My Response to Ron Paul being blamed for Mitt's loss.....

[Michael Landon]

I had a Republican friend of mine post the following on Facebook blaming Ron Paul for Mitt's loss:

I know, I know, if's and but's. But, if Ron Paul would have endorsed Romney/Ryan , would we have had a different outcome? How many republican votes were wasted on him, when he had no chance? Just sayin.

Here is my response to him:

Okay, I have a few minutes to respond to this.
When we lose a race, we first start out in a somber mood and then after thinking about the loss over and over we begin to rationalize how we lost and cast blame. We justify the loss by blaming someone or something else and most times we blame others when we shouldn't be. This is one of those times.
Ron Paul's supporters are one of the most missunderstood subjects for the general Republican. His supporters aren't the same as a Santorum supporter or a Newt supporter or even a Bachmann supporter. Those who support any of those three candidates are in the "general Republican" demographic, meaning they are a Republican who will support all Republicans regardless of who that Republican is. When Bachmann dropped out of the Presidential race, her supporters latched onto the Republican candidate that was their second choice, perhaps someone like Newt. This is how the general Republican's work. Steve, you fit in his demographic and that's not a bad thing, mind you. "General Republicans" tend to have a hard time understanding why Ron Paul's supporters don't do this and that's because they view the Ron Paul supporters as "general Republicans" when in fact they are not.
Ron Paul's supporters come from a variety of areas. I would break down his supporters into the following percentages:
25% General Republicans
25% Disenfranchised Democrats
25% Libertarians
25% Independents
These percentages explain alot. The general Republican assumes that Mitt Romney would have received all of the votes from the Ron Paul supporters IF Ron Paul had thrown his support and endorsement behind Romney and this is not true.
During this election, the 25% of Ron Paul supporters that were in the "General Republican" category ended up voting for Romney. This happened regardless of a Paul endorsement.
The 25% of Paul supporters that were Democrat went back to voting for Democrats, mainly Obama. They ONLY voted "Republican" because they liked Ron Paul and not because they had an epiphany and seen the light only to switch parties. These supporters would only vote for a Republican Presidential nominee if that nominee were Ron Paul. When that wasn't the case, they went back to the Democrat party.
The 25% of Paul supporters that were Libertarian, like the Paul Democrats, went back to voting for the Libertarian Party candidates. Paul brought them in and they were only going to stay if he were the nominee. In their eyes, Romney was so far left and nowhere near their Libertarian beliefs, that they would NEVER vote for him and they didn't. Those votes went to Gary Johnson. It is worth noting, the Libertarian Party and Gary Johnson both said they wouldn't run a Presidential candidate if the Republican's had nominated Ron Paul.
Now the other 25% of Paul supporters are a mix of disenfranchised Green Party voters, Constitution Party voters, etc. They, most likely, went back to voting for their Party's candidates, although I'm sure a few voted for Romney, Obama and Gary Johnson also.
The reason I point all this out is because Ron Paul brought in ALOT of potential voters to the Republican Party and when Romney won the nomination, close to 75% of those voters left the Republican Party.
It's easy to blame Ron Paul for Mitt Romney's loss but this is a wrong. The one person we should blame for Mitt's loss is Mitt himself. This is proven by the losses the Republicans suffered in the lower races. In Presidential election years, the top of the ticket tends to influence how the rest of the ticket does. Meaning, the stronger the Presidential candidate, the more votes the lower candidates get because they ride on his or her coattails. Mitt was not a strong candidate and thus didn't bring in a lot of enthusiasm to the party so there wasn't any enthusiasm to carry over into the congressional races, senate races and state races.
At this point, those of us that are "general Republicans" need to step back and assess our Party's future and plan for two years from now and four years from now. My first suggestion is to stay away from nominating moderates and nominate a conservative.

[sailingaway]

plus rep

[cajuncocoa]

Good analysis (and +rep).

[FrancisMarion]

tact: a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense.

+ rep. winning.

[fr33]

Accurate analysis.

[Vet_from_cali]

well said

[Shane Harris]

yeah they don't seem to realize they weren't getting a lot of our votes either way. They think they were entitled to our votes, but in reality Gary Johnson takes almost just as many votes from Obama as he does form Romney. Polls have proven this.

[affa]

Ron Paul can't herd cats any more than anyone else. Nor would he want to.

Great analysis, by the way.

[Crystallas]

Not a bad start.

Based on your explanations, I would say it's more like:
5% General Republicans
15% Disenfranchised Republicans
15% Disenfranchised Democrats
20% Libertarians
15% Independents
30% Once Apathetic who gave up on voting period, before Ron Paul.


