Christie.

and Romney just another fall guy

It's certainly odd that the Establishment seems as interested in a brokered convention as we are. They knew 4 years ago that was our plan, and rather than avoid it, they're taking aim too. I don't think it's Jeb Bush... too much baggage. But Christie, Mitch Daniels, or Paul Ryan? Yea, I could see that. Or, possibly, Gingrich and Santorum (siphoning off Ron Paul votes the entire time) gift wrap their delegates to Romney.

All I know is we need to win. Forget 'in 2016 we're gonna...', because we've got economic meltdown and/or WWIII both too close for comfort.

 

[The_Ruffneck]

Nice post.

If only the majority of people could see this. The "Romney is losing to his 2008 self" line is awesome, though. Spread that far and wide.

Add to this the fact that frothy and grinch aren't in many of the ballots and tings suddenly don't look so bad.
Even if we don't win lets shake up the establishment as much as we can , the party is so splintered right now that we could create some real changes going into the future.

 

[affa]

Add to this the fact that frothy and grinch aren't in many of the ballots and tings suddenly don't look so bad.

Santorum and Gingrich not being on the ballots is something else the media is doing a tidy job of covering up. Look at how they dealt with Gingrich in Missouri -- they had the audacity to add up all votes for others (including Cain, Perry, etc) roll them up as 'Uncommited'... and then whenever they spoke it out loud, implied they were for Gingrich.

 

[affa]

bump

 

[cachemaster]

Well Jon Stewart did say that 2012 Mitt Romney's biggest ideological opponet is Mitt Romney from 2008.

I think that was Conan.

 

[walt]

It's certainly odd that the Establishment seems as interested in a brokered convention as we are. They knew 4 years ago that was our plan, and rather than avoid it, they're taking aim too. I don't think it's Jeb Bush... too much baggage. But Christie, Mitch Daniels, or Paul Ryan? Yea, I could see that. Or, possibly, Gingrich and Santorum (siphoning off Ron Paul votes the entire time) gift wrap their delegates to Romney.

All I know is we need to win. Forget 'in 2016 we're gonna...', because we've got economic meltdown and/or WWIII both too close for comfort.

Great post Affa,

Do you think it is possible that the establishment wants a brokered convention because it might be the ultimate best way to keep him from running 3rd party?

Also, as bad as Romney's number are, the turnout in most states has been weak, doesn't this mean Ron isn't putting out a clear and inspiring alternative?

Besides possibly Alaska, where can Ron Paul win? Washington? Idaho? North Dakota? Vermont? Virgina due to the only 2 candidates on the ballot? Kansas? Wyoming?

 

[JimInNY]

Romney is losing to his 2008 self.

That needs to be repeated over and over!

 

[enoch150]

Because OP didn't (for an obvious reason):

Total
Ron Paul 157,266 (2008) 337,780 (2012) +115%
Mitt Romney 1,035,731 (2008) 1,183,366 (2012) +14%

 

[TheGrinch]

I was going to post this elsewhere, but I think the bolded part is very pertinent to this discussion:

After Maine it's been hard not to focus on the negative, since it was a state we had high hopes of winning, and there's evidence it might have been taken away by last minute shenanigans. I'm not saying just to forget about that.... But here are some reassuring facts that need to be emphasized:

Dr. Paul doubled his number of votes there from 2008 and had his best finish ever at 36%, losing by less than 200 votes, after just recently having his best finish ever in Minnesota of 27%.

Romney on the other hand, lost 13% of his Maine support support from 2008 where he got 52% of the vote. Being that this is home territory and he is the current frontrunner, one would expect at least a sustainable support base. This comes after Romney recently got slaughtered in another previous stronghold, Minnesota, where his support plummetted from a win in 2008 with 41% to just 16% this go round. So it's clear that Romney is losing momentum as we continue to gain it. We must seize it.

I hope this renews confidence that we're gaining momentum and are waking many people up, many of whom are not simply going to go back to the establishment hacks. With every heart and mind we win, our support grows, as the other fake candidates see their support wax and wane, depending on which way the wind is blowing.

So yes, by all means contact any important person that will listen about the potential victory taken away from us in Maine, but at the same time remember and convey the positives to come out of it. If you'd told me in 2008 that we'd be getting 36% of a state, I'd say you were crazy, but the political climate is such that people are looking for solutions, and we're the only game in town offering realistic sustainable ones.

Even with all that they do to try to discredit us, we continue to grow in numbers every day, and the stakes are too large to give up. If Dr. Paul is fighting on until the convention, then so shall we....

 

[Louis Vouid]

Weird...the mantra is always "It's all about the delegates when it comes to Ron Paul...but suddenly this meaningless "analysis" suggests it IS about the votes?

No sane person would compared 2012 to 2008 with all the earlier primary/caucus dates, making so many of them in the middle of miserable weather, or just plain before people start to care.

