Is Ron Paul to Blame for Romney's Nevada Problems?

Peter Suderman wrote earlier today of Romney's apparent problems pulling Nevada to his side, stressing his apparent failure to win swing voters by stressing economic troubles. Yet Obama is still trouncing him in the polls.

Meanwhile, yesterday the CBC wrote of the problems the Nevada Republican Party is facing over division between Ron Paul fans and the GOP mainstream. While this effect may have nothing to do with desire to vote for Obama in polls, it certainly might hurt in bringing out what "should" be Republican voters to vote for him. Details:

the big question this time is: Why isn't Romney getting the help he needs from the Nevada GOP?

One reason is..."The Ron Paul people."

That's what Heidi Smith, a member of the Republican executive board from Washoe County, calls those who are now in several of the executive positions of the state party...

They are also so anti-Romney that they tried to get away with naming Paul as Nevada's presidential choice at the national convention in Florida in August.

He wasn't. Romney won the primary and Paul came third. But state executives have considerable clout over which delegates can be sent to a national party convention...

[The Paul people] were able to take over Clark County's Republican organization, that's where Las Vegas is, and then the state party. Washoe County, in the north, is where Reno is and together, the two counties account for about 93 per cent of Nevada's population of 2.7 million people.

As a result of Paulite control over too many Nevada power centers, Romney is sending his own separate operation, "Team Romney," to work the state.

Team Romney still has a few weeks left to catch up and if he pulls off a victory in Nevada, it will probably taste just a little sweeter given the challenges. If he doesn't, there will likely be no shortage of blame being passed around.

If Romney is too crummy a candidate to win the votes and money and energy of more libertarian leaning Republicans, the fault lies in their candidate, not the non-voters.

I blogged back in May on the beginnings of the Paul Nevada faction troubles

My book, Ron Paul's Revolution.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • OldMexican||

    If Romney is too crummy a candidate to win the votes and money and energy of more libertarian leaning Republicans, the fault lies in their candidate, not the non-voters.


    It's somebody else's fault!

  • Pope Jimbo||

    The more things change, the more they stay the same:


    "Al Gore thinks he is entitled to your votes. Al Gore thinks that we're supposed to be helping him get elected, ... I've got news for Al Gore -- if you can't beat the bumbling Texas governor with that record, you ought to go back to Tennessee."
    ~ Ralph Nader
  • Marshall Gill||

    Quoting Ralph Nader on a libertarian site?

    Still, I agree. Since Romney sucks, we clearly deserve a second Obama administration.

  • Jingles||

    And let me guess: most of those Paul fans are going to just not vote instead of casting a ballot for Johnson.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Why do Ron Paul fans remind me of Project Mayhem?

  • SIV||

    Maybe those Paul fans just oppose Gary Johnson's plan to send monthly gubmint checks to every household in the USA.

    Why is the LP running a candidate who agrees 100% with Mike Huckabee on federal tax policy?

  • Hyperion||

    Do you have a link to suppor this claim? Also, do you think voting for GJ is a bad idea, as opposed to, oh I dunno, maybe voting for Obamney?

  • Hyperion||

    support, yes I can spell

  • SIV||

    Johnson supports the "fair tax". That is an existing piece of legislation that provides for the checks. Mike Huckabee ran on the same tax policy in 2008.

    There are these things called search engines. I'm not going to cite factual common knowledge for you

  • Hyperion||

    Ok, fair enough, I will google it.

    Myself, I support a flat consumption tax, or some form of non-progressive income tax. In other words, every one pays and stops getting punished for striving for and accomplishing bettering themselves through increased income.

    MmmKay, I just googled it, and I see what you are saying. I don't support any type of rebates, and especially subsidies. But I do like no income tax. Just don't tax basic needs like food, problem solved and bureaucracy avoided.

    Still, GJ is the best candidate running.

  • ||

    Who cares? The Fair Tax is a step in the right direction. Beats the shit outa what we have now.

    Is there something wrong with the libertarian candidate taking small steps in the right direction, or do you require libertopia on Nov 7th?

  • ||

    Dude, don't bother. We all knew SIV would go FULL SHILL for ROMNIAC, it's not like he isn't a partisan hack.

  • SIV||

    Fuck off you lying little pussy.

  • ||

    Uh oh, TEAM RED joe is being an Internet Tuff Gai! Maybe you can nip at my ankles, short stuff.

  • SIV||

    Look! It's Johnny one-note whining about TEAMS again
    Don't you have some lame sitcoms to quote?

  • ||

    That's good, RED joe. Let the hate flow through you. Then go back to laughably being a total shill hack.

    I mean, it's not like you aren't doing exactly what we said you would do or anything.

  • SIV||

    "We" that's awfully collectivist of you.
    Care to cite any of my "full shill" pro-Romney comments? Go look for my rabid support of McCain while you're at it.C'mon you know how to search. Put up or shut up. joe started the whole I'm a "Republican shill" thing everytime he lost an argument with me. You learned it from him.

  • ||

    Oh SIV, you actually think your transparent, idiotic sandbagging of Gary Johnson isn't utterly obvious shilling for Romney? Such a sad little creature you are...or just an incredibly mendacious one. Just like joe!

  • SIV||

    Mr anti-TEAM defending a politician?
    And a former-TEAM RED one at that. Doesn't that conflict with all your TEAM BLUE cultural affinities?

    No luck finding any of my "Republican shill" comments, eh?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Maybe you can nip at my ankles, short stuff.

    Said by the commenter whose contributions to the blog consist almost entirely of responding to other people's on-topic remarks with insults. Talk about nipping at heels.

  • SIV||

    Instituting a 30% federal consumption tax, monitoring every commercial transaction, and sending every houesehold a monthly "pre-bate check are not " small steps in the right direction". Particularly doing so without first repealing the 16th amendment.

  • Hyperion||

    30% is way too much. 15% will work. Reduce the size of the federal monstrosity by 50%, make all useless parasites get jobs. The economy will boom and everyone will win.

    Still, SIV, GJ is the best candidate by light years and Epi is right. It took the fucking proglodytes 100+ years to bring us to this low. It will take a little patience to right the ship.

  • Thane of Whiterun||

    I wasn't aware instituting a tax on every personal retail transaction -- no, not every "commercial transaction" -- required line-by-line accounting of every item sold.

  • SIV||

    The IRS Federal Fair-Tax Compliance and Enforcement Service will have to monitor all commercial transactions to make sure they aren't retail.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Bullshit. The national sales tax would be collected exactly the same way that current state an local sales taxes are collected, and it doesn't require monitoring all commercial transactions. Are an idiot or a liar?

    -jcr

  • SIV||

    Americans do their best to avoid 5-9%.
    They'll work harder and smarter to avoid 35-39%

  • Hyperion||

    ^THIS^

  • SIV||

    If you want to talk "first-steps" of tax reform I like Ron Paul's proposal to abolish the income tax and replace it with nothing. Other Federal revenues are enough to fund government at Clinton-era levels.

    Instituting a new revenue stream is not the way to cut government.

  • Hyperion||

    Property tax is the worst tax of all. Eliminate that for starters, and we go from there. Just no more progressive taxes, everyone is in.

  • SIV||

    The Feds don't tax property. Take it up with your state, county, and municipality.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Property tax is actually related to legitimate govt protective services, unlike sales and income taxes. It's the most "user fee" like of all taxes, except perhaps the gas tax, which is the model we should be moving toward.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    That's what the Fair Tax does.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Romney has to earn Paulite votes, but Johnson is entitled to them without having to do anything. Typical.

  • Calidissident||

    Johnson supports actually cutting spending, reforming the tax code, reducing regulations, shrinking government, ending the Patriot Act, NDAA, and other aspects of the police/surveillance state, doing something about the drug war, ending the wars and bringing our troops home, and ending the Fed. Mitt Romney supports none of these things. And Johnson has a pretty good record as governor in a left of center state no less.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    NM went for Bush in 2004. it's a swing state.

  • Calidissident||

    Key word is left of center. A state can lean one way without being a lock. And thanks for ignoring the substance of my post and nitpicking a side point

  • John C. Randolph||

    Johnson's not entitled to my vote, and in fact he lost it by demanding tax money for campaign funds. I'll be writing in Ron Paul. Nevertheless, Johnson's certainly not the kind of Ruling Party douchebag that Romney is.

    -jcr

  • Tulpa Doom||

    RP supporters who don't like gay marriage or abortion on demand or open borders are apparently supposed to STFU and vote for the guy they disagree with anyway. Just not when that guy is Romney.

  • Jingles||

    I think the Fair Tax is a little ridiculous too, but everyone knows Johnson isn't going to win. Casting a vote for him, though, is a good way to show dissatisfaction with Romney. I know a couple of ancaps who are decidedly social liberals who are probably going to just not vote despite the fact that they would've voted for Paul. I don't get it.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Casting a vote for him, though, is a good way to show dissatisfaction with Romney.

    ... AND the current teleprompter-in-chief.

    -jcr

  • Calidissident||

    Ron Paul personally doesn't believe in gay marriage, but he also doesn't want the government defining it in the first place

  • Coeus||

    apparently supposed to STFU and vote for the guy they disagree with anyway. Just not when that guy is Romney.

    No candidate is going to be 100%. The question is, can you live with what they will do and have done. In the case of Obama and Romney, both will continue to kill innocent people for the flimsiest of reasons.

    I can live with an endorsement of an improperly regimented tax scheme. But why can you live with endorsing the killing of innocents?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    The innocents are going to die regardless of how I vote. I've made peace with that. I have to vote for what's on the menu.

  • Calidissident||

    Um, everything is going to happen regardless of your vote. It's not like your vote is going to stop Obama's economic policies

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Zeno's Paradox again!

  • Calidissident||

    You engage in the EXACT SAME THING shithead! Gary Johnson can't win cause people won't vote for him. We shouldn't vote for him cause he can't win. Everyone starts with zero votes. Shouting "ZENO'S PARADOX!" doesn't make my previous post any less true. You continue to dodge my points because you're a disingenuous fool selling out to a slimeball and you know it. But I'll ask again: If on November 6th, it's obvious that Obama will win PA, will you vote for Gary Johnson?

  • Coeus||

    The innocents are going to die regardless of how I vote. I've made peace with that.

    The people Che murdered are already dead. It's still morally reprehensible to endorse and/or glorify him.

  • Calidissident||

    And to directly address your claim, while a war with Iran is likely with Obama, it's a virtual certainty under Romney. There's also a higher chance of intervention in Syria and elsewhere. And if we do go to war regardless, Romney would likely prosecute the war more vigorously. Not that this a guarantee, as they're both perfectly willing to intervene and kill people abroad, but if you're going to play the "They both suck, but they're not exactly the same!" card on domestic policy, other people have the right to play it on foreign policy.

  • Calidissident||

    *And I would like to add that the above argument is not a justification for voting for Obama. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It takes two to tango. Romney doesn't have Paulite support because Romney's done little to earn it. Abandon or alienate those voters and live with the consequences.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Blowback in action, fitting that it's Paul fans responsible.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    RON PAUL

  • Caleb Turberville||

    ORAL PUN

  • Generic Stranger||

    LARP UNO

  • Caleb Turberville||

    If the current fiscal crisis leads to the destruction of civilization, those left behind in the hellscape will cry "Larp Uno!" if they had the courage to support Ron Paul.

  • juris imprudent||

    RUN OPAL

  • Hyperion||

    The GOP is to blame for Romneys problems. No, wait, that is not quite right. The GOP is to blame for giving us such a lousy POS candidate when we tried to tell them better. Ron Paul should have been the candidate if the GOP wanted to win for their stupid team.

    That being said, and as a response to Jingles, I am voting for GJ, although I prefer RP. Vote for the best candidate and end this duopoly of shit non-sense once and for all.

    Now we get 4 more years of Odumbo, GOP, thanks a lot you fucking morons.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    RP would be -20 in the polls after the MSM started covering his racist newsletter.

  • Hyperion||

    No way. If RP would have won, as would have probably happened without the corrupt neocon controlled GOP establishment running interference 24/7, and then taken GJ as VP candidate, RP would destroy Obama. The youth vote and independent vote and all LP vote would have disappeared for Obama and went overwhelmingly for RP.

    Romney cannot get the youth vote, or the Libertarians. RP would have gotten both and not lost a single GOP voter whose only worry would have been to defeat Obama.

    You are giving Obama way too much credit. Only a terrible candidate would lose to him. Romney is that candidate.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I can see all those young voters and independents rushing to pull the lever for a guy whose name was, with his authorization, plastered all over a newsletter that called MLK a gay pedophile and said that the vast majority of blacks were criminals.

  • Coeus||

    They seemed fine with Reverend Wright....

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Ron Paul should have appealed to the Republican establishment by doing something stupid like eating at a McDonald's, kissing babies, or having an obnoxious catch-phrase like "I feel your pain."

    ...You know, something an "electable" candidate would do.

  • Hyperion||

    Or singing 'bomb, bomb, bombbomb Iran' on the campaign trail?

  • juris imprudent||

    I believe you owe Cytotoxic and the Iranian Pantswetters a royalty for referencing the lyrics of their one big hit.

  • Alien Invader||

    Ron Paul should have put enough effort into a coherent foreign policy position that people didn't just write him off as a foreign policy idiot.

