Political Theory

Re: Better if Gingrich wins SC?

Graham Wright — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:23:08 GMT

“Gingrich is a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person should sound like"

Re: Better if Gingrich wins SC?

Autolykos — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:53:07 GMT

IMHO, the scene in the SC primary debate where Gingrich appealed to the notion of killing America's enemies and Ron Paul appealed to the notion of following the Golden Rule in foreign policy was what clinched it. These people don't care about peace per se - they care about being "#1".

How far are they willing to chase that mirage? Are they willing to sacrifice their own futures, as well as the futures of their children, grandchildren, etc.? Quite possibly so.

Re: Better if Gingrich wins SC?

Eric080 — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 09:47:51 GMT

It is clearly more than that. Republicans generally buy the line that government spending tends to fail. They don't have much of an economic theory to back that up like the Chicagoites or the Austrians do, but they buy into it. They might be skeptical of Paul on things like Social Security and some regulations, but they are mostly with him on those issues. It's the foreign policy. I think Paul could explain his foreign policy ideas better, but at some point it is incumbent upon the voting bloc to dispel the mythos of patriotism and believing what the government tells you hook, line, and sinker. It's just a cognitive error, there's no way you can reason out of it for them. They have to figure it out at some point.

Re: Better if Gingrich wins SC?

Freedom4Me73986 — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 09:40:25 GMT

Paul: Hate to say it, but Paul's critics are slothful thinkers and buy into the anti-freedom propaganda much too easily. Paul would have a prayer since he can build a coalition between the anti-war far-left, every libertarian, 65ish% of independents, and conservatives who would suck it up and go anti-Obama, but the issue will be the scare tactics. Will independents continue supporting Paul once the attacks of neo-Confederate, secessionist, conspiracy theorist, racist, homophobe, anti-poor / useful-idiot-for-the-corporations, etc. continue to mount? I think that would be Paul's weakness, but he has just as good a shot at beating Obama as Romney does. I just can't see him getting out of the primary and I also think if he somehow did get the nomination that the talk show audiences would try to go 3rd party just to ruin it for Paul. I think they hate Paul more than they do Obama quite honestly.

I fear Paul losing to Obama way more then I fear Paul losing to Gingrich or Romney. Obama plays up the altruism and even tho obamanomics (keynesianism + marxism + corporations) is a complete failure he can still convince the numbnuts who supported him in 2008 to vote for him once again. Dr. Paul is way more honest but there's a lot the obama camp could do to slander him and libertarianism and austrian economics. They'll just play up the fact that Hayek "lost" to Keynes and say that it's some kind of evidence that Dr. Paul's freedom economics don't work when all evidence shows the opposite to be true. The problem is most Americans don't know anything about austrian econ. There still brainwashed by college econ courses and pundits who say the gov. needs to spend more and create more artificial demand to get us out of recession. Thats the biggest problem. If all the conservative voters knew what austrian econ is and why it works when all other schools fail then Dr. Paul wouldn't have a problem. So I think we should be doing what Dr. Paul's whole campaign is about: educating people on real economics and dispelling the myths of statist economics.

Re: Better if Gingrich wins SC?

Eric080 — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 09:33:05 GMT

It's funny how nobody points out that Ron Paul is within the margin of error against Obama. He fares much better than Gingrich or Santorum. However, I think every Republican in this field (including Paul) would lose to Obama if and only if the economy flatlines and doesn't take a nosedive before the elections.

Romney: Obama turns it into a 1% vs. 99% issue. He'll play up soaking the rich and, contrary to the beliefs of most preaching-to-the-choir conservatives, most of the nation approves of increased taxes on the top wealth earners.

Gingrich: Gingrich will try to go for the jugular and try to bludgeon Obama with campaign rhetoric, but it will backfire. Independents don't like him and disaffected Democrats think he is a partisan throwback to the 90s. Attacking Obama will play well with conservatives obviously but it won't make any converts.

Santorum: Too easy. The perception (and, to a great extent, the reality) is that he is a far-right evangelical with theocratic tendencies. No chance against Obama.

Paul: Hate to say it, but Paul's critics are slothful thinkers and buy into the anti-freedom propaganda much too easily. Paul would have a prayer since he can build a coalition between the anti-war far-left, every libertarian, 65ish% of independents, and conservatives who would suck it up and go anti-Obama, but the issue will be the scare tactics. Will independents continue supporting Paul once the attacks of neo-Confederate, secessionist, conspiracy theorist, racist, homophobe, anti-poor / useful-idiot-for-the-corporations, etc. continue to mount? I think that would be Paul's weakness, but he has just as good a shot at beating Obama as Romney does. I just can't see him getting out of the primary and I also think if he somehow did get the nomination that the talk show audiences would try to go 3rd party just to ruin it for Paul. I think they hate Paul more than they do Obama quite honestly.

Re: Better if Gingrich wins SC?

