Nevada Caucus Results
Mitt Romney will win the Nevada caucuses today. With 19% of precincts reporting, he has over 50% of the vote. John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and Sen. Thompson are in a close contest for second with roughly 10% support each. The large LDS population in Nevada certainly helped Romney but his support goes far beyond that population. With these results I think that Thompson, Giuliani, Hunter, and Tancredo should drop out of the race. It's true that Thompson and Giuliani will do better in other states; however, the Republican party needs to focus on the three to four front-runners. I would even like to see Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee drop out of the race. I think that they are both decent candidates - Paul is too extreme for most people though - but they will not win the candidacy. Neither could win the national election either. The Republican race is turning into a race between McCain and Romney, regardless of how the candidates do in South Carolina.
It's too early to comment on the Democratic race. Even though Clinton is ahead in polls I think that Obama will certainly give her a run for her money. I think that John Edwards will be out of the race after Nevada's caucuses. He'll still campaign but he will drop out of the serious contender category.
What the campaigns have shown so far is that while Democrats tout themselves as upholders of diversity, the Republican contest shows that the Republican party has a much greater diversity of ideas than the Democratic party does. Clinton and Obama are essentially identical ideologically, although Obama is more liberal. Edwards is very similar to both. It is among the Republican candidates that you can see diversity - libertarianism, social conservatism, economic conservatism, social liberalism (relatively), economic liberalism, and so forth. It does not mean that the Republican party is splintering, it just means that there is a great diversity of ideas and beliefs within the Republican party.
Earlier I mentioned how the strong LDS population in Nevada helped Romney's win. I don't think that Mormons are block voting for Romney just because he is LDS - although there is certainly some of that going on. His political beliefs just coincide with a lot of other LDS church members' beliefs. I'm not shy about criticizing Evangelicals for voting for Huckabee just because he is Evangelical. I'm also not shy about criticizing LDS members for voting for Romney just because he is LDS. I think you should vote based on political ideologies not religion. That is my biggest problem with so many Evangelical (and other people) voters; I don't care as much about them voting for a certain person because of his or her religious beliefs. I care more about them voting against someone because of their religious beliefs. Women shouldn't vote for Clinton just because she is a woman; African-Americans shouldn't vote for Obama just because he is African-America. People shouldn't vote against any of the candidates because of their skin color, gender, or any other characteristic like those. Vote based on political beliefs, not demographic characteristics.
YouTube Debate Thoughts
Now that the Republican debate is over I'll post a few thoughts and reactions.
1) I enjoyed the candidate videos from Ron Paul and Mitt Romney and the other candidates who did not show attack ads. Fred Thompson attacked Romney and Huckabee while other candidates attacked Sen. Clinton. There are too many issues to address in campaigns; candidates do not need to resort to attacking other candidates.
2) Mitt Romney came across as wishy-washy in some instances (especially when asked about water boarding). You have to understand his personality and modus operandi to understand why he came across that way. Mitt Romney is very analytical. He likes to have all sides of issues presented to him before he makes decisions. So even though there were a couple times that he did not appear to answer questions directly (e.g., water boarding and gays in the military), I think he did the right thing even if it appears to be dodging questions. He basically said that if he is elected president, then he'll make firm decisions; it is hard to make good decisions without all the facts.
3) Ron Paul made some good points but did not present himself well. I actually was not very impressed with him during the debate. I want him to do well, he could make a lot of positive changes in the country, but he just might not be political enough.
4) John McCain made a great point about water boarding. He has good moral ground to stand on regarding the use of such interrogation techniques.
5) The three candidates who stood out the most and came across the most positively were Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and John McCain. Fred Thompson did relatively poorly and Tancredo just didn't stand out. Huckabee and Romney both have a lot of charisma though. John McCain is just too grizzled. He's a great guy but he just does not have the polish of the other two candidates and unfortunately image matters a lot in politics.
I thought the debate was good overall but not enough issues were addressed. The final question was about Giuliani supporting the Red Socks. There are too many real issues to talk about to spend time on that, no matter how humorous it is. We needed to hear about education, science (not just space exploration), and other important issues. Granted, immigration, taxes, and the Iraq War are major issues but I would have liked to hear more.
Why Ron Paul?
Ron Paul is a medical doctor turned Representative from Texas; he is a bit of a dark horse candidate in the Republican party right now. He has tremendous support on the Internet, especially on social sites like Digg.com and Del.icio.us. He used to be largely ignored by the media but is receiving more coverage now. What is it about Ron Paul that makes people like him as a candidate. A qualitative review of comments on Digg reveals that many people support him because he is opposed to the Iraq War. His opposition stems mainly from the point that the U.S. shouldn't have become involved as they did in Iraq; he is also opposed to how much money is being spent to fight the war. Ron Paul is libertarian, he is a classic Republican who supports small government and small budgets. He votes for almost anything that would shrink the size of the federal government, not to weaken but to limit its scope to something closer to what the Founding Fathers established.
Ron Paul is also a social conservative: he is anti-abortion based on personal values and political beliefs (i.e., not having the federal government tell the states what to do); he favors personal property rights; he supports gun rights; he is opposed to socialized (and managed) health care; he is opposed to a minimum wage; he is opposed to affirmative action; and he is also opposed to the IRS, stating that we need a major tax system overhaul. If you look at his overall voting record he is fairly moderate but with a moderate social and strong fiscal conservatism foundation.
Could he win the election, assuming he was nominated? I think it is likely. There's not a lot of dirt on him, he has a consistent voting record and hasn't suffered any major scandals. However, one problem for him as President would be to try and get his policies passed through the Legislative branch. It is easy to talk about reducing the size of the government but actually doing it is difficult. No one wants their pork chopped from the budget. Welfare recipients would be upset when their checks are reduced or canceled, IRS employees would be up in arms when their jobs are threatened by tax reform, et cetera. Whether or not Ron Paul could accomplish all of his reform goals, he could certainly accomplish some of his goals.
Note: This post does not constitute an endorsement of Ron Paul.
Tags
Blogroll
Recent Posts
- Which Party Ruined the Economy?
- Mitt Romney’s Tax Returns
- The Shooting of Rep. Giffords
- Truth, Freedom, and Religion
- Respecting the President
Recent Comments
- Miranda on Mitt Romney’s Tax Returns
- kem on Why McCain Should Not Pick Romney as VP
- Lonnie on Thomas Jefferson on Religious Liberties
- Tweets that mention Thomas Jefferson on Religious Liberties | US Political Scene -- Topsy.com on Thomas Jefferson on Religious Liberties
- Jonathan on Thomas Jefferson on Religious Liberties
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- January 2011
- April 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007