Posted on 12/26/2011 4:38:21 PM PST by TBBT
Ron Paul is surging in the Republican presidential race. Just not among Republicans.
The Texas congressman is leading some polls in Iowa and is in a tie for second in New Hampshire. A candidacy once dismissed as sideshow is now being taken very seriously; the front page of Monday's Des Moines Register featured a huge spread under the headline "COULD RON PAUL WIN?"
Given Paul's views on the Fed, the gold standard and social issues, not to mention his isolationist foreign policy, the polls have left some politicos wondering whether Republican voters have somehow swerved off the rails. But there's another question that should be asked first: Who are Ron Paul's supporters? Are they, in fact, Republicans?
In an analysis accompanying his most recent survey in Iowa, pollster Scott Rasmussen noted, "Romney leads, with Gingrich in second, among those who consider themselves Republicans. Paul has a wide lead among non-Republicans who are likely to participate in the caucus."
The same is true in New Hampshire. A poll released Monday by the Boston Globe and the University of New Hampshire shows Paul leading among Democrats and independents who plan to vote in the January 10 primary. But among Republicans, Paul is a distant third -- 33 points behind leader Mitt Romney.
In South Carolina, "Paul's support is higher among those who usually don't vote in GOP primary elections," notes David Woodard, who runs the Palmetto Poll at Clemson University.
(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ...
Why is it that whenever I read posts from Paulbots, the tone, structure and wording of them sounds very reminiscent of the couple who named their kid Adolf Hitler and the members of the Westboro Baptist Church?
The left-hand side of the Dem Party is antiwar—like Paul. And anti-Zionist. That’s a very strong motivation for those who believe in it. Of course they’re smoking something, but that’s a plus in the Paul column too.
An election lawyer informed me that the crossover voting has been around for quite a while, but it is only lately that it has become abused in order to cause mischief, or to pick a candidate who can’t win in the general.
Also people are swallowing the Dem propaganda and developing a stronger fear of conservatives. So they use the open primaries to keep the most conservative candidates out. This is not news to anyone, of course, but since the fear is now stronger, the effect is now greater.
It’s possibly time to end this opportunity for election chaos and go back to simply voting for the person we really believe in. In other words, change the laws back toward more closed primaries.
Since the Democrats are the party more often involved in voter fraud, we have that magnifying factor to consider as well. Didn’t we have busloads of dubious voters coming into NH from Vermont in 2008?
There is NO way "Real" Conservatives would ever support the Anti-Semite, Isolationist, Truther, Nutcase.
As his support comes mostly from young people; and as younguns don't usually tend to be Republicans or lean Conservative, this was not that difficult to conclude that it was more than likely independents and Liberal Tools who wanted to create mischief and influence the outcome of the primaries.
After knocking off Bachman, Perry and Cain, the only "somewhat" Conserevative left is Newt and as the RATS and Dear Leader (aided and abetted by the biased, Lame Stream Media) want Mittens to get the nod, they will stoop to any level to see that comes to pass
The answer? Closed primaries everywhere!
It has to be RATS voting for the NUT CASE.
I never understood why all states don't require closed primaries.
They're no different than many others, except they're LOUD sheep on steroids. :) bttt
"....One cannot simply blindly apply first principles to every situation, for this ends in a dogmatic and false absolutism.
"This is, for example, what creeps people out about Ron Paul.
"He says plenty of things -- derived from first principles embodied in the Constitution -- that make perfect sense. However, he always goes too far, in that half of what he says results from a blind application of first principles, irrespective of empirical reality.
"The same moral confusion afflicts leftists who wouldn't waterboard a known terrorist with information about an imminent attack, owing to an unthinking allegiance to the principle of "non-torture" -- which any normal person shares, up to a point, the point of suicidal insanity. ..."
Good post.
Just so! Ron Paul doesn't so much think or reason; he mainly doctrinalizes. I do not believe he is in very good contact with actual Reality....
He's a really "horizontal" kind of guy.... IMHO
Thanks so much, dear Matchett-PI, for the link to another thought-provoking article from GagDad Bob!
I agree! You’re welcome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.