California Liberals Change Their Vote

[buckstopshere]

We have friends in from California this week who are huge liberals. They supported Obama whole heartedly in the 2008 election.

Since they are liberals and we love them anyway, I always try to veer away from any political discussions. Much to my surprise, they bring up Ron Paul and said they not only supported him but donated money to the cause last week!!

I was blown away. I asked why the conversion. They expressed that although they felt like Obama was doing a pretty good job, Ron Paul is the only politician they trust. They like his stance on the economy, foreign policy, and feel like he's the only politician that hasn't been a big liar.

A direct quote: "I will vote for Ron Paul if he's the republican nominee. This will be my first time not voting democratic party. If Paul runs third party, I'll still vote for him. If Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum win the nomination and Paul doesn't run third party, we are voting Obama again."

These guys have Obama bumper stickers on both of their cars. I don't think this is a unique story. I'm hopeful that somehow, despite the efforts of the msm, people will start to figure out that the best way to beat Obama is with Paul.

I'm proud of my liberal commie socialist marxist friends!

 

[rambone]

Ron Paul would rock Obama's world in a General Election.

 

[Westside]

there is hope yet.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So I wonder...if RP goes third party, does he hurt Obama or the Rep candidate more? I would have guessed he'd hurt the Rep candidate more, but maybe not...hmmmm.

 

[Bond 281]

So I wonder...if RP goes third party, does he hurt Obama or the Rep candidate more? I would have guessed he'd hurt the Rep candidate more, but maybe not...hmmmm.

According to polls Obama would win by quite a bit with RP running 3rd party.

 

[Lammchop93]

Ron Paul would rock Obama's world in a General Election.

I daydream about this believe or not. He'd school Obama up and down like no one's business.

 

[jbombelli]

We have friends in from California this week who are huge liberals. They supported Obama whole heartedly in the 2008 election.

Since they are liberals and we love them anyway, I always try to veer away from any political discussions. Much to my surprise, they bring up Ron Paul and said they not only supported him but donated money to the cause last week!!

I was blown away. I asked why the conversion. They expressed that although they felt like Obama was doing a pretty good job, Ron Paul is the only politician they trust. They like his stance on the economy, foreign policy, and feel like he's the only politician that hasn't been a big liar.

A direct quote: "I will vote for Ron Paul if he's the republican nominee. This will be my first time not voting democratic party. If Paul runs third party, I'll still vote for him. If Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum win the nomination and Paul doesn't run third party, we are voting Obama again."

These guys have Obama bumper stickers on both of their cars. I don't think this is a unique story. I'm hopeful that somehow, despite the efforts of the msm, people will start to figure out that the best way to beat Obama is with Paul.

I'm proud of my liberal commie socialist marxist friends!

If they were members here I would rep them.

 

[88GT]

Paul and Obama are fundamentally opposed to each other in terms of ideological philosophies. That one person can claim support for both at the same time is ridiculous. That's like saying you're a Christian atheist.

They haven't converted. They just can't see past superficial similarities.

 

[Constructionist]

I'm proud to say no one I consider a friend has a Marxist in Chief bumper sticker.

 

[Bond 281]

Paul and Obama are fundamentally opposed to each other in terms of ideological philosophies. That one person can claim support for both at the same time is ridiculous. That's like saying you're a Christian atheist.

They haven't converted. They just can't see past superficial similarities.

Well that is true to a degree. However if you really look at Paul's philosophy of federal government then libs should be more than ok with him. His stances would allow them more freedom at the state level to pursue whatever policies they want. Granted Paul won't pursue socialism at a national level, but plenty of what he would want to do would allow it locally. And as far as most national issues go, he's anti-interventionist and won't enforce federal drug laws. So, nationally libs have some things they like, and what they don't, he wouldn't enforce nationally anyway. I can see how a liberal would support Paul.

 

[88GT]

Well that is true to a degree. However if you really look at Paul's philosophy of federal government then libs should be more than ok with him. His stances would allow them more freedom at the state level to pursue whatever policies they want. Granted Paul won't pursue socialism at a national level, but plenty of what he would want to do would allow it locally. And as far as most national issues go, he's anti-interventionist and won't enforce federal drug laws. So, nationally libs have some things they like, and what they don't, he wouldn't enforce nationally anyway. I can see how a liberal would support Paul.

