PDA

View Full Version : Write-in totals for Ron Paul in Orange County, CA




RonPaulFanInGA
11-28-2008, 01:09 AM
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/11/write-in-totals-for-orange-county-ca/


Orange County, California’s elections division has their own website and have release write-in totals. California, as a whole, has not yet released write-in totals, so this is the first glimpse into the larger results for write-ins.

Write in votes in Orange County, California:

Chuck Baldwin: 373 votes, 0.0%

Ron Paul: 3118 votes, 0.3%

If these results are accurate, then Ron Paul recieved more votes, as a write-in, than Cynthia McKinney, who was on the ballot, and almost as many as Alan Keyes, who was also ballot-listed.

And way more votes than Baldwin in that county despite Baldwin actually running for president.

Had Paul ran, this movement would be a lot bigger and more energized right now and I surmise Paul would have done about as well as Georgia Wallace in 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968).

sidster
11-28-2008, 01:46 AM
I've been waiting for the write-in results to surface. I wonder if they
will ever publish state-wide California results anywhere. I keep checking
google once a week.

pauletteNV
11-28-2008, 11:55 AM
My two daughter in Orange Country contributed to that total. Proud of them... They had never heard of Ron Paul until I started talking to them about him and sent them his latest book. Do you ever wonder what we might have accomplished with a little help from the GOP and the media?

nate895
11-28-2008, 12:02 PM
As is the case with the Lancaster County, PA results, if these results are projected over the entire country, you get Ron Paul with approximately 300,000 votes, off of simply write-ins. If you incorporate the two states where he was on the ballot, probably upwards of 325,000-350,000 votes. He beat Chuck Baldwin, that is pretty sad I have to say.

Brian4Liberty
11-28-2008, 02:28 PM
Had Paul ran, this movement would be a lot bigger and more energized right now and I surmise Paul would have done about as well as Georgia Wallace in 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968).

If Ron Paul had run third party or independent, we would be getting blamed right now for putting Obama into office... at least McCain got his ass whipped with no one else to blame.

JohnMeridith
11-28-2008, 02:45 PM
Im pretty sure almost every CB vote would have swung to RP if he were on the ballot, I know mine would have and my GF's

sidster
11-28-2008, 03:27 PM
If Ron Paul had run third party or independent, we would be getting blamed right now for putting Obama into office... at least McCain got his ass whipped with no one else to blame.

That's the wrong reason to not have wished a third party run
by Ron Paul. If you are so concerned with what others "would"
think, do you ever make decisions based on what you think is
right?!

damania
11-28-2008, 08:25 PM
I voted for Chuck Baldwin in the OC. only 373 votes for him and around 3000 for Ron Paul? That's sad. So few people really understand what's going on. Out of 3 million people, only about 4000 really care about anything but themselves?

I must truly say I'm in a select group of people!

Theocrat
11-28-2008, 08:39 PM
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/11/write-in-totals-for-orange-county-ca/



And way more votes than Baldwin in that county despite Baldwin actually running for president.

Had Paul ran, this movement would be a lot bigger and more energized right now and I surmise Paul would have done about as well as Georgia Wallace in 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968).

In my opinion, those individuals who voted for Congressman Paul wasted their votes moreso than those who voted for Dr. Baldwin. For one, Dr. Paul wasn't even running for President any longer, so I don't see how casting a ballot for him would help him in his own party.

Second, if these 3,118 voters had cast their ballots for Dr. Baldwin, then, at the very least, it would have shown that he had some support in a third party run in Orange County.

Third, Congressman Paul obviously had much more recognition and media coverage (being a 10-term Republican) than Dr. Baldwin, so of course he would have more vote totals than a third party candidate.

If some Ron Paul supporters weren't so afraid to support Dr. Baldwin because of their disagreements with his party's platform, then perhaps Dr. Baldwin may have gotten near equal support that Dr. Paul received from third party voters, especially since Congressman Paul officially endorsed his candidacy.

Rangeley
11-28-2008, 10:00 PM
Had Paul ran, this movement would be a lot bigger and more energized right now and I surmise Paul would have done about as well as Georgia Wallace in 1968.
Sort of like how George Wallace's movement did really well after he ran?

I don't think we would be any more energized now had he run. You don't see people putting up signs, canvassing, or any campaigning right now because there are no campaigns right now. If that is really all someone was in for, they'd still be gone even if he ran third party. But this doesn't mean people aren't energized, and ready to get involved and make an impact. How many people contacted their legislators on the bailout? How many are staying involved in their local party? How many are starting up liberty college groups? There's a lot of energy; it's simply being put into more time appropriate areas which are not quite as visible as placing signs and whatnot, but certainly no less important.

It's important to get over the past and look forward.

idiom
11-28-2008, 10:51 PM
If he had run there would be many many more voices attacking the Bailout.