Will Defecting From the GOP Help Ron Paul's Supporters Take It Over? (Huff Po)

[robink]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/will-defecting-from-the-g_b_1866221.html

 

[MozoVote]

Interesting. 66% of the Blue Republicans claimed in his poll they'd vote for Johnson. It's 44% here.

He's catchin' on, I'm tellin' ya!

 

[sailingaway]

Saw that. Good article! I think it might be a tad skewed against Romney in that you were polling people who used to be Democrats and have no ties to the GOP other than Ron, but I agree we aren't likely to toe the party line.

 

[sailingaway]

Interesting. 66% of the Blue Republicans claimed in his poll they'd vote for Johnson. It's 44% here.

He's catchin' on, I'm tellin ya!

44% of the 150 or so of 900 in a day here, who took the poll.

 

[MozoVote]

Let's double weight the low sample though. (44% x 2 + 66%) / 3 = 51% which could be a conservative guesstimate of Johnson votes. (And there would be others voting for the Constitution, Green, or Democratic parties to express their disgust with the convention.) 51% may be a bottom line figure.

It comes back to my earlier hypothesis, of how many people "learn" about the RNC shenanigans and how many of those are swayed to not vote GOP because of it.

Ron said he got 2 million votes in the primaries. My first stab said about 300,000 of these will not vote GOP, but it could plausibly be more.

 

[No1butPaul]

My first stab said about 300,000 of these will not vote GOP, but it could plausibly be more.

Probably 300,000 in L.A. county alone! I really have no idea as to the actual numbers, but California was one of the states people had to register republican to vote for Ron Paul and that was just too big a pill for many to swallow.

Add: It remains to be seen if Ron Paul will have anything to say on the matter before election day. He could have a lot of sway, if he wanted.

 

[MozoVote]

Well the "RNC Sham" vid and its clones have about 200,000 views. If even 100,000 of these were Ron Paul primary voters, there have been many, many, bitter pills swallowed this week.

 

[No1butPaul]

And if his vote exceeds the margin of victory of the winner, and the pundits point out that Ron Paul's following is mostly responsible, the Paulites will have ceased to be politically marginal, by definition.

This is the case in New Mexico:

... an Albuquerque Journal poll finds Barack Obama and Mitt Romney separated by just 5 percentage points there -- and former Gov. Gary Johnson pulling down 7 percent as the Libertarian nominee

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/09/a-point-race-in-new-mexico-134967.html

8% still undecided (probably a good share of US in that 8%): http://www.voxxi.com/poll-new-mexico-swing-states/

 

[sailingaway]

Probably 300,000 in L.A. county alone! I really have no idea as to the actual numbers, but California was one of the states people had to register republican to vote for Ron Paul and that was just too big a pill for many to swallow.

Add: It remains to be seen if Ron Paul will have anything to say on the matter before election day. He could have a lot of sway, if he wanted.

But Ron Paul write ins will count in California, just as they did in 2008: http://www.lavote.net/Voter/PDFS/ELECTION_RELATED/11042008_LIST_WRITE_IN_CANDIDATES.pdf (second page)

 

[No1butPaul]

But Ron Paul write ins will count in California, just as they did in 2008: http://www.lavote.net/Voter/PDFS/ELECTION_RELATED/11042008_LIST_WRITE_IN_CANDIDATES.pdf (second page)

It seems that where the Ron Paul write-ins do count, it would serve to accomplish the same purpose as theorized in this article. New Mexico write-ins do NOT count, so I hope our people in New Mexico don't try and write in Ron Paul's name anyway.

 

[sailingaway]

I think the gap between those who vote and the number who vote for a named VP, which is counted everywhere, shows a no confidence vote. For me, if my vote weren't going to count, I would still write in Ron Paul. If we spread the 'undervote' around, and if it is a large number, it would more accurately reflect my vote than a vote for Johnson, but that is because Johnson doesn't do anything for me. Those who like him might choose differently.


Given that the 'undervote' IS tracked, I don't see how a vote for Johnson reflects a vote for Paul, but if someone likes Johnson, obviously that is a different issue.