    Could have been done, could have been packaged, and very probably could have been sold. Combine that with his economics story, and he just might have drawn enough votes to steam roll over the Bush-Romney crowd.

    Ron Paul did not do that. Which is very sad because we'd all be much better off with RP in the White House (in spite of the fact that I suspect somebody would want to off him soon after, if he ever got in there -- he'd rock way too many boats).

    But hey, I guess nobody is perfect.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    If Romney is too crummy a candidate to win the votes and money and energy of more libertarian leaning Republicans, the fault lies in their candidate, not the non-voters.

    Funny how Doherty didn't have this attitude when it was Ron Paul failing to win any GOP primary votes. I wonder how often the phrase "crummy candidate" appears in his Ron Paul book?

  • Hyperion||

    Yeah, and it didn't have anything at all to do with the GOP doing everything they could possibly do to make sure that the best candidate couldn't possibly win, like using their own version of the MSM, AKA FoxNews to ignore, slander, or whatever else low life tactics they could to prevent RP from getting any recognition from the average uninformed voter.

    The majority of people in this country are too fucking stupid to be allowed to vote. Their only source of real information is whatever they hear of news blurbs between episodes of dancing with the stars and whatever else brain dead drivel the networks are running.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Funny how you can't fucking read.

  • ||

    He can read. He's just retarded.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Nipping at the heels of contributors of actual content again, Epi?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    What am I failing to read?

  • General Butt Naked||

    As usual, you skip all qualifiers and jump straight into making a dumbass comment. Not to mention, making up a narrative for a Reason writer entirely in your own head and running with it. AAAAnd, expecting every writer on a libertarian website to give equal thrashings to friendlies as they do to your man crush. Fuck dude, if criticism of Romney bothers you that much don't read it. Go get laid or something. Really.

    But, it is what you do.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    What in God's name are you talking about? What did I make up about Doherty? It's all there in black and white.

    I don't expect equal numbers of bad articles for MR and RP. I expect that if two candidates mentioned in the piece have the same weakness, you either beat up on both of them for it or you don't beat up on either. If a writer can't bring himself or herself to do that because of their ideological affiliation, they're just partisan hacks.

  • General Butt Naked||

    The fucking article is about Romney not winning over libertarian leaning republicans in Nevada, and Ron Paul on the other

    Oh fuck it

    It's like talking to a fucking child

    A fucking baby

    THEY ARE FUCKING PARTISAN FUCKING HACKS YOU FUCKING DUMBASS.

    THIS IS AN UNABASHEDLY LIBERTARIAN PUBLICATION ASSHOLE.

    DO YOU GET THAT? CAN YOU GET THAT?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I don't see how the publication being libertarian is an excuse for hackishness. We don't give out those excuses to HuffPost or National Review, do we?

  • General Butt Naked||

    We? Who the fuck is "we"? Take your "we" and shove it up your fucking ass.

    I fully expect those publications and their websites to publish stories and editorial content slanted to their respective ideologies.

    I guess you want Reason to write an article about how Ron Paul couldn't seem to pick up the Pennsylvania-Retard vote 'cause, golly gee, he was such a crummy candidate. Then things would just be soooo even steven.

    Why don't you take the article above, copy and paste it, but make all the editorial changes needed to make it Tulpa-worthy, and comment it up right here. Give us something to laugh at.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I voted for Ron Paul. I don't think he was a crummy candidate (though his official campaign was incompetent and he's not an effective politician in general). Unlike Mr Doherty I don't assume that trailing in the polls means one is a crummy candidate.

  • Calidissident||

    The two situations aren't analogous. In Paul's case, he was a libertarian running for the nomination of a party that can't get enough of war and the war on drugs, and insists on nominating the "electable" (read: slick pretty-boy wishy-washy politicians with no principles) candidate. On the other hand, Romney is the nominee of one of the two main parties running against an incumbent with a terrible record and the worst economy for an incumbent since Carter (who lost in a landslide). The two situations aren't comparable.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    So the electorate being stupid/evil is an excuse when Paul loses, but not when Romney is trailing in the polls. The fact that the general electorate can't get enough of govt economic interference and handouts and Romney represents free enterprise doesn't matter, because he's such a crummy candidate (who nonetheless beat Paul handily).

  • Calidissident||

    No one said anything about stupid and evil, just that the electorate in the primary is one that's much harder for Paul to win over than the general electorate is for Romney, due to ideology. And Romney representing free enterprise is a crock of shit. God, you're delusional. Romney's all about interference and handouts, just like Obama, Bush, etc

  • BakedPenguin||

    TULPA DOOOOO!

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    I assure you, this is not a repeat from 1968.
    Trudeau wants to be Prime Minister of Canada

  • Hugh Akston||

    Then who's gonna draw Doonesbury?

  • General Butt Naked||

    Chip Bok.

    The same quality Doonesbury you expect will be provided.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Oooooooh, I'm sorry. The correct answer is "Gary Trudeau. Running Canada is a part time job."

    Thanks for playing though!

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    IN winter the Prime Minister refs minor hockey and in summer he coaches Canadian Football.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Who makes the TimBits?

    That's the guy who should be in charge?

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Who makes the TimBits?

    The governor general.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Well, I vote for that dude, sorry Gary.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    You can't vote for governor general, it's appointed by the Prime Minister.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I am a GODDAMN AMERICAN an I will vote for whomever I goddamn feel like, you queen worshiping son of a mother fucker!

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    What do you want, a timbit?

  • General Butt Naked||

    Yes!

  • Mickey Rat||

    Chip Bok can't do better than that?

  • SIV||

    The same Trudeau whose former wife was immortalized in song as "the easiest lay on the White House lawn"?

    Holy Christ. That record came out in '77. Pierre is still alive?

  • SIV||

    1978 actually

    Respectable

  • Anonymous Coward||

    the big question this time is: Why isn't Romney getting the help he needs from the Nevada GOP?

    One reason is..."The Ron Paul people."

    That's right republi-tarians, just take one more for the TEAM. This time, it'll be different. We promise.

  • Calidissident||

    They say "Oh well you have to support this time cuz MOST IMPORTUNT ELECSHUN EVUR!" but you know damn well they will be demanding we vote for Romney in 4 years regardless of the circumstances

  • Hyperion||

    Some of us learned that lesson already. Some will never learn. They should just vote democrat with the rest of the brain dead portion of the population.

    There are only 2 paths to solving our problems. A L takeover of the GOP, or the rise of the L party as a major party in the US of A.

    Also, they aren't going to be demanding that we vote for Romney, because after he loses this one, it is the end of his POTUS runs.

