Most of this somewhat turgid article says the GOP POTUS campaign loss happened because the GOP was not hardcore enough and the true believers it needed walked away.
It ends by asserting that the GOP needs them desperately to win so the future is bright for the Ron Paul faction. Is that specific part of the analysis correct?
If you took all of the Ron Paul votes for President and added them to Romney’s total, he still would have lost. Heck, take all of the third-party votes and add them to the Republicans, and they still lose. So the only way this can be true is if the “more legitimate avenue” the “Liberty Movement” is moving to is the Democratic Party.
There is a Smurf’s ass-hair of truth in there: the GOP is currently in trouble because the base is increasingly dividing themselves among conservatives and “true conservatives.” However, lets just get this straight: for all the fawning from some sectors over Ron Paul, had he been the Republican candidate, I’d be surprised if he got 35% of the vote.
These fringe positions on isolationism and Austrian economics weren’t even taken seriously by St. Ronnie. They are not the path to victory.
Wow, Ron Paul supporters declaring that they are thisclose to being a politically relevant force. In other news, it’s Sunday again, which is actually the less regular and predictable occurrence of the two.
Yeah, that works . . . :rolleyes:
The libertarians need to realize that they’ve all reported for duty. There’s no hidden base of libertarian supporters out there waiting for the call. Every libertarian in America voted for Ron Paul in 2012 and he lost decisively. The libertarians have to swallow this result and accept that they are never going to elect a President.
I’ve long noticed that Ron Paul’s performance is inversely correlated with how similar something is to a general election. General elections he does worst at, then better at primaries, especially in small states. Even better at caucuses. Better still at straw polls. Really well on internet polls, especially those that allow people to vote multiple times. Probably best of all in spamming Youtube comments and stuff of that sort.
Definitely an overstatement-- I’m sure at least some of them instead voted for someone who was at least slightly libertarian. Ron Paul is not and never has been a libertarian-- He’s just a hard-right conservative who happens to like pot.
I guess that’s why they’re talking, as in the OP, about taking over the GOP. Certainly they have no third-party future.
So? Name a pol who is a real libertarian. And a real pol.
Alternatively, take all of Ron Paul’s primary votes, add them to Romney’s totals in the general, and he still loses. Even the most charitable assumptions (that a balance of zero RP primary voters went Romney in November) can’t lead one to the conclusion that the “liberty movement” could have affected the outcome.
God, I haven’t always been the best of men. But if you give me this I promise to build a cathedral.
Libertarianism has a future in the conservative movement and the Republican Party but Ron Paul represents the past, not the future of Libertarianism considering that of all the notable candidates this year, Congressman Paul was probably the most backward looking*. The future of Libertarianism lies more in a candidate like Governor Gary Johnson. Incidentally I might add Libertarianism’s position is rather comparable to where the Socialists were a hundred years ago.
*Something I made up:
Mitt Romney wants to take America back to 2002
Newt Gingrich wants to take America back to 1994
Rick Santorum wants to take America back to 1955
Ron Paul wants to take America back to 1885
So the guy who was far too extreme to get elected is far too mainstream to represent libertarianism.
Yeah, the libertarians are definitely poised to take over. They just better hope the Greens don’t make their move and force a showdown in the 2016 election.
No what a politician"s real beliefs are, if one wins while declaring her/himself to be a Libertarian they will embrace that politician like a long-lost child.
Not all. I didn’t.
“We lost because we’re not pure enough.”
The logic (and I use that word loosely) of the zealot.
You don’t get more votes by appealing to fewer people.
You didn’t? And the libertarians only missed the Presidency by one vote!
Nope. Debs got 6% in 1912 and Johnson got only 1%.
No, some of them voted for Obama.
Though I do agree with your argument: