Posted on 01/31/2012 12:00:06 PM PST by presidio9
The first primaries of 2012 are complete, but the fight over the proper role of government continues. The question before GOP primary voters is who best reflects their own answer to that question, and then, who is best suited to make that case to the American people?
A clear winner has yet to emerge, but there is little question about who has captured the loyalty of young Republican voters on this issue. Although finishing fourth overall, Ron Paul once again won the youth vote in South Carolina, winning 31% of ages 18-29, compared to Newt Gingrich who won 28%. Paul’s appeal, or more accurately, the appeal of Paul’s limited government message, is a key story to emerge from the Republican primaries.
There’s no mistaking the trend.
Mitt Romney won the New Hampshire primary, getting approximately 39% of the total vote. Ron Paul finished second with 23%, Jon Huntsman finished third with 17%, and Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum each won about 9% of the vote.
Yet young voters would have picked a different winner. According to Fox News exit polls, in New Hampshire, Paul won nearly half (46%) of the votes of people ages 18-29, while Romney won second place with just 26%.
Paul also won the youth vote in Iowa. In the Hawkeye State almost half (48%) of the Republican caucus goers ages 18-29 supported Paul, compared to 23% for the otherwise victorious Santorum, and 14% for Romney.
What is so appealing about Paul to young voters? One answer is that Paul has been the most outspoken candidate defending the importance of free enterprise and the limited role of government. And he has had a
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“Ron Paul is far better situated within the Libertarian party than the so-called Libertarian wing of the Republican Party.”
How would you distinguish those two? Not stirring the pot here. Genuinely curious, as I see a lot of practical overlap between conservative and libertarian ideals. I also think that conservatives by themselves will lose election after election, despite being the largest plurality of the population.
“Simple. He is the only candidate that does not want to dump 50 trillion dollars of debt in their lap. The current generation is the only one in our history that is fine with the fact that the next generation will be worse off than the current one.”
They may need to brace for rebuilding a successor state and culture in a post-USA America. If the hardcore Kremlin oppressors could fall, so could the softer and weepier Potomac oppressors. Bankruptcy leads to dissolution, and no nation lasts forever.
Agreed. They won’t be staying in Willard’s GOP though.
“Gee, maybe it’s because young people see the writing on the wall, that their future is being eviscerated by the extravagances and idiocy of the current generations in power. I fall into the 18-29 demographic and this is how I see it.”
I fall in the late middle age demographic. I see the same thing you do. I think the USA will go the same route as the USSR, and for similar reasons. Too much out, not enough in; bankruptcy followed by dissolution of the polity.
Watch his speech tonight and you will understand why young people love him.
And screw off with your code pink nonsense. How many more people do you want dead for those Muslim savages who hate us?
“of course...
our culture needs more poison in the system,
it’s important to send the message that being out of your mind relieves you of any responsibility,
and as long as there are some poisons available, let’s promote an ever expanding array of poisons with which to undermine ambition and productivity.
nice.....very “conservative”.....”
I have had a hand in securing more than 3,000 (three thousand) years of prison time for various offenders. The overwhelming majority of those offenders were convicted for possession of a controlled dangerous substance - they were drug offenders. Nothing changes, nothing improves.
The war on drugs is over. Illegal drugs won.
“Zero tolerance” posturing just keeps the prices up and in the hands of corrupt and vile men. See Mena Airport as an example. I do not abuse drugs. I do not like drug abusers. But the “war” is over, and it is a total defeat.
“I’m for Newt, but would vote for Paul as 3rd party over Romney in a heartbeat.”
LOL! I *might* be able to do that, but it would be after a long series of heart palpitations and maybe an infarction . . .
But damn my soul if I will vote for Bishop Willard Hartpence Romney, Mighty Slayer of the Unborn, Defender of Bailouts and Oracle of Whatever You Want to Hear.
Watch your language, tough guy. FR is a civilized web site that welcomes reasoned debate, not left wing insults.
Really? Why don’t you look how Ron Paul supporters are treated on this site.
I have voted GOP my entire life and am told I belong at DU, am a pot head, am an anti Semite, etc.
“I have voted GOP my entire life and am told I belong at DU, am a pot head, am an anti Semite, etc.”
I hear you, Glock.
Let’s raise the level of discussion here on FR and you and me engage in a good debate.
