2012 GOP Primaries

[darkrobe]

^^^ that. from what I can see, thats most of the reason romney is doing so well. "eh, I want to beat Obama and I think he has the best shot at doing it." If ron paul got the nomination, I would think repubican anti obama feeling would practically force them out to vote for him. I just dont think he has much of a chance to win the nomination.

[Belthus]

@Neopergoss: Here is a blog post that perfectly summarizes my own feelings (http://www.timwise.org/2012/01/of-broken-clocks-presidential-candidates-and-the-confusion-of-certain-white-liberals/) about Ron Paul and about how misguided some liberals/progressives are in thinking that the partial overlap in policy preferences is worth overlooking his glaringly non-progressive positions on many issues.

[Neopergoss]

@Neopergoss: Here is a blog post that perfectly summarizes my own feelings (http://www.timwise.org/2012/01/of-broken-clocks-presidential-candidates-and-the-confusion-of-certain-white-liberals/) about Ron Paul and about how misguided some liberals/progressives are in thinking that the partial overlap in policy preferences is worth overlooking his glaringly non-progressive positions on many issues.

I wouldn't vote for him, but it's a good thing that he's running. No one on either side has an anti-war, pro-civil liberties position other than him. I can commend someone for commendable views without endorsing everything that they believe in.

Since you gave me a link, I'll give you one (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/):

...the undeniable fact  is that all of these listed heinous views and actions from Barack Obama have been vehemently opposed and condemned by Ron Paul: and among the major GOP candidates, only by Ron Paul. For that reason, Paul’s candidacy forces progressives to face the hideous positions and actions of their candidate, of the person they want to empower for another four years. If Paul were not in the race or were not receiving attention, none of these issues would receive any attention because all the other major GOP candidates either agree with Obama on these matters or hold even worse views.

Here's another link (http://www.salon.com/2012/01/05/democratic_party_priorities/singleton/), and yet another (http://www.salon.com/2012/01/08/the_evils_of_indefinite_detention_and_those_wanting_to_de_prioritze_them/singleton/) to address the very personal attack made in your link.

More important, it’s irrational in the extreme to argue that self-interest or “privilege” would cause someone to want to prioritize issues like indefinite detention and civilian causalities given that the civil liberties and anti-war advocates being so accused are extremely unlikely themselves to be affected by the abuses they protest. For the most part, it isn’t white males being indefinitely detained, rendered, and having their houses and cars exploded with drones — the victims of those policies are people like Boumediene, or Gulet Mohamed, or Jose Padilla, or Awal Gul, or Sami al-Haj, or Binyam Mohamed, or Afghan villagers, or Pakistani families, or Yemeni teenagers.

Put another way, when you spend the vast bulk of your time working against the injustices imposed almost exclusively on minorities and the marginalized — as anyone who works on these war and civil liberties issues by definition does — it’s reprehensible for someone to deploy these sorts of accusatory tactics, all in service of the shallow goal of partisan loyalty enforcement. Those who were actually driven primarily by privileged self-interest would want to de-prioritize these issues in a presidential campaign, not insist on their vital importance.

I urge you to read the full articles, because they make a lot of important points. It seems to me that the article you quoted is all about enforcing partisan loyalty, an approach that will only preserve the status quo.

[Belthus]

Enforcing partisan loyalty has nothing to do with it. The linked blog post does not cheer for Obama. It says that being a White supremacist (or at the very least, hiring them and rubbing elbows with them) is not a mere detail. Even when the policy position is similar (as a talking point), the reasoning can be very different. When Ron Paul talks about the excesses of the national security state, he isn't addressing fans of Glenn Greenwald (and I count myself one). He is addressing the Black Helicopter crowd. When he talks about US policy toward Israel, he isn't addressing Noam Chomsky readers. He is addressing the Stormfront crowd. Many progressives believe that decentralization can be a good thing (e.g., see the local food movement), but Ron Paul's version is the same states' rights doctrine of the champions of segregation. I support challenging the status quo, of which the Democrats are a large part, but Ron Paul is not a good vehicle for that, if you are a progressive.

I am not worried that these distinctions are lost on Greenwald, but they may be lost on progressives and liberals who spend less time following politics and take what Ron Paul says at face value. For example, it's true that the statistics of prosecution and imprisonment of Black men are evidence of a racially biased process. However, it's naive to think that Ron Paul bringing it up at this time was anything other than a red herring to distract from his own racism scandal.

