Bernie Sanders Is Clearly Capturing Part of the Ron Paul Student Vote

Libertarian students for avowed socialism.

|

Sanders
Vox

Last night's big win for Bernie Sanders was partly fueled by his utter dominance of the under-30 crowd. As I argued in a short piece for CNN, Sanders' popularity among students is reminiscent of Ron Paul's successes in 2008 and 2012:

Sanders seems even more wildly popular among young voters than Barack Obama was in 2008.

He's likely capturing some of the non-interventionist, libertarian-leaning college-aged people who last time around would have supported Ron Paul—another septuagenarian white man with a radical streak and surprising youth cred.

Now that there isn't anyone named Paul in the race (RIP: Rand, who failed to inspire as much devotion as his father), there's no obvious inheritor of the libertarian vote, which is split among several imperfect candidates—including avowed socialist Sanders.

Read the rest here.

[Related: Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump Win New Hampshire. That's a Rebuke to the Status Quo.]

NEXT: The Beer 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.

  1. So Hillary’s right, Bernie voters are sexist.

  2. How do you go from ‘I like Rand Paul’ to ‘I like Bernie Sanders’?

    Do these people even think anymore?

    1. As someone who remembers being under 30: No.

    2. Well, if you’re a young woman, you’re just doing it for the dick.

      -Gloria Steinem.

    3. No, they went from ‘I like Ron Paul’ to ‘I like Bernie Sanders.’ They are just into (grand-) daddies.

      1. Yeh, meant Ron. Sorry.

      2. So you’re saying this is the GILF fetishist vote. Makes as much sense as any other explanation.

    4. Do these people even think anymore?

      The part of your question I don’t understand is the “anymore.”

    5. 1) The “Kids” voting in 2008 were not the same kids voting yesterday
      2) Ron Paul operated at a specific time when there was a growing Anti-Iraq War sentiment in the GOP that was unmet by any other candidate
      3) Ron Paul had a very strategic ground game that has been neutered by Romney’s structural changes in the primary process.

      The vast majority of kids are not operating off of Principles. They are caught up in movements. Ron Paul and Bernie both pointed to a corrupt, crony-capitalist system that is “betraying” our nation’s youth. Ron didn’t capture those kids because they were principled libertarians. He captured them because he was one of the few people calling the system what it was, and promising to change it…and he never got anywhere near the vote that Bernie is now getting.

      1. But the media assures me that people are only voting for Bernie because they are sexist

        1. It’s true. Bill Clinton said so, and he’s an expert on sexism.

          1. The entire Democratic Party is sexist except for those over 65 and making over $200,000 a year. Who knew?

            1. And also minorities. Hillary is dominating among blacks and Hispanics so apparently they’re just less sexist than dirty white devils.

      2. The vast majority of kids are not operating off of Principles. They are caught up in movements.

        This is actually a very astute description for voting trends among(st?) young people. And it’s nothing new.

        1. As far as I know among and amongst are completely interchangeable (but my spellcheck doesn’t like “amongst”. Must be considered British usage or something.).

          1. Yes; amongst is Brit for among.

            1. As the years pass post my mother’s death, I’m beginning to question the British version of things more and more.

              1. They can’t speak English properly like us Murkins.

                1. They can’t speak English properly like us Murkins.

                  I don’t remember the last time I rung up the clark.

            2. “Yes; amongst is Brit for among”

              I believe Hmong is the preferred nomenclature.

      3. Yes, I think that describes it pretty well.

        Ron Paul was 2012. Some of the young people are the same ones from then.

      4. He captured them because he was one of the few people calling the system what it was, and promising to change it…and he never got anywhere near the vote that Bernie is now getting.

        That’s because he didn’t offer them any free shit.

        Free shit [greater than] freedom

        1. Look, which would you prefer, living free in Somalia or living in a large jail cell but have a free iPhone and half-decent healthcare?

          You have 20 minutes for your answer.

          1. What’s my situation in Somalia look like?

          2. A gilded cage is still a cage. I’ll rule the Libertopia wasteland (insert reference to Paradise Lost here), thank you very much.

