Ron Paul's partisans dig in after strong showing in Minn. caucuses - Polidicks

[QUOTE]WASHINGTON - Libertarian favorite Ron Paul brought his insurgent presidential campaign to Minnesota, and its effects are likely to be felt for some time within the state's GOP ranks. While the Texas congressman finished a distant second to upset victor Rick Santorum, more than a quarter of the party delegates chosen in Tuesday night's caucuses could be Paul acolytes, with little allegiance to the party establishment and its local officeholders. [B]As Paul moves on to primary contests in Arizona and Michigan, his Minnesota supporters have made clear they aren't going away. [/B] Paul campaign manager John Tate said in a statement Tuesday that "in Minnesota where we have finished a solid second, we also have a strong majority of the state convention delegates. The Paul campaign is well-organized to win the bulk of delegates there." That could position Paul supporters to influence events in coming months as the party turns to local nominating conventions for state and federal office seekers. In Golden Valley on Tuesday night, Paul himself made the delegate strategy clear. "Straw poll is one thing, but there's another thing -- delegates!" he said to cheers. Tabytha Luikens, 42, said at Paul's evening party that the straw poll was just her beginning. She is now a delegate. "The fight has just begun," said Luikens, a child care provider from Savage. [B]Eric Radtke, vice chairman for the GOP in the Second Congressional District in Shakopee, said that while Paul won only half the votes in Radtke's Shakopee precinct, he picked up four out of the five delegates -- 80 percent -- who would move on to the next local party convention. [/B] "Ron Paul trained all his people to become delegates," said Radtke, a Romney supporter. Lower turnout, larger impact The strong finish by two second-tier candidates came amid declining overall turnout in Tuesday night's Minnesota GOP caucuses. Altogether, some 50,000 votes were cast for the four remaining GOP candidates, compared with 63,000 in 2008, when Mitt Romney carried the state. And across the state, caucuses were peppered with new faces motivated by Santorum and Paul. "I was impressed to see all the fresh faces," Radtke said. "They were people who haven't necessarily been plugged in to GOP events in the past." State Republican strategists downplayed the threat of a Paul takeover of the Minnesota GOP, noting that much of his support came from young activists in urban pockets like Minneapolis and St. Paul, areas where the GOP has little influence. [B]"After that, it becomes tougher because you get more of the rank-and-file people, especially in the rural areas," said Ben Golnik, who managed Arizona Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign in Minnesota. Paul finished with 27 percent of the caucus vote Tuesday, second to Santorum, who won with 45 percent. The drop in caucus participation, combined with the runway victory of Santorum's socially conservative backers, could make the Paul effect all the more noticeable. Some say that could be a worrisome trend for more centrist GOP officeholders as well as for overall party unity.[/b] "Santorum and Paul people have very different agendas," said Steven Schier, a political scientist at Carleton College. "Turnout is down, fewer people are involved, and when we look at who is involved, we don't have people who are going to easily coalesce around a common program." Party officials say they see strength in diversity. "Both Santorum and Ron Paul ran really great grass-roots campaigns here in Minnesota," said Kelly Fenton, deputy chair for the state party. "My goodness, we welcome new voices to our party." Influence spreading Paul made his presence felt in the 2008 caucuses, too, but some party activists say it wasn't lasting. "It's always a good thing when people show up," said Derek Brigham, vice chair for the state GOP's Third Congressional District. But Brigham, a past Michele Bachmann supporter with a strong libertarian streak, added, "It's not worth a hill of beans unless they stay around." Marianne Stebbins, chair of Paul's Minnesota campaign, said Paul supporters shocked the more traditional Republicans with their presence a few years ago. [B]"We took them by surprise, so there was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction," she said. But now, "Ron Paul people are all throughout the party" including holding elected GOP positions. "We are much better understood," she said. [/B]Craig Westover, a former state party spokesman and Paul delegate, said one effect from Paul's showing is clear. "The thing with Ron Paul," he said, "is today the Republican Party is talking about issues they never talked about before." [/QUOTE] Source: [url]http://www.startribune.com/politics/138982369.html[/url] Ron Paul 2012 Compliments to Hidole555 for showing the article.

yay ...

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34620053]Ron Paul 2012[/QUOTE]I know we've been over this before but HELL NO.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34620084]I know we've been over this before but HELL NO.[/QUOTE] Ron Paul Republican Nominee

[QUOTE=Hidole555;34620090]Ron Paul Republican Nominee[/QUOTE]I know exactly why you say this, I've bloody well heard it enough around here.

