[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Opinions/Editorials Title: Ron Paul: How badly does GOP need his voters? Many in the GOP realize that Ron Paul is not going to fade away once the early primaries are over. If Ron Paul doesn't win the primary battle, they'll need his voters to win in the general election. Ron Paul did pretty well in the New Hampshire primary Tuesday. He placed second, slightly outperforming pre-election polls, and – perhaps more importantly – he tripled the number of votes he got in the Granite State when he ran for president in 2008. More and more, many in the GOP are realizing that this time around Ron Paul is a significant phenomenon that’s not going to fade away once the early primaries are over. They’re also realizing that it’s counterproductive to dismiss the Texas libertarian’s followers as cranks, college students in favor of drug legalization, or disaffected liberals. The 2012 general election is likely to be close, and the GOP will need all the voters it can get. Thus some in the GOP are beginning to make conciliatory noises about the Paulites. Tea party favorite Sen. Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina on Wednesday said that the Republican presidential candidates need to listen to Ron Paul and might do well to adopt some of his ideas, particularly on economics. “One of the things that’s hurt the so-called conservative alternative [candidates] is saying negative things about Ron Paul,” said Senator DeMint on conservative Laura Ingraham’s radio show. “I’d like to see a Republican Party that embraces a lot of the libertarian ideas.” How badly does the GOP need Paul’s voters? Consider this: In New Hampshire, Paul won 47 percent of voters aged 18 to 29. Making inroads into Barack Obama’s appeal to younger demographics is high on the Republican National Committee’s to-do list. Keeping Paul adherents on the reservation would be one easy way to do that. Plus, as the National Journal’s Major Garrett notes in a story Tuesday, young voters equal enthusiasm – and the GOP looks like it might actually have a developing enthusiasm problem. Turnout in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries was fairly strong, but still less than what top Republicans in both states had predicted. If Mitt Romney becomes the nominee, as now appears likely, the party may need as many exciting surrogates as it can get on the campaign trail to try to inject energy into the race. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 5. Making inroads into Barack Obama’s appeal to younger demographics is high on the Republican National Committee’s to-do list. Keeping Paul adherents on the reservation would be one easy way to do that. Yeah, good luck with that. You're gonna need all the luck you can get.
#2. To: We The People (#1) Think about this. If Obama is reelected he could alter us forever with supreme court picks. I think he would probably start assassinating supreme court judges and installing new ones.
#4. To: A K A Stone (#2) Think about this. If Obama is reelected he could alter us forever with supreme court picks. I think he would probably start assassinating supreme court judges and installing new ones. LOL. If you've learned nothing in the last three years, you should have learned that the SCOTUS is no longer relevant. The POTUS has dictatorial powers, literally the power of life and death over everyone. The supreme court picks are an empty issue.
#5. To: Capitalist Eric (#4) If you've learned nothing in the last three years, you should have learned that the SCOTUS is no longer relevant. lol
Replies to Comment # 5. Ok, let's get down to brass tacks... This barbecue is all yours, and it's all good... (well, mostly... I don't have any gripes about your style, just some of the more obtuse leftist posters, here...) But the SCOTUS hasn't done anything that's worth a squirt of warm piss, for the last three years... with the exceptions of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and District of Columbia v. Heller (2010). If there's more, than please enlighten me... because at this point, the Judicial branch is more of a rubber-stamp on the police-state, than anything else... I pray to God, that someone will take the NDAA 2012 up to the SCOTUS, and they'll overturn that abomination... but I'm not holding my breath. I suspect that the Founders knew that, eventually, we'd still reach the point of a tyrannical government, even though the checks and balances were supposed to prevent that... While one may simply dismiss such notions as pure cynicism in the founders, they seem to have known we'd eventually get to the point where the government would declare de facto war on the people. We've already passed that day, as the NDAA was signed oBUMa, with the full support of an obsequious, idiotic Congress... If it's NOT overturned, the next step is the ammo-box. Again, if you think I'm off-base on this, then please enlighten me.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 5. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|