    6. If all your friends like Bernie Sanders, do you think you’re going to go for another candidate and risk ostracism?

    7. How do you go from ‘I like Rand Paul’ to ‘I like Bernie Sanders’?

      Some tin-foil hats have tuners.

      1. I choose this as the best answer.

    8. They might be the same age range, but they aren’t the same people. It’s been 8 years (or 4 years). Those Ron Paul young’uns are now in a different box.

    9. Really liking passionate, unconventional old men? Wizard fetish?

      1. Indeed libertarians are overrepresented in the Tolkien-world cosplay demographic.

  3. “He’s likely capturing some of the non-interventionist, libertarian-leaning college-aged people””

    Or they’re just retards and they like voting for “Other” because fashion-statement

    (see: obvious take-away from all youth-voting – ‘its symbolic, not reflective of any political philosophy’)

    “leaning” a bullshit qualifier. You’re not “libertarian-leaning” if you’re also cool with re-distributive economics.

    1. Of all people to get huffy about a fashion statement… mr. matching-tie.

    2. You mean there might not be a “libertarian case for Bernie”?

      1. There’s a very, very narrow cherry-picked case for Bernie Sanders.

        1. He maybe might not start a bunch of wars.

          1. Unless, you know, starting some wars will get congressional hawks to back some of his social programs. He’s been very clear about that.

            1. And socialists have never started wars in response to running out of other peoples money. Right?

              1. Right. Socialists’re peacable folk who never did no harm to no one, aside from a handful of wreckers and kulaks who stood athwart their particular road to Utopia.

                1. Socialists tend to focus their ire on their own populations. Unless you’re National Socialist, then you focus your ire on everyone equally.

          2. “”He maybe might not start a bunch of wars.””

            why bother? he’ll still have his hands full with the ones obama left him.

            1. And wasn’t Obama supposed to not do that? I seem to recall a lot of people saying that you had to vote for him over McCain because McCain was going to start a bunch of wars and Obama wouldn’t. How did that work out?

        2. There’s a very, very narrow cherry-picked case for Bernie Sanders.

          Not Trump, not Hillary, zero religion per serving.

          The cottage conspiracy industry around Bernie actually being a false-flag Jewish plant engineered by Zionist-banksters would also be kind of a bonus to watch unfold.

  4. Rico, the college-aged kids who supported Ron Paul in 2008 and/or 2012 are, um…not “college aged” in 2016.

    1. he’s pretending there’s a theoretical permanent slice of yunguns who maintain some kind of strict philosophical-consistency.

      just play along. its part of the libertarian case for something.

      1. Which we know isn’t true. SJW really peaked in the last couple years making the current college students more retarded than normal and when Ron Paul was supported by some portion of students.

      2. FWIW, I think the youth have always leaned left. Largely because they don’t pay any taxes.

        1. And to reference Winston Churchill, they vote with their hearts, not their brains.

          1. That beats what your mom votes with.

      3. It is the same sort of sloppy assumptio a that assumes the bottom quintile of income are always the same people, except with college students it is obvious that they are not.

    2. Good catch. But maybe Robby figures that since it took him 8 years to get through college that is how long it takes everyone else.

    3. They’re still under 30, which is the age group under discussion.

    4. If you consider “college aged” to mean strictly ages 18-21, then OK. Lots of people go to college later in their 20s, though.

    5. You never know, some of them may still be in school working on their B.A. degrees in Sociology or some shit like that. Probably would help explain why they’d be dumb enough to vote Ron Paul in ’08/ ’12 and now for an old commie fuck in ’16.

  5. He’s likely capturing some of the non-interventionist, libertarian-leaning college-aged people who last time around would have supported Ron Paul — another septuagenarian white man with a radical streak and surprising youth cred.

    What possible basis is there for that assertion? The two could not be more different. Yes, they both are attracting a sizable youth vote. There is however no indication that there is any overlap between the two. Hillary Clinton won the over 65 vote last night. Is she attracting the same elderly voters who supported Mitt Romney? By this logic she must be.

