« French Minister Whines: “Le French Bashing” Is Terrible | Main | Unintended Consequences Of Bailouts: Greece Gets Slammed »

Romney Would Be President If He Picked Ron Paul As VP

Contributed by Chriss Street. Specialist in corporate reorganizations and turnarounds, former Chairman of two NYSE listed companies. His latest book, The Third Way, describes how to achieve management excellence and financial reward by moving organizations from Conflict and Confrontation to Leadership and Cooperation. Chriss lives in Newport Beach, CA.

Republican Party insiders would love to blame their election losses on emerging demographic voting patterns, which result in voting “based on who you are, not where you live or how well each campaign has articulated its case.”  This excuse does provide cover for Karl Rove’s American Crossroads PAC to defend why their $103 million in television ads got only a 1.29% return on its investment.  But as Ron Paul eloquently explains, after the Party leadership excluded millions of Libertarian youth, Republicans really lost because they:

...go along with endorsing a never-ending policy of bailouts, “stimulus packages,” and foreign military adventurism, [and] the establishment of neither major party questions the assaults on Americans’ liberties …  As my campaign showed, the American people are fed up. Many realized heading into Tuesday that regardless of who won the presidential election, the status quo would be the real victor.

GOP leadership is now questioning why they didn’t perform better.  They’re looking at demographic changes in the United States and implying minorities can only be brought into the party by loudly advocating for abandoning what little remains of their limited government platform and endorsing more statist policies.

My presidential campaign proved that standing for freedom brings people together.  Liberty is popular – regardless of race, religion, or creed.  A renewed respect for liberty is the only way forward for the Republican Party and for our country.”

Democrat Barak Obama just won reelection by a margin of 3 million out of the 120 million votes cast, 11 million less than voted in 2008.  Comparing 2012 to 2008; Obama netted 3% fewer Democrat votes, while Mitt Romney earned 3% more Republican votes.  Romney earned more Black votes, married men, married woman, Protestants, Catholics, and Jews than the in 2008.  He improved support among non-married men and woman by 2%.  Romney was favored by 38% on the top two issues of the economy and the budget, Romney had a 38% advantage over Obama.  Regarding the personal traits – strong leader, shares my values, and has a vision for the future; Mitt Romney dominated Barack Obama among 2012 voters by 45% points – and lost! 

According to Dick Morris, “Our votes are predictable based on our race, ethnicity, age and marital status well before anybody does any campaigning.”  Morris highlights that  more than from his racial voting advantages with 93% of Blacks and 70% of Latinos, Obama’s victory is due to capturing 60% of the under 30 and 62% of singles votes.  The billion dollars spent in on TV “advertising in eight states did very little to move the vote share among any of these demographic groups.  Voters are not watching television as much these days and those that are still turning it on are fast forwarding through the ads.  And negative campaign ads — in fact, all ads, — are losing their impact.”

Romney’s pick of Paul Ryan for Vice President energized the right wing of his Party that would have voted for him anyway, but did nothing to court the key under 30 or singles demographic.  As we pointed out in “Republicans Defeated By Community Organizer Again”, the Republican National Committee in desperation after the 2008 election disaster adopted their own version of the Democrat’s community organizing strategy and achieved record election success in 2010 by expanding inclusion of urban moderates and the burgeoning Tea Party Movement.  But once back on top, the Party dumped community organizing and reverted back to a massive TV advertising blitz.  On Election Day, Romney’s campaign was shocked that in big cities there was a ratio of 150 Democratic to only 40 Republican volunteer Headquarters.  Democrats had spent the last year focused on registering singles and under 30 college students, then got them to the polls.  Romney even lost Wisconsin by 6%, where Ryan is a Congressman. 

During the Republican Primaries, 76 year old Texas Congressman Ron Paul never registered support from more than 10% for Republicans over 35, but was the preferred choice of all the 18-29 demographic nationally according to Gallup Poll.  Frank Newport, editor-in-chief, said: “It’s a conundrumWe know that in general American[s] 18-29 (across all party lines) are less negative towards big government and government power than those who are older. Yet Republican[s] 18-34 are disproportionately Paul supporters.”  Strategist Mike Devanney credits Paul: "a bit of a counter-cultural figure.” 