John James — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 09:13:23 GMT

So it seems I underestimated the stupidity of South Carolina voters...namely, their ability to be swayed by a single debate response to a question everyone deemed wasn't important enough for a Presidential debate in the first place. I mean, I predicted Gingrich would win...but not by a dozen points or more. I also predicted Paul would be ahead of Santorum...but I underestimated how much of an impact the shaft Paul got in the debate would affect the voting.

Then again, I didn't realize this was the electorate...

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: Better if Gingrich wins SC?

Aristophanes — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 00:46:36 GMT

Last I saw Romney had about 60% of the GOP who won't vote for him. Paul was at 70%...

Re: Better if Gingrich wins SC?

Wheylous — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:53:03 GMT

I've heard that only 30% of Republicans could support him while 70% of Republicans could support Dr. Paul.

I don't know who your sources are, but I suggest you get some other ones :P

Re: Better if Gingrich wins SC?

No2statism — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:49:20 GMT

I think the convention is going to be brokered and it will Palin or Cain. I have a feeling that Cain didn't really drop and that the allegations against him were staged. That could be the most retarded thing anyone has ever heard, however.

There is going to be a brokered convention, because Romney can't break the 30% threshold and even his own Establishment is smart enough to know that he can't win the general election.

I've heard that only 30% of Republicans could support him while 70% of Republicans could support Dr. Paul.

Re: Better if Gingrich wins SC?

John James — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:02:24 GMT

Freedom4Me73986:
No, it would be better for Dr. Paul to win.

Very cute. The question was obviously asking if better the lizard than the plasticman. Ron Paul is not going to win the South Carolina primary. Would you like to make another wager?

Wheylous:
With Santorum possibly winning Iowa, would it be better if Gingrich wins SC? This way the inevitability of Romney gets shaken and the race becomes more fluid once again. This would allow RP to whittle away at their support.

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. In the after debate discussion, the asshole moderator actually pointed out a truth I had noticed myself...that something has been off for Romney this week...and the same thing the first time Gingrich rose to the top of the polls. I think it's two things. One, Romney doesn't do well when he's not in a position of seeming total strength. He's already been through this rodeo once before, and he knows what it is to run a losing campaign. He knows he doesn't have a real way to break that 25% ceiling, other than "I'm the only viable candidate"...but that's the only reason he has the "support" he does (if you can even call it that). The minute someone else looks "electable", he starts going the way of every other frontrunner in the history of this race.

The second issue is finances. Romney comes from a rich and privileged family. His father was governor...and ran for President. One CNN pundit poked fun at Romney's statement about being from "the streets of America"...the guy said "it left me scratching my head, I was like: which of your 5 houses among the streets of Martha's Vineyard are you talking about?" (He didn't have it come out that well, but he used those words and that's what he was trying to say). And it's true. Romney can't related to the people of America because he hasn't lived anywhere near their lives. He's the classic elitist. Basically like a Kennedy. On top of that, he's Mormon. And on top of that (or perhaps partly because of that), he's got a kind of reserved personality. And he came from money, and went out and made even more money and he's filthy rich...

a) he knows that's not going to look good. Yes, he scored the good line about "I'm not going to apologize for my success" and got a cheer, but that was only 9 seconds after he flubbed around on the question about releasing 12 years worth of tax returns like his father did, and answered "maybe"...and got booed.

It's obvious Romney's not comfortable talking about money and he knew this tax issue would come up and he still didn't have a good answer prepared. You'd think he would, given how basically everything else he says is canned.

b) another point that was brought up, that I actually hadn't thought of, was that those tax returns will show he's donated a shitload of money to the Mormon church. And of course a lot of people would say that's great, he's wealthy, he should donate to the church...but it's the Mormon church. For one thing it's richer than even the Catholic church, but for another, it re-opens the door to the whole religion issue.

Then of top of all this, you have the "oh..well, actually Santorum won Iowa" thing. As much as it doesn't matter (the Iowa vote is basically just a straw poll...and we're talking literally a small room's worth of people), for the media it does matter. As I was saying, the whole time it's been "he's gone 2 for 2 already...can anyone stop him? He's making history winning all these things. He just keeps knocking em all down. Will he go 3 for 3? What if Romney goes 3 for 3? Romney's coming off back-to-back wins...blah blah blah". And you can already hear them now..."Romney didn't even win Iowa, he won New Hampshire, which is basically his home state, and he looks in trouble in SC...I think he's going into this from a position of weakness..." (I'm not making that up. An analyst actually said that today.)

So even when it was 8 votes before, and it's 30some now, it makes all the difference in the world as far as the media is concerned. It gives them something to say. In politics it's winners and losers. They understand that very easily, and it makes it easier when you can talk as if it's sports.

