Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
An incumbent President can't even lead when opposition votes are split between two candidates.Except more hate and division from Obama. All he can do at this point is double down and hope his re-election prospects change.
That's an interesting and unexpected (to me, at least) result.Maybe Paul gives a non-Republican alternative to all the young people who are disillusioned with Obama because the only job they can get is barista or Walmart shelf-stocker.
Well...how 'bout that.Do we have a list of polling firms our resident progs believe? Just so we can keep track, of course.
Hmm. I suspect this will *not* please Sully.
It makes a certain amount of sense. If you remember back a few years, there was whats-the-word-again, an "anti-war" movement or something. To the extent that those voters were sincere, how could they vote Obama?
Aside:The DC area wasn't hit as hard by the housing slump as anywhere else.But I've noticed a softness in DC house prices over the last month. Houses are staying on the market for weeks at prices that would have had them gone in scant days last year.A very small percentage of people are actually intending to buy at any one time, so the difference of 3-5 qualified people can make a significant difference in house prices. 2 people wanting the same house and not seeing any alternative deals will bid a house price up. 10 houses with only 8 people interested will mean that one person can underbid and the owner might accept just to get the house off his hands.If my observations are correct (and it is too soon to be certain), I wonder if this is a leading indicator from Democrat staffers that they expect losses of epic proportions?
It makes no sense. I don't believe it.
Voters are asking themselves "Why Obama?" and they have no answer so they will not support Obama. It is a very simple calculus.
This surprises me not in the least. The majority of Paul's ardent supporters are not the same folks who vote for Republicans in the general election.
Voters are asking themselves "Why Obama?" because shut up.
There are a lot of people who won't vote Republican, so will vote Democrat by default ("my father was a Democrat, my grandfather was a Democrat..."). But would vote for a rebel 3rd party candidate.Also this could hurt the incumbant more than the major party challenger. See Bush/Perot in 1992.
Come to think of it, most all the disaffected types who showed up at the local convention for Paul did tend to more toward the left end of the spectrum, though they were all clearly trained to insist on their Republican bona fides. Great message control there. Republicans who vote 3rd tend to like more centrist candidates like Ross Perot or Jesse Ventura.
Lyssa said...This surprises me not in the least. The majority of Paul's ardent supporters are not the same folks who vote for Republicans in the general election.Me neither. I followed most of the Republican debates. Paul's biggest supporters seemed to be mostly Dems feigning an interest in who to set up against Obama in The Fall™. But now hearts have hardened
More interesting stories. Why Paul's vote splitting takes more from Obama than from Romney is a mystery.But since I hate Paul and all that he stands for, maybe his hateful mind control powers are twisting the paranoid Dems minds too.
Ron Paul wants to actually balance the budget, close 6 federal agencies, and get rid of the Federal Reserve. He's serious (God bless him). And he's going to siphon off Obama voters???? No way in hell.
It's war and marijuana. Obama likes one, not the other. Paul, the opposite.
Of course it helps Romney. Ron Paul gets a lot of support from young folks in California. When we're in San Diego a lot of young people campaign for Paul, walking the boardwalk and even the beach handing out literature. They're committed.
@ndspinelli - In the absence of Paul, those young voters would vote for Obama? That doesn't make any sense. They'd stay home.
I’m not sure how Ron Paul would run in a three way race as Gary Johnson is already the endorsed candidate for the Libertarian Party and I don’t think his campaign has the infrastructure to support an independent bid. That being said, Paul was running more as an “antiwar” rather than a libertarian candidate this cycle so it’s not surprising that he’d be drawing support from a lot of people who supported Obama in 2008.
Ron Paul wants to actually balance the budget, close 6 federal agencies, and get rid of the Federal Reserve. He's serious (God bless him). And he's going to siphon off Obama voters???? No way in hell.I think if you look at the details of his much vaunted “trillion dollar cuts” you might find that they largely come from cutting military and homeland security spending (and also eliminating funding for the agency responsible for maintaining our nation’s nuclear arsenal). Also Paul’s “end the Fed” rhetoric (and his assumption that we can use waive away $1.7 Trillion that was borrowed from the Federal Reserve) probably resonates a lot with the Occupier mindset.