Libertarian Ron Paul is very conservative.  On immigration, he favors ending birthright citizenship and reducing the number of newcomers until the welfare state is dismantled.  He says abortion law should be settled at the state level, but introduced the Sanctity of Life Act to define life as beginning at conception.  He champions the Bill to Audit the Fed and would like to fire Fed Chairman Bernanke.  Krauthammer: Obama running on empty

Robinson: The GOP circus gets stranger

Gerson: Gingrich too impulsive for presidency

Dionne: Obama’s New Square Deal

Unlike Obama, Romney, Ryan and Biden; he served in the military.  He wants military spending cuts, yet still raised more money from active military personnel than all his competitors combined.

Ron Paul’s popularity among younger voters — he’s called a “rock star” on the college circuit — stems from the idealism of his politics. Kids rally behind his faith in the future, belief in the individual and confidence in bottom-up decision-making.  Had Romney picked Paul as his running mate, Obama’s youth voter outreach would have imploded.  

It would take 77 days to watch all 221,595 election TV ads aired in Ohio, but the data indicates that there was no return on either party’s investment.  Had Romney named Ron Paul as his running mate and Paul picked up just the number of primary votes he received; Romney would have won Ohio, Virginia and New Hampshire.  Ron Paul’s viral support among college students and singles would have also registered millions of new Republicans, generated volunteers to man thousands of more campaign Republican Headquarters and probably sent Barack Obama into permanent retirement.       

Republicans have been humiliated again and are being forced to go through the painful self-reflection that they have no one to blame except themselves for losing to Obama.  Hopefully, they will learn from their mistakes and revive a very effective community organizing strategy for youth around Ron Paul’s Libertarian beliefs that standing for freedom brings people together and Liberty is popular.  

Streaming Live Monday through Friday from 7-10 PM
Click Here to Listen: www.edtalkradio.com

Please call in at 530-742-5555 if you would like to ask Questions

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (15)

Romney and the Reps made roughly every mistake in the book. Who comes up with a candidate that looks like a banker (everything not looking like mainstreet simply looks like a banker to alot of people).

You can say about Obama what you like but he can present himself and relate to people. Romney can present himself as a CEO but not like a president it is a diferent baill game.

Wrong profiling. The only thing that works is imho right in the Rep party but clearly not a teaparty-taliban. The huge majority donot like people that act like extremist and will instincttvely more likely vote for the other guy (unless you have a completely Talibanised country of course but the US isnot). Rather far right might overall not be so good, but likley the only way to avoid a split in the party or what we saw now a candidate that moves (which is politically more attractive for 'middlevoters' but bad for yopur own credibility (and even worse if you have to attack the other side on saying A and doing B, like here).

Paul imho doubtful, simply looks like an idiot to many, simply doesnot look presidential (an issue in the middle of the parc).

Didnot attack Obama on his weak points properly. Get a strategy; summarise why Barry doesnot work, simplify the message and throw in a few one-liners AND KEEP REPEATING THAT. So Oba's economy and why it is crap. Plus give a credible alternative.
Focus on economy and on foreign policy and donot make simple mistakes preparation cabn do that and preparation can be done months before the election (not have to be the last day).

Try to make the other guy look like a failed water-walker he is and let him expose himself like that (directly or through his believers).

Go for Christian values iso Christian religion. It makes you look less Talibanish, more like a decent person (people like decent persons). It will likley turn a lot of people off if you do otherwise. A bit of God bless the USA is ok, but donot keep up coming with the book as if it is Mao's bestseller.

Summary wrong guy, wrongly presented, in a non-consistent way, highlighting points that a lot of middle of the raod people not like, not attacking the opposition on their wealk points. In other words a completely crap campaign (including candidate). If you cannot shoot a non-delivering prophet in a bad economy you do a lot of things wrong.