[OldTrees]

@Belthus
Ron Paul sounds like he is less for States Rights than he is against excessive Federal Power. If he were running for Governor/Mayor I expect the issue to be about reducing State/Local Power to give it to Local Government/Individual.

There is greater mobility between states than there is between countries. In addition, the States' proportional representation in Congress punished states that had sexist laws when people migrated west to states that let women vote.

[Neopergoss]

Enforcing partisan loyalty has nothing to do with it. The linked blog post does not cheer for Obama. It says that being a White supremacist (or at the very least, hiring them and rubbing elbows with them) is not a mere detail. Even when the policy position is similar (as a talking point), the reasoning can be very different. When Ron Paul talks about the excesses of the national security state, he isn't addressing fans of Glenn Greenwald (and I count myself one). He is addressing the Black Helicopter crowd. When he talks about US policy toward Israel, he isn't addressing Noam Chomsky readers. He is addressing the Stormfront crowd. Many progressives believe that decentralization can be a good thing (e.g., see the local food movement), but Ron Paul's version is the same states' rights doctrine of the champions of segregation. I support challenging the status quo, of which the Democrats are a large part, but Ron Paul is not a good vehicle for that, if you are a progressive.

I am not worried that these distinctions are lost on Greenwald, but they may be lost on progressives and liberals who spend less time following politics and take what Ron Paul says at face value. For example, it's true that the statistics of prosecution and imprisonment of Black men are evidence of a racially biased process. However, it's naive to think that Ron Paul bringing it up at this time was anything other than a red herring to distract from his own racism scandal.

And when you say that he's addressing a certain type of crowd like it matters, it really sounds like you're saying that only people directly addressing Democrats (ie: Democrats) should ever be praised. Sounds a lot like a call for lockstep partisan loyalty to me. I understand that his supporters are a different crowd with different goals. That doesn't change the fact that he raises important points that no one else (noticeably) raises, and everyone hears him. There is simply no better vehicle for challenging the status quo on these issues. Ron Paul has always opposed the drug war, btw, and frankly idc why he's bringing that up as an issue. People focus too much on a candidate's perceived character and not enough on their actual platforms. I frankly expect most GOP candidates to be racist.

And what's with the concern about progressives and liberals taking what Ron Paul says at face value? It's not like there's a threat that he'll win the presidency.

What I really disliked about the article, though, was the idea that only privileged whites are willing to prioritize things like stopping endless war and civil liberties violations. Does Martin Luther King (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/058.html) count as a privileged white male? That argument was absolutely deplorable.

And as for the points about how uniquely deplorable some of Paul's views are, I find support for endless war (with results like this (http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/11/more-than-160-children-killed-in-us-strikes/)) to be just as deplorable, if not worse.

[OldTrees]

Currently
Romney: 14 pledged 17 unpledged = 31
Ron Paul: 10 pledged 0 unpledged = 10
Santorum: 7 pledged 1 unpledged = 8
Gingrich: 25 pledged 1 unpledged = 26

Edit:
Some of Gingrich's and Santorum's organizations made them lose access to a lot of delegates.

[Belthus]

However this is relevant:

The link is to a MSNBC video interview with a Ron Paul campaign representative. (FYI, I don't like it when I have no idea of the content of the link.) The man says that Paul's campaign strategy is to focus on caucus states with high numbers of delegates. However, I haven't seen any analysis that lays out a Ron Paul path to victory - a listing of states where the candidate is competitive based on polls or state demographics. Which states are "Ron Paul country"?

[UTAlan]

Updated OP with delegate counts from Wikipedia.

[OldTrees]

However this is relevant:

The link is to a MSNBC video interview with a Ron Paul campaign representative. (FYI, I don't like it when I have no idea of the content of the link.) The man says that Paul's campaign strategy is to focus on caucus states with high numbers of delegates. However, I haven't seen any analysis that lays out a Ron Paul path to victory - a listing of states where the candidate is competitive based on polls or state demographics. Which states are "Ron Paul country"?

Sorry I copy/pasted the wrong link. It was supposed to be MSNBC reporting on Huntsman, Santorum and Gingrich missing deadlines in several states resulting in them missing out on ~500 possible delegates.

[Belthus]

Delegate count according to RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html):

Romney	153
Santorum	70
Gingrich	33
Paul	26

[Belthus]

Delegate count according to RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html):

Romney	404
Santorum	161
Gingrich	105
Paul	61