[QUOTE=Retardation;34620119]Ron Paul is an idiot though.[/QUOTE] He's Einstein compared to the other Republicans running.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34620126]I know exactly why you say this, I've bloody well heard it enough around here.[/QUOTE] 1,000 Romney thread - haha oh what an idiot 2,000 Santorum thread - he's a bigot, he's a bigot! 1 Paul thread - STOP POSTING THESE, WE HAVE ENOUGH

[QUOTE=Retardation;34620119]Ron Paul is an idiot though.[/QUOTE] Everyone on the republican side tend to be idiots, "most people on the democrats side to".

[QUOTE=Hidole555;34620137]He's Einstein compared to the other Republicans running.[/QUOTE]He's still an idiot, just the other are hilariously (and worryingly) bigger idiots. [editline]9th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34620138]1,000 Romney thread - haha oh what an idiot 2,000 Santorum thread - he's a bigot, he's a bigot! 1 Paul thread - STOP POSTING THESE, WE HAVE ENOUGH[/QUOTE]Nice straw-man, but would you care to try again?

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34620084]I know we've been over this before but HELL NO.[/QUOTE] Honestly, modern politics is about loosing, you just want to choose the candidate thats you loose the least with, Ron Paul is it for the Republicans.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34620147] Nice straw-man, but would you care to try again?[/QUOTE] The point is, if you don't want to hear about Ron Paul, don't read the Ron Paul threads.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34620169]The point is, if you don't want to hear about Ron Paul, don't read the Ron Paul threads.[/QUOTE]Maybe if I had said anything like that, you might have a point.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34620189]Maybe if I had said anything like that, you might have a point.[/QUOTE] You said you've "heard enough of it around here". If that isn't "I don't want to hear abotu this", then I don't know what is.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;34620165]Honestly, modern politics is about loosing, you just want to choose the candidate thats you loose the least with, Ron Paul is it for the Republicans.[/QUOTE] Funny enough, this is the first election where "electability" is an issue. Paul won't get voted in because he's too radical/not conservative compared to his voter base, and most people don't feel he could get enough votes to overtake Obama. From the standpoint of ideology, he will lose the least in some areas, but the most in others. In politics, it'd be a big win. But in the actual election, from the standpoint of conservative voters, he's the opposite of the one losing the least.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];34620216']Funny enough, this is the first election where "electability" is an issue. Paul won't get voted in because he's too radical/not conservative compared to his voter base, and most people don't feel he could get enough votes to overtake Obama. From the standpoint of ideology, he will lose the least in some areas, but the most in others. In politics, it'd be a big win. But in the actual election, from the standpoint of conservative voters, he's the opposite of the one losing the least.[/QUOTE] "Anyone but Obama" is such a stupid policy...

[QUOTE=Hidole555;34620137]He's Einstein compared to the other Republicans running.[/QUOTE] -Opposes gay marriage -Does not believe the federal government should be involved in education at all -Supports gold standard -Supports death penalty -Wants to completely eliminate income tax -Wants to eliminate 5 cabinet-level agencies (Education, Interior, Commerce, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development) -Introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would have life defined as beginning at conception at the federal level I could go on and on. The fact remains that he's a moron and bigot.

[QUOTE=Retardation;34620119]Ron Paul is an idiot though.[/QUOTE] Not sure about that. I mean, it's fairly clear that he's [I]not smart[/I], but I think you're attributing to stupidity what is more likely caused by malice.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34620207]You said you've "heard enough of it around here". If that isn't "I don't want to hear abotu this", then I don't know what is.[/QUOTE] You mixed words up a bit there. I said: "I've heard it enough around here." (IE: I've heard it a lot.) Not: "I've heard enough of it around here." (IE: I don't want to hear about it anymore.)

[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;34620261]Not sure about that. I mean, it's fairly clear that he's [I]not smart[/I], but I think you're attributing to stupidity what is more likely caused by malice.[/QUOTE]Inverse Hanlon's Razor?

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34620272]You mixed words up a bit there. I said: "I've heard it enough around here." (IE: I've heard it a lot.) Not: "I've heard enough of it around here." (IE: I don't want to hear about it anymore.)[/QUOTE] I guess tone is easily misheard in reading text, sorry.