  • John||

    They might be demanding you vote for someone worse. There is nothing to say they will get better. They may get worse. The Tories did. Nothing says the Republicans won't as well.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Then they can continue to lose. We're used to it. Their assholes can still feel pain. That's what you might call a superior bargaining position.

  • Hyperion||

    Well, if they do, then RPs strategy would be a failure. Who can say? I suspect that will not be the case and that the GOP will become increasingly Libertarian. The pace of that I would not predict, but I will say that it had better be fairly fast or they will run out of time.

    I don't care either way. Takeover of GOP like the progressives did with the Dems, or rise of the LP, either way is fine with me. But I will place my bets on the GOP becoming more LP, ever so slightly...

  • John||

    At some point the GOP is going to take over again. Just like as some point the Dems will again if they lose in November. I would love to have the leaders of both parties shot just as much as you would. But that isn't going to happen. We are stuck with both of them. So the only hope is to reform them. Both of them not just one.

    And ultimately, most of the reason why they are as bad as they are is because the voters are that bad. Long term, you have to get the voters to change.

  • Hyperion||

    John, do you really think that there is any hope of reforming the Democratic Party? Really, you have to be joking. These people are progressives. The things that they believe in is the enemy of liberty in every way. There is no hope for them, they have to be completey eliminated from a free society.

  • John||

    I didn't say I was the bearer of good news Hyperion. But the Dems are going to win elections and get in power once in a while. We want them to because the alternative is letting the Republicans have a one party state. And that would be very bad.

    I don't know how you do it. I think a watergate level scandal and at least two soul shattering electoral defeat at the national level would be a start.

  • SIV||

    Maybe if they reject Wilson and FDR and embrace Andrew Jackson.

  • Calidissident||

    Not really sure if going from a guy who relocated a bunch of people to another guy who relocated a bunch of people is the ideal move. How about Grover Cleveland?

  • Gray Ghost||

    And ultimately, most of the reason why they are as bad as they are is because the voters are that bad. Long term, you have to get the voters to change.

    This is one of the more profound things I've read at this site. Unfortunately, reeducating the electorate---New Soviet Man, anyone?---never ends well.

    I'm with you on the necessity of reforming both parties. I don't think it'll happen before we realize we're broke, though. And after we realize that, I'm not sure where the country goes from there.

  • Alien Invader||

    You really believe it's just the voters?

    I doan theenk so, omeego. Hate to bear bad news, but the fact is our "democracy" or "democratic republic" or whatever you want to call it, is a system that sucks antelopes, field mice, cock roaches, you name it.

  • John||

    And if Romney does win, then they are going to care even less than they do now. Another reason why Libertarians would be better served by Obama winning.

  • Killazontherun||

    Obama wins I expect the Democrats will lose both the middle and blue collar class voters for an entire generation, so, yeah, I tend to agree.

  • John||

    But haven't they already lost those votes? Obama has made it pretty clear that any middle class or blue collar white person can go fuck themselves as long as he is President. If he wins, the Dems will just conclude that all they need are minorities, government workers, and upper class white women who want their abortions paid for.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Of course, if the GOP becomes the home of blue collar Democrats, it's pretty much solidifying itself as something as hostile to Libertarians as the Democrats.

  • Hyperion||

    You are going to get your wish. For better or worse, we shall see. All I want is a more Libertarian future.

  • John||

    I still doubt Obama will win. I don't think he is ahead now, the economy gets worse by the day, and I think he is going to get his clock cleaned in the debates.

    Ultimately, I don't think Republicans are living well enough or deserve the golden gift that would be a second Obama disaster.

  • SIV||

    The Obama poll numbers are reflecting considerable soft support. Romney's numbers reflect hardcore anti-Obama sentiment.

    I expect an "unexpectedly" strong showing for Mittens in November.

    I predict Romney wins at least one blue state he didn't campaign in.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Looking at the fine print of many of the polls at Real Clear Politics, I'm surprised by the degree of Dem oversampling. +8 is a low figure for many of them (Rasmussen being one of the few exceptions.) The thing is, O's lead in a bunch of states can't survive being scaled back to what I guess is the traditional +4 D turnout.

    Go look at the polls. He loses Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, even Wisconsin, if he loses 4%. If he loses all of those, he loses the election. I think it'll be amazingly close though, and we may see Randian's tie. Really interesting to see if these exaggerated Dem turnout numbers stand up at the polls.

  • Killazontherun||

    Obama has made it pretty clear that any middle class or blue collar white person can go fuck themselves as long as he is President.

    Yes. But a lot of them have not heard that message yet, and don't understand the animus directed at them. Some even entertain progressive notions as class status signifiers to which they aspire that in four years of this continued administration they will not be able to afford to maintain.

  • Killazontherun||

    Except for the very rich, progressivism will be a luxury item.

    That is the future I see if Obama is reelected.

  • Hyperion||

    I can't disagree with you on that, John. I disagree on voting for the jackass, but not on if it might not be better if he wins.

    I would actually love to see O win and see a complete takeover of congress by the GOP. He would probably look 90 years old by the completion of his relished 2nd term, lol.

  • John||

    It makes me pretty ambivalent about the election. If he loses, the tears are going to be fabulous. If he wins, the Dems are probably not going to hold either house. He has offered no justification or plan for the second term other than "but Romney!!" He would have no coattails or mandate. Meanwhile the economy is going into a double dip recession. Europe is falling apart. Even great Presidents have disappointing second terms. His would be a train wreck of epic proportions. And one that would probably do irreparable harm to the Dems and his media enablers. The only question is could you fix the harm he would do to the country.

  • Hyperion||

    The harm is already irreparable. He has started a class warfare, which is necessary for progressives, socialists, communists, statists, whatever they want to be known by this week, to keep power. The country is hopelessly divided now between the producers and the takers. It will get ugly. Obamas problem is that people are way more informed than they were at the turn of the last century and this shit plays out a lot faster. Those damn interwebs are worse than he bargained for.

  • John||

    I remember as a kid reading the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and thinking "how the hell did so many people believe such obvious nonsense". Now I still don't understand it, but I am seeing it. Otherwise intelligent people on the left believer really crazy and hateful things. This is different than any other time in our history sans maybe the civil war.

  • ant1sthenes||

    They don't just believe hateful things, they engage in low-level brownshirtism (and tolerate it in Islamists, which makes zero sense to me unless it's rooted in a sort of nihilistic rejection of the Enlightenment).

    The primary source of this (outside of extremist sites like Alternet or DU) seems to be the universities. How this country reacts to the economic higher education bubble could have major ramifications on the influence of the ideological higher education bubble. The left is more heavily dependent on coercion to push its ideology than the right, so any opportunity to weaken or kill state education will help to poison leftism at the roots.

