Ron Paul's Candidacy - Should You Vote For Him?

[turbo]

Maine's GOP is in turmoil since the caucuses. Waldo county's voters were disregarded, as were Washington county's voters, and the heavily Paul-supporting Waterville caucus results were also suppressed (there are two colleges in that town).

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-15/politics/31062266_1_paul-s-campaign-ron-paul-vote-count
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57381016/ron-paul-wins-maine-county-caucus/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/11/ron-paul-maine-caucus-results-2012_n_1270850.html
http://www.infowars.com/maine-caucuses-counties-ron-paul-won-were-ignored-omitted-from-final-count/

I am not a Ron Paul supporter, but he sure did get the dirty end of the stick from the Maine GOP.

 

[jduster]

At this point, even if Ron Paul won every single state, by a landslide, he would not win the nomination.

But he can keep moving the goalpost to keep his supporters happy.

 

[ThomasT]

At this point, even if Ron Paul won every single state, by a landslide, he would not win the nomination.

Yeah, anyway, Paul's message or ideas seem to be unimportant to the American people. He's history. Close the thread.

 

[Rajput9572]

I would vote for him in the general election against Obama.

 

[mheslep]

I would vote for him in the general election against Obama.

As would millions of others.

 

[Evo]

As would millions of others.

So why did he lose so badly in the primaries? Dead last doesn't show much support from actual humans IMO, "virtual" supporters can't vote.

 

[Hobin]

So why did he lose so badly in the primaries? Dead last doesn't show much support from actual humans IMO, "virtual" supporters can't vote.

To be fair, in the latest Gallup polls he could still count on ~10% support from GOP supporters. That makes him lose badly, of course, but that's still millions of people.

 

[jduster]

There is a reason why Ron Paul gets all of these donations, has stadiums packed at his rallies and has grassroots all over the nation, yet so little votes.

Ron Paul supporters are a vocal minority, whereas Romney supporters are a silent majority.

Let's say there are 1 million Paul Supporters and 10 million Romney Supporters, which primaries show this simplistic estimate isn't too far from reality.

The 1 million Ron Paul supporters will be outside campaigning, while almost all of Romney's supporters will be sitting at home, living their normal lives for months, and generally not having politics on their minds.

When voting day comes, whether you campaigned every week for the past 12 months or you are barely political. Your vote counts no more than anyone elses.

 

[mheslep]

So why did he lose so badly in the primaries? Dead last doesn't show much support from actual humans IMO, "virtual" supporters can't vote.

A majority of R. primary voters, not all, found the other R. candidates more appealing. Paul maintained a dedicated support hovering around ~20% nationally up through February at least. There is also a progressive/left leaning anti-war contingent that switches over from the Democrats only for the idea of Paul candidacy in the general election. Of the ~120 million or so that turn out for a presidential election, Paul would get his millions against Obama, even if he would highly unlikely to win.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

A majority of R. primary voters, not none, found the other R. candidates more appealing. Paul maintained a dedicated support hovering around ~20% nationally up through February at least. There is also a progressive/left leaning anti-war contingent that switches over from the Democrats only for the idea of Paul candidacy in the general election. Of the ~120 million or so that turn out for a presidential election, Paul would get his millions against Obama, even if he would highly unlikely to win.

if a majority of R. primary voters found Santorum and Romney more appealing than Paul... I have a hard time seeing Paul ever getting to the general election.

 

[Gokul43201]

As would millions of others.

If anything, that's an undersell. All the polling I've seen shows Paul losing to Obama in a general election match-up by about 10 pts. That's tens of millions that would vote for Paul in a general election against Obama.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html

I think it's pretty clear that Paul has been in this race primarily to influence the way people think about fiscal and foreign policy rather than to actually win the nomination. If anything, I imagine Paul would have had a vastly better chance of winning the Presidency as an independent candidate than as a Republican. The reason he chose to run as a Rep was to gain visibility, have the opportunity to debate the other candidates, and influence the national psyche. I think he's been very successful at that.

