Ron Paul's Own Operation Chaos?

By Proof

Image and video hosting by TinyPic



Remember back in 2008, when Rush Limbaugh tried to bolster Hillary's flagging campaign to sow discord among Democrats up until Obama had clinched the nomination, that he called Operation Chaos? Could be a little bit of that going ion in Iowa and New Hampshire...just from the other side. According to Byron York:

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.

The same New Hampshire survey found that 87 percent of the people who support Romney consider themselves Republicans. For Newt Gingrich, it's 85 percent.


49% of Paul supporters in Iowa are Democrats and Independents? That would be a good thing, if Paul were truly broadening the base. I suspect, however, that every Democrat who votes for Paul in the primary will happily pull the lever for Obama in November.

So who is supporting Paul? In New Hampshire, Paul is the choice of just 13 percent of Republicans, according to the new poll, while he is the favorite of 36 percent of independents and 26 percent of Democrats who intend to vote in the primary. Paul leads in both non-Republican categories.

"Paul is doing the best job of getting those people who aren't really Republicans but say they're going to vote in the Republican primary," explains Smith. Among that group are libertarians, dissatisfied independents and Democrats who are "trying to throw a monkey wrench in the campaign by voting for someone who is more philosophically extreme," says Smith.


I believe it was cross over voting in open primaries that helped give us John McCain as standard bearer in 2008. If, God forbid, something similar happens next year, there needs to be some major house cleaning in the primary process to limit voting to registered Republican residents of the state.


Cross posted at Proof Positive
More at Memeorandum

14 comments:

  1. Proof

    As much as I'd love to see Ron Paul to win the GOP primary, primaries should be closed to party members only.

    If the states and parties want to go with an open system, they should scrap the primaries all together and just have an open general election,

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm registered as "conservative" in my state. All I have do is change to "R" and then vote for RP. Works for me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm going to take the opposite view from Chris: I think primaries should be open to everyone by law. I realize that means you're likely to get moderate candidates on both sides, but I think that's honestly a better outcome for the country than someone who's highly partisan (either way).

    Also, I do think Ron Paul would pull in a lot of independent voters; after all, he's the only candidate serious about trying to address the country's spending problem, and also the only one remotely interested in upholding the Constitution, rather than subverting it. The question would be if he would pull enough voters from the middle to compensate for the right-wing voters who would stay home rather than vote for him. I'd love to find out, personally; I think in all honesty the other candidates are only marginally better than another four years of Obama (especially now that the Republicans control the House, and given Obama's record so far, would likely continue to do so throughout his second term).

    It's not an ideal situation all around, and there's no ideal candidate in my opinion... but Ron Paul would be a whole lot better for the country than anyone else who's running, despite his flaws.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry this didn't get published, Nick. My bad...

      Delete
  4. Oops... just realized none of my posts are appearing any more; I guess I have become left-wing enough to be censored from this site, lol. Se la vi.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Um, yeah, the only difference being that Ron Paul is a Constitutional conservative while Mitt Romney is a liberal RINO and Newt Gingrich is a corrupt Freddie Mac whore.

    If Ron Paul's message brings independents and moderates and even Democrats to vote for him, the Republicans should welcome it!

    ReplyDelete
  6. As long as you guys live in the state you vote in, I'm jiggy with that. In 2008, there were reports of people crossing state lines to vote in open primaries.

    ReplyDelete
  7. .

    "... reports of people crossing state lines to vote in open primaries." Ya, right. People believe what they want to be true.

    Were the 'reports of people crossing state lines' from Murdoch Media/Fox? And you believe the reports because ...?

    Honestly Mr Romney is the only candidate in the Fox 2012 Presidential Primaries who has a chance. The RepublicanT Party will not pay for any one else to run against Mr Obama.

    Let Gewt Be Gewt. Run Paul run. Vote for Romney.

    Ema Nymton
    ~@:o?
    .

    ReplyDelete
  8. Trying to get a working system that allows the people to narrow the field to a manageable number, without allowing the opposition to select your candidate, but still keeping the party elites from picking who you be allowed to vote for in the general election, is a tricky business.

    Crossing state lines to be able to vote twice is as unacceptable as allowing illegal aliens to vote.

    Having said that, giving an elite political class have the power to limit our choices is just another form of disfranchisement.

    For a long time (maybe all time) in this country we have been forced to choose between a big government candidate on one side or the same on the other. We end up having to choose between Obama and McCain in one election or similar losers in the next.

    I'm tired of having no choice or having to vote third party. I live in Illinois, so I'm effectively disenfranchised anyway.

    Perhaps a rule that keeps people from constantly switching by making them wait out a year of primaries after they change would be a possible solution to part of the problem. I'm sure that suggestion is flawed in some ways as well.

    Like I said, it's a difficult problem.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Grant: I think the first step is requiring walk in voters to have a photo ID. The second is greater diligence in checking the addresses on absentee ballots. Maybe requiring a copy of a utility bill or something with both the person's name and address would prevent people from registering empty lots and office buildings as their primary residence.

    Eliminate the fraud first, then tighten up the primaries.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'd agree with your proposals. They would be an improvement on the current system in most places.

    I think it's a long shot to happen though.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I live in a state that doesn't require you to register by party, and I like it that way. You should be able to legally vote for whomever you choose to.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think Ron Paul is going to help Romney by creating an "anybody but Paul" voting strategy, which will likely benefit Mr inevitable.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Iowa First In The Nation, Prepares To Saddle Up & We’re Off To The Races.

    Some video of Imus Guest This Morning, James Carville and Frank Luntz both humping the inevitability of a Romney nomination, and simultaneously pointing how weak a candidate he will be in the General.

    http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2012/01/iowa-first-in-nation-prepares-to-saddle.html

    \

    ReplyDelete

Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.