  • Alien Invader||

    which makes zero sense to me unless it's rooted in a sort of nihilistic rejection of the Enlightenment

    You do realize, this is exactly where they're at.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    If Obummer does win, and the dems lose one or both houses, then the dems will simply blame team red for His Majesty's disastrous second term. I live in California. There has not been a republican majority in the state legislature in decades, and yet the democrats continue to blame all the problems on the republicans. And it's not just the politicians, the democrat electorate do the same thing. They are largely incapable of learning from experience. It's a very bizarre mindset.

  • Hyperion||

    I live in MD, and it's not much better. Cronyism is at a sickening level here. And a governor elected by parasites screeching about Swiss bank accounts and outsourcing that is the highest form of hypocrisy that you have ever heard...

  • juris imprudent||

    Republican regular: Fucking ingrates, we kick them out of our process because they insist we follow the rules and then they won't come back to support our guy. Our party is better off without you! You'll regret leaving us - you will. You'll be back begging our forgiveness - do you hear me bitch?!

  • John||

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/10.....ew-orleans

    The Daily Caller has the full I hate whitey tape up. It says pretty much what drudge says it did. None of it is that shocking. It is just typical bullshit that black politicians like Al Sharpton and Sheila Jackson Lee say every day. It kills any idea that Obama is anything but a fraud on race relations. But I think even his supporters admit that, although not very loudly. So not sure that it will be that big of a deal.

  • Killazontherun||

    Just started listening to it. WTF is up with that accent? He sounds punch drunk or coked up even.

  • John||

    I know. He sounds really pissed off and on coke or speed. Not very hopey changey is he?

  • ant1sthenes||

    No, he sounds like he's trying to sound black. Or else he normally sounds like he's trying to sound white. Either way, he comes as being either utterly fake on the tape, or utterly fake for white people. Or both, probably.

  • Killazontherun||

    If that is supposed to sound black I would be pretty insulted if I were in that audience. The only time I've heard a black guy sound like that was after he lost a boxing match or when he was pretty fucked up at the time.

  • pmains||

    It does strike me as odd. My mind immediately went to Hillary and the "I feel taaaarrrrrrd" fiasco. Maybe that's unfair.

    He does do that belchy "uuuuuuuhhhhh" thing when he's searching for a word. So, that part of the persona is constant.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    CNN is working on diffusing it.

  • John||

    I am sure they are. How long before DOJ demands it be taken down off the web?

  • ant1sthenes||

    Once people start rioting over it, I imagine.

  • ||

    They are? There's nothing on their front page. I figured that like the "you didn't build that" speech they would ignore it until everyone was talking about it but them.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    It seems Obama is what Zora Neale Hurston had in mind when she wrote about "that sobbing school of Negrohood who holds that nature somehow has given them a low down dirty deal."

  • John||

    I love Hurston.

  • ant1sthenes||

    This isn't a scandal. Obama's a rotten pandering grifter, just like his opposition. As the prophet said, "When a mirror speaks, the reflection lies." Although the difference in accent between the tape and his normal public persona is... jarring. Sort of reminds me of Frank Fontaine, to be all nerdy, although the game was based on Atlas Shrugged, so it all goes full circle anyway.

    The real scandal will be the complete radio silence on this from the MSM versus Romney's 47% tape.

  • John||

    The media is basically state run at this point.

  • Calidissident||

    Basically?

  • General Butt Naked||

    Thing was way too hyped. I was waitin' for some nation of islam shit, and that's what I get.

    SWING LOW SWEET CHARIOT!

    Whatevs. More boring ass shit that don't mean a goddamn thing.

  • ant1sthenes||

    They described some better stuff, but they didn't put it in the video. Why the fuck would you talk about some worse shit and not cut to that section in the video you post? READING IS FOR ASSHOLES, DC. You know who reads? Twilight fans. Is that who you're catering to now, Tucker?

  • General Butt Naked||

    I am not reading that whole article. Anyone have a snippet of honky-hate fer the General?

  • General Butt Naked||

    Okay, I read it, and can still only manage a meh.

    After 4 years of this president and all the ill shit this administration has been a party to, this video doesn't really shock me. But, then again, your average American voter is pretty dumb. This might stir them up. Endless wars, assassination of US citizens, erosion of civil rights, spiraling deficit don't matter so much as some bitch ass whitey hate.

    Really, this is some lame shit guys.

  • John||

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a.....ience.html

    Interesting comment by Mrs Suderman on Obama's lack of real world experience. Oh my God are the Huffpo comments a sea of idiocy. I knew they were bad. But these people are insane. This is my favorite

    Megan McArdle's only grounds for criticizing Obama are his shadydealings, as with her lengthy employ by and attempts to conceal andmisdirect her links to the Koch apparatus. eXiled's SHAME project hasthe goods on her. I hear they're hiring at Starbucks, Megan.: http://tinyurl.com/9sr4ea9

    The Kochtopus!!!

  • Thane of Whiterun||

    I've gradually learned to be flattered by the amount of influence these morons attribute to my ideological ilk.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    I wonder how well that commenter is going to take being separated from the hive mind?

  • Mickey Rat||

    Can we call him "Hugh"?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I've just realized the only thing distinguishing the Exiled from the Time Cube website is fairly good web design.

    Both of the sites display the classic monomania that is indicative of paranoid schizophrenia.

  • juris imprudent||

    Which proves that the Internet can provide whatever floats yer boat.

  • Coeus||

    You ain't kidding....

    8. Zog | October 2nd, 2012 at 2:54 am
    This chick is a little Lord Haw-Haw in skirt. Keep taking names lads. A new dawn, a new day is coming. The People cry out for Justice and when it comes there will be no place for the lackeys and sycophants of the Oligarchy to hide. Let them squeeze, the neck they hold is their own.

    Whoah!

  • Gray Ghost||

    Ever since Dolan stopped writing the War Nerd, there's been no reason for me to visit that site. Even Eileen's movie reviews aren't good enough to put up with Ames's idiotic rants.

    It's really gone downhill in the last two years. Well, since they got kicked out of Russia, really.

  • Hyperion||

    Oh my God are the Huffpo comments a sea of idiocy

    I see you have never spent any time at Politico.

  • Coeus||

    And there’s a good reason she doesn’t want the public to know about her Koch connections. If people knew, they wouldn’t waste time debating, reading or even paying attention

    How dare she try to make us think about our obvious double standards and pleas to emotion. She a Koch!!! Now we can forget how easy it is to show how shallow and retarded our ideas and policy proscriptions are.

  • wakeup||

    Koch brothers, Bilderbergers, Illuminati, Trilateral commission.
    The list of who influences both parties is huge.

  • Coeus||

    Say what you will, the first two on that list of yours actually do have outsize influence. Though I would say that the bilderbergers are an order of magnitude higher.

