The Ron Paul 2012 Revolution supporters might have delivered some revenge for being shunned in Tampa, as a close look exit polls reveal the group could have carried Romney to victory. It’s unclear how many Paul supporters chose to cast votes for Romney in battleground states, but after the Republican National Convention, a number of staunch supporters within the Ron Paul Revolution Army vowed to never cast a vote for Romney.
The election result totals show the loss of Ron Paul supporters may have cost the GOP in key battleground states. The victory margin in some swing states where Obama beat Romney is less than the number Ron Paul pulled in the primary. In Ohio, Romney lost by just over 100,000 votes but Ron Paul pulled in 113,256 during the primary. In New Hampshire, Romney lost by 41,659 votes, where Paul pulled in 56,872 in the primaries. Similar patterns emerge in Virginia and Florida.
Going on the assumption that Ron Paul supporters did not show up for Mitt Romney, the unrecognized delegates that were marched off the Republican convention floor could have possibly carried the votes might have given Romney or the Republican Party a better chance in the election. You add the 64 electoral votes from New Hampshire, Virginia, Ohio and Florida to Romney’s 206 and the end result is 270 — just enough to have given Romney the presidency.
Another question to be asked is: Could Ron Paul have been a better Republican presidential candidate than Mitt Romney?
Ron Paul is popular within the younger demographic that Romney seems to have missed. Ron Paul’s stance on foreign policy and his anti-war message on Afghanistan and Iraq have never wavered, making him a more consistent candidate than Romney. It’s also possible that Paul could have done better with women since his views on abortion, while being pro life, show that he is willing to be flexible by making it a state, rather than federal, issue. The separation between his personal religious views and his political policies could have garnered the support of those fiscally conservative, yet socially liberal, voters.
Additionally, Ron Paul’s fiscal stance on the economy, taxes, and balancing the federal budget are right in line with the main issues that the GOP based Romney’s campaign around.
The numbers as they stand make for some fun speculations about how Ron Paul could have contended against Obama. The numbers don’t show how Ron Paul might have done with independents that were unable to vote in primaries because they don’t register Republican.
There’s also something to say about Obama receiving 10 million less votes than he did in 2008. That’s 10 million voters that were dissatisfied enough with Obama to not vote for him a second time, but not satisfied enough with Romney as a choice to vote against him. That’s 10 million people that Ron Paul as a national candidate could have reached. In Colorado, more people voted to legalize marijuana than voted for Obama, and he still won that state.
If the GOP takes the election night beating as an opportunity to reassess where the values they claim to stand for lost touch with the majority of voters, they’d do well to rethink their dismissive attitude towards Ron Paul, the perspective he brings to table, and the supporters that would follow him anywhere. The claim was always that Ron Paul was unelectable. That is true only in a GOP primary. Looking at the numbers from the election, the demographics where the Republicans lost, and the intitatives where states’ rights were asserted to legalize gay marriage and end marijuana prohibition, it looks like Ron Paul might have had a chance. At the very least, Romney would have stood a better chance had the GOP not turned away the Ron Paul supporters at the national convention.
The talk since the election has been centered on where the GOP can find a new direction, so they can be competitive in 2016 and beyond. It appears that the direction they need has been running for their nomination for eight years.
Join the discussion Please be relevant and respectful.
The problem is this, all those write in votes for Ron Paul or no votes for Mitt Romney got Obama re-elected. We saw this in 1992 and in 1996, where votes taken from the Republican ended up getting the socialists voted in. Now the Obama camp did cheat, however had those who supported Ron Paul voted for Mitt may have been the difference between what we have right now to what could have been! As wise old Owl once said "The world may never know".
Paul was right when he called Congress a bunch of psychopathic authoritarians in his farewell speech. The GOP has been over run with them too.. I'm officially dropping my support for Republicans. I don't want anything to do with them anymore after what they did to Dr. Paul. They did it on purpose so they would lose. They have no desire to do the right thing with the Fed or protecting our natural born rights. I hope they goose step themselves into oblivion and take the Democrats with them..
