Where did the Ron Paul supporters go?

Brian4Liberty

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
63,479
With Rand out of the race after gaining less votes in Iowa than Ron Paul did in previous caucuses held there, perhaps it's time to break down where those supporters may have gone, based on the issues. First, there are some assumptions or parameters for the analysis.

It's safe to say that there are high information voters and low information voters. The vast majority of voters are not terribly knowledgeable about candidates, issues or underlying agendas. We'll use the 80/20 rule, and even that is probably generous. For the purposes of this analysis, the high information fanatics are excluded. Let's focus on the 80% majority that get by on soundbites and general consensus impressions.

What attracted voters to Ron Paul? In terms of issues, there are some general positions that low information voters heard from Ron Paul during his debates that really grabbed them. Often Ron was the only one willing to speak truth to power on these issues. Which candidates this year took those same or similar sounding positions?

Position: Audit the Fed. Many people warmed immediately to this issue, especially in the wake of TARP and the mortgage crisis. It made sense, and it was new to most voters. Of the candidates this cycle, Rand Paul obviously is the strongest continuing proponent of this. But Ted Cruz was also able to convince many people that he fully supported this. It became so popular that even right wing talk show hosts took up the banner.

Candidates: Rand Paul, Ted Cruz.

Position: Anti-war.
This was where both Ron and Rand really stood out from the others. This can also include being anti-neoconservative, which many people had not even heard about before Ron Paul. There is also a great part of fiscal conservatism wrapped in this issue. Obviously this is Rand's area, but with Trump's opposition in the past to the Iraq war, and his apparent ambivalence to the neoconservative boogeymen of Iran and Russia, Trump also gets some share of this. It could be said in the past that Cruz leaned this way, but he has since abandoned it for a more standard neoconservative foreign policy. Many believe that Bernie Sanders also holds some of these positions.

Candidates: Rand Paul, Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders.

Position: Abolish the IRS.
This was quite the exciting rally cry from Ron Paul's first run for President. Unfortunately, at this point all of the candidates including Rand have submitted more realistic flat tax plans which include individual income taxes. He plan is still too lean for the vast majority of the big government establishment and socialists. Ted Cruz has basically followed in Rand's shadow on this issue with a very similar plan to Rand. At this point, some believe that Rand still has this in his DNA, but it's rallying cry that has been abandoned.

Candidates: Rand Paul by past association.

Position: Champion of the Constitution. This was one of Ron's favorite descriptions of himself. Rand has certainly taken on this task. But as always, the Paul's have been emulated by Ted Cruz, who also wants a slice of this portion of the electorate.

Candidates: Rand Paul, Ted Cruz.

Position: Limited size of government.
It was a breath of fresh air from Ron Paul in the eyes of the average voter. Not so unique from veterans of libertarian elections in the past. He talked about which departments of government he would abolish. It resonated. Other candidates copied. But Ron stood out as being truly serious. This season, not so much talk about it from any candidates. Once again, it is assumed to be in the DNA of Rand, but it hasn't been a key talking point, at least not in these simple terms.

Candidates: Rand Paul by past association.

Position: Civil liberties, Bill of Rights.
Another breath of fresh air from Ron Paul. Rand has gladly taken up this mantle and emphasized it, especially when it comes to unconstitutional government surveillance. He is the only one. Some might say that Bernie Sanders has some aspects of this on certain specific situations, but this is not a principle that Bernie embraces as a whole.

Candidates: Rand Paul.

Position: America-First.
Ron talked about many things that could be called America-first or interpreted that way. He talked about the economic destruction of the American middle class. He talked about US sovereignty. He called for the elimination of foreign aid. He talked about the elimination of birth-right citizenship. This, along with an America-first interpretation of some of his other positions, brought in many voters. It also drew the unending ire of the globalist establishment, who view the US and US sovereignty as merely inconveniences to international crony corporatism. While Rand Paul has retained some of these ideas, like opposition to TPP, Donald Trump crashed into this election with extreme rhetoric which wrapped up the perception that he is the only candidate that is emphasizing this issue, in particular with regard to trade and immigration. It is not the America-first of Ron Paul, but to the low information voter, it's a close enough concept.

