The Ron Paul Effect-How the GOP Threw the Election By Disenfranchising Ron Paul Supporters

[sailingaway]

By disenfranchising Ron Paul supporters, Mitt Romney won the primary but lost the election.

New analysis reveals that in no less than five states, Romney’s margin of loss to President Obama in the general election was less than the number of votes received by Ron Paul in that state’s primary.



In Florida, for example, Obama defeated Romney by 46,000 votes; meanwhile, Ron Paul received over 117,000 votes in the primary. If only 40% of these Ron Paul Republicans stayed home on Election Day, it would have been enough to cost Romney the state and its 29 electoral votes.

A similar case can be made for Connecticut, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Virginia. Along with Florida, these five states account for a whopping 71 Electoral College votes. Remember that Obama earned 332 electoral votes compared to Romney’s 206. Had Romney won these five states, they would have been sufficient to give him a narrow 277-261 victory over the President.

more at link: http://www.policymic.com/articles/18...aul-supporters

[mit26chell]

Given the choices, I'm glad things turned out the way they did.

I'm also glad that there are many new folks in Congress who will hopefully carry on Paul's message and record.

[brandon]

I thinks this way over-simplifies things and possibly is a bad conclusion. If Romney appealed to libertarians he very possible would have alienated and lost more votes than he gained. Furthermore, I'm sure a lot of the Paul primary voters did vote for Romney, and a lot of them wouldn't have voted for Romney regardless of what he said or did.

[sailingaway]

But there were also a lot more Paul supporters than voted in primaries or took the time to caucus, so I think arguments can be made in various directions. This is accurate information, and if it makes them think, good.

[acptulsa]

I thinks this way over-simplifies things and possibly is a bad conclusion. If Romney appealed to libertarians he very possible would have alienated and lost more votes than he gained. Furthermore, I'm sure a lot of the Paul primary voters did vote for Romney, and a lot of them wouldn't have voted for Romney regardless of what he said or did.

And it makes no mention at all of the myriad independent voters, and even disaffected Democrats, who would have voted for a man of principle. Furthermore, there were a lot of evangelicals who had a seriously 'who cares' attitude toward the sanctimonious Mormon. Yes, a massive oversimplification. The shortsightedness of the GOP is hopelessly underreported by this otherwise excellent article.

I saw a piece on HuffPo or somewhere last evening talking about how Fox did Republicans a disservice. I'd use the word 'sabotage', myself. Time to drive a stake through Murdoch's heart once and for all...

[sailingaway]

Yeah, you can tear it apart, and you will also be able to tear apart the spin Rove and Kristol will put out doubtless, but it is a counter, and just as good as theirs will be, I strongly suspect. Do you think we shouldn't be pointing these numbers out? Because my personal opinion is that we should.

I agree wth acptulsa that in NH people who voted in the Dem primary might have voted for Ron in the actual election, he got over 2000 votes on the primary on the Dem side, didn't he? He came in second in both primaries) Don't you think that would have had an echo in other states? And that was BEFORE Obama signed NDAA etc.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Send those numbers to FOX NEWS & Karl Rove... better yet send them to the money changers that donated.

[acptulsa]

Yeah, you can tear it apart, and you will also be able to tear apart the spin Rove and Kristol will put out doubtless, but it is a counter, and just as good as theirs will be, I strongly suspect. Do you think we shouldn't be pointing these numbers out? Because my personal opinion is that we should.

Of course we should. But we should also point out that we have more potential than even these numbers demonstrate. Because we do.

[kathy88]

I thinks this way over-simplifies things and possibly is a bad conclusion. If Romney appealed to libertarians he very possible would have alienated and lost more votes than he gained. Furthermore, I'm sure a lot of the Paul primary voters did vote for Romney, and a lot of them wouldn't have voted for Romney regardless of what he said or did.

I don't know. I know a LOT of people who would have voted Romney if Paul would have got his nomination speech in Tampa. That was the nail in the coffin as far as a lot of people are concerned.

[sailingaway]

Of course we should. But we should also point out that we have more potential than even these numbers demonstrate. Because we do.

Yeah, this is minimum as I see it.

[jbauer]

Given the choices, I'm glad things turned out the way they did.

I'm also glad that there are many new folks in Congress who will hopefully carry on Paul's message and record.

The one thing I'm confident of is that "we'll" hold their feet to the fire if they don't. No more free rides.

[sailingaway]

The one thing I'm confident of is that "we'll" hold their feet to the fire if they don't. No more free rides.