But based on my own view:
30% Who sought after the Peace Message
30% Who sought onto the Freedom message
30% Who were both
10% who panicked and voted for the status quo anyways.

[Dogsoldier]

But conservatives are not for Ron Paul and his ideas.How does that help the cause of liberty?Conservatives that I know are no more liberty minded then liberals.

[GunnyFreedom]

But conservatives are not for Ron Paul and his ideas.How does that help the cause of liberty?Conservatives that I know are no more liberty minded then liberals.

Those are not actual conservatives, they are pretend conservatives - establishmentarians who just like the name, Social Conservatives - who are actually big-government liberals who want to use the State to make people conform to their notion of morality, and neoconservatives who are a pretty specific philosophy originating from Trotskyite Communism.

Actual conservatives are like Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater was a lot like Ron Paul. I know lots of conservatives who still venerate Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater. They are called Paleoconservatives and Constitutional Conservatives.

[Sentinelrv]

I wouldn't be so quick to say that the 25% of General Republicans went back and voted for Romney. Many Republicans, including me, were asleep and Ron Paul woke us up. Because of that awakening, we will never vote for the status quo again. Other softer supporters though like my mom and dad were not true supporters and most likely voted for Romney. They liked Ron Paul, but were not completely awakened by his message.

[parocks]

Even though the numbers might not be right, with 4 25%s, it's a good story, easy to tell. With the Independents, you don't have to say Green and Constitutional Party, but you can say that they stayed home. Turnout was down from 2008, and down from 2004. Both Obama and Romney got the fewest votes since 2000.

[WhistlinDave]

I had a Republican friend of mine post the following on Facebook blaming Ron Paul for Mitt's loss:

I know, I know, if's and but's. But, if Ron Paul would have endorsed Romney/Ryan , would we have had a different outcome? How many republican votes were wasted on him, when he had no chance? Just sayin.

Here is my response to him:

Okay, I have a few minutes to respond to this.
When we lose a race, we first start out in a somber mood and then after thinking about the loss over and over we begin to rationalize how we lost and cast blame. We justify the loss by blaming someone or something else and most times we blame others when we shouldn't be. This is one of those times.
Ron Paul's supporters are one of the most missunderstood subjects for the general Republican. His supporters aren't the same as a Santorum supporter or a Newt supporter or even a Bachmann supporter. Those who support any of those three candidates are in the "general Republican" demographic, meaning they are a Republican who will support all Republicans regardless of who that Republican is. When Bachmann dropped out of the Presidential race, her supporters latched onto the Republican candidate that was their second choice, perhaps someone like Newt. This is how the general Republican's work. Steve, you fit in his demographic and that's not a bad thing, mind you. "General Republicans" tend to have a hard time understanding why Ron Paul's supporters don't do this and that's because they view the Ron Paul supporters as "general Republicans" when in fact they are not.
Ron Paul's supporters come from a variety of areas. I would break down his supporters into the following percentages:
25% General Republicans
25% Disenfranchised Democrats
25% Libertarians
25% Independents
These percentages explain alot. The general Republican assumes that Mitt Romney would have received all of the votes from the Ron Paul supporters IF Ron Paul had thrown his support and endorsement behind Romney and this is not true.
During this election, the 25% of Ron Paul supporters that were in the "General Republican" category ended up voting for Romney. This happened regardless of a Paul endorsement.
The 25% of Paul supporters that were Democrat went back to voting for Democrats, mainly Obama. They ONLY voted "Republican" because they liked Ron Paul and not because they had an epiphany and seen the light only to switch parties. These supporters would only vote for a Republican Presidential nominee if that nominee were Ron Paul. When that wasn't the case, they went back to the Democrat party.
The 25% of Paul supporters that were Libertarian, like the Paul Democrats, went back to voting for the Libertarian Party candidates. Paul brought them in and they were only going to stay if he were the nominee. In their eyes, Romney was so far left and nowhere near their Libertarian beliefs, that they would NEVER vote for him and they didn't. Those votes went to Gary Johnson. It is worth noting, the Libertarian Party and Gary Johnson both said they wouldn't run a Presidential candidate if the Republican's had nominated Ron Paul.
Now the other 25% of Paul supporters are a mix of disenfranchised Green Party voters, Constitution Party voters, etc. They, most likely, went back to voting for their Party's candidates, although I'm sure a few voted for Romney, Obama and Gary Johnson also.
The reason I point all this out is because Ron Paul brought in ALOT of potential voters to the Republican Party and when Romney won the nomination, close to 75% of those voters left the Republican Party.
It's easy to blame Ron Paul for Mitt Romney's loss but this is a wrong. The one person we should blame for Mitt's loss is Mitt himself. This is proven by the losses the Republicans suffered in the lower races. In Presidential election years, the top of the ticket tends to influence how the rest of the ticket does. Meaning, the stronger the Presidential candidate, the more votes the lower candidates get because they ride on his or her coattails. Mitt was not a strong candidate and thus didn't bring in a lot of enthusiasm to the party so there wasn't any enthusiasm to carry over into the congressional races, senate races and state races.
At this point, those of us that are "general Republicans" need to step back and assess our Party's future and plan for two years from now and four years from now. My first suggestion is to stay away from nominating moderates and nominate a conservative.