    1. No, they could definitely be more different. They are both kind of kooky old dudes who are out of the political mainstream.
      I have no idea how many of the same people supported both. But I wouldn’t be surprised at all if there is some significant overlap. You are assuming way more rationality than most young voters typically display. The fact that their political views are largely contrary to each other doesn’t matter to the person who wants to support someone anti-establishment and exciting in a movement-ey kind of way.

      1. I have never seen a single piece of polling data to support the assertion. Could it be true? Sure but until I see some hard evidence I am not buying it.

        1. I don’t think I’ve ever been asked how I voted in previous elections by a pollster. That would be an interesting thing to look at.

  6. So if you voted for Paul, that’s proof you are libertarian-leaning. If you now vote for Sanders, that’s just because you have no better option.

    Sanders is capturing the idealists, the angry, the cranks, the anti-establishment, the anti-war voters, the anti-bankers, etc. Many of the same kind of people gravitated toward Paul before they gravitated toward Sanders. That does not mean they were libertarian anything. When it comes to rhetoric, Sanders is arguably more anti-libertarian than Trump.

    1. Sanders is doing well because someone has to get the votes. If Biden or Fauchohontas had run, Sanders would be in the single digits.

      1. I agree, a huge part of it is time and place. If Paul campaigned under similar conditions, well, I don’t think he’d get 50% (there are more Dems pining for European socialism than Republicans pining for non-intervention and auditing the Fed, I think), but he would have won NH and really panicked the GOP. And if Sanders were running in similar conditions to Paul, he’d be another joke also-ran.

        From my personal vantage point, if Biden ran, he’d be cleaning up the youth vote.

        1. Imagine if the GOP race was a head to head matchup between Paul and Jeb Bush. Paul would be getting a whole lot of voters where he didn’t in a crowded field.

      2. Definitely. Sanders is benefiting because, as a 150 year old socialist who has never claimed to be a Democrat anyway, he has nothing to lose by challenging the Clinton machine. Anyone else with a decent shot at the nomination sees the wisdom of waiting until next cycle.

        Biden is the only person, I think, who could have beaten her. In the event that Hillary gets indicted, expect him to show up to save the day.

        1. I don’t think so. If Biden has to show up, it will be because Hillary has collapsed and Bernie is going to be the nominee. I can’t see Biden being able to motivate enough Democratic voters to win in a situation like that. The GOP has something like an 11 point enthusiasm advantage to start with. Then you add in the Democrats fucking over the guy who got the most votes to give the nomination to a company man like Biden? That would almost certainly make the turnout look like 2014 or worse and mean virtually any Republican nominated would win.

          1. Fair points, but I don’t expect Bernie to do particularly well from here on out. Sure, he won in NH and does well among young people, but i expect he’ll be a tough sell in the South and in the Midwest.

          2. Then you add in the Democrats fucking over the guy who got the most votes to give the nomination to a company man like Biden?

            Which is similar to what is happening. Hillary is still leading Sanders, 394 delegates to 44.

            1. Time will tell but I don’t think people are going to be motivated to vote for Hillary like they were for Obama. The last six national elections including the off year congressional elections have hinged on turnout. Each side has gotten schellacked whenever the other side got more of its supporters to show up and vote. I think the deciding factor for this one is going to be the same as it was in 2012; does the electorate look like it did in 08 or like it did in 10. I am having a hard time seeing how Hillary gets it to look like it did in 08.

    2. Arguably? Sanders is way more anti-libertarian than Trump even in rhetoric alone. Could you imagine Trump opining that people don’t need so many choices of deodorant or sneakers?

  7. He’s likely capturing some of the non-interventionist, libertarian-leaning college-aged people who last time around would have supported Ron Paul…

    Plus, he’s going to make a lot of things free.

    1. I think you might be on to something here.

    2. I shouldn’t have to pay for my college education, so I am intrigued.

  8. Well, well. After getting absolutely pasted by Sanders in the voting, Hillary will probably leave NH with just as many delegates as he will. As I read the article, its actually possible that she will have more delegates from NH than he does.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo…..-delegates

    1. Democracy at work!

      1. “Superdelegates.” I suppose I shouldn’t be shocked that the “we know how to run your life better than you do” party has a concept like this put into place.