 

[SixNein]

If anything, that's an undersell. All the polling I've seen shows Paul losing to Obama in a general election match-up by about 10 pts. That's tens of millions that would vote for Paul in a general election against Obama.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html

I think it's pretty clear that Paul has been in this race primarily to influence the way people think about fiscal and foreign policy rather than to actually win the nomination. If anything, I imagine Paul would have had a vastly better chance of winning the Presidency as an independent candidate than as a Republican. The reason he chose to run as a Rep was to gain visibility, have the opportunity to debate the other candidates, and influence the national psyche. I think he's been very successful at that.

I find it hard to be impressed by a person who actually takes libertarian ideas seriously.

 

[mheslep]

If anything, that's an undersell. All the polling I've seen shows Paul losing to Obama in a general election match-up by about 10 pts. That's tens of millions that would vote for Paul in a general election against Obama.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html

I think it's pretty clear that Paul has been in this race primarily to influence the way people think about fiscal and foreign policy rather than to actually win the nomination. If anything, I imagine Paul would have had a vastly better chance of winning the Presidency as an independent candidate than as a Republican. The reason he chose to run as a Rep was to gain visibility, have the opportunity to debate the other candidates, and influence the national psyche. I think he's been very successful at that.

Agreed. And in so doing he paves the way for another libertarian-ish candidate that may be more electable, i.e. his Senator son, former Gov Johnson, or the like.

 

[CAC1001]

I find it hard to be impressed by a person who actually takes libertarian ideas seriously.

Small-L libertarians are fine I think. Libertarian Party libertarians are where you find the people who believe that President Bush was being secretly controlled by aliens, 9/11 was an inside job, the Moon landing was a hoax, every single government regulatory agency needs to be done away with, etc...but otherwise, libertarian ideas in terms of limited government, economic freedom, social freedom, etc...I think are very sound.

 

[SixNein]

Small-L libertarians are fine I think. Libertarian Party libertarians are where you find the people who believe that President Bush was being secretly controlled by aliens, 9/11 was an inside job, the Moon landing was a hoax, every single government regulatory agency needs to be done away with, etc...but otherwise, libertarian ideas in terms of limited government, economic freedom, social freedom, etc...I think are very sound.

I suppose I don't understand the appeal of objectivism.

 

[Galteeth]

I suppose I don't understand the appeal of objectivism.

Objectivism is not the same thing as libertarianism, and even libertarianism has radically different meanings to different people. (It's historical meaning was left-wing anarchism.)

 

[ThinkToday]

Objectivism is not the same thing as libertarianism, and even libertarianism has radically different meanings to different people. (It's historical meaning was left-wing anarchism.)

Meaning is depended on many things as wiki notes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

I tend to feel it falls along the last example in Wiki for the US "It is only in the United States that the term libertarian is commonly associated with those who have conservative positions on economic issues and liberal positions on social issues, going by the common meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in the United States."

 

[ThinkToday]

If anything, that's an undersell. All the polling I've seen shows Paul losing to Obama in a general election match-up by about 10 pts. That's tens of millions that would vote for Paul in a general election against Obama.

I think you're confusing the "anybody but Obama" vote as being support for Paul's ideas.

 

[SixNein]

Objectivism is not the same thing as libertarianism, and even libertarianism has radically different meanings to different people. (It's historical meaning was left-wing anarchism.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Influential_libertarian_philosophers

 

[Hobin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Influential_libertarian_philosophers

Libertarianism != Ayn Randism.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think you're confusing the "anybody but Obama" vote as being support for Paul's ideas.

I think you're confusing what I said with what you think I said. I made no quantitative statements about support for Paul's ideas.

 

[SixNein]

Libertarianism != Ayn Randism.

But it is quite influenced by it.

Ethical egoism seems to be the central theme of libertarianism.

 

[jduster]

Libertarianism is not "Objectivism" (Rand's philosophy).

Rand, throughout her career, harshly criticized libertarians for ripping apart her ideas, and using only parts of them, rather than embracing it as a whole.

Nevertheless, Rand's philosophy of Objectivism was neither philosophy nor objective.

 

[turbo]

Paul's supporters hope to hijack the Maine GOP primary this week, as published in this weekend's local papers. He might have some other reason for staying in the race this late, but I don't know what it could be, since he is far out of the running. He can't hope to win too many extra delegates (though he did well in the Maine GOP caucuses), but he may be sticking in the hunt to get a little extra influence headed into the GOP nationals.