Oh, yeah.

[newbitech]

Now do the math and figure out what percentage of SPITEFUL Ron Paul voters it would have took to swing in back to Romney. IOW, instead of just sitting home, how many went out and pulled the trigger just for Obama. That would mean each Ron Paul primary voter was worth TWO votes in the general. Bet you get more than 5 states if you do it that way.

[paulbot24]

Now do the math and figure out what percentage of SPITEFUL Ron Paul voters it would have took to swing in back to Romney. IOW, instead of just sitting home, how many went out and pulled the trigger just for Obama. That would mean each Ron Paul primary voter was worth TWO votes in the general. Bet you get more than 5 states if you do it that way.

Yes. Add that to the stayed at home protest vote and you have yourself a real game.

[anaconda]

I love this publicity. However, the obvious problem is that we don't really know how many of the people that voted for Ron Paul in these states also did not vote for Romney. For example, we could probably construct a similar chart that shows that Rick Santorum votes in many states were greater than the difference between Soetoro and Mittens.

[sailingaway]

I love this publicity. However, the obvious problem is that we don't really know how many of the people that voted for Ron Paul in these states also did not vote for Romney. For example, we could probably construct a similar chart that shows that Rick Santorum votes in many states were greater than the difference between Soetoro and Mittens.

yeah, but he endorsed Romney. This is a reasonably conservative estimate, imho.

[anaconda]

This is a reasonably conservative estimate, imho.

I'm not super confident about his reasoning that the Paul primary vote understimates the amount of Paul supporters. I would guess that Paul supporters turned out in very high percentages in the primaries. I mean, consider this statement from the article: "Given the reluctance of many socially liberal, fiscally conservative Ron Paul supporters to participate in a Republican primary, analysts have estimated a multiplier of at least threefold in closed primary states." I'd like to know where, exactly, the author is able to locate more than one or two Paul supporters nationwide that did not vote in the primaries.

[sailingaway]

I'm not super confident about his reasoning that the Paul primary vote understimates the amount of Paul supporters. I would guess that Paul supporters turned out in very high percentages in the primaries.

I wouldn't. I think the hardcore ones yes, but as someone who never voted in primaries before 2008 I can tell you you need impetus to do it. I suspect a lot were just in the 'listening' and 'liking' stage at that point, and not in the focus on voting stage yet. I only was going to vote in the primary in 2008 because I couldn't stand McCain and he was assumed likely to get it. I wanted to throw a protest vote.

[acptulsa]

I'm not super confident about his reasoning that the Paul primary vote understimates the amount of Paul supporters. I would guess that Paul supporters turned out in very high percentages in the primaries. I mean, consider this statement from the article: "Given the reluctance of many socially liberal, fiscally conservative Ron Paul supporters to participate in a Republican primary, analysts have estimated a multiplier of at least threefold in closed primary states." I'd like to know where, exactly, the author is able to locate more than one or two Paul supporters nationwide that did not vote in the primaries.

I believe I could do that for you all by myself--and more than one or two. There are a great many Paul fans nationwide who think registering Republican would infuse them with a stench that they could never wash off. Sad but true.

Just having Ron Paul available on the ballot could potentially have increased voter turnout by seven digits. Not a shadow of doubt in my mind. I won't argue against the accusation that they'd have put down their bongs and gone to the polls. I'm just sayin'...

[anaconda]

Now do the math and figure out what percentage of SPITEFUL Ron Paul voters it would have took to swing in back to Romney. IOW, instead of just sitting home, how many went out and pulled the trigger just for Obama. That would mean each Ron Paul primary voter was worth TWO votes in the general. Bet you get more than 5 states if you do it that way.

Voting for Obama had become my voting strategy a couple of months back. In the end, however, I could not do it and wrote in Ron Paul since he was a certified write-in candidate here in CA.

[Fredom101]

I thinks this way over-simplifies things and possibly is a bad conclusion. If Romney appealed to libertarians he very possible would have alienated and lost more votes than he gained. Furthermore, I'm sure a lot of the Paul primary voters did vote for Romney, and a lot of them wouldn't have voted for Romney regardless of what he said or did.

Most did not vote for Romney. Some also voted for Obama.

Bottom line is, Romney was a fool to not appeal to libertarians, but I'm glad he didn't- if he won, the downturn would be blamed on "the free market", as if there was one.