Those first six words are an attention-getter.
Zero surprise here. Most of Paul's supporters are free-ganga Democrats.
I am a bit surprised but not too much. One of Paul's strengths is his support in the black and young segments. This poll shows that he would pull a lot of support from the Demmie's tratitional base.How many people here have seen Paul's poll numbers in a theoretical November matchup with Obama?They don't get published much but you can find them on Rasmussen's and other sites. Since January he has consistently tied with Obama (and Romney) all getting in the 40-45% range of the vote. Not bad for someone as marginalized as he has been.Repos may not like him but will vote for him if he is the candidate. Demmies will cross over to vote for him.He sounds like a pretty viable contender to me. I would like to see him run as Prez with Romney (or even better Palin) as VP. The people most scared of this would be the Washington Party (with both D&R labels) and folks like America's Politico. They would quickly become an endangered species in 2013. Might have to put them in zoos so we could remember them. GO RON PAUL!!!!!John Henry
Supposedly, Libertarianism grew out of the old Liberalism, which explains why the Libertarians line up with the Lefties on foreign policy and social issues.Maybe the hard Lefties want someone who more closely follows their views (although Captain Tin Foil is very anti-abortion).If it looks like he'd hurt Zero more than the Romster, I'm betting he'll drop the whole idea.
From Rasmussen April 14:Election 2012: Barack Obama 42%, Ron Paul 41%in PoliticsWednesday, April 14, 2010Pit maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up, and the race is – virtually dead even. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/election_2012_barack_obama_42_ron_paul_41John Henry
Really, the only type of third party candidate who would hurt Romney at this point would be a Tea Party type candidate, for the same reason it would help him as a VP pick. But the geniuses on the Dem side did their very best to personally destroy the Tea Party.
EdutcherYes, libertarianism did grow out of liberalism. Old style liberalism as you note.Look in the dictionary and you will find the "Liberal" means "A free man". It comes from the latin "liber" which also gives us liberty and liberate.The word libertarian came into use when the word "liberal" was hijacked (to use Hayek's term from 1940) to mean something completely opposite of what it had meant. Progressive had started to have a bad smell so they appropriated liberal. Modern liberals want government control. Classical, or old style liberals, want govt to leave us alone. Modern liberals are mostly of the left. But classical liberals are not of the right. The right wants big govt control just as much as the left does. Liberals (old style) want neither.I am proud to be a liberal in the classical sense. You can also call me a minarchist or libertarian if you like.I am neither left nor right. That is a false continuum. I am for freedom and liberty.I am a liberal.John Henry
Look in the dictionary and you will find the "Liberal" means "A free man". It comes from the latin "liber" which also gives us liberty and liberate.The problem with the word liberal is that it's contaminated with libertine.
Supposedly, Libertarianism grew out of the old Liberalism, which explains why the Libertarians line up with the Lefties on foreign policy and social issues.How? Modern liberalism has nothing in common with old liberalism, aside from its name.Libertarians, like other classical liberals, believe in individual liberty and freedom of conscience. Neither the modern left nor the modern right has any interest in that sort of thing.Anyway, people certainly are getting their panties in a bunch over a statistically meaningless result. The margin of error is 3% -- which means that you can't say with any certainty if Paul will draw support mostly from Romney, mostly from Obama, or equally from both.
Original Mike, I disagree. Young voters will be motivated to vote for Paul. If he's not a choice, they can be scared, guilt tripped, by Obamas gang to vote for him. Certainly some would sit out the election, like you say. But this election should be tight and a Paul option could make the difference.
the only type of third party candidate who would hurt Romney at this point would be a Tea Party type candidateIn what sense is Ron Paul not a "Tea Party type candidate"?What tea party principles does he not support?
What tea party principles does he not support?Mainly foreign policy. Republicans are not ready to go back to the Robert Taft era.
Then again, I admired Taft as a Senator. More like him are needed there.
OK, John Henry.I remember reading the piece, but no source for the contention was giving.Being a classical Liberal is not a bad thing.