Anyway opens a lot of opportunity in 4 years time. Dems will have to carry Oba's legacy and even GW cannot realistically be blaimed. But if they go for the same recipe they might mess it up again.
Start now. Tell the Taliban that their best option is influence and part of the policies but with another frontman. And go through the script. Barry will sc..w up enough things to make it work.
November 13, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterRik
If Paul had been chosen for VP they would have had my vote.
November 13, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJerry
no way.

Ron Paul as VP would have just been a glove puppet of the Prez Romney (no matter what the vacuous promises were that would have been made during election theater). He'd have no say whatsoever on the insane antics of the Prez. Romney's controllers had a very particular agenda - an agenda which was practically identical to Obama's controllers, just differing in style and timing. Ron Paul had a totally different agenda. Romney's controllers would not have any truck with Ron Paul's ideas.

Ron Paul would only make sense as Prez. Ron Paul as glove puppet VP to a complete tool like Romney makes no sense at all.

No thinking Ron Paul supporter would have voted for Prez Romney merely because RP's name was attached. .. and all RP supporters are thinking RP supporters.
November 13, 2012 | Unregistered Commentermijj
After every election, the various factions are sure the loser lost because he did not cater to their interests. Liberals say he was not liberal enough. Conservatives say he was too liberal. Moderates say he did not speak to the center. Their analysis is self-serving, vacuous, and egoistic. It is not hard to figure out one of the biggest reasons, if not the biggest reason, for the decline in GOP fortunes if you truly get to know and spend time with people who are not white males. Conservative Republicans, especially Christians, are a hated group. Don’t underestimate the powerful hold that two generations of indoctrination has against Republicans. Every evil is attributed to them. The people of non-white communities are conditioned from an early age in school and in the media to view Republicans as wicked and malevolent. If they are against amnesty, it’s because they hate Hispanics. If they believe you should buy your own birth control, they hate women. You don’t understand just how deeply entrenched this view is. For example, if you go to the Texas History Museum in Austin, a display that talks about segregation states that it was instituted by “conservatives.” This is a type of what people are taught on a daily basis. A black person who votes Republican is treated as a traitor to his race. You can kid yourself and believe that everyone else thinks like you and loves Ron Paul. But, to a growing segment of society, he’s just another evil white male Republican.
November 13, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterACS
Romney would have lost because he was a religious, white, male, Republican whether he picked Ron Paul or not. Although, I must admit that Ron Paul would have made a formidable running mate. The personality cult that surrounds Ron Paul is the only one that I have found that could ever compete with the personality cult that surrounds Obama.
November 13, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterACS
It is very similar to selling soap or dogfood. Stick to the marketing basics and any on the 2 main candidates would have blown the other one out of the water. Both campaigns were crap, but Romney's/Reps much worse than Oba's, with Oba having the added disadvantage that he was the sitting potus (which is a disadvantage if you mess things up like Oba).
Romney didnot identify markets and worked on that. No consistency in his 'offer'. Not the guy that fits well with the product (mesage that sells). No proper consistent long term strategy towards the weak points of the competitor. Marketing mix was crap and execution was even worse with as a 'first face' a guy that doesnot fit in well with that position.
November 14, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterRik
On why Ron Paul will not work.
The problem with Paul is not his ideas but to get him elected with a platform that allows chane the Paul-way.
The latter is very unlikley to happen.
Basically as said the guy looks like a nutcase to many. And these many vote.
His ideas are too extreme for the electorate as a whole. In difficult times that is probably even more a disadvantage (for getting elected) than in normal times. People simply like to go for certain (meaning standard Rep or Dem) until the wheels fall of or are clearly visible for the average voter to see close to falling off. The average voter now is likely in doubt: 'go like before', might work might not work, which means likely still to follow the safe way. Average voters do not understand the concept of a fiscal cliff. They understand that you should not borrow too much, but they hear so called experts saying that is no problem. So they likely go for the road with the short term benefits (as 70% or so of them goes from paycheck to paycheck anyway) the convenient road.