[Deborah K]

I thinks this way over-simplifies things and possibly is a bad conclusion. If Romney appealed to libertarians he very possible would have alienated and lost more votes than he gained. Furthermore, I'm sure a lot of the Paul primary voters did vote for Romney, and a lot of them wouldn't have voted for Romney regardless of what he said or did.

This article misses the point entirely for me. We were cheated at the state level, as well as on the floor of the national convention. Our man never stood a chance. It isn't really about whether Romney et.al. embraced us, it's about the establishment and their propaganda arm (msm) marginalizing us altogether, and the sheeple falling in lock-step.

I believe a level playing field would have produced an entirely different outcome. We made that clear, we warned them. We asked - no we demanded to be heard. They ignored us, they lost. And now they want to blame us for their own ignorance.

[Liberty74]

Not buying those numbers when applied to real life. I'm willing to bet MOST Ron Paul primary voters voted for Romney. Of the RP primary voters that I know of, 90% voted for the flip flopper. Plus I am aware of many many many in the Air Force that voted for Romney as well who are libertarians and RP supporters.

The bottom line is that Romney lost for several reasons but the main one is the wrong VP pick. If you are running for Prez and you know damn well you are going to lose your home state, you don't pick a congressman that is almost guaranteed to lose his. I said from the beginning that Rubio should have been Romney's VP pick. First, he scares the $#@! out of Bill Clinton. Second, you guarantee FL. Third, you would have rallied the Tea Party. Fourth, the fastest growing population are Hispanics - think long term since the white population is decreasing. Fifth, you play the Left's game of the race card or at least neutralize it to some degree. Sixth, despite your opinion of Rubio, he is a young, vibrant, popular Senator who has that look and charisma necessary to become President.

[anaconda]

I suspect a lot were just in the 'listening' and 'liking' stage at that point, and not in the focus on voting stage yet.

This is a very good point. I fail to account for the number of people that are only casually attached to the voting process. This number could be enormous I suppose. But I think it is fair to add that this "less-than-passionate" segment also overlaps into the segment that preferred Ron Paul but also supported the GOP and voted for Mittens in the general election. Many of us have a hard time understanding this but it can be at least partially explained by a somewhat less passionate involvement, I think.

[Todd]

I have been telling people this would happen on many conservative sites I frequent. I'm telling you from experience now that it is more a reality, that some who think this is why they lost are hating us more than ever.

[sailingaway]

This is a very good point. I fail to account for the number of people that are only casually attached to the voting process. This number could be enormous I suppose. But I think it is fair to add that this "less-than-passionate" segment also overlaps into the segment that preferred Ron Paul but also supported the GOP and voted for Mittens in the general election. Many of us have a hard time understanding this but it can be at least partially explained by a somewhat less passionate involvement, I think.

The point I'm trying to make is that "Romney was a transformative candidate" is a statement made by noone, ever. People LEFT the apathetic to support Ron, and many who had not yet gotten to the point of looking closely didn't register for primaries, I feel sure.

"Ron Paul cured my apathy" suggests that prior to that point, the person was not strongly - as you put it - attached to the voting process. Becoming passionate too late can be the issue.

I would have become passionate about Ron whenever I found him, but usually only voted in general elections. I only learned about him in time - barely- to vote for him in my primary in 2008 because I actually disliked Mccain who I thought was going to win the nomination, and was looking for 'the best of the rest' to vote for. I almost went with Huckabee because he SPOKE of the Constitution, before I found Ron Paul, who lives it.

[anaconda]

There are a great many Paul fans nationwide who think registering Republican would infuse them with a stench that they could never wash off. Sad but true.

Great point. I'm glad I participated in this thread. Everyone is reshaping my thoughts about this. However, can we safely assume that the group you are identifying here are the LP's? Or, do you think this "bong group" extends significantly into, say disaffected 2008 Greens, Peace and Freedom's, and even unregistered's? Etc.

[anaconda]

if he won, the downturn would be blamed on "the free market", as if there was one.

It will still be blamed on the free market.

[sailingaway]

Great point. I'm glad I participated in this thread. Everyone is reshaping my thoughts about this. However, can we safely assume that the group you are identifying here are the LP's? Or, do you think this "bong group" extends significantly into, say disaffected 2008 Greens, Peace and Freedom's, and even unregistered's? Etc.

a ton are not LPs and some have their own affect towards LPs. Anti R could be anyone. There are self proclaimed 'Jeffersonian Democrats', for example.

[anaconda]

"Romney was a transformative candidate" is a statement made by noone, ever.

Not sure I follow. I suppose Romney transformed himself with every policy adjustment (aka flip flop).