        1. It chews my heart that party which fetishes democracy in its rhetoric has a House of Lords in it’s nominating system.

    2. Clinton won nine delegates in the primary but came into the contest with the support of six superdelegates, who are state party insiders given the freedom to support any candidate they choose.

      Superdelegate support is fluid, though, so some of those delegates now backing Clinton could switch to Sanders before the Democratic National Convention in late July.

      But as it stands, the superdelegate support gives Clinton a total of 15 New Hampshire delegates.

      Huh. Does the GOP have a super-delegate system too?

      1. Does the GOP have a super-delegate system too?

        Not that I recall.

        1. They don’t now. Both parties used to have mostly delegates roughly equivalent to what are now being cast as super-delegates. The Democrats instituted the current system a couple cycles ago.

    3. Superdelegates guarantee Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination. New Hampshire is probably the best situation for Bernie other than Vermont because it’s all white liberals, which are his best constituency. If he doesn’t beat Hillary in the delegate count in NH because of Super-delegates then he’s not going anywhere.

      1. I’m proud to say I pay little to no attention to the political game of Whack Bat and its requisite rules, but yeah, this looks like the entire Bernie campaign may just be a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

        1. Hillary has power until all of a sudden she doesn’t. The only reason she has a lock on superdelegate and therefore the nom is because people are still afraid of her. That’s started to crack. I don’t think we know yet how many superdelegates will actually vote for Hillary come the convention.

          1. If I were a Democrat voter [who supported not-Hillary], this would scare the holy shit out of me. See my question below about what ‘courting’ the superdelegates actually means.

            I’m saying it right here and now, I feel bad for Bernie and am really hoping he gets the nomination.

            1. I don’t think it scares them; I think it makes them angry?and potentially energized.

              1. I agree, but the Superdelegate system seems to be a kind of FYTW to the democratic voters. Vote for Bernie all you want, Hillary has the Superdelegates so go pound sand.

                1. I am having a really hard time feeling bad for them, though.

        2. I agree with Nikki. Hillary only has a lock on those delegates because they all assume she is going to win and are afraid of her. If it ever appears that she might not win, then those delegates will switch sides in a heartbeat.

      2. Superdelegates guarantee Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination.

        Only if they stick with her. If her popular/voting collapse continues, sooner or later the superdelegate rats will flee the sinking SS Hillary.

        1. flee the sinking SS Hillary

          Are you saying she’s as large as a ship? Because that’s body shaming…

        2. SS Hillary

          There’s no need to Godwin the thread.

    4. The Clinton campaign has mounted an aggressive effort to secure about 360 superdelegates across the country, according to The Associated Press. Sanders has a total of eight superdelegates.

      Another question for the more politically astute in the group, by “mounting an aggressive effort” in [courting] the super delegates, what does that mean? Does she offer them cabinet positions, administration jobs or other bribes?

      1. Maybe, but I think it more involves blackmail and threats.

      2. All of that and threatens them with the wrath of the DOJ and being shut out of access to the white house if they don’t play ball. When you wonder what is going on, imagine Pauli in Goodfellas keeping the wiseguys who work for him in line.

    1. Robby’s hair is insulted by the comparison.

      1. I know, but the Gary Busey-on-speed smile doesn’t balance things out.

      2. Thank you.

  9. Libertarian moment! Brought to you by the millenials! We’ll show you, Murika how libertarian we are, we’re going to vote for a communist!

  10. How long will the Berninator stay in it? Hildabeast is up by 20-30 points in all the other states that have started polling.

    1. I keep seeing that. Is New Hampshire just that weird of a state?

    2. he’s dead after super-tuesday. he’ll win Alaska.

      1. And then all of these ‘revolutionary’ millenials who were going to forge the libertarian moment will line up to vote Hillary.

        1. I am not sure. Bernie really seems to be high on the list of stuff white people like. Hillary can’t seem to make it on the list.

          1. Well, she’s not going to win without white people. So who are all of these people who have her polling 20-30 percent ahead of Bernie in AZ and MI? None of them are white? It doesn’t seem likely.

