PDA

View Full Version : By disenfranchising Ron Paul supporters, Mitt Romney won the primary but lost the ele



Galileo
11-10-2012, 11:37 PM
By disenfranchising Ron Paul supporters, Mitt Romney won the primary but lost the election.

New analysis reveals that in no less than five states, Romney’s margin of loss to President Obama in the general election was less than the number of votes received by Ron Paul in that state’s primary.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/18815/the-ron-paul-effect-how-the-gop-threw-the-election-by-disenfranchising-ron-paul-supporters

CuckingFunt
11-10-2012, 11:59 PM
I have recently been hearing/seeing variants of the word "disenfranchise" used ad nauseum by people who clearly haven't a clue what the word actually means.

Galileo
11-11-2012, 12:05 AM
I have recently been hearing/seeing variants of the word "disenfranchise" used ad nauseum by people who clearly haven't a clue what the word actually means.

The elected Ron Paul delegates were not allowed to vote. Over half of them.

Clipper Nation
11-11-2012, 12:07 AM
I have recently been hearing/seeing variants of the word "disenfranchise" used ad nauseum by people who clearly haven't a clue what the word actually means.

The GOP by definition disenfranchised Ron Paul delegates at the convention, either by preventing them from being seated despite legally winning the right to do so, or even intentionally delaying their buses to the convention site...

Wild Cobra
11-11-2012, 12:38 AM
I have recently been hearing/seeing variants of the word "disenfranchise" used ad nauseum by people who clearly haven't a clue what the word actually means.
You are correct. A word like "alienate" would be more correct. Same with voter ID requirements. Disenfranchise is an incorrect word to use.

Wild Cobra
11-11-2012, 12:40 AM
The elected Ron Paul delegates were not allowed to vote. Over half of them.
No. CF is correct. The rules were changes in the middle of the game. Not quite the same thing as what you are saying. Close, but no cigar.

Expert
11-11-2012, 12:58 AM
Disenfranchise is the wrong word to use. It's close, but no cigar. Actually cigar is the wrong word to use. It's close, but no triangulated flag lot, which is so precise as to cause young women to lock their doors.

mercos
11-11-2012, 01:06 AM
I'd bet dollars to donuts that a vast majority of the people who voted for Ron Paul in the primaries DID vote for Mitt Romney in the general election. Odds are that most who vote in a party's primary are going to vote for whoever the party ends up putting forth. You can't assume that all Ron Paul primary voters stayed home.

CuckingFunt
11-11-2012, 01:15 AM
You are correct. A word like "alienate" would be more correct. Same with voter ID requirements. Disenfranchise is an incorrect word to use.

Is your suggestion that voter ID requirements don't disenfranchise certain voters? Because if so, we don't agree on this. Voter ID requirements absolutely disenfranchise voters because they can make it impossible for otherwise qualified legal voters to vote.


No. CF is correct. The rules were changes in the middle of the game. Not quite the same thing as what you are saying. Close, but no cigar.

Admittedly, my initial comment was based mostly on the headline and a quick skim of the article. After reading the article more carefully, I'd say that "disenfranchise" would be the correct term for the delegates who were prevented from voting to nominate Ron Paul. Last minute rule changes that silence or otherwise invalidate a certain group of voters absolutely count as disenfranchisement.

My problem here, even after reading the article and seeing why the term was used, is that the headline suggests Romney lost the election as a result of this disenfranchisement. That's not the case as there was nothing stopping or otherwise discouraging Ron Paul supporters from voting for Romney in the general election. Ultimately, the term was not used improperly within the context of the article, but it had no place within the headline and was likely only there because it's become a buzz word that is often used by, and/or catches the attention of, people who don't actually know what it means.

kamikazi_player
11-11-2012, 01:17 AM
Why do people love using that stupid flawed chart?

Galileo
11-11-2012, 01:20 AM
I'd bet dollars to donuts that a vast majority of the people who voted for Ron Paul in the primaries DID vote for Mitt Romney in the general election. Odds are that most who vote in a party's primary are going to vote for whoever the party ends up putting forth. You can't assume that all Ron Paul primary voters stayed home.

hogwash!

Clipper Nation
11-11-2012, 01:27 AM
I'd bet dollars to donuts that a vast majority of the people who voted for Ron Paul in the primaries DID vote for Mitt Romney in the general election.

I'd say the majority either voted for Gary Johnson, Virgil Goode, or wrote in Ron Paul, tbh...

Wild Cobra
11-11-2012, 01:28 AM
hogwash!
I agree.

I fully expected to vote for Romney, but as a protest, I wrote in Ron Paul.

mercos
11-11-2012, 01:36 AM
Another mistake you guys make is that you fail to acknowledge that many of Ron Paul's younger supporters back him because of his anti-war stance and Libertarian stance on drugs. There is no way in hell those people would vote for Romney, regardless of Romney's treatment of Paul's delegates.

Wild Cobra
11-11-2012, 01:37 AM
Another mistake you guys make is that you fail to acknowledge that many of Ron Paul's younger supporters back him because of his anti-war stance and Libertarian stance on drugs. There is no way in hell those people would vote for Romney, regardless of Romney's treatment of Paul's delegates.

We can speculate all we want.

Can you agree that what the RNC did is unforgivable? Unethical at best?

mercos
11-11-2012, 01:46 AM
We can speculate all we want.