And I still say that anyone who can flip-flop between RP and Obama* is an idiot and doesn't know what he wants and doesn't understand what each candidate actually stands for.

This does not include protest votes.

 

[buckstopshere]

Paul and Obama are fundamentally opposed to each other in terms of ideological philosophies. That one person can claim support for both at the same time is ridiculous. That's like saying you're a Christian atheist.

They haven't converted. They just can't see past superficial similarities.

It surprises me that you would say that. You don't know them at all and yet you have determined based off of my excerpt of an obviously long conversation that they haven't converted.

I'm not giving you my opinion when I say, you are wrong. They have converted. They see Obama for what he is, they don't like what he's done with spending, and they don't like the wars he's involved us in. Ron Paul corrects all that in their mind.

To say that supporting both is ridiculous is interesting in that whenever a Ron Paul supporter says they won't vote for the GOP establishment, then it's labeled as a vote for Obama. On the other side of the fence, that's exactly what my friends are saying. They don't see a difference between the GOP nominees, save Paul, and Obama. So, since they're democrates, they're going to vote for their party. That's not throwing support for Obama's ideaology any more than those saying they want Paul but will support whoever the GOP nom is.

The real point in all this is how Ron Paul can bring fed up people together across both party lines. This is why he's the most electable and it's not in some poll, this is in real life. I'm sure there are plenty more examples out there.

 

[buckstopshere]

I'm proud to say no one I consider a friend has a Marxist in Chief bumper sticker.

Good for you. I don't subscribe to prejudices against anyone. Just because someone believes in a different political philosophy doesn't automatically make them a bad person.

You'd be lucky to have them as friends.

 

[88GT]

It surprises me that you would say that. You don't know them at all and yet you have determined based off of my excerpt of an obviously long conversation that they haven't converted.

I'm not giving you my opinion when I say, you are wrong. They have converted. They see Obama for what he is, they don't like what he's done with spending, and they don't like the wars he's involved us in. Ron Paul corrects all that in their mind.

To say that supporting both is ridiculous is interesting in that whenever a Ron Paul supporter says they won't vote for the GOP establishment, then it's labeled as a vote for Obama. On the other side of the fence, that's exactly what my friends are saying. They don't see a difference between the GOP nominees, save Paul, and Obama. So, since they're democrates, they're going to vote for their party. That's not throwing support for Obama's ideaology any more than those saying they want Paul but will support whoever the GOP nom is.

The real point in all this is how Ron Paul can bring fed up people together across both party lines. This is why he's the most electable and it's not in some poll, this is in real life. I'm sure there are plenty more examples out there.

It's not a conversion if they remain loyal to the Dem Party IMO. It's simply favoring a candidate from another party that happens to hold more in common with them this election cycle than any other. If when they pull that lever for Paul on election day, they choose a Dem for every other race on their ballot, how is that a conversion? It's not the vote for Obama if they can't vote for Paul that belies the claim. A vote for Obama to protest the Newt/Romney candidate isn't support FOR Obama. Plenty of INGOers have said they would vote for Obama before anybody else save Paul and I sincerely doubt they have anything in common with him ideologically. But if they're voting for Obama out of loyalty to the Dem party or because they actually prefer him over the other R candidates for his ideological positions, they haven't converted.

And Ron Paul appeals to a lot of people from both sides because he draws from both sides, not because a bunch of formerly statist asshats suddenly saw the light and now want nothing but maximum freedom for everybody else. Drawing his political half out of the middle isn't any different than someone else drawing their political half out of one side. It's still just half.

 

[rambone]

And I still say that anyone who can flip-flop between RP and Obama* is an idiot and doesn't know what he wants and doesn't understand what each candidate actually stands for.

Why is it so important to call people idiots? And how can you be sure that Obama voters can't possibly support freedom, as you said before?

Lesser of two evils, yeah? How sure are we that John McCain was the lesser evil? He said he'd keep troops in the Middle East for the next "100 years" if necessary. He supported the Patriot Act, indefinite detention, DHS, TSA. He opposed civil liberty on all fronts... and in many ways, Obama ran as the PRO-civil LIBERTY candidate.