            1. Some of them are. But remember, the Democrats only get about 35% or so of the white vote these days. Hillary attracts white voters, just not very many of them.

    3. Why would the best-funded candidate in the entire race drop out before the convention?

      1. i think the question was really about “How long will people pretend that he actually represents a serious threat”

        not ‘how long will he continue the campaign’. obviously he’ll spend all the money he has.

    4. Hildabeast is up by 20-30 points in all the other states that have started polling.

      Getting her ass handed to her in such epic fashion will put a dent in those numbers.

      She may still win, but I think the voting after Super Tuesday will not be the Hillary blowout people seem to be expecting. Bernie has ground game, I hear, and he’s got momentum, and, well, Hillary. C’mon. As the campaign gets into high gear in those states, people will see more of her, and that always hurts her.

      1. “”Getting her ass handed to her in such epic fashion will put a dent in those numbers.””

        No. What happens in New Hampshire stays in New Hampshire

        Massachusetts? he might have a shot. but he’s not going to win any other big states.

  11. As a snot-nosed college punk I voted for Jesse Jackson in the ’84 Dem Primary, I think I had to write in Bergland in the general.

    1. You’re forgiven, it was a way for the white youth to feel all Black Panther and “down” with the cause. I remember those times well.

  12. I met many young people working diligently of Ron Paul during the 2012 run up to the Iowa state convention in summer 2012. These people clearly understood libertarian philosophy and were working to achieve it.

    I have also met many young people in 2016 working diligently for Bernie. These people have no fucking concept of anything but give me free shit.

    I can’t imagine any libertarian voting for Bernie. That does mean that young malcontents can’t bounce back and forth between Ron/Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders. But it is only because they are malcontents looking for a figure head. It ain’t go nothing to do with actual political philosophy.

    1. Ron Paul got some of the youth vote. He didn’t get all of it. You really have to be on some powerful drugs to think the people who voted for Paul are now voting for Bernie.

      1. You really have to be on some powerful drugs to think the people who voted for Paul are now voting for Bernie.

        I don’t think anyone is saying that. Just that some of the same people supported both. Which is definitely true.

        I don’t think it’s so much that Ron Paul voters are going for Bernie. More that some of the young people who, somewhat surprisingly, supported Ron Paul now support Sanders. Not because of any ideological reason, but because they both are outsiders saying things that other people aren’t saying.

    2. Ding! Ding! Ding!

    3. Yeah, I personally know one very enthusiastic Bernie supporter. Her reasoning is something along the lines of “I shouldn’t have to change my dream job in order to support my family in this city that my dream job (now adjunct dream job) does not pay me enough to make ends meet.”

  13. “He’s likely capturing some of the non-interventionist, libertarian-leaning college-aged people who last time around would have supported Ron Paul — another septuagenarian white man with a radical streak and surprising youth cred.”

    So they both have nannies with names 13 letters long? They both wore a green tie once? They both…
    What a pack of horseshit.

  14. The only real question is, is Bernie bae? Millenials want to know.

    1. WTF does that even mean?

      1. Like OMG grandpa!

        1. I. Can’t. Even.

        2. Why on earth would anyone past the age of 12 have any reason to know what that means? College kids are cute and all but they are mostly retarded. Who spends their time learning their lingo?

          1. Like OMG grandpa!

            1. Yeah Hyperion, nothing says cool like the guy over 25 trying to be hip. Do you still go back and hang out at your old fraternity?

              1. I’m gonna help you out there grandpa.

                /sarcasm

                1. So you do. I am sure you are a real hit at the parties. Do you break out your flannel shirts and grunge records too?

                  1. I like Alice in Chains and Sound Garden had at least a couple good tunes. Outside of that, I’ve never been much of a grunge fan. No flannel shirts either, wife threw them away and bought me proper adult attire. Good thing for her or I’d still have 80s hair and Poison t-shirts.