Can you agree that what the RNC did is unforgivable? Unethical at best?

Yes. What the RNC did was unethical, no question. From a Republican stand point, it makes no sense that Ron Paul did not win the nomination. He was easily the most conservative candidate, and arguably the only true conservative candidate. If small government is what you want, and most "conservatives" claim that is the case, Ron Paul is your man. As for unforgivable, that is up to Republicans. I hope you never forgive them and never vote for them again. :p:

Wild Cobra
11-11-2012, 01:48 AM
Yes. What the RNC did was unethical, no question. From a Republican stand point, it makes no sense that Ron Paul did not win the nomination. He was easily the most conservative candidate, and arguably the only true conservative candidate. If small government is what you want, and most "conservatives" claim that is the case, Ron Paul is your man. As for unforgivable, that is up to Republicans. I hope you never forgive them and never vote for them again. :p:
Well, I only voted for one local republican this time around outside of writing in Paul. I even voted for a democrat. Most my picks this time were third party.

mercos
11-11-2012, 01:54 AM
I actually voted for a lot of local Republicans this time, mostly because they ran unopposed. The Alabama Democratic Party was taken out back and shot apparently. Not a lot of third party candidates in play here.

Wild Cobra
11-11-2012, 02:09 AM
I actually voted for a lot of local Republicans this time, mostly because they ran unopposed. The Alabama Democratic Party was taken out back and shot apparently. Not a lot of third party candidates in play here.
LOL...

I always write in "none of the above" for all unopposed positions.

Jacob1983
11-11-2012, 02:14 AM
The GOP is over. There is no way they can unite the Bible thumping neo-cons and libertarian leaning Republicans.

Nbadan
11-11-2012, 02:20 AM
The GOP needs to widen its base, but it also needs to just let go some of the more extreme members under the party umbrella

Wild Cobra
11-11-2012, 02:28 AM
The GOP needs to widen its base, but it also needs to just let go some of the more extreme members under the party umbrella
It needs to laugh at the extreme members. Tell them, you're welcome to be here, but expect to be ignored.

Jacob1983
11-11-2012, 02:30 AM
Stop shitting the bed over religion, dead babies, and homosexuals(yeah I said it) would be a start for the GOP.

Nbadan
11-11-2012, 02:36 AM
Hate to say this, but the GOP needs to take immediate steps to somehow split the Hispanic vote or they will keep losing national elections

ElNono
11-11-2012, 02:49 AM
Nah, it's not all doom and gloom. The GOP just need a better candidate than Romney. I still think they'll bounce back in the 2014 Congressional election.

ChumpDumper
11-11-2012, 05:39 AM
Paul supporters have to make shit up to reassure themselves about their messiah.

MannyIsGod
11-11-2012, 06:47 AM
I suppose Ron Paul will be leaving the GOP over this, right?

ChumpDumper
11-11-2012, 11:37 AM
Hmm, Ron Paul is a dick to his party for decades -- then his supporters are shocked when his party fucks him back but good.

What did you dumbasses expect?

lol Paulapalooza at the convention

Clipper Nation
11-11-2012, 12:57 PM
Another mistake you guys make is that you fail to acknowledge that many of Ron Paul's younger supporters back him because of his anti-war stance and Libertarian stance on drugs. There is no way in hell those people would vote for Romney, regardless of Romney's treatment of Paul's delegates.

The thing is though, he might have still lost out on the Ron Paul movement's vote if he let the convention play out fairly, but he removed all possibility of getting it by rigging the convention...

FuzzyLumpkins
11-11-2012, 01:15 PM
It needs to laugh at the extreme members. Tell them, you're welcome to be here, but expect to be ignored.

You mean kinda like how your buddy conservatives treat you around here?

ChumpDumper
11-11-2012, 02:21 PM
The thing is though, he might have still lost out on the Ron Paul movement's vote if he let the convention play out fairly, but he removed all possibility of getting it by rigging the convention...You're stating as fact something for which you or no one else have any evidence.

Galileo
11-16-2012, 02:45 PM
You're stating as fact something for which you or no one else have any evidence.

Gary Johnson got twice as many votes as Bob Barr and three times as many as Michael Badnarik.

ChumpDumper
11-16-2012, 02:50 PM
Gary Johnson got twice as many votes as Bob Barr and three times as many as Michael Badnarik.And that means absolutely nothing.

Galileo
11-16-2012, 04:32 PM
And that means absolutely nothing.

Johnson got some of the Ron Paul vote. That's what it means.

ChumpDumper
11-16-2012, 04:35 PM
Johnson got some of the Ron Paul vote. That's what it means.Ron Paul lost the nomination and got what he deserved from the party.

Galileo
11-16-2012, 07:10 PM
Ron Paul lost the nomination and got what he deserved from the party.

Mitt Romney got what he deserves; he is a loser.

ChumpDumper
11-16-2012, 07:18 PM
He beat the crap out of Ron Paul.

Galileo
11-16-2012, 07:38 PM
He beat the crap out of Ron Paul.

Obama kicked the living shit out of Romney.

ChumpDumper
11-16-2012, 07:39 PM
Obama kicked the living shit out of Romney.True.

Galileo
11-16-2012, 07:42 PM
True.

OK, we agree on something.