Reply With Quote
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.
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/18...aul-supporters
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.
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...
You are correct. A word like "alienate" would be more correct. Same with voter ID requirements. Disenfranchise is an incorrect word to use.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why do people love using that stupid flawed chart?
hogwash!
I'd say the majority either voted for Gary Johnson, Virgil Goode, or wrote in Ron Paul, tbh...
I agree.
I fully expected to vote for Romney, but as a protest, I wrote in Ron Paul.
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 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?
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.
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.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.
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.
The GOP is over. There is no way they can unite the Bible thumping neo-cons and libertarian leaning Republicans.
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.
Stop ting the bed over religion, dead babies, and sexuals(yeah I said it) would be a start for the GOP.
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
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