                    1. Well, you may be the creepy old guy at the frat party, but at least you have some style.

          2. It’s just grandstanding gobbledygook.

        3. Ugh, I mean, it’s 2016.

      2. Get off of John’s lawn, Hyperion!

        1. I left, but not without leaving 2 empty Heineken bottles first!

          1. I took a crap on his lawn. Because I’m way more hardcore than you.

      3. Horsefeathers and applesauce!

        1. Get off my lawn, snapper!

        2. And an onion hanging from your belt!

          1. A yellow onion, not a white one, on account of the Kaiser.

      4. Well, among other things, bae is Danish for poop, so yes. Bernie is bae.

    2. Sexually experimental or sexually explorational are two possible replacements for the b in lgbt. But yes, he sucked Soviet cock at one point in his life.

      1. Weren’t his parents Russian and were oppressed by the Nazis or something like that? Thus resulting in him becoming an unapologetic commie? There has to be a reason why a guy his age still believes in the fairy tale world of a socialist utopia.

        1. Mostly Polish, it looks like.

          I wonder if any of his relatives are buried in Katyn Forest (8% of victims were Polish Jews).

  15. I keep seeing this headline.

    Has it actually occurred to anyone that the current crop of students has seen about 99% turnover from the group of people who were students 4 years ago?

    1. What about all those 5th year seniors?

      1. Where the fuck are non-STEM graduates going to go these days? I mean they have to stay in academia their entire life because they have no useful skills and everyone off campus rightfully thinks they’re stupid.

        1. I worked in Congress then went to law school, then paid off a student loan with some oil money I inherited from my grandfather.

  16. So old Ron Paul supporters are going for, not only an avowed socialist, but an avowed opponent of free speech and press. Makes you wonder just what their priorities were in supporting Paul.

    1. “Makes you wonder just what their priorities were in supporting Paul.”

      911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB

      1. The Bilderberg Group. Don’t forget the Bilderberg Group!!

    2. Wait until the millenial chickies find out that Bernie doesn’t think they need too many pairs of shoes. They’ll be like OMG, Bernie’s not bae!

      1. No one needs more than two choices of deodorant you decadent capitalist bastard.

    3. I don’t believe for a minute that young people that actually voted or caucused for Ron Paul in 2012 are actually turning out for Bernie now.

      I expect that most young Ron Paul supporters have given up on politics and are focusing on their lives.

      All the young Bernie fanatics that I know or see on Facebook are economic illiterates that are pissed at the world and want the government to give them a safe space and a free macbook.

      1. I expect that most young Ron Paul supporters have given up on politics and are focusing on their lives.

        This is why Progs win at politics so often and conservatives and Libertarians so often lose. Progressivism attracts a lot of people who have no lives and abnormal and unhealthy obsession with politics. Conservatives and Libertarians generally just are not like that and instead have a habit of being normal people. And that means they rarely stand a chance against the Prog zombie hoards.

        1. Overall, I see the Republican Party changing, mostly for the better. There is a wide range of actual positions on different issues among Republicans as a whole. I attribute this to both a wider adaption in the USA of more liberal outlook on social issues and the fact that the GOP base is made up of at least a small percentage of libertarian or libertarian leaning people.

          The Democrats on the other hand, are changing for the worse. They’ve went so far left, that now even candidates on the national level are tripping over each other to see who can go the furthest left. And a scary percentage of their base is now made up of batshit crazy people who want to outlaw free speech and criminalize all types of ordinary behavior. There is some percentage of them who are mostly liberal on social issues, but they are so easily manipulated by the rest of their party comrades that it’s easy to see them getting in line to march the kulaks and wreckers off to the gulags when their leaders order them to do so.

      2. All the young Bernie fanatics that I know or see on Facebook are economic illiterates that are pissed at the world and want the government to give them a safe space and a free macbook.

        And forgive all their student loans. And free healthcare. And a guaranteed living wage. MOAR FREE SHIT!!11!!1!!!!!!!!

    4. Again, there’s a narrow, cherry-picked “libertarian” case for Bernie. Also, as Overt astutely pointed out above, young voters tend to be movement voters, not principle voters.

      1. The youth have been prime movers and foot soldiers for every murderous political movement from the French Revolution to the Khmer Rouge. I wish Reason would ever remember that fact when they are constantly pinning for the youth vote and emphasizing its importance. .

        1. I wish Reason would ever remember that fact when they are constantly pinning for the youth vote and emphasizing its importance. .