[QUOTE=Retardation;34620188]how about just vote for obama until the US stops putting out these awful, bigoted cunts that are apparently viable 'presidential candidates'. seriously, your nation is filled with smart, intelligent people (inb4 lol amerika is dumb n fat xD). why do you insist on having to choose between bad, worse, and worst.[/QUOTE] I like Obama, it's just as a Plan B I'd rather have him lose to someone who's not [I]completely[/I] insane.

Emperor, try refuting any of those points I brought up instead of just sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalala" like Glaber does. I'm getting fuck sick of that. [editline]9th February 2012[/editline] Explain to me why any of those things are GOOD and why you would support someone with those views.

[QUOTE=Hidole555;34620293]I like Obama, it's just as a Plan B I'd rather have him lose to someone who's not [I]completely[/I] insane.[/QUOTE]Unfortunately, the only one like that is actually Romney. Romney just happens to be a corporate shill. Romney is by no means an idiot or insane, he is just incredibly corrupt. [editline]9th February 2012[/editline] I still miss Huntsman. I didn't plan to vote for him, but I actually liked him.

its a bit worrying how its all turned into a 'who's the least retarded' competition even the campaign ads show its become that

[QUOTE=Bones85;34620254]-Opposes gay marriage -Does not believe the federal government should be involved in education at all -Supports gold standard -Supports death penalty -Wants to completely eliminate income tax -Wants to eliminate 5 cabinet-level agencies (Education, Interior, Commerce, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development) -Introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would have life defined as beginning at conception at the federal level I could go on and on. The fact remains that he's a moron and bigot.[/QUOTE] These are not all accurate, I don't know his stance on all of the above but he is against the death penalty, and said that gay marriage should be left up to the states, which is not directly opposing. I am most likely voting Obama, but still don't like inaccurate information on people being presented as fact.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34620318]Unfortunately, the only one like that is actually Romney. Romney just happens to be a corporate shill. Romney is by no means an idiot or insane, he is just incredibly corrupt. [editline]9th February 2012[/editline] I still miss Huntsman. I didn't plan to vote for him, but I actually liked him.[/QUOTE] Let me rephrase then. not [I]completely[/I] insane or [B]evil.[/B] [sub][sub] I'll miss ya, Huntsman. [/sub][/sub]

[QUOTE=imptastick;34620355]These are not all accurate, I don't know his stance on all of the above but he is against the death penalty, and said that gay marriage should be left up to the states, which is not directly opposing.[/QUOTE] Then he's 90% dumb, 1% smart, and 9% naive. Putting something as important as basic rights up to the states is asking for something to go horribly horribly wrong.

[QUOTE=Bones85;34620298]Emperor, try refuting any of those points I brought up instead of just sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalala" like Glaber does. I'm getting fuck sick of that. [/QUOTE] Here [QUOTE=Bones85;34620254] -Opposes gay marriage[/QUOTE] He opposes the federal government dealing with all forms of marraige, not just gay marriage. [QUOTE=Bones85;34620254]-Does not believe the federal government should be involved in education at all[/QUOTE] Because the more local control a school has, the better off it is. You see billions poured into that department for years, so why are we not all geniuses? (This is a hyperbole, please don't decry that as literal geniuses.) [QUOTE=Bones85;34620254]-Supports gold standard[/QUOTE] This will curb inflation and get our economy. [QUOTE=Bones85;34620254]-Supports death penalty[/QUOTE] Paul opposes the death penalty but leaves it to the states to enforce/not enforce. [QUOTE=Bones85;34620254]-Wants to completely eliminate income tax[/QUOTE] Because the federal government is too bloated than it should be. If cut down to its rightful size, this tax would be completely unnecessary. Any lost income will be replaced by excise taxes. Income taxes imply the government has a right to your payment of your hard labor. [QUOTE=Bones85;34620254]-Wants to eliminate 5 cabinet-level agencies (Education, Interior, Commerce, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development)[/QUOTE] Because they're unnecessary. [QUOTE=Bones85;34620254]-Introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would have life defined as beginning at conception at the federal level[/QUOTE] Yes, because it's a state's right to decide on abortion, not the federal government.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34620281]Inverse Hanlon's Razor?[/QUOTE] Freaky. I was just reading about that trope last night. EDIT: Incoming debate on economics. Calling it now.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34620403]Yes, because it's a state's right to decide on abortion, not the federal government.[/QUOTE] Giving states individual rights only gives them more power. This means that, should someone stupid or otherwise malignant become state governor (which is much more likely than it is a president to be as it draws less attention), people will suffer. I'd rather have a single competent leader than loads of potential leaders, sixty percent of which will deny my rights.