Candidates: Donald Trump (by way of extreme bluster).

Position: Anti-establishment. This is more of a vague concept, but it was extremely popular this year. Ron Paul was the only anti-establishment candidate for two election cycles. Now, many put on this mantle, some more than others. Interestingly enough, the media attempts to label candidates that are clearly part of the establishment and call them anti-establishment. Rubio and Fiorina come to mind. Classic Orwellian double-speak. The establishment makes it pretty clear who they oppose, so this one is easier to observe.

Candidates: Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump

Position: Anti-Wall Street.
Ron Paul made it clear that he supports free markets and minimal regulation, but there was an anti-Wall Street component to that. Mostly it revolved around crony capitalism and the Wall St. interests that take advantage of inside access, which dove-tailed nicely with his Audit the Fed efforts. This overlaps to a certain extent with the Occupy Wall Street movement, which of course leans towards Bernie Sanders, with Sanders being the only candidate to emphasize it this year, albeit with socialist and government redistribution of wealth remedies.

Candidates: Bernie Sanders (for calling out the problems, but with counter-productive solutions).

Position: Fiscal conservatism. Who is truly a fiscal conservative in the era of big government on all sides? Ron Paul stood out as the extreme fiscal conservative. Rand has moved a tad bit more realistic in his approach, but there is no doubt that this is where he truly stands. There is another Senator that has taken some steps in Senate to appear to be staunch on this issue as well, and that is Ted Cruz. Donald Trump says he will make great deals and save money, but there is no indication or claim that he would ever cut back on overall spending.

Candidates: Rand Paul, Ted Cruz.

Once again, this is simply looking at the issues. There are many other factors at play, but based upon issues and their importance to various voters, it can explain the allure of candidates this year to past Ron Paul supporters, especially if only a few of this issues are truly important to specific voters.
 
Last edited:
I think this is a great analysis of how Ron's positions were appealing to many and where they may have gone in 2016. Also what I think can't be stressed enough is the highly varied coalition he built together in 2008 and 2012. While of course he had the strong support of libertarians and libertarian-minded voters he built a coalition of many different groups. Off the top of my head I can think of the following groups (and there's probably more I'm forgetting):

1. Libertarians (of course)
2. Anti-War Voters
3. Privacy/Tech Supporters
4. Homeschoolers
5. Food Freedom Advocates
6. Alternative health/medicine
7. Anti-establishment voters
8. Pro-life/social conservative voters
9. Gun advocates
10. Anti-globalists
11. Fed skeptics/Austrian economic devotees

The groups above vary in size, some are significant and some are insignificant. A lot of the groups above are single issue voters and supported Ron for his position on the issue that mattered most to them, even if they didn't agree with everything. I think I might be leaving some groups out, but I remember he would do outreach with each of the groups from time to time. From interviews with Dr. Mercola to roundtables on Christianity he worked very hard to maintain support from all of the groups above which not only helped with his showing in the polls but also with fundraising.
 
I think this is a great analysis of how Ron's positions were appealing to many and where they may have gone in 2016. Also what I think can't be stressed enough is the highly varied coalition he built together in 2008 and 2012. While of course he had the strong support of libertarians and libertarian-minded voters he built a coalition of many different groups. Off the top of my head I can think of the following groups (and there's probably more I'm forgetting):

1. Libertarians (of course)
2. Anti-War Voters
3. Privacy/Tech Supporters
4. Homeschoolers
5. Food Freedom Advocates
6. Alternative health/medicine
7. Anti-establishment voters
8. Pro-life/social conservative voters
9. Gun advocates
10. Anti-globalists
11. Fed skeptics/Austrian economic devotees

The groups above vary in size, some are significant and some are insignificant. A lot of the groups above are single issue voters and supported Ron for his position on the issue that mattered most to them, even if they didn't agree with everything. I think I might be leaving some groups out, but I remember he would do outreach with each of the groups from time to time. From interviews with Dr. Mercola to roundtables on Christianity he worked very hard to maintain support from all of the groups above which not only helped with his showing in the polls but also with fundraising.

