See the other thread for my opinion on that. Short answer: not withRon Paul

I find this both interesting and troubling:

Given Paul's views on the Fed, the gold standard and social issues, not to mention his isolationist foreign policy, the polls have left some politicos wondering whether Republican voters have somehow swerved off the rails. But there's another question that should be asked first: Who are Ron Paul's supporters? Are they, in fact, Republicans?

In an analysis accompanying his most recent survey in Iowa, pollster Scott Rasmussen noted, "Romney leads, with Gingrich in second, among those who consider themselves Republicans. Paul has a wide lead among non-Republicans who are likely to participate in the caucus."

The same is true in New Hampshire. A poll released Monday by the Boston Globe and the University of New Hampshire shows Paul leading among Democrats and independents who plan to vote in the January 10 primary. But among Republicans, Paul is a distant third -- 33 points behind leader Mitt Romney.

In South Carolina, "Paul's support is higher among those who usually don't vote in GOP primary elections," notes David Woodard, who runs the Palmetto Poll at Clemson University.

In a hotly-contested Republican race, it appears that only about half of Paul's supporters are Republicans. In Iowa, according to Rasmussen, just 51 percent of Paul supporters consider themselves Republicans. In New Hampshire, the number is 56 percent, according to Andrew Smith, head of the University of New Hampshire poll.

I am not in favor of open primaries. In my view, if you want to participate in a primary, register for that party. Particularly in small States, the amount of mischief that non Party members can cause is just too great. If Ron Paul is where the GOP is, I'm fine with that. If he's not, then he should not be the Party's nominee, period.

I'm sure some of those voting for him are Libertarian independents. Fine, except they are not Republicans. I think the idea of appealing across party lines is overrated in the primary season.

If the democratic and republican parties were purely private organizations, then I might agree with you. However, they are not. People unaffiliated with either major party have to pay for these elections, and have to suffer the consequences of these elections. They should absolutely be able to vote in them.

theodorelogan wrote:If the democratic and republican parties were purely private organizations, then I might agree with you. However, they are not. People unaffiliated with either major party have to pay for these elections, and have to suffer the consequences of these elections. They should absolutely be able to vote in them.

And, they absolutely can! All they need do is register appropriately.

Here's the analogy: you have to register to vote in order to vote. In this case, they want to participate in a sub-election for a party but don't want to join the party. That makes as much sense as letting people who will not register at all vote. After all, "they have to pay for these elections, and have to suffer the consequences of these elections."

Of course, letting the unregistered, the non-living, and the non-citizens vote, or letting citizens vote repeatedly is the Democratic way! So, I'm not sure if they're particularly picky on this matter. But, I digress.

Actually, you are wrong: there is no direct "consequence" to a primary election. There are still other candidates--even beyond the two major parties.

If "Democrat" or "Republican" is going to mean anything, only voters who care enough to register that way should vote in their primaries.

Doctor Fate wrote:In an analysis accompanying his most recent survey in Iowa, pollster Scott Rasmussen noted, "Romney leads, with Gingrich in second, among those who consider themselves Republicans. Paul has a wide lead among non-Republicans who are likely to participate in the caucus."

I am pretty sure I said this last week when I predicted Ron Paul in 4th place. Of course I was pooh pooh'd when I said that. A Ron Paul win relies on 3 things.

1). Massive youth turn out - 42% of his support comes from under 30 which historically is a demographic that does not vote.

2). Enough Independents willing to show up on Caucus day and register as Republicans - only 18% of Republicans say he is their first choice. The rest of that 25% he is polling comes from Independents and Democrats saying they plan to switch registration to vote in the Republican primary

3). Supporters sticking with him - 13% of his supporters say they will probably vote for someone else and only 29% say they are seriously committed to him.

theodorelogan wrote:See the other thread for my opinion on that. Short answer: not withRon Paul

I am not sure that this is directed at me but if it is a denial about Ron Paul using the Federal Government to impose his personal standards.....did you not see the quote from him that I posted. If that does not say he wants to the Federal Government to pass a law saying abortion is illegal, what does it say.

Or is it just another example of Ron Paul saying one thing to one group and something completely different to another?

For once I fully agree with Steve. Open primaries are a very odd concept and I'm surprised that the parties allow it. I don't understand why people who are not supporters of the party should have any kind of say in selecting its candidates.

I believe federal law should declare that life begins at conception. And I believe states should regulate the enforcement of this law, as they do other laws against violence..

I don't read that quote the same way you do. I read it as "it is up to the states to regulate criminal punishments for violent crimes, not the federal government."

I think this is just a tough constitutional question. The constitution talks about "people" or "persons" and so the federal government needs to have a position on what a "person" is. There are more issues than just abortion around the answer to that question (although it would be fair to say that abortion is probably the most pressing one atm.)

I looked over the link about his signing of the Personhood USA pledge. He does make the rather vague statement that it is up to the states to decide how to punish criminal acts, and up to the federal government to protect the rights of citizens. Exactly how the federal government would defend the rights of the unborn without criminal punishment is unclear. But from my reading, I see nothing suggesting anything as tyrannical as forcing states to enforce a federal ban on abortion.