I was involved in the libertarian party back in the 1990s and helped develop and promote the private property tenets of libertarianism as laid out by the Cato Instititute.
Cato published a well-developed treatise on the concept of private property, where it came from and how to defend private property when confronted.
I don’t think Ron Paul has a clue about the tenets of private property. I seriously question whether Paul is a libertarian. I base my opinion about Paul on the fact that he doesn’t recognize the United States, collectively, as the private property of the citizens of these united states.
I’ll end it here because I need to work tomorrow. We can pick up this discussion tomorrow. In the meantime, it’s your turn.
Confront my opinions. Challenge me. Add your own ideas.
Cheers, buddy.
That's why we need a true conservative, to nuture all those lost lambs: Reagan conservatives, libertarians, pro-lifers, free enterprisers, pro-military, 2nd amendment. Together, they're 60% of the electorate. All it takes is one charismatic individual to light the fire.
I could not agree more. There is a tectonic plate shifting in the electorate right now. Doing things the country club way is not going to work for very much longer. Arguably, it is not working now.
Fair question. I agree that there is a lot of overlap between conservative and libertarian thought. The kind of conservatism advocated by Paul makes a conscious effort to divorce itself from any faith based justification for its belief in free and unfettered markets. Carried over into social issues it results in a pretty bizarre set of justifications for a laissez-faire approach to abortion, sexual behavior of all kinds, legalization of drugs, etc. It is as if the individual is set free, but without much responsibility except to oneself and to the market.
The Republican party is, IMHO divided among the eastern, establishment (once called the Rockefeller wing) which is fiscally conservative but socially moderate to liberal, followed by another group that is fiscally conservative but socially moderate (but not to the extent of the libertarians) and the values voters who are fiscally and socially conservative although a portion of that group is moderate to liberal on the fiscal side.
While it might be argued that Paul falls loosely in the second category, and I would not object to that, his tendency is simply to disrupt things in the Republican process, and then turn around and endorse the Libertarian candidate. That, as much as anything, tells,me who he is. That's fine, but I think he is dishonest in that regard and ties up a lot of votes that would go to another conservative in the race, in this case almost guaranteeing a Romney nomination.
Fair question. I agree that there is a lot of overlap between conservative and libertarian thought. The kind of conservatism advocated by Paul makes a conscious effort to divorce itself from any faith based justification for its belief in free and unfettered markets. Carried over into social issues it results in a pretty bizarre set of justifications for a laissez-faire approach to abortion, sexual behavior of all kinds, legalization of drugs, etc. It is as if the individual is set free, but without much responsibility except to oneself and to the market.
The Republican party is, IMHO divided among the eastern, establishment (once called the Rockefeller wing) which is fiscally conservative but socially moderate to liberal, followed by another group that is fiscally conservative but socially moderate (but not to the extent of the libertarians) and the values voters who are fiscally and socially conservative although a portion of that group is moderate to liberal on the fiscal side.
While it might be argued that Paul falls loosely in the second category, and I would not object to that, his tendency is simply to disrupt things in the Republican process, and then turn around and endorse the Libertarian candidate. That, as much as anything, tells,me who he is. That's fine, but I think he is dishonest in that regard and ties up a lot of votes that would go to another conservative in the race, in this case almost guaranteeing a Romney nomination.
I misspoke. He runs Republican then endorses outside the Republican party, I.e. Chuck Baldwin and Cynthia McKinney.
Yep. Once “conservatives” are tempted to use Big Government to impose their version of social engineering, they get even more corrupted than liberals.
And I'm not hearing Ron Paul talking about that.
I'm not hearing ANY candidate talking about that. Ron Paul is certainly not the last word in reducing government to its proper scope.
The war on drugs is over. Illegal drugs won.
“Zero tolerance” posturing just keeps the prices up and in the hands of corrupt and vile men. See Mena Airport as an example. I do not abuse drugs. I do not like drug abusers. But the “war” is over, and it is a total defeat.
Well said! We were once wise enough to "surrender" in our War On Alcohol aka Prohibition - I hope we can muster the wisdom to take the same course with drug prohibition.
What is so appealing about Ron Paul to young voters? they are on drugs....too easy...
"Collective property" is a potentially dangerous notion; I look forward to your fleshing out this thought.
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.