"The race was almost split 50/50. Obama got less than one percent of the votes more than Mitt Romney. Of interest, libertarian Gary Johnson got right at one percent. Gary who? Right. How did a guy with almost no presence during the primaries get one percent of the votes? The only other Libertarian to get this much traction was Ed Clark in 1980 with 1.1 percent. But this wasn’t so much a victory for the Libertarian Party as it was a loss for the GOP. How did Gary Johnson get so many votes? Ron Paul. Sorry, but that’s just the truth.
Most disillusioned Ron Paul supporters chose either to not vote, to vote for Gary Johnson, or to write in Ron Paul even though such a vote would be largely symbolic."
"Most of the people, if not all, who voted for Mitt Romney would have voted for whomever the GOP nominated. No matter what. Anyone but Obama, remember? These people voted pragmatically… er, not so pragmatically now that all is said and done. So most of the people, if not all, who voted for Romney would have voted for the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man if he had been on the ballot with an “R” next to his name. So they really don’t matter in the end. Despite all of the media drivel about electability, any Republican candidate would have gained at least the number of votes that Romney did. But I believe a few of the primary candidates could have gained more. The Republican Party was trying to get some extra votes from the middle, so they chose a big-government-lite candidate with largely liberal social policies that could appeal to “moderate” voters. Wrong plan of action. Moderate voters swung to Obama anyway. All the Republican Party did by putting all its eggs into the middle-of-the-road candidate was jettison the swing voters they should have been appealing to instead: the conservative idealists. Consider it this way: liberal idealists love Obama. And moderate voters like him too. So Obama is the perfect candidate for the Democratic party. He consolidates the base while reaching beyond it. Conservative idealists (the ones who vote on principle alone—damn-the-torpedoes type people) hated Romney. Tea Party conservatives also disliked Romney. But the hold-your-nose-and-vote Republicans weren’t numerous enough to result in a Romney victory. They needed just one extra percent."
"Let’s
think about this. What if Ron Paul had been nominated? The
'hold-your-nose-and-vote' Republicans would still
have voted for him. And if they wouldn’t, they have no place
whatsoever to criticize idealists who wouldn’t vote for Romney. If
the GOP machine had gotten behind him like they did Romney, there’s
no indication that Paul would have fared any different than Romney.
At
least as well,
as I said. But on top of the hold-your-nosers, Ron Paul had a rabid
base of extremely motivated supporters (at least a million, actually…
just ask Gary Johnson) who certainly would have voted for him though
they refused to support Romney. He also attracted many moderate
voters who liked his states-rights stance on illegal drugs and
homosexual marriage. Colorado just voted to legalize marijuana, by
the way… and it went to Obama this election… again. So,
bottom line: if Ron Paul had been nominated, in all likelihood we
would have a Republican President-elect right now. But he’s not
electable… And Romney is? Hello!?
Any of the candidates would have done at
least
as well as he did, and I think any of them would have actually done
better.
Romney wasn’t the voters’ first choice. He was the GOP
establishment’s first choice. Let’s not kid ourselves on that
one. And this is the same group that gave us McCain. Remember that
guy? He was “electable” too. When will we ever learn?"
"Don’t
blame the Paulbots or the independents for four more years of Obama’s
national train-wreck. Blame the GOP establishment power brokers. Their
stubborn unwillingness to listen to their constituency and their
blatant disregard for the traditional federal constitutionalism that
once made the GOP “grand” has cost us yet another election cycle,
perhaps the most critical to date. We can’t afford to place our
trust in them anymore. Let them know loud and clear: “Give us
candidates who fully support our
values, not your
agenda! And back these candidates with your full endorsement. We
won’t be fooled again. We won’t accept another Romney, and if you
give us one, we will not
vote for him.” Do we have the courage to do this? We didn’t have
that courage this election. We thought too much was at stake. Too
much was
at stake. And we lost it because of fear. If we don’t gain the
courage necessary to stand on conviction, this country is most
assuredly doomed."
And now, we must suffer the consequences of:
1. A choice between poor nominees for elected national office.
2. The Electoral College concept - where roughly 540 people can override and cancel out the will of the people, as expressed via the popular vote.
3. The "deal" struck between the two major political parties, several decades ago, wherein they agreed that whichever party got the majority of a state's electoral votes, gets ALL that state's electoral votes.
4. Being stupid enough to re-elect a record-proven, America-hating, Socialist-"progressive" Marxist as our nation's chief executive.
5. Being too lazy to go to the polls and vote.
6. Being energized enough to vote, but too ignorant to realize that voting for a 3rd party candidate at this point in time fails to cancel out a vote for the one you did not want as President. Understand that there is no 3rd party candidate that can be elected to the office of POTUS.
7. Allowing 18 year olds to vote - the majority of whom lack the life experience to vote with anything other than their emotions.
The Average American Voter
How long before the U.S. actually becomes the Greece of North America? We're already close...
God save us from our own stupidity!
No comments:
Post a Comment