          That’s not just Reason that seems to be a fetish of all Journalism it seems. It certainly allows Western Journalists to literally cheer on the Egyptian Military and Mubarak regime because some university students are in Tahrir square using twitter.

          1. Some of it is boomer nostalgia. They can’t seem to fathom that a youth movement might not be good.

        2. Somehow I think they are confused into believing that the youth vote is somehow indicative of the future path of the electorate. Problem is it doesn’t work that way. There is always a new crop of young people to glom onto anything that seems to break the status quo.

          Then they grow up, get jobs, have kids and 2 election cycles later they are radically different people (and likely a good bit more conservative in the being afraid of radical change sense) than they were when they joined that youth political movement in their late teens/early 20’s.

          No the Youth vote is largely a waste of time. It is not large enough to win you an election and whatever seeds you sow courting it are going to be paved under the realities of how those individuals lives play out in the future.

          1. They never show up to vote. So it really doesn’t matter who they support

          2. Somehow I think they are confused into believing that the youth vote is somehow indicative of the future path of the electorate.

            Exhibit A: Pot legalization. Younger people have been in favor of it since the ’70s. Yet we are still struggling mightily to make it happen.

        3. Well the votes are still votes, as important as any others. I don’t think that it is the youth support that makes a movement murderous, so I’m not sure what good it would do Reason to remember that fact.

          The youth just like to get involved in movements, good and evil both.

      2. He’s ok on social issues.

          1. NO WAY, HE’S A FASCIST, HE’S WORSE THAN HITLER!!!!

            1. Honestly, what is Trump’s views on social issues? Does anyone know? I can’t figure it out, at all. The guy just says whatever it takes to get media attention.

              Didn’t he say he was for legalizing weed and then came out against it?

              1. He has always been pro abortion and pretty liberal. That is one of the reason why the conservative media is on their fainting couches about him not being a conservative.

              2. No one knows but the man himself. He used to talk favorably about legalizing drugs. I doubt he personally has any problem with gay marriage.

                1. I’m somewhere in the middle about Trump. I think he’s no way near as bad as some, even around here, paint him to be, and no way near as good as his sycophant supporters think he is.

                  I can see him being more of a populist. I think being popular means a lot to the guy, so he could be anything depending on what he perceives people want. Which would make him a lot better than Obama, who could care less what the majority wants, as long as his far left base are happy. At least Donald has no perceivable political ideology, which could be a good thing.

                  1. That is a big part of a lot of peoples complaints about him.

                    He is a populist untethered from any core beliefs who is pushing for a personality cult based presidency. There are literally no bounds on what he might decide to do on a whim.

                    1. He is a populist untethered from any core beliefs who is pushing for a personality cult based presidency. There are literally no bounds on what he might decide to do on a whim.

                      Enough about Obama, what about Trump?

                    2. This is true, very accurate statement about Trump. There’s a 50/50 chance of whether he will do a good thing or bad thing in any possible situation. With Hillary, you can be sure there’s a 100% chance it will be bad, all of the time. Which is why I say Trump is better than Hillary, or at least could be.

                  2. I can see him being more of a populist. … Which would make him a lot better than Obama, who could care less what the majority wants, as long as his far left base are happy.

                    Best case scenario: he ends up governing a lot like Bill Clinton in that he “triangulates” to the position that he think will get the most number of supporters.

                    1. That’s exactly the way I would expect a dealmaker to govern.

                    2. Trump being a populist is a bad thing, because the populists right now are apparently in favor of all sorts of horrendously evil shit, like banning all Muslim immigration and forcing them to register themselves in a national database.

                      Also, raising taxes on the 1%, abbrogating our foreign trade agreements, raising the minimum wage, free college, free healthcare, lots of spending on bullshit infrastructure projects, and any number of other similar bullshit. Trump is going to do what polls well, and all of those things poll well and aren’t remotely libertarian, and would be terrible for the health of the US economy and our fiscal stability.

                    3. I mean, for fucks sake you think a guy whom you admit only cares about being popular is going to cut spending??? SERIOUSLY?

