Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Quit Being a Quitter

In my post advocating Newt Gingrich becoming the GOP Presidential Nominee, I stated that I quit voting. I haven't voted since 2004.

I just read latest post from Wes Messamore, the Humble Libertarian:

There has been some major movement in the Republican Presidential race in Iowa over the last week, with what was a 9 point lead for Newt Gingrich now all the way down to a single point. Gingrich is at 22% to 21% for Paul with Mitt Romney at 16%, Michele Bachmann at 11%, Rick Perry at 9%, Rick Santorum at 8%, Jon Huntsman at 5%, and Gary Johnson at 1%.

Gingrich has dropped 5 points in the last week and he's also seen a significant decline in his favorability numbers. Last week he was at +31 (62/31) and he's now dropped 19 points to +12 (52/40). The attacks on him appear to be taking a heavy toll- his support with Tea Party voters has declined from 35% to 24%.

Paul meanwhile has seen a big increase in his popularity from +14 (52/38) to +30 (61/31). There are a lot of parallels between Paul's strength in Iowa and Barack Obama's in 2008- he's doing well with new voters, young voters, and non-Republican voters:

-59% of likely voters participated in the 2008 Republican caucus and they support Gingrich 26-18. But among the 41% of likely voters who are 'new' for 2012 Paul leads Gingrich 25-17 with Romney at 16%. Paul is doing a good job of bringing out folks who haven't done this before.

-He's also very strong with young voters. Among likely caucus goers under 45 Paul is up 30-16 on Gingrich. With those over 45, Gingrich leads him 26-15 with Romney at 17%.

Looks like Mitt Romney has gone the way of Hillary Clinton, the establishment party pick in the 2008 Democratic Primaries:

Like the great, fallen front-runner of 2008, here is another well-funded, Establishment-blessed, presumptive nominee whose supposedly firm hold on his party’s greatest prize seems to be slip-sliding away.

There are differences to be sure, most centrally that Romney has yet to face a Barack Obama-like, central foe (though Newt Gingrich is now auditioning convincingly for that role) but instead has fought a series of rear-guard actions against a series of candidates-of-the-moment.

Right: Mitt Romney is going the way of Hillary Clinton. Wrong: Romney does face a central foe who will unseat him-- Ron Paul. The media-- including the article quoted above-- simply isn't reporting it. But it's happening.

If by some miracle Ron Paul does win the GOP nomination, I will quit quitting on voting. I'll get off my ass and re-register and go and vote. I'll even get my wife to re-register and vote for him too.



(r)Evoluzione said...

It may be too late to register for the primaries, depending on your state. I don't know about HI, but here in CO, the deadline to register as a Republicrat to vote in the primary caucus was Dec. 7, even tho the primaries aren't until August. (some say they'll be moved back to June. We'll see.)

At any rate, we are praying for Dr. Paul to win the nomination, and if that happens, I know you'll be punching that card for the good Dr.

Aurini said...

As much as I admire Ron Paul, his election could be the death knell of the Libertarian movement; the POTUS, despite all appearances, has very little power, and despite all of his efforts to the contrary, I would be very surprised to see anything other than business as usual were he elected.

Of course, maybe that's just the sort of kick-in-the-teeth the alt-right needs.

I have to admit, if I were American, I'd be tempted to vote for him too - despite my principles.

Txomin said...

It appears that way. Just like Obama could do nothing but crash and burn after the hype that got him elected (and a delusional Nobel prize), it is likely that Paul would also crash under his own (lack of) weight.

Still, even if Paul only manages to win the nomination, it will be a HUGE achievement for intellectually mature thinking.

Carnivore said...

If Ron Paul is elected, he could still have an impact with a hostile Congress in a couple of ways:
1. Full veto or line item veto of any legislation passed.
2. The office of the President is the enforcement arm of the government. Externally, as Commander in Chief, he can deploy troops AND pull them back. Internally, he can set the tone of the Justice Department - which laws get enforced and which are let to slide. He can end the war on drugs not by repealing legislation but simply refusing to enforce the law.

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul is the only vote I'm willing to bother casting.

I'm registered Republican so I can vote in the primaries in my state, and I ignore all elections that Ron isn't in.

When the primaries come around, I go, vote for Ron, and as long as I'm there vote AGAINST all bond measures and tax stuff, and leave the rest of the ballot blank.

I did this in 2008 and nothing since, and I'm very happy now that I'm no longer wasting my vote.

Keoni Galt said...

I don't know about HI, but here in CO, the deadline to register as a Republicrat to vote in the primary caucus was Dec. 7, even tho the primaries aren't until August.

For HI, it really doesn't matter. It would just be a symbolic act on my part. I don't even know what the Primary deadline is for HI, but as I said, I'll go register for the General if Paul somehow becomes the GOP candidate to face Obama.

I can't remember the last time a Prez General Election wasn't decided before HI polls even closed for the day (except for the Bush/Gore FL debacle in 2000).

Default User said...

A Paul presidency might be similar to Obama's in some ways. Large crowds would turn out for the inauguration and there would be much hope and excitement, but I also fear he may be able to achieve less then everyone expected.

Normally I consider any vote to be a wasted vote (as compared to the traditional meaning of a vote cast for an alternative candidate).

sth_txs said...

Assuming RP is not assassinated quickly, he could perhaps nullify a vast number of executive orders and continue to speak in favor of liberty.

The reality is that the vast agencies like the FDA, SEC, EPA, USDA, etc. have the run of the country with the consent of Congress.

MadBiker said...


Congressional and senatorial leadership is where the change should really be happening. We've seen how top-down approaches fail in so many other areas of social and fiscal management; why should Presidential leadership prove an exception to the rule?

If more candidate were running and being elected at the Congressional level, we might see changes.

Of course, that's assuming such candidates could get backing in districts that have lots of pharma business (as my state does) or depend on ag subsidies to keep their masses employed, unaware, and supposedly happy.