This is all good news for Paul. It gets the media to shut up with their self-fulfilling prophecy rhetoric, and puts the focus on someone else for a while, and shines negative light on Romney. But even if Gingrich wins in SC, he still won't get the funding to carry on a full length campaign, and on top of that, he has no real support. He's not even on the ballot in his state of residence, and as much as people are holding their nose and backing Romney because he's the "electable" guy, people really don't care for Gingrich. He's got so much baggage. How the hell else has Rick f-ing Santorum become (allegedly) a viable candidate...and in the final four?! Rick Santorum. That's how much everyone hates/is afraid of Gingrich.

My prediction is it'll be a close race between Gingrich and Romney, but in the end, as far as the media is concered (i.e. what they'll say) is Gingrich won. (But I'm not putting money on that. The delegates are split, and awarded on a county by county basis, with the winner of the popular vote getting a bonus of 11 delegates. The media may choose to focus on that). I think Paul will beat Santorum, and Santorum will have to reconsider his campaign.

Re: Better if Gingrich wins SC?

Freedom4Me73986 — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:33:07 GMT

Stop the hero worship of a career politician like Paul

Moreover, I just saw the debate and the guy is a pussy.

The corrupt and self-interested political establishment will hand his ass to him .

And while I don't give a rat's ass about any politician --- a failed Paul presidency will discredit libertarianism for a generation.

"hope and change' anyone ??

No, Dr. Paul has a record of doing everything he sets out to do. NO OTHER politician keeps their promises. Would you rather have Obamney? And Dr. Paul is hardly in it for the career. his whole campaign is all about spreading the ideas of liberty not about winning, although we would all prefer he win.

The only substantive change has to come from the people -- grass roots activism with a laser focus.

the hell with Paul -- libertarians dont need another politician.

Libertarians need a 5 million man march on washington and nail an Economic Bill of RIghts on the front door of the White House and Capital building.

Thats real hope and change ---- only with teeth.

Thats a huge false dichotomy. You can do agorism or other outside-the-system activism and still vote and support Dr. Paul. A lot of off-the-grid free staters voted for Dr. Paul in NH.

Re: Better if Gingrich wins SC?

Freedom4Me73986 — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:30:06 GMT

With Santorum possibly winning Iowa, would it be better if Gingrich wins SC? This way the inevitability of Romney gets shaken and the race becomes more fluid once again. This would allow RP to whittle away at their support.

No, it would be better for Dr. Paul to win.

Re: Better if Gingrich wins SC?

BB — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 05:32:48 GMT

Centinel:

Stop the hero worship of a career politician like Paul

Moreover, I just saw the debate and the guy is a pussy.

The corrupt and self-interested political establishment will hand his ass to him .

And while I don't give a rat's ass about any politician --- a failed Paul presidency will discredit libertarianism for a generation.

"hope and change' anyone ??

The only substantive change has to come from the people -- grass roots activism with a laser focus.

the hell with Paul -- libertarians dont need another politician.

Libertarians need a 5 million man march on washington and nail an Economic Bill of RIghts on the front door of the White House and Capital building.

Thats real hope and change ---- only with teeth.

Who the hell are you to tell someone what to do?

Like it or not, if there was ever a 5 million march on Washington, Paul would be at the lead and he'd be the one to thank for it.

Like it or not, he's the only politician that can lead other politicians to the reality of the situation at hand.

30 years in Congress spreading the same message, he's not a p***y, he's an old as man that's tired of telling people what they need to hear instead of what they want to hear.

Re: Better if Gingrich wins SC?

Aristophanes — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 04:47:03 GMT

Paul simply has the wisdom to understand that taking their monopoloy credit power away collapses the whole system. His Executive Order power would give him grant to ignore Congress altogether. This isn't a morality contest, bro. If you can press the big red button, PRESS THE FREAKING BUTTON.

"Certainly virtue is like precious odours, most fragrant when they are incensed or crushed: for prosperity doth best discover vice; but adversity doth best discover virtue." - Francis Bacon

EDIT:

As for the OP, I think anything that doesn't put Paul last will be good. Whoever loses to Paul drops out (my guess). The other will likely stay in it 'til the end. One reason Perry might have dropped out is to increase the likelyhood that Paul takes 4th. Paul really can't stand up to an assault from Santorum or Gingrich. Romney doesn't have it in him to seriously criticize Paul to his face. Gingrich might win in SC, Romney, Paul, Santorum, respectively. That will be bad. Gingrich is the most charismatic, if not sociopathic (as Santorum pointed out). He will shred Paul in a three man debate to make it between him and Romney.

It is Ironic the strongest and weakest candidate is Romney who is just a robot.

Romney vs. Paul is the only way Paul stands a chance to get his speech, let alone the nomination itself.

Re: Better if Gingrich wins SC?

Wheylous — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 04:44:11 GMT

You're right - one man with a purpose with significant power and public exposure can't fix this. We instead need millions of people to come together and all understand sound economics and a view of morality that we find acceptable. That's much easier to actually organize, right?