Like I said, even I recognize that abortion is a tough issue. Even the most mini-minarchist (which Ron Paul is not) would say that one of the roles of the state is to protect life. If you believe that humanness, or whatever, begins at conception, then it is the role of the state to protect that life. I understand the feeling that underlies his thought process, and I agree with it (every life is precious, and disrespect for life is the cause of most of the world's problems)

I think the problem is that Ron Paul has not thought through the unintended consequences of a ban on abortion. He knows that banning drugs has not decreased the demand for drugs. It has just made them more unsafe, and caught innocent people in the crossfire. I'm not sure why he doesn't see that the same is true for abortion as well. I think that abortion is the wrong thing to do most of the time, but using the law to ban it is not the solution.

That quote was addressed to Dan BTW.

I don't understand why people who are not supporters of the party should have any kind of say in selecting its candidates.

Because those people pay for the elections.

theodorelogan wrote:

I don't understand why people who are not supporters of the party should have any kind of say in selecting its candidates.

Because those people pay for the elections.

Indeed. In the US, as I understand it, primary elections (not the caucuses so much) are run by the states, and using state resources. So taxpayers are paying for them. The rules are even set up to favour the two main parties, with difficult conditions for ballot access to others.

In Europe, where parties have held primaries they tend to run them themselves. And otherwise they use a purely internal process.

theodorelogan wrote:

I don't understand why people who are not supporters of the party should have any kind of say in selecting its candidates.

Because those people pay for the elections.

As I see it then:

1) only taxpayers should vote;

2) party registration is pointless as you paid for it and therefore can vote for anyone;

3) general elections are redundant.

4) Democrats should have equal say in voting for the GOP nominee. So, we could have Hillary v. Obama!

We just disagree. maybe parties should have to pay, but your approach makes the whole primary system a bit loopy.

I wasn't aware that the primaries are publicly funded, but in truth I'm not sure how much difference this makes. Ultimately whether a primary is open or closed is still a decision made by the local parties. Many states don't have open primaries and I don't see there being a huge clamour from the taxpayers in these states to give them the right. Besides which, the taxpayer pays for all kinds of things that aren't open to all.

A primary is fundamentally an internal mechanism by which parties choose who they want to put up for election. It doesn't make any sense for people who lack any vested interest in that party winning the election to be party to that decision. Not only is it very silly but it can also lead to perverse outcomes where candidates can be selected thanks in large part to the votes of people who have very little intention of voting for them in the actual election. This is unfair on the people who are registered Republicans or Democrats. Ok, so it probably doesn't happen very often, but nevertheless it's still a little weird.

It doesn't make any sense for people who lack any vested interest in that party winning the election to be party to that decision.

Everyone has a vested interest in who wins the nomination of one of the major parties, since one of those people will claim to be everyone's ruler.

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote: The 4th Ammedment says nothing about abortion. The 10th Ammendment says that all powers not listen are to be left to the states.

And the 9th Amendment says the preceeding 8 rights is not an exhaustive list of protected rights. In other words there are some rights the Federal, and through the 14th A, States, can not interfer with. Is it possible controlling ones reproductive processes is one of them?

After all the Constitution doesn't say anything about use of birth control. So you would agree the state has the ability to pass a law saying married couples are not allowed to use any form of birth control as Conneticut law used say?

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:I'm not sure what the gripe with Ron Paul's opposition to Roe v Wade is, Russ.

I have no problem with Paul's opposition to Roe v. Wade. I could careless what Paul thinks about it because he is never going to be in a position to influence it.

My issue was with the statement that Ron Paul does not believe in using government to impose personal standards on other when he clearly is willing to do so. He wants the Federal Gov't to declare abortions a criminal offense of assault. That is his personal standard. Not everybody feels abortion is a criminal assault. Therefore, he is trying to impose his personal standards on other through the federal government.

Archduke Russell John wrote:I am pretty sure I said this last week when I predicted Ron Paul in 4th place. Of course I was pooh pooh'd when I said that. A Ron Paul win relies on 3 things.

We're talking about Iowa here, right? Just want to clarify.

Archduke Russell John wrote:1). Massive youth turn out - 42% of his support comes from under 30 which historically is a demographic that does not vote.

Indeed. But what happened in '08? It wasn't a traditional election by your standards. Why would that change this year? If anything, the youth are more fired up this time than last time. Long term trends don't work in such turbulent times.

But Ron's support structure is even stronger than Obama's (as a candidate). He wasn't supposed to lose to Hilary--Remember?

Archduke Russell John wrote:2). Enough Independents willing to show up on Caucus day and register as Republicans - only 18% of Republicans say he is their first choice. The rest of that 25% he is polling comes from Independents and Democrats saying they plan to switch registration to vote in the Republican primary

So reach across the aisle. Praise the rise in registered Republicans. But tsk the fact that the Ron Paul has done both? Ok...

Archduke Russell John wrote:3). Supporters sticking with him - 13% of his supporters say they will probably vote for someone else and only 29% say they are seriously committed to him.

I'd like to see a link to that. You have a penchant for finding the one obscure poll that supports your cause--like the one about Huntsman in New Hampshire.