I just want to chime in, because I voted Obama last time around, and I had voted for a Democrat candidate for president for the last 24 years, until this election cycle. I switched party registration to Republican to support Ron Paul. When he was cheated out of any fair chance at the nomination, I did NOT go back to Obama. I can never go back to voting for either of the two big parties ever again, unless a true Liberty candidate is running.

I voted Gary Johnson. I just wanted to clarify that for you. I know you were speaking in generalities, and I don't know what any other former Obama supporters did, but I'm assuming that most of us who "saw the light" understand what a war monger Obama is, just like every other president for the last couple decades, and I just don't see how anyone who left Obama to support Ron Paul could go back in good conscience. (There's all his other broken promises as well. Medical marijuana, restoring Habeus Corpus, closing Guantanamo, the list goes on and on.)

Personally, when people blame Ron Paul supporters for Obama's re-election, I tell them to blame Romney's cronies in the GOP for treating Ron Paul and his supporters like dirt and cheating against us every step of the way. They have only themselves to blame, and I find the notion that Ron Paul supporters should've voted Romney after everything they did to us, well, it's beyond offensive. It's $#@!-Romney-and-his-mother-and-Priebus-and-Boehner offensive to me. $#@! them all. They engineered their own loss and they need to take a good look in the mirror at the corruption staring back at them, if they're looking for a reason Romney lost. (Nothing personal to you, please understand, my cussing is not directed at you.)

Just my two cents.

(I'm also of the school of thought that says the only reason Romney was annointed as the candidate was probably because it was decided by the war profiteer puppet masters that Obama would keep the presidency anyway. So if you want to take it to that level, then the whole issue is actually moot.)

[LibertyEagle]

Personally, I don't think we kept Willard from winning at all. I've seen some imply that if he had only treated Ron and his supporters fairly, that RP supporters would have voted for him. Maybe a few would have, that didn't already. But, certainly not many. And yes, I'm sure that some DID vote for Romney.

Plus, I don't see what some think it's going to win us to rub salt in the wound. Those who actually were involved in the cheating, aren't magically going to become honest people because of it, but those who didn't cheat us might very well turn against us. So, what are we gaining from doing this? It seems to me to be about getting a little temporary gratification and screw the consequences.

[parocks]

I think that our message should be that Ron Paul's supporters are diverse and aren't all in one party. Ron Paul brought many of the Republican Party, and many didn't stay.

Ron Paul can't make a party lose, only make a party win, by bringing new people in to the party, who would leave with him.

[parocks]

Personally, I don't think we kept Willard from winning at all. I've seen some imply that if he had only treated Ron and his supporters fairly, that RP supporters would have voted for him. Maybe a few would have, that didn't already. But, certainly not many. And yes, I'm sure that some DID vote for Romney.

Plus, I don't see what some think it's going to win us to rub salt in the wound. Those who actually were involved in the cheating, aren't magically going to become honest people because of it, but those who didn't cheat us might very well turn against us. So, what are we gaining from doing this? It seems to me to be about getting a little temporary gratification and screw the consequences.

When talking about Romney's failure, it might be best to keep the focus on Romney, and not specifically stating that it's the Ron Paul people doing this. It might be better to say "the people didn't like Romney because he was too Liberal, indistinguishable from Obama." Not "ron paul supporters didnt ..." I don't think the song has Ron Paul it. The media seems to want to make the story about women or young people.

[romacox]

That is an excellent response Michael Landon. I like showing Jim Demints video in which he warned the Republican Party to listen to Ron Paul about the Federal Reserve and the wars. He warned them that if they did not embrace those young enthusiastic Ron Paul Supporters they would destroy the Party.....

[jbauer]

Not a bad start.

Based on your explanations, I would say it's more like:
5% General Republicans
15% Disenfranchised Republicans
15% Disenfranchised Democrats
20% Libertarians
15% Independents
30% Once Apathetic who gave up on voting period, before Ron Paul.


But based on my own view:
30% Who sought after the Peace Message
30% Who sought onto the Freedom message
30% Who were both
10% who panicked and voted for the status quo anyways.