On so many other issues, Obama & McCain were the same guy. They often had essentially the same answer on economic questions. Every time an industry fails they promised bailouts. They both interrupted their campaigns to go vote for TARP. Which candidate supports balanced budgets and economic freedom? Its not so clear.

When the R & D candidates are so similar, can we really be mad at people for choosing one over the other? Maybe they saw both candidates as evil (like a lot of us), they just choose a different evil than you? Maybe they saw John McCain and his promises of eternal war and decided to vote against him? Maybe they hoped for incremental steps away from watch lists, Stasi spy agencies, devolution of civil liberties, and WW3. This is all strikingly similar to Republicans justifying their votes for Gingrich, Romney, or Santorum. Given these choices, there is no real freedom candidate.

The "Anybody but Obama!" strategy is essentially the same thing as the "Anybody but Bush!" strategy. Its a strategy that implies that voters are giving up their standards to avoid having the other guy as president. And the next Establishment President will inspire the same feelings. And so on, and so on. This is the ultimate result of having the parties running 2 Establishment lackeys against each other.

I don't find it hard to believe that some of Obama's supporters chose him in pursuit of liberty, understanding that Obama wasn't perfect but neither was McCain.

And its easy to understand how these people could jump parties when they discover Ron Paul, who breaks conventional wisdom about "Left" & "Right", bucks the establishment, and supports real liberty.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF6Dt7SS_yw[/ame]

 

[rambone]

G. Edward Griffin on the Left-Right Paradigm

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxDwT55rmIw[/ame]

 

[rich8483]

if ron paul ran third party and lost but still got a respectable amount of votes. maybe more than the rep, i would be thrilled.

more thrilled with a win but, im just sayin...

 

[buckstopshere]

It's not a conversion if they remain loyal to the Dem Party IMO. It's simply favoring a candidate from another party that happens to hold more in common with them this election cycle than any other. If when they pull that lever for Paul on election day, they choose a Dem for every other race on their ballot, how is that a conversion? It's not the vote for Obama if they can't vote for Paul that belies the claim. A vote for Obama to protest the Newt/Romney candidate isn't support FOR Obama. Plenty of INGOers have said they would vote for Obama before anybody else save Paul and I sincerely doubt they have anything in common with him ideologically. But if they're voting for Obama out of loyalty to the Dem party or because they actually prefer him over the other R candidates for his ideological positions, they haven't converted.

And Ron Paul appeals to a lot of people from both sides because he draws from both sides, not because a bunch of formerly statist asshats suddenly saw the light and now want nothing but maximum freedom for everybody else. Drawing his political half out of the middle isn't any different than someone else drawing their political half out of one side. It's still just half.

I can't respond as I didn't ask hem about voting for anyone else on the ballot.

I will say that they will not convert from the dem party to the GOP. Maybe to libertarian at some point but not now.

The conversion and, the over riding theme of the story, was a conversion away from Obama to Paul. It's a step forward.

For the record, young couple just a few years older than me. House in Lake Tahoe, House in Sacramento, and looking to buy a house in Indy. Entrepreneurs who don't make a ton of money but are...fiscally conservative.

Social issues will always keep them from converting to the GOP. I'll ask em tomorrow though that if a libritaian or independent candidate was to be on the ballot for house and senate and local, would they vote for them if they shared RPs views. I'm sure the answer is yes.

 

[hornadylnl]

Buck couldn't possibly be telling the truth here. If he was, that'd make something Rambone said right.

 

[KLB]

Social issues will always keep them from converting to the GOP. I'll ask em tomorrow though that if a libritaian or independent candidate was to be on the ballot for house and senate and local, would they vote for them if they shared RPs views. I'm sure the answer is yes.

Sounds a lot like how I feel. I have never understood why the Republican party has always made such a big deal out of a few social issues that IMO are way down the list of importance, especially in a national election. This often drove me away from them.

Now spending is by far #1 on my list, with keeping as much civil liberty as possible a close 2nd. Finding a way to vote for someone that embodies that is hard. Ron Paul will get my vote if he is in the election. If not, I have a hard choice to make.