Virginia’s Two Candidates Tie ObamaPoliticsVirginia

In a recent CBS News poll, both Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are statistically tied with President Obama in a head-to-head hypothetical election. (This is completely hypothetical because, similar to the actual presidential election, a Republican candidate is not determined nationally, but by delegates from each state.)

Say what you will about Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and the respective supporters of each. Out of all the candidates in this race, they have polled the most consistently. While the indecisive were riding the Palin-Trump-Bachmann-Perry-Cain-Gingrich-Santorum-Huntsman(?) roller coaster, Romney and Paul have had their loyal base of supporters before and throughout this primary. Perhaps this latest poll demonstrates an understanding among many of the other candidates’ fickle supporters that they would ultimately back Romney or Paul, though reluctantly, on game day. (Incidentally, both Romney and Paul also received the highest percentages among Democrats and Independents.)

While many public and private officials have degraded Virginia’s strict requirements to be on the primary ballot, could it be that we actually set up a system where the ballots reflect candidates who are able to garner widespread support consistently and over a long period of time?

Perhaps Virginia’s system needs fixing. But perhaps it is also wise to make a serious candidate demonstrate consistent support over a long period in order to be on the ballot, rather than be able to ride a wave of weekly emotional fervor. Just think, what if Buddy Roemer were the flavor of the day on Super Tuesday?

  • http://bearingdrift.com Ken Falkenstein

    3 predictions:

    1. Mitt Romney will win the GOP nomination.

    2. Ron Paul will not endorse him.

    3. Most of Ron Paul’s supporters will not vote for him.

  • http://bearingdrift.com Ken Falkenstein

    In the last election, Paul announced his opposition to the Republican nominee and endorsed four 3rd-party candidates, including Marxist Cynthia McKinney:

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/09/ron-paul-to-announce-presidential-endorsement-plans/

  • http://www.insanegovernment.com Igor Prohorov

    Ron Paul supported Chuck Baldwin in 2008 who ran on the Constitution Party ticket. http://reason.com/blog/2008/09/22/ron-pauls-presidential-endorse

  • http://bearingdrift.com Ken Falkenstein

    He also endorsed McKinney. But more importantly, he opposed the Republican nominee. If he couldn’t support McCain, fine. But to actively campaign against him was unacceptable.

    The bottom line is that Ron Paul is not a Republican, he is a libertarian who is posing as a Republican in order to get attention. As an actual Republican, I resent that.

  • http://www.advrider.com James “turbo” Cohen

    Ken, why the propaganda trashing Paul? Protocols of the elders of zion must be true too huh? Uh huh, read it on the internet.

  • Igor Prohorov

    First of all, Ron Paul has never endorsed McKinney. Before Campaign for Liberty changed their site, they even had a letter of endorsement from Ron Paul to Chuck Baldwin. Unfortunately, the only link that works now is the link I posted a couple of minutes earlier. Secondly, I don’t understand how you can say that Paul is not a Republican but instead a libertarian, as if being a Libertarian automatically rules you out for being a Republican. This is what Reagan said of Libertarianism. —> “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism”

  • Igor Prohorov

    Ken, here is Chuck Baldwin thanking Ron Paul for his endorsement in 2008. I will kindly ask you now to take back those previous comments. http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080923_2.html

  • http://www.campaignforliberty.org/ J. Christopher Stearns

    Ken,

    I like Ron Paul. I’m also a Republican. As a matter of fact, I consider myself a libertarian Republican just as you may consider yourself a conservative, liberal or moderate Republican. With that being said, I take issue with your nonsense and would like to ask you a few yes-or-no questions.

    Do you think I should be kicked out of the party, regardless of what actions I take to help build the organization and assist our candidates, due to my libertarian beliefs?

    Do you think the party should continue on its secular, shrinking and isolationist trend by shunning potential activists who happen to refer to themselves as libertarians?

    Do you think it’s important to have candidates that are able to reach out and acquire the support of independents in order to beat Democrats?

    We’re here to help the build the party and get real conservatives and (dare I say) libertarians elected. Keep these things in mind before you go around demagoguing and so forth.

  • Jamie Jacoby

    One of the expectations with which the nomenklatura must live is the relentless bashing of anyone who opposes the status quo. This is visible in the MSM, the punditry, and the political establishment (singular).

    “I didn’t get a harumph outta that guy!”

  • Brian Kirwin

    I think what concerns people is that most Republicans are issue-based, whereas many people I meet who support Ron Paul support Ron Paul. They don’t march in lockstep with everything he believes, but they march in lockstep with him.

    That’s pretty contrary to American politics. We don’t adore leaders. We don’t lionize them. We don’t demand an extended right arm in support of them.

    If Paul followers had to choose between a Republican nominee and Ron Paul, they’d choose Ron Paul, whereas most Republicans would support any Republican with whom they agreed with on most, if not all, issues.

  • http://www.campaignforliberty.org/ J. Christopher Stearns

    Brian,

    I don’t see it that way at all, although I can understand where you’re coming from.

    Paul supporters, myself included, are driven and motivated by the issues – not the individual. I think his own convictions on the issues inspires a lot of respect for him and drives people to research the topics he passionately lectures about. Once these folks begin to delve into libertarian works such as The Road to Serfdom, Atlas Shrugged and Human Action, it really starts to set a fire in their hearts that seems frustratingly inextinguishable to some. It isn’t about Dr. Paul, but a genuine fear that this country has been deteriorating from it’s founding principles over the past century and that the trend is accelerating.

    As scary as it may sound, a lot of these folks just want to get involved with the hopes of going to Washington to fight for these causes in one way or another. Doesn’t this sound familiar to a lot of us? ;)

  • http://stoplightrailnow.com Wally Erb

    In my opinion, the contributing editor’s predictions are based on bias and wishful thinking rather than accepting the fact that there are mitigating issues that skew logical result predetermination. Other than Paul and Obama, the remainder of Presidential hopefuls are missing the targeted determining electorate and the drastic changes in new millennium demographics. For example, Romney, Gingrich, and Sanatorium are off the cross hairs of including some 95 million Millennials, about half of whom are now of voting age. One out of four eligible voters in 2012 will come from this “youth vote”. Similarly, more than 2.5 million voters have left the Democratic and Republican parties since the 2008 elections, while the number of independent voters continues to grow. Most of these crystal ball predictions are nothing more than retro-thinking while gazing into a snow globe.

  • Thomas Conway

    @brian kerwin – you are in short – ridiculous… and completely WRONG. EVERYONE i know who supports Paul does so because his beliefs of FREEDOM and Constitutionality MATCHES our own. We don’t subscribe to his beliefs because they are his – he just happens to be the guy out there right now who not ONLY subscribes to the same beliefs, but whom we TRUST – because of his great track record and consistency. As for Brian and Ken – you both have been trashing Paul on this site for months now – at every turn you think he is going to fail and he proves you wrong. As for being Rep or a Paul supporter – i don’t know what kind of wishy washy convictions you have – you have the nerve to say that the Rep party is the party based on issues, when every other GOP candidate proves that they on the issues are AGAINST restoring liberties and limited government OR cutting spending. In fact the one thing they all have in common is their desire to jump into another bankrupting war. Is that the issue the Rep stands for? I’m not going to do what is so obviously wrong because the organizing majority of my party says to jump – i’m voting on principles and the constitution – and if the GOP doesn’t want a house divided, then you and the rest of the GOP elite better get in step with the rest of US