 

[John Creighto]

Libertarianism != Ayn Randism.

And baby blue is not sky blue but they are both blue.

 

[mheslep]

But it is quite influenced by it.

Ethical egoism seems to be the central theme of libertarianism.

Ethical egoism? What does that mean, and on what basis is that the theme of libertarian philosophy?

 

[turbo]

Ron Paul supporters jammed the Maine state Republican party convention this weekend and grabbed a share of the top spots, hoping to give Paul leverage in Tampa.

http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/Delegate-fight-Snowe-LePage-today-at-convention.html

Romney's camp is not happy.

 

[SixNein]

Ethical egoism? What does that mean, and on what basis is that the theme of libertarian philosophy?

Ethical egoism is usually the moral defense and rallying cry of libertarianism.

Ethical egoism is the normative theory that the promotion of one’s own good is in accordance with morality. In the strong version, it is held that it is always moral to promote one’s own good, and it is never moral not to promote it. In the weak version, it is said that although it is always moral to promote one’s own good, it is not necessarily never moral to not. That is, there may be conditions in which the avoidance of personal interest may be a moral action.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/egoism/#SH2b

 

[John Creighto]

Ethical egoism is usually the moral defense and rallying cry of libertarianism.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/egoism/#SH2b

I think if we are going to discuss libertarian theory we probably should start another thread. If we want to discuss Ayn Rand specifically we do have a thread about here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=478792

I do wish to say that, I think that trying to simplify Rand's ethic's to ethical egoism is an over simplification. Rand's ethics are partly deotological in that she believes in certain rights (As a minimum the right to life). She also (although she denies it) is to a degree consequentialist in that she justifies her ethical systems by contrasting them against the consequences of collectivism. She also calls her ethics "Objective" in that she views the market as an objective criteria to measure value.

 

[SixNein]

I think if we are going to discuss libertarian theory we probably should start another thread. If we want to discuss Ayn Rand specifically we do have a thread about here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=478792

I do wish to say that, I think that trying to simplify Rand's ethic's to ethical egoism is an over simplification. Rand's ethics are partly deotological in that she believes in certain rights (As a minimum the right to life). She also (although she denies it) is to a degree consequentialist in that she justifies her ethical systems by contrasting them against the consequences of collectivism. She also calls her ethics "Objective" in that she views the market as an objective criteria to measure value.

Ethical egoism is a little more generalized. But if you wish to read an Ayn Rand defense of it, I would recommend: "The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism"

But back to the point of the thread...

Ron Paul took too high a dosage of ethical egoism. In my opinion, government problems have to be classified. Some problems require an individualist approach, and some problems require a collectivist approach. I don't like extremes in either direction.

In my honest opinion, the government really needs pragmatic people.

 

[Galteeth]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Influential_libertarian_philosophers

I'm pretty sure Bakunin and Rand would be mortal enemies.

 

[Dotini]

In my honest opinion, the government really needs pragmatic people.

Sounds good, but does this imply that sometimes it's okay to obey the Constitution and sometimes it's fine not to?

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Hobin]

Sounds good, but does this imply that sometimes it's okay to obey the Constitution and sometimes it's fine not to?

I don't think so. This would, after all, set a horrible precedent, and it's quite pragmatic to keep this in mind.

 

[turbo]

Ron Paul's supporters took control of the state GOP convention and handed Paul 21 of Maine's 24 national delegates. The Romney camp claims that the tactics of the Paul camp were "illegal" and that the delegates should not be seated by the RNC. It's going to be messy in Tampa.

http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/for-now-pauliticsprevail_2012-05-06.html

 

[Dotini]

Ron Paul's supporters took control of the state GOP convention and handed Paul 21 of Maine's 24 national delegates. The Romney camp claims that the tactics of the Paul camp were "illegal" and that the delegates should not be seated by the RNC. It's going to be messy in Tampa.

http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/for-now-pauliticsprevail_2012-05-06.html

Illegal according to what? Robert's Rules of Order? I doubt it, because that's the chief weapon of Paul's wily supporters against the entrenched GOP establishment, who are really the ones guilty of the dirty tricks. I know. I've seen it first hand.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0506/Ron-Paul-wins-big-in-Maine-and-Nevada <--- Confirmation of our tactics

Respectfully,
Steve