Next to his presentation: he simply looks crap and unpresidential (to the meain stream voter). Like btw Biden and Ryan (or Palin) how they came up with those (potential) VPs I still wonder. Biden was a quantite negligeable next to Oba is probably the only excuse.

Making Paul the next messiah is also likely not going to work. The US had that with Oba and the bottom is falling out under that part of the deal and likley will fall much harder. Which means that likley people will have had it with messiahs and other water-walkers for the coming years. Next election simply looks a very bad market for messiahs/prophets.
November 14, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterRik
Ron Paul probably wouldn't have accepted the VP nomination. If he did, it would have been with so many strings attached that Romney wouldn't have accepted Paul.
November 14, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterRobert
Agree with many of the commenters that Ron Paul would never have accepted the VP spot, nor would the neocon-controlled GOP have ever offered him such a platform for his libertarianism. So the GOP's greatest fear was realized: RON PAUL VOTERS STAYED HOME. Ron Paul voters began boycotting CNN as well after its shockingly biased treatment of his campaign, and its ratings plunged to 20-year lows.

The GOP has calcified into a war-addicted caricature of itself, that many can no longer recognize as the party of Ronald Reagan. Stealing primary victories from Ron Paul in Iowa, Maine, NV and NH basically sealed the deal for most of us conservative voters. Also, Romney was a non-starter when he surrounded himself with the 9/11 Office of Special Plans chickenhawk neocons as his "foreign policy advisors." LOL!
November 14, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterShoestring
I don't see how Paul could have accepted the Vice Presidential nomination from a party which is dominated by neo-con warmongers, imperialists, religious bigots, and bankers and brokers hungry for massive bailouts. It is a mystery to me that he has continued to associate with people so at odds with his professed beliefs.
November 14, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJorge Cruz Rodriguez
Isnt the point of a VP someone that will live and be capable of taking over if the top guy is indisposed?

Also while Paul has some good ideas his solutions are to extreme for most people. Its one thing to support a strong dollar, a single Fed mandate and measuring inflation with a basket of commodities. Its another thing entirely to call for a return to the gold.standard - people cant imagime how it would work or what it would mean for them if they are in the 95% that dont own gold. Its one thing to call for a smaller millitary and less intervention - its another thing to call for an overnight return to pre-WW1 isolatiomism.

If RP had fought his battles incrementally he would have gotten a lot more done in his life.
November 14, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterDoug
Listen, the RNC had a prime chance to pull in the Paul Libertarians and their young grassroots organization in Tampa. It could have been a formidable combination, but would have required some concessions within the party apparatus. Unfortunately, the RNC (and perhaps Romney) did a runaround on Paul and his supporters and totally shut him and his ideas out of the platform.

The RNC move at the convention was perhaps just as sleazy as the neocons' infiltration of the Tea Party ranks a few years back (which essentially turned an organization of relatively sane fiscal conservatives into a collection of neocon nutjobs). But I digress.

Anyway, at that point in the convention, it was game over for Romney... though he made things temporarily interesting by taking one televised debate. He lost young voters, he lost an energetic grassroots organization, he lost a collection of right-leaning libertarian voters that either decided to vote 3rd party-- or just stay home.

And it was all there for the taking.

My bet is that the Republicans haven't learned a single thing useful thing from this stinging loss, either.
November 14, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterAssetman
I wouldn't have voted at all but for a local Koch Bros-funded initiative that needed to be (and was) defeated. But since I was there, I wrote in Ron Paul, who was excluded from the ballot here by the controlling Repubs.

What's the saying about the VP? One heartbeat away? Well, Romney and the corporatist-controlled Republican party (same as the Dems) would never put themselves in that situation, and DIDN'T put themselves in that situation. I agree that Paul would not have accepted anyway, but can you imagine? Everyone would be telling the president to shut up for a minute so we can listen to his VP. Romney's hair would catch on fire.
November 15, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterNehweh Gahnin
Not sure if Ron Paul would agree to that.
November 15, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterSnap
Romney - Marsh would have got my vote!
November 16, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterCostas Apacket

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.