Simple to figure this out; what ever advantage Obama still has with young voters evaporates with Ron Paul in the race
At first, this seems surprising. At second glance, it seems obvious. I *love* things like that.The only people I know who are really excited about Ron Paul are definitely Obama voters -- perhaps I should say disillusioned Obama voters. They're against the war, in favor of medical marijuana and gay marriage. They aren't going to be voting based on a strongly held opinion about the correct size of government in relation to GDP.Of course, what people say in a poll *now* and what they do in November can be very different. If Paul does make a third party run, I'd expect him to do quite a bit less well than he currently polls -- both sides remember the effect Nader had in 2000... I'd expect Paul to pick up lots of votes in states which are "safe" for one side or the other, and almost none in swing states.
"What tea party principles does he not support?"Mainly foreign policy. Republicans are not ready to go back to the Robert Taft era.I said "tea party principles", not "Republican political establishment principles".The tea party movement is about economics and runaway government spending. It is not about foreign policy. Look at the "contract from America" -- there's not a single word on foreign policy in it.Sure, establishment Republicans believe we need to personally spend half the planet's military budget. But that's not something the tea party movement advocates.
If Ron Paul were nominated by the Republicans, the resulting free-fire zone from the Obama-Media complex would render a significant portion of southern Texas unfit for human habitation. He is completely and totally unelectable in a general election.
But that's not something the tea party movement advocates.That's a fine line, though. Most of the Tea Party types I rallied with were supporters of strong defense. While certainly a subset, I don't know a single veteran or current service member that "strong defense" as a plank wouldn't apply to.
Revenant is right. Tea Party seemed to carefully limit the message to fiscal matters, but that didn't stop its critics from ascribing social con, evang, WOT and every other wing hobby horse to them.Kinda funny, since so many in the middle said if the right would just drop all that nasty abortion and gay marriage shit, they might appeal to more voters. Yet here it was tried, and it failed, I guess.
Scott M,Ron Paul does favor a strong defense. That's why he is the most popular candidate among members of the active-duty military, receiving vastly more in donations than the rest of the field."Pissing away trillions of dollars policing the world" does not equal "strong defense". Not unless you add ".. of countries other than our own" to those two words.Regardless, the fact that most Tea Party members favor strong defense doesn't make that a Tea Party ideal. Most Tea Party members are white and middle-class, too, but that doesn't mean you have to be white and middle class to be in the movement.
Yet here it was tried, and it failed, I guess.How, pray tell, did it fail?
@RevenantTrapsing about the world playing policeman is not what I call a part of strong defense, unless one wants to make the argument that theater/tactical/doctrinal practice makes perfect...it's hard to argue that aspect of it.However, I'm certainly of a mind that most of our overseas commitments could be ended. While I still favor a strong leadership role in NATO for the US, I don't believe we need to be deployed every damned place. Cut out a lot of those deployments and the budget goes south in a hurry.
@revenant: Let me rephrase it: A greater majority of Tea Party Republicans are not ready to go back to the Robert Taft era.I can't help it if he polls shitty. I never him took him seriously, so perhaps I'll recuse myself from this.
Which means that the Paul folks are not quite crazy enough to vote for Mitt?? It is either Paul or Obama? Is Mitt and the Reps so far outside the mainstream that even "Libertarians" would vote for Obama if Paul wasn't running?
@revenant: If you're looking for a wedge issue to divide Republicans, I think you've hit gold.
A greater majority of Tea Party Republicans are not ready to go back to the Robert Taft era.That comment doesn't sound any smarter with repetition.Regardless, if a "greater majority" of self-labeled "tea party Republicans" thinks we need the most expensive military in the history of humanity, all that tells us is that a greater majority of Republicans mistakenly think they agree with the tea party movement.
Makes sense to me.I don't know how many of my Dem (or fake-Independent but really Dem) acquaintances told me that "Ron Paul was the only Republican they could possibly support". They weren't really all that familiar with his platform, but knew that he was anti-war, anti-Bush, pro-pot and anti-Big Bank which was good enough for them.Of course, it was all BS, since come election day they'll all vote Dem as usual, since most of these folks are of the distaff variety, and the big A trumps all else. Also, Paul attracts a lot of Loons - i.e. natural Dems.
Post a Comment