Good additions to the list. I was going to note that my list was not exhaustive, and sure enough, I left off several issues that I intended to include.
 
I think this is a great analysis of how Ron's positions were appealing to many and where they may have gone in 2016. Also what I think can't be stressed enough is the highly varied coalition he built together in 2008 and 2012. While of course he had the strong support of libertarians and libertarian-minded voters he built a coalition of many different groups. Off the top of my head I can think of the following groups (and there's probably more I'm forgetting):

1. Libertarians (of course)
2. Anti-War Voters
3. Privacy/Tech Supporters
4. Homeschoolers
5. Food Freedom Advocates
6. Alternative health/medicine
7. Anti-establishment voters
8. Pro-life/social conservative voters
9. Gun advocates
10. Anti-globalists
11. Fed skeptics/Austrian economic devotees

The groups above vary in size, some are significant and some are insignificant. A lot of the groups above are single issue voters and supported Ron for his position on the issue that mattered most to them, even if they didn't agree with everything. I think I might be leaving some groups out, but I remember he would do outreach with each of the groups from time to time. From interviews with Dr. Mercola to roundtables on Christianity he worked very hard to maintain support from all of the groups above which not only helped with his showing in the polls but also with fundraising.

You left off the Paleocons (Goldwater Conservatives), Fiscal Conservatives and since you mentioned Libertarians as separate from all these descriptors, I will also mention the gold bugs and the Birchers.
 
I think the biggest reason Ron Paul drew in crowds was that he believed in what he says, and he was trend setting. Ron Paul was selling ideas left and right about individual liberty, not letting the party shape his speeches or ideals...he bent to no one but his intuitive thought processes and economic knowledge. Ron Paul would even defy the debates by saying that 9/11 was not caused solely by hijackers, but he would explain blowback and that the highjackers were not even Iraqis but Saudis. This was the type of candidate that drew crowds because he had balls.
 
You left off the Paleocons (Goldwater Conservatives), Fiscal Conservatives and since you mentioned Libertarians as separate from all these descriptors, I will also mention the gold bugs and the Birchers.

Could probably do a 5 part series. Part 1 - The Issues, Part II - The Coalition, Part III - The Debates, Part IV - Reality TV, etc...

The Sound Money/Gold Issue was certainly a prominent one. Even the low information voters heard about that.
 
The Sound Money/Gold Issue was certainly a prominent one. Even the low information voters heard about that.

You must be including some of the more vocal members here, because they don't seem to know that it was the gold bugs and the Birchers who supported and funded Ron Paul since he first entered political office.
 
Last edited:
I don't think Ron Paul was inherently anti-Wall Street, unless by the term you are strictly referring to corrupt crony capitalism. But in the sense of big business, public trading of stocks, etc., that's just the free market in action. Wall Street as an institution won't go anywhere if/when liberty takes over...it will just be forced to become more honest.
 
1. Libertarians (of course)
2. Anti-War Voters
3. Privacy/Tech Supporters
4. Homeschoolers
5. Food Freedom Advocates
6. Alternative health/medicine
7. Anti-establishment voters
8. Pro-life/social conservative voters
9. Gun advocates
10. Anti-globalists
11. Fed skeptics/Austrian economic devotees



This forum and the movement in general always seeks to distance itself...but Ron also attracted race nationalists. Both black and white. I think its unfortunate this political climate puts us in a position to shun these groups as race nationalism overlaps in many ways with libertarianism.
 
This forum and the movement in general always seeks to distance itself...but Ron also attracted race nationalists. Both black and white. I think its unfortunate this political climate puts us in a position to shun these groups as race nationalism overlaps in many ways with libertarianism.
No.
 
race nationalism overlaps in many ways with libertarianism.

Hmmm. "Many".

ok. Let's start with 3.

1) ____________
2) ____________
3) ____________

Fill in the blanks?


edit:
in light of the post following, I am now trying to wriggle out of your troller's net.
 