 

[eleganz]

Don't forget all the voters who would've voted Rp over Obama but wouldn't vote Romney over Obama. Those votes should be included into votes that Ron Paul takes away from romney

 

[sailingaway]

Don't forget all the voters who would've voted Rp over Obama but wouldn't vote Romney over Obama. Those votes should be included into votes that Ron Paul takes away from romney

Yeah, they should, but you can't count those, really.

 

[No1butPaul]

I think the gap between those who vote and the number who vote for a named VP, which is counted everywhere, shows a no confidence vote. For me, if my vote weren't going to count, I would still write in Ron Paul. If we spread the 'undervote' around, and if it is a large number, it would more accurately reflect my vote than a vote for Johnson, but that is because Johnson doesn't do anything for me. Those who like him might choose differently.


Given that the 'undervote' IS tracked, I don't see how a vote for Johnson reflects a vote for Paul, but if someone likes Johnson, obviously that is a different issue.

But I don't think the "undervote" gets any media attention ... Gary Johnson's will. Trust me, I'm not saying Ron Paul supporters should vote for Gary Johnson, but do think it is worthy of debate in terms of what will most help the Liberty movement going forward.

 

[sailingaway]

If we want to spread it around that will get it more attention than any third party will get. However it isn't the point, Gary isn't my candidate. That's like saying Romney's will get attention. It has nothing to do with me.

That's not saying GJ is the same as Romney, but neither has my vote.

 

[georgiaboy]

hey Robin, just wanted to let you know I really appreciate the work your doing. Your articles throughout this election have been really great to read.

I'm extra pleased that you're introducing huffpo readers to your perspectives.

Kudos to huffpo as well for hosting your work.

Sure wish RedState would do the same.

 

[erowe1]

Interesting. 66% of the Blue Republicans claimed in his poll they'd vote for Johnson. It's 44% here.

He's catchin' on, I'm tellin' ya!

That's odd. Isn't Romney the ultimate blue Republican?

 

[jolynna]

That's odd. Isn't Romney the ulblue timate blue Republican?

No. Blue Republicans like fiscal responsibility (Romney is a big government spender...he asked for a $700 Million bailout while governor of MA and received millions federal bailout dollars for Bain--several million of which went into Romney's OWN pocket). Blue Republicans are also BIG on civil liberty. Much of Romney's 44 page "White Paper" is a blueprint for more of a police state which takes away state and the power of the individual, as well as doing away with individual rights including search warrants or needing probable cause to detain someone. According to Romney, it is O.K. to hold people in prison for YEARS without having a TRIAL or even INFORMING THEM OF WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF DOING...should one of your neighbors "see something" and "say something" implying you "could be" a terrorist.

And NO blue Republican could pretend to be to the far, far, right on social issues, even just for a few months to get elected. Blue Republicans are fiscally frugal but socially liberal and believe in civil liberty. All of which are THE OPPOSITE of MITT ROMNEY.

In my opinion.

 

[robink]

You are absolutely correct

No. Blue Republicans like fiscal responsibility (Romney is a big government spender...he asked for a $700 Million bailout while governor of MA and received millions federal bailout dollars for Bain--several million of which went into Romney's OWN pocket). Blue Republicans are also BIG on civil liberty. Much of Romney's 44 page "White Paper" is a blueprint for more of a police state which takes away state and the power of the individual, as well as doing away with individual rights including search warrants or needing probable cause to detain someone. According to Romney, it is O.K. to hold people in prison for YEARS without having a TRIAL or even INFORMING THEM OF WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF DOING...should one of your neighbors "see something" and "say something" implying you "could be" a terrorist.

And NO blue Republican could pretend to be to the far, far, right on social issues, even just for a few months to get elected. Blue Republicans are fiscally frugal but socially liberal and believe in civil liberty. All of which are THE OPPOSITE of MITT ROMNEY.

In my opinion.

As the guy that coined the term, "Blue Republican" in this article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican_b_886650.html) , I am probably best placed to affirm that your opinion is factually correct! Thank you for sharing it

 

[sailingaway]

As the guy that coined the term, "Blue Republican" in this article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican_b_886650.html) , I am probably best placed to affirm that your opinion is factually correct! Thank you for sharing it

We really like your articles. I liked your music video, too!