  • juris imprudent||

    There are people who just transfer a belief in god(s) controlling the world to conspiracies.

  • Coeus||

    True, though as far as I can remember, God has never re-routed two planes full of reporters in order to have an off-the-record meeting with political candidates.

  • Calidissident||

    And the lizard people control them all ...

  • Mickey Rat||

    "If Romney is too crummy a candidate to win the votes and money and energy of more libertarian leaning Republicans, the fault lies in their candidate, not the non-voters."

    If this is true and the Paul people are too bitter to properly perform the party duties they chose to accept, then they should have resigned in favor of people who would. Paul's delegates are not covering themselves in glory here. If they are not using this time in power to build relationships, then they will not have much future influence in GOP internal politics and Paul's effort will be wasted.

  • John||

    Pretty much. If the Republican party is so bad, what you do is leave it. You don't lie and pretend to support something that you really don't. That shows a total lack of integrity.

  • juris imprudent||

    Of course a total lack of integrity is a key ingredient in Republican circles.

  • ant1sthenes||

    True, but it's hard to be nice to people who are treating you like shit.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    That tends to happen when you try to steal an election from the person who actually won the vote. Jesse Benton's delegate strategy backfired big time, didn't it?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    So much bitterness over the way the RP delegates' votes were ignored at the convention; nary a thought about the Romney votes which the RP people were trying to ignore during the "delegate strategy".

  • BakedPenguin||

    TULPEROOOOOOO

  • Coeus||

    nary a thought about the Romney votes which the RP people were trying to ignore during the "delegate strategy".

    How dare you get mad about that bad call. You didn't get mad when your team scored that point according to the rules mutually agreed upon at the beginning of the game...

  • Mickey Rat||

    Wasting a strategic opportunity in favor of pouting will not earn you better treatment in the future.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Sometimes you have suck it up and be the bigger person to obtain your goals.

  • ant1sthenes||

    The goal being to have a corporate-backed warmongering fiscal statist who despises civil liberties in the Oval Office?

    "Well, I'll ask him, but I don't think he'll be very keen... Uh, he's already got one, you see?"

  • Tulpa Doom||

    The delegate strategy had dual (and mutually exclusive) goals of getting RP a speaking slot at the convention and putting RP's people in positions of influence in the state party structures. Looks like the first goal has been pursued at the expense of the second.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The goal being moving the GOP in the future towards Paul's governing philosophy. To do that requires building working relationships with people in the party outside of the Paulite circle. Sabotaging Romney's candidacy through inaction does not further that goal. My understanding was that Paul's people were playing a long game, but I guess you do not have the patience for that.

  • ant1sthenes||

    I'm not a Paulbot, or a Republican.

    Romney's true circle is at least as small as Paul's, which is part of the reason he's doing so poorly. He's the anointed of the Republican political elite, but that doesn't mean he's well-liked by the Republican electorate. It's true that the Paulites need to build relationships with the body of the party, but they're fighting the neocons and corporatists for its soul -- that's not the sort of fight that lends itself to compromise or weakness. Either they drive the elite out, or they get driven out.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Sulking about not getting your way immediately is weakness.

  • General Butt Naked||

    ...and naively believing in some sort of unicorn-fart
    "long game" is idiocy.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    What game are the Paul people playing then? They're getting nothing in the short term except spite, unless you think BO is more libertarian than Romney.

  • John C. Randolph||

    too bitter to properly perform the party duties they chose to accept,

    There is no duty to vote for a douchebag, even if he did manage to get nominated. I would go so far as to say that the ones who reject Romney at the polls are better Republicans than Willard is.

    -jcr

  • Mickey Rat||

    We are talking about people who chose to accept officer positions in the Republican Party. Accepting those positions was accepting a duty to advance the party's goals, if they did not want that duty then they should not have accepted those positions.

    Good Lord, that is small minded. Are libertarians incapable of of strategic thinking?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Is the LP admissible as evidence for that question?

  • Virginian||

    If by strategic thinking you mean selling out our principles, then no.

    Here's a strategic thought for you: What if I told you that nominating a Northeastern RINO who supported a healthcare mandate and an assault weapons ban would be more damaging for the Republican brand then almost anything I can think of?

  • Calidissident||

    But you don't understand! If we keep voting for the Republicans they'll eventually embrace libertarianism!

  • ant1sthenes||

    If we put out for free, they're bound to marry us!

  • Virginian||

    Seriously, here's my thing: I'm very pragmatic, I recognize it took about a hundred years to get to the current nightmare. It might very well take that long to undo it. But I want a step in the right direction. If Mitt Rommney swears on his honor to get rid of one federal agency, I'll vote for him. Not a cut in future increases, not a freeze, or a phased rollback.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....l_agencies

    Pick one. Any one. I recommend the Indian Arts and Crafts Board. Close them down, fire the parasites that work there, and sell the furniture. You could also close the Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Or the African Development Foundation. AMTRAK. The Election Assistance Corporation. The Farm Credit Administration. The Inter-American Foundation. I could go on and on, but I will end with this. The Panama Canal Commission is still in operation, although we gave up the Canal in 1979. Why?

    I say this again. If Mitt Romney will get rid of one, just one, of these silly worthless little government organs, I will vote for him.

  • Calidissident||

    I wouldn't be surprised if Romney got rid of one or two small agencies that cost a few hundred million a year. Right before he cranks up the military budget by a few hundred billion dollars, shelling out contracts to his buddies in the "defense" industry

  • John C. Randolph||

    If Mitt Rommney swears on his honor to get rid of one federal agency, I'll vote for him.

    So... You enjoy getting disappointed by sociopathic liars?

    To each his own, I guess. I'm writing in Ron Paul so that I can have a clear conscience.

    -jcr

  • Virginian||

    You think there's the slightest chance in hell I'm going to have to follow through on that promise?

    He's a big government guy through and through. Which is why his whole campaign is centered around managerial competence. But I don't want to be competently managed, I want to be left alone.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Then they sold out their principles when they accepted the officer positions in the party. If their resentment towards Romney makes them incapable of performing the jobs they accepted, then they are not principled, they are incompetent.

  • Calidissident||

    If the politicians of the party can't be expected to be honest and have integrity, why should they expect low-level officers to be honest people of good integrity?

  • Mickey Rat||

    If the Paulites long term goal was to take over the GOP from the inside, then that kind of tit for tat thinking is counterproductive to that goal. However, from reading your other comments here, you do not seem to care one iota about that strategy at all, so there's no point in discussing this.

  • Calidissident||

    What because I don't think blindly voting GOP is going to result in Republicans accepting libertarianism? I'm all for trying to take over the GOP. But that doesn't mean we have to vote for shit candidates like Mitt Romney. And if they can count on our votes no matter what, why would they change?