Who won the election... The Media and won the election for the Status Quo. When Mitt was campaigning during the primaries he had 10 to 100 people at his events and we all know about the thousands of people showing up for Ron's events, where was the media? How about the debates, how much time was alotted Ron Paul, 89 seconds in one 2 hour debate and not much more in the others, how sad. Don't get me started on all the fraud, violence, rule changing etc during the primaries and caucuses, now that was really shameful, where was the media? The RNC was outright lunacy, shows you how corrupt these people are. The plutocracy, government and media controlled this race from the start in Iowa, I have never seen anything like it in my 53 years. There's no way the puppet masters would let Dr. Paul debate either one Goldman Sach's boys, he would of smoked them,The American people always get it wrong, look at American Idol!!!
Gov Romney lost because he had no grassroots support. There was no excitement about his ideas, only anger against Obama and a determination to vote him out. This by itself is never as motivating as new ideas.
"Could Ron Paul have been a better Republican presidential candidate than Mitt Romney?"
Yes, and he would have no only taken key votes away from Obama, voters that Mitt Romney couldn't seem to reach out to, but he also would have generated a following that rivaled Obama's semi "obsessed" supporters. Mitt Romney never could get the full backing of his party, and that translated into very fair weather support from GOP voters. They liked him, and voted for him, but that's about it. They didn't show the amount of support and dedication that I think Ron Paul supporters would have exhibited, the type of support that can win elections and won the election for Obama back in 2008.
George, check out the "drop your party" app to let partisan politics know you won't buy into their M.O. anymore.
I think that the support that Ron Paul could have received would have a reach its limits pretty quickly. Ron Paul remains a quite extreme candidate and i do not think that if he would have done better than Romney in this election.
Don't forget that Ron Paul had more donations from enlisted military then all of the other primary candidates plus Obama combined. These young people in the military have families back home that would have supported Ron Paul too. Many couldn't vote in the primaries because they were not registered Republican. Libertarians thoughts can flourish in any Party.
I tend to agree with Lucas, while I would of loved to see Ron Paul run for President in the place of Romney, I think that he would have suffered from not having the backing of the GOP. Even with the younger generation.
It would have been better to run an actual candidate against an empty suit filled with false platitudes debate against Paul rather than two empty suits debate about trivialities and non issues in a scripted pretend we're still in a Democracy play.
Doesn't matter who wins when they do essentially the same thing. What changed with Obama? TARP began under Bush, the Wars did, the Patriot Act did, warrantless wiretapping did, Guantanamo did. Nothing changed with Obama. We have the NDAA which ends almost 800 years of due process, and the president can kill US citizens without charge or trial and has done so - but Romney is in favor of each.
Health care? Romney passed the same bill in Massachusetts.
It was vote for tweedle dee or tweedle dum. Two clones with different skin color and possibly religion isn't a great deal of difference when they have identical policies - at least to anybody that can think.
That was true at first, but then in March it was Obama, followed by Romney until the first debate when it flipped to Romney, Obama.
I agree with you. We need laws to limit what and who money can buy you in American politics. How in the hell did we ever come to this???? Who will put an end to it?
And that is why the money would never back Paul, so he would never get a nomination, not because the powers at be do not wish to fix things, and Ron Paul would have done so. Someone like Paul will never have a chance, and we as the people will never have a chance to control things again unless we shatter the 2 party facade and impose term limits while removing money from the political process.
Do you think Bernanke, and those who put him in place would have Paul win a nomination that would put him in a position to embarrass Obama on a national stage, and have a good chance of being voted into a position where he could cut the puppet strings that the elite have been weaving for a hundred years?
The GOP are like the Marines, they will fall behind whoever wins the nomination (a majority at least). I mean look at the people they tried to give it to ahead of Romney (Cain, Newt, Bachman, Perry). Paul was only unelectable in the primary, on the national stage I think people would have been susprised.
Count me as one of those Ron Paul supporters who refused to vote for Romney. I'm proud of my decision to vote my concience and you're right, the direction the GOP has needed to go has been running for their nomination for eight years.