Last edited:
This forum and the movement in general always seeks to distance itself...but Ron also attracted race nationalists. Both black and white. I think its unfortunate this political climate puts us in a position to shun these groups as race nationalism overlaps in many ways with libertarianism.

:rolleyes:

Because libertarianism so means to hate your own country and prefer globalism, eh?

Like I said... :rolleyes:
 
Hmmm. "Many".

ok. Let's start with 3.

1) ____________
2) ____________
3) ____________

Fill in the blanks?


edit:
in light of the post following, I am now trying to wriggle out of your troller's net.


race nationalism overlaps in many ways with libertarianism. ??

1) ____________
Against affirmative action
2) ____________
Private business can exclude anyone they choose to.
3) ____________
No welfare / No minimum wage / No "safety net" (except for local charity)

They do have some similarities, but for vastly different reasons.
 
race nationalism overlaps in many ways with libertarianism. ??

1) ____________
Against affirmative action
2) ____________
Private business can exclude anyone they choose to.
3) ____________
No welfare / No minimum wage / No "safety net" (except for local charity)

They do have some similarities, but for vastly different reasons.

David Duke championed all of the above policies while he was a state rep in Louisiana (actually I think it was drug testing as a condition of receiving welfare, not eliminating it)

Isn't "Libertarian Realist" a racial thing too?

Didn't Don Black (founder of Stormfront) donate heavily to Ron's 08 campaign?
 
Last edited:
David Duke championed all of the above policies...

I answered the above challenge. Libertarians believe those are not legit functions of Government and racists have other motives.
On the bright side, all races will be better off with less Gov't.
 
I think this is a great analysis of how Ron's positions were appealing to many and where they may have gone in 2016. Also what I think can't be stressed enough is the highly varied coalition he built together in 2008 and 2012. While of course he had the strong support of libertarians and libertarian-minded voters he built a coalition of many different groups. Off the top of my head I can think of the following groups (and there's probably more I'm forgetting):

1. Libertarians (of course)
2. Anti-War Voters
3. Privacy/Tech Supporters
4. Homeschoolers
5. Food Freedom Advocates
6. Alternative health/medicine
7. Anti-establishment voters
8. Pro-life/social conservative voters
9. Gun advocates
10. Anti-globalists
11. Fed skeptics/Austrian economic devotees

The groups above vary in size, some are significant and some are insignificant. A lot of the groups above are single issue voters and supported Ron for his position on the issue that mattered most to them, even if they didn't agree with everything. I think I might be leaving some groups out, but I remember he would do outreach with each of the groups from time to time. From interviews with Dr. Mercola to roundtables on Christianity he worked very hard to maintain support from all of the groups above which not only helped with his showing in the polls but also with fundraising.

That's the "dregs" a poster in another thread were calling people like that and others.

Claims they should be "jettisoned".

Does not understand that Rand Paul 2016 did exactly that.

And got a campaign in the low single digits and over before NH.
 
This forum and the movement in general always seeks to distance itself...but Ron also attracted race nationalists. Both black and white. I think its unfortunate this political climate puts us in a position to shun these groups as race nationalism overlaps in many ways with libertarianism.

Yes, there is a valid point here.

Cultural Marxism has now become so embedded in policy and thought, only a "fringe" movement would accept the fact that you have the right to freely associate with whomever you want, which includes not associating with whomever you want.
 
I've noticed a segment of the Ron supporters, even the ones who bitch about Rand all the time, they will mobilize and bring people in when something happens like Rand getting pushed out of the debate. That launched some of the highest activity in the whole campaign. I came here when someone I knew showed me a video of one of the 2012 county conventions in MO where the guy got arrested, I wanted to know why that happened because it didn't appear he was doing anything but standing up and speaking, in a place that was meant for people to stand up and speak. Then I started watching Ron's speeches and debates, and even though I'm not 100% aligned with his philosophies, I still wanted to see the man get his voice heard, and so did everyone on here. I think no matter where people stand on the issues, they need that kind of a spark to really buy into a movement.
 
Back
Top