You missed the fiscal conservatives. I'm assuming I'm not the only one.

[MozoVote]

I'm of the mind that many "general Republicans" voted the down ticket and skipped the presidential race out of disgust. They held their nose and voted McCain once, and could not stand stooping even lower to vote for Willard. Remember, the meme a year ago was "Who is going to stop Romney??" The party base never liked him! This election was one where "The dogs did not eat the dog food".

I've studied the results of the election locally,and I can find precincts where the county commission and Lieutenant Governor candidates got more votes than Romney did. I think that indicates a deeper problem.

[CaptUSA]

+rep.

Pay attention folks. This is how you explain things to republicans. You don't insult. You don't call them idiots. You explain the appeal of Ron Paul's ideas across the spectrum.

FWIW, I probably fit into the libertarian or independent group, but I wrote in Ron Paul.

[acptulsa]

Not a bad start.

Based on your explanations, I would say it's more like:
5% General Republicans
15% Disenfranchised Republicans
15% Disenfranchised Democrats
20% Libertarians
15% Independents
30% Once Apathetic who gave up on voting period, before Ron Paul.


But based on my own view:
30% Who sought after the Peace Message
30% Who sought onto the Freedom message
30% Who were both
10% who panicked and voted for the status quo anyways.

Maybe. But I gave him a +rep anyway. Who cares what the percentages were, or how you can divide us up more? He was offering an explanation, and he did it tactfully and well.

This wasn't about details. This was about teaching rank and file Republicans how to grow their dying party.

If this can be improved, more accurate demographics isn't the key. They key is mentioning integrity. That's why many who Ron Paul brought into the party didn't stick around for the general; integrity is why the GOP is shrinking like the dollar.

[belian78]

But conservatives are not for Ron Paul and his ideas.How does that help the cause of liberty?Conservatives that I know are no more liberty minded then liberals.

Then those are not truely conservative people, end of story. A true conservative is almost at the point of hyperventilation just thinking about the amount of money and liberties this country is losing at it seems, and hourly rate anymore.

[Lord Xar]

But conservatives are not for Ron Paul and his ideas.How does that help the cause of liberty?Conservatives that I know are no more liberty minded then liberals.

He was talking a true conservative, I believe, not what the establishment / media deems conservative nowadays.. ala, endless wars, big government, bailouts, empire building and be anti-"Something" in social realm.

Ron Paul is a real conservative, which is really just an extension of libertarianism.. I believe.. perhaps someone can be succinct in an explaination of real conservative vs. todays watered-down establishment listing of one.

[TomtheTinker]

We told you..NOBP[SPECIAL][/SPECIAL]

[sailingaway]

I think I'll put this on the front page.

[Todd]

I think some are missing another perspective floating around in the last days as to the reason Romney lost. There's a large segment of the population who are concluding that Socialism has it's heels firmly dug in and that conservatives can no longer compete with the tens of millions who are now on the dole and vote for more welfare

At least that's what I'm hearing on other message boards.

[sailingaway]

I think some are missing another perspective floating around in the last days as to the reason Romney lost. There's a large segment of the population who are concluding that Socialism has it's heels firmly dug in and that conservatives can no longer compete with the tens of millions who are now on the dole and vote for more welfare

At least that's what I'm hearing on other message boards.

and Ron says that to some extent. However, that ignores how attractive liberty is if there is someone who truly understands it and explains it as Ron does. Media should have been TRUMPETING Ron's message, not burying it, in order to protect thier own private property interests. After all, they have more than we do. But wanting to control ours too, through raiding taxation and barrier to entry regulation, was like the monkey grabbing so many bananas he can't get his hand out of the jar, and refusing to let any go.

[cajuncocoa]

and Ron says that to some extent. However, that ignores how attractive liberty is if there is someone who truly understands it and explains it as Ron does. Media should have been TRUMPETING Ron's message, not burying it, in order to protect thier own private property interests. After all, they have more than we do.

Mainstream media depend on advertising revenue. Advertisers look for the media outlets that can deliver more viewers (or readers, listeners). If there are more people who are on the dole and looking for more welfare (and I believe there are) those are the people the mainstream media are going to play their message to. It's just basic math.

[thoughtomator]

I think some are missing another perspective floating around in the last days as to the reason Romney lost. There's a large segment of the population who are concluding that Socialism has it's heels firmly dug in and that conservatives can no longer compete with the tens of millions who are now on the dole and vote for more welfare

At least that's what I'm hearing on other message boards.

I would say the fact that Romney offered no alternative at all played no small part in the decision of that segment to stay home, or even vote Obama - the "get it over with" crowd.