 

[TheGrinch]

Weird...the mantra is always "It's all about the delegates when it comes to Ron Paul...but suddenly this meaningless "analysis" suggests it IS about the votes?

No sane person would compared 2012 to 2008 with all the earlier primary/caucus dates, making so many of them in the middle of miserable weather, or just plain before people start to care.

Please troll with this junk elsewhere. Of course wins and votes are important too in their beauty contest of an election. Perceptions are important for momentum, but delegates can be moreso, particularly at a brokered convention.

Why would we not compare 2012 to 2008? If Romney is losing voters that he had before, particularly as his campaign is slumping recently, how is that not newsworthy?

 

[affa]

Because OP didn't (for an obvious reason):

Total
Ron Paul 157,266 (2008) 337,780 (2012) +115%
Mitt Romney 1,035,731 (2008) 1,183,366 (2012) +14%

What's this 'obvious' reason? Because it shows Romney is up votes overall? That's meaningless when he's lost votes in 6 of the 9 states so far, and found almost all of this gain from two states, Florida and South Carolina, where the media created a massive frenzy over the walking reality show that is Gingrich.

 

[affa]

Weird...the mantra is always "It's all about the delegates when it comes to Ron Paul...but suddenly this meaningless "analysis" suggests it IS about the votes?

No sane person would compared 2012 to 2008 with all the earlier primary/caucus dates, making so many of them in the middle of miserable weather, or just plain before people start to care.

What, you stopped posting about how we shouldn't complain votes weren't counted in Maine long enough to post in here? Awesome.

The delegates are mentioned in my post. They are what matter in the end game, but understanding we're growing leaps and bounds as a movement is also mission critical. But hey, you're just here to piss in the coffee, so keep on keeping on.

 

[Aratus]

his prowess is greatly exagerated. he does not have an expanding rolling bandwagon and yes, this is an 1800s phrase
that came from a very literal custom of literally drumming up votes. in 2012 he has only slightly gained on what he did
before and his biggest gain is in florida. he isn't contesting the small states as fiercely as he is tv blitzing the biggies!!!

 

[affa]

Great post Affa,

Do you think it is possible that the establishment wants a brokered convention because it might be the ultimate best way to keep him from running 3rd party?

Possibly? But I don't really think they're too worried about him running third party -- the media loves to mention it, but this is more to ostracize him from the GOP in the public eye than anything else, imo. Oh, and it also lays the groundwork for scapegoating us should Obama win (Ron Paul supporters wrote him in, it's all their fault!). But you're correct in that it certainly has that side effect... so it could be on their list of reasons.

Also, as bad as Romney's number are, the turnout in most states has been weak, doesn't this mean Ron isn't putting out a clear and inspiring alternative?

I think Ron Paul puts out a very clear and very inspiring message....
But, and this is a huge but, it's not easy to wake people up. It's incredibly difficult, in fact. Whether neo-con, or Democrat, it's hard for many people to admit they're wrong about foreign policy, or domestic policy, or whatever. It's a huge step to make in one's philosophical life, especially when all too often you're surrounded by people that think like you do, and consume media tailor made for people like you. But Ron Paul laid the ground work four years ago, and has completely changed the discussion this time round. So more and more are waking up... but that doesn't mean it's easy.

But that doesn't mean it can't happen. Heck, the endless wars and the failing economy were [sadly, in that they happened] a big boost to Ron Paul's cause, because it forced people to acknowledge that there is even a problem - something completely avoided in 2008.

We're all politically involved. But not everybody is. In 1992, I was in high school. Ross Perot was running. At that time, I was a voracious reader, soaking up books on all sorts of subjects, but absolutely uninterested in the presidential election. I heard the name 'Ross Perot' a lot, but I never once looked him up [remember, this was before the internet was what it is now]. He was just a name. My guess is Ron Paul is still 'just a name' to many people, even though we're so tuned in it's hard to imagine.

Besides possibly Alaska, where can Ron Paul win? Washington? Idaho? North Dakota? Vermont? Virgina due to the only 2 candidates on the ballot? Kansas? Wyoming?

This I don't know. I hope several. But I don't trust the GOP enough to make predictions of RP winning in any specific state.

 

[Dianne]

It is crystal clear to me, that Ron Paul is the only candidate not on the "re-elect Obama" campaign committee. Thus the news media attacks Paul 24/7, or most of all refuses to mention him.

Romney, Santorum, Gingrich are not serious candidates at all... They are well paid minions of Obama. Even Gingrich's livlihood rests upon Obama's Defense Depatment.. There are many rats... all Chicago mafia owned, like O booma himself.

Everyone of our straw polls or a caucus, has been riddled with frad.. The USA has become a banana republic... nothing but lies, deceipt, corruption, maggots.. sickening leeches ... and that is just the Congress and the White House.

It would serve Ron Paul much better to pretend to be a drug cartel and ask Obama's Attorney General, Eric "HOLDER" to ship America some guns for whatever his price is... lmao.. most corrupt maggots in this Government then anywhere the world..