  17. It’s been said before but it bears repeating: clearly the Ron Paul student voters were never that interested in liberty in the first place if they’re going all in on “The Bern”.

  18. I’m not a Democrat but for the first time in my life I will vote the Democratic side on the primary ballot, (Tennessee lets you decide at the polls which way you go) and will vote for Sanders. Any little thing to stop Hillary, as there is simply no worse outcome than Clinton.

    Then, if it should come to that, I would vote for Sanders over Trump. But none of that is voting “for” Bernie. It is all voting against even worse choices. Which is how a libertarian votes for a socialist, of all things, instead of my usual protest vote for Gary Johnson or whoever.

    1. FWIW, your vote doesn’t matter anyway….

    2. There is no worse outcome than Trump.

  19. One of the things not being noted here is the fact that a lot of the same NH precincts that went for Ron Paul in 2012 went for Donald Trump in 2016. The case for “same voters” there is a lot stronger than that for the same voters by demographic. So, are we to buy that The Donald is the logical successor to Ron Paul’s non-interventionist mantle? Or should we conclude that maybe, just maybe, voters aren’t terribly rational in their voting patterns?

    1. If it turned out that Paul voters were going for Trump, they would have to dispatch some kind of crisis team to reason headquarters to keep there from being suicides.

      1. I’m getting confused. What is Reason’s secret agenda supposed to be now? I thought Reason hated Ron Paul, as evidenced by all their newsletter coverage. Ron Paul never got anyone invited to a cocktail party.

        1. I am thinking they would be pretty devastated if the Paul youth voters went for Trump.

          1. I doubt too many of the Paul youth voters went for Trump. I’m sure a lot of Paul voters taken generally did, though.

        2. The Donald will say some socially liberal stuff and then throw the mother of all cocktail parties for the Cosoms. Then there will be nothing but glowing articles here about the Donald.

    2. So, are we to buy that The Donald is the logical successor to Ron Paul’s non-interventionist mantle? Or should we conclude that maybe, just maybe, voters aren’t terribly rational in their voting patterns?

      I’m not sure if Rationality has much to do with it. Ron Paul courted a strong anti-immigration constituency. Whether by implication, expressly or by dog-whistle, I don’t know.

      Trump’s naturally going to pull that coalition.

      1. The Ron Paul campaign was really clever about courting different voting blocs. I saw campaign stuff from them explicitly pushing the anti-immigration angle. Then there was all the love-o-lution stuff to appeal to the irrational youth vote.

        I’m sure that a lot of people who voted for Paul last time voted for Trump. Paul’s support was always a really weird coalition.

  20. BTW, Apropos of RC’s “Superdelegate” link above, Maria Cantwell is a superdelegate. How “scared” do we think she is over a vote for Hillary?

    1. All came to help pay campaign debts for Cantwell, the high-tech executive who won her seat with a personal fortune that has crumbled under the weight of a falling stock market. In her 2000 campaign, Cantwell trolled Washington state in a bus and vowed to be “your voice for a change,” free of obligations to special-interest groups and lobbyists.

      The estimated 125 attendees who wrote $1,000 personal checks to her campaign at Clinton’s home last night included lobbyists, senators and major Democratic backers invited by the party’s senior leaders. Ten people were expected to attend from Washington state, and about two-thirds of the guests were women.

      Cantwell owes Clinton. Big Time. Owes her a LOT. Personally.

      http://community.seattletimes……antwell26m

    2. The shit is Chess, Bernie, not checkers. You better be yelling at your staff to get on it.

  21. This is because part of Ron Paul’s support was clearly only due to his stance on the Iraq war and US foreign policy.
    In other words, they were never libertarians to begin with, they were just single-issue anti-war voters.

  22. This is because part of Ron Paul’s support was clearly only due to his stance on the Iraq war and US foreign policy.
    In other words, they were never libertarians to begin with, they were just single-issue anti-war voters.

  23. The technology is so developed that we can watch videos, live streaming, TV serials and any of our missed programs within our mobiles and PCs. Showbox
    All we need is a mobile or PC with a very good internet connection. There are many applications by which we can enjoy videos, our missed programs, live streaming etc.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.