    And it's a lot more than tit for tat. Establishment Republicans like Romney, Bush, etc have screwed us over and helped the Democrats every step of the way in taking away our liberty, both economic and social, burying us with debt, and conducting an immoral, ineffective, and wasteful foreign policy. Compared to that, the transgressions of these people seem pretty fucking trivial

  • General Butt Naked||

    And if they can count on our votes no matter what, why would they change?

    It's the long game. DO NOT QUESTION THE LONG GAME! Its machinations are too complex for a mere loserdopian.

    Puts on wizard hat and robe.

    VOTE MITT!

  • Tulpa Doom||

    And if they can count on our votes no matter what, why would they change?

    No one here is proposing that libertarians in general pledge undying allegiance to the GOP. Fuck, I've not voted for the GOP candidate for prez since 2000. But this year is different; the gap between the candidates is huge. Not because Romney is some constitution-loving hero, but because his opponent is awful beyond measure.

    And as Mickey Rat notes, if you accept a position of leadership in a party you are pretty much obligated to promote the party's candidates.

  • Calidissident||

    Right Tulpa, as I said MOST IMPORTUNT ELECSHUN EVUR! And you haven't voted GOP for two whole elections? Whoopdee freaking doo do you want a pony? Gap? What gap? That little crack? Both of these guys accept the vast majority of what the federal government does as legitimate. Compare their proposals, and then when you factor in the fact that they would have to compromise with Congress (and in Obama's case, he can't even get his own party to support his budget) and the differences in spending won't be much. Romney wants even more military spending, and you know damn well he'll be willing to grant concessions to Democrats to get it. And we all know congressional Republicans care a lot more about deficits when a Democrat's in the White House. Obama would regulate more than Romney, but there will be more regulations in either case. Romney's a technocrat at heart. Just change a few rules, add a couple more, get the Right People in charge, and everything will be dandy. Both want a trade war with China, though Romney seems even more insistent on it. He's also more likely to start a war with Iran and would likely fight such a war more vigorously than BHO. He's also likely to be even worse on civil liberties than Obama, as bad as he's been. Add it all up, and there is just not a big enough difference to justify voting for Romney

  • John C. Randolph||

    To take over the GOP, you have to get a majority of delegates and party officers elected at the local and state levels. Ron Paul gained the support that he did by never selling out. The way to take over the Republican brand of the Ruling Party is by sticking to the principles that got us this far.

    -jcr

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Ron Paul gained the support that he did by never selling out.

    Then he's already hit his ceiling of support. The GOP is a diverse coalition, you can't do shit if you refuse any compromise with the other factions.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Then he's already hit his ceiling of support.

    I'm sorry that you believe that, but I happen to believe that most people are basically decent, and can be educated.

    -jcr

  • Alien Invader||

    Then they sold out their principles when they accepted the officer positions in the party.

    You know Rat Boy, you are one incredible piece of work. Do you really believe this BS you're pushing here?

    Dead serious question: just how far off the rails does the Republican Party have to get, before even you would concede that somebody ought to do something about it?

    Suppose for argument's sake that scientists figured out how to clone Chairman Mao from the grave. And suppose the Republican Party turned around nominated him. Would that finally be enough for you to agree that the GOP was off the rails, and the rank file were justified in objecting? Even revolting against it?

    Memo: the Republican Party has gone off the fucking rails. People are not happy about it.

    So don't come around here trying to tell people they're somehow "duty-bound" to support whatever idiot this off-the-rails party has nominated.

    If Romney, and the GOP, want people's votes, then they better start fucking earning them. If they don't earn them, they won't get them.

    Welcome to Real-Politic, Rat Boy. This is just how the cookie is going to crumble.

    Romney and the GOP pissed on the RP movement. The Real-Politic outcome is that they're going to pay for it. And this time, we hope quite dearly.

    The GOP hasn't gotten the memo any other way. Maybe this kind of pain will finally get their goddamned attention.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Romney and the GOP pissed on the RP movement."

    Yes they did, and the real politic effect of sabotaging Romney from the inside is showing the GOP establishment that they were exactly correct to do so. Paul's people cannot be trusted. Realpolitik means that you eat shit with a smile if it expands your base of influence. You want the keys to the party handed to the Paulites on a silver platter, and they are not currently a big enough group to get that even if they are punching above their weight.

    All I am saying is that the GOP establishment is not going to care if the Paulites crumble their own cookie. This strategy, if strategy it is, will decrease the Paul movement influence in GOP politics, and that's a bad thing.

  • Gray Ghost||

    All I am saying is that the GOP establishment is not going to care if the Paulites crumble their own cookie.

    They might if Romney ends up losing because 10% of the Republicans either don't show up, vote for GJ, or write in Ron Paul. Or if hilarity ensues and a few GOP electors actually vote for Paul and O wins with less than 270

    To get something in politics, you have to give something. The Establishment did everything it could to crap on Paul, who wasn't going to win even if he was given a fair shake. (The rising star in the GOP was Santorum, not Paul. Sorry, it bugs me too.) All Romney had to do was be civil, seat the RP delegates, hear their concerns and give them a small plank or two, then let his overwhelming delegate lead do the rest. Paul wasn't winning. He wasn't even going to force a brokered election. Shitting on the Paulites was needless and petty.

    Had Romney's group done all that, then the GOP would have reached out to the Paulites, and I'd argue the Paulites then would need to support the guy their party's selection system chose. As it is...why should the GOP be entitled to the RP bloc's votes if they've done damned near nothing to try and bring that bloc into the fold?

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I don't think Mickey Rat is defending the GOP establishment here. He's saying they're part of the landscape that Paul supporters have to deal with. Like it or not, they have the reins right now, and throwing an electoral temper tantrum isn't going to change that.

    The GOP establishment would gladly trade an electoral defeat for the marginalization of Paul supporters and the Tea Party movement in general. Think about that.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Accepting those positions was accepting a duty to advance the party's goals,

    Oh, blow it out your ass. Willard never gave a shit about the party's goals, and that's why he and his goons turned the RNC into the fucking Supreme Soviet. All hail the leader, there is no opposition, and all that bullshit.

    -jcr

  • pmains||

    This true, tragic and hilarious all at once.

  • wef||

    If Romney should lose the election - Athuramazda willing - by the margin of lowly Nevada, we should hope that the blame of the wailing, aggrieved poltroons of the republican leadership would fall, and spectacularly so, on Ron Paul and, more generally, the libertarian voter and non-voter.

    Simply as a practical matter, if the repubes should lose, we want that the noble house of bush and all other similar boehneroids, mccainites, romneyists, mikemurphey worms, georgewill lapdogs, and other power-worshiping suckups and wannabes are shown to be losers without libertarian support.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    So the GOP would lose to a candiate promising free government ponies to all comers, and the message would be that they didn't cater to the libertarian 1% enough? I don't think so.

  • wef||

    Is your objection to the Nevada nonsense that you are offended by team o's handing out free stuff rather that republicans do the handing out? Is your objection a matter of sophomoric debate over which Major Party is most efficient and least likely to hand out ponies? Is this the Most Important Election Ever? If team o were to instead hand out, say, the medicare-part-d old-fogie cash, or the ethanol subsidies, or maybe the no-child-left-behind-education-lobby cash slops, or a trillion to this, that or the other war, here or there – then you’re fine with that?

    And just to cover the rhetorical bases, if you think your vote has a chance of changing the outcome of this election, a probability greater than a lightning strike, then you are an idiot. If you think it is your duty to vote for one of these two pigs, then you are a religious nut.

  • ant1sthenes||

    They can spin it however they want. If they think they can poach voters from the Gimmedats, they're welcome to try. Or, alternately, they could look at what dampened turnout for their base and stop fucking doing it.

  • Hyperion||

    FTW. Doesn't matter what is said here or not. Romney will lose this election. And it's all the GOPs fault. If the neocons can't have their way and Orin Hatch can't smack some Libertarians in the mouth(without getting the shit beat out of his dried up old arse) then the hell with it, we'll just lose, because damnit, we need eternal wars and erosion of civil liberties. War! That is what freedom is, WAR! War on anything and everything, and get ready to die for it, you serfs, because your elitist masters say so!

  • ant1sthenes||

    It makes sense, really. The RNC elites and the DNC elites, when it gets down to it, have class solidarity. Sure, they have bitter factional disputes. So did the noble houses, but they all stood together against a potential rise of the peasantry, which is what the Tea Party and any potential counterpart on the left represent.

  • wakeup||

    This election is only a distraction. Who wins is in the end meaningless. Look at the big picture.

  • buybuydandavis||

    For whatever reason, Romney chose to have the party spit on Paul supporters at the convention. Now they're shocked, Shocked, that the Paul people aren't supporting them.

    It just seemed so stupid. They could have taken the high road, showed Paul and his followers some respect, and gotten the support of the most dedicated and motivated faction in the Republican party. Instead, they spit on them, and do everything they can to marginalize them.

    Well, them chickens are coming home to roost.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Yes, the Paulites are throwing away all that their candidate worked for so they can indulge in self-pity. I am gobsmacked at how many people think this is the right play.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    They're so insistent on not being battered by one guy that they're dragging the entire family into the clutches of an even more abusive man.

  • Calidissident||

    And the people who vote for both of these guys are passing up a chance to not be beaten. I think they're the problem, not us

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    He only beats me because he loves me!

    http://www.netznet.net/Each_Time/Each_Time.htm

    ... Hobbit

  • John C. Randolph||

    the Paulites are throwing away all that their candidate worked for

    We're doing nothing of the kind. Ron Paul's campaign gathered the support that it did by sticking to principle. Supporting Willard would be throwing it all away.

    so they can indulge in self-pity

    Project much?

    -jcr

  • Mickey Rat||

    Doing a shitty job in a position you freely accepted is sticking to principles? In what universe?

    Be a team player and expand your base of influence or resign on your principles. Keeping the position with purposeful incompetence just shows yourself to a shitty human being of no integrity, and no should trust you.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Doing a shitty job

    They're doing a far better job than the drones they replaced, sparky.

    -jcr

  • Tulpa Doom||

    THEY MUST PAY! FOR WHAT THEY HAVE DONE!

    See ya around, Ahab.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "They could have taken the high road, showed Paul and his followers some respect,..."

    Paulites, the Terrell Owens of the political world.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    And when a more "flexible" BO unleashes the horrors he has in store for his second term, they'll be bitching about that too.

  • Calidissident||

    Unless they voted for Obama, they have every right to bitch.

  • ant1sthenes||

    And Republicans will be bitching too, even though they failed to vote for Gary Johnson, thus preventing him from winning and pulling us back from the brink.

    Just remember, if you're in a state that Gary Johnson could win with Republican votes -- a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama.

  • Calidissident||

    +10000000

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Show me a state where 30% of the voters are seriously considering voting for Johnson.

  • Calidissident||

    Why is that necessary? If all those Republican voters voted instead for Johnson, that wouldn't be an issue, would it? All of your arguments rely on massive numbers of people joining you in doing something, but for some reason we can't do the same thing

  • ant1sthenes||

    It's a shame that such a high percentage of Republicans don't care if Obama wins, if it means they have to vote for a candidate that doesn't perfectly reflect their views. It's the sort of self-destructive partisan purity testing I've come to expect from Republicans.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Romney chose to have the party spit on Paul supporters

    Romney chose to have his crones do that, not the party. The party is pretty upset about the shit Willard pulled at the convention.

    -jcr

  • Sevo||

    Paul is to blame for Romney's problems like Bush is to blame for Obama's; a convenient target so those who love you have something to point at.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    If Paul supporters are sabotaging the GOP party structure in a swing state, that's a pretty blameworthy act.

  • Romulus Augustus||

    How is Ron Paul to blame for the apparent 20% lead Obama has among the huge voting bloc called "women?"

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Point to where I said RP was to blame for anything.

    IF his supporters are sabotaging the party that's a problem. The bigger problem is a stupid, envious electorate and a press speaking praise to power.

  • Calidissident||

    You say that as if those things aren't true regardless of whether it's a D or an R in the White House

  • Hyperion||

    Ohhh, yes, the wimins folk. The divide and conquer tactic is alive and well. Only until it weakens the country to the point that the Islamists take over. Somehow I don't think that works out as well as the feminazis think it will. Unless wearing a burqua and getting the shit beat out of them on a daily basis was the goal.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Given that their current political strategy is to assume that women think of themselves as life-support systems for a uterus, I have to imagine that their end goal is the complete elimination of all liberal feminist accomplishments.

    That would jive with what seems to be the progressive left's general tendency, in practice, toward being a reactionary movement against the Enlightenment.

  • widget||

    Nevada is Mormon country, everywhere 500 yards from Las Vegas, that is. Harry Reid is a Mormon. They voted for Harry. They'll vote for Mitt. Nevada is not swing state. My prediction, anyway. They celebrate Pioneer Day there, it's right up there with the 4th of July, fireworks and all.

  • Gray Ghost||

    It was conservative country until a gazillion Californians moved there. And brought the same politics that trashed their home state. (See, Washington, Oregon, and Colorado.) Now, I've no idea which way it'll go, but based on polling from the last two months, would put Nevada at Obama -140, if I were setting a line.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    LIT is sad he missed last night's bitch fest between Red and Yellow.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement