Ron Paul and the Rust Belt

[TJ in Oregon]

I imagine the mind of a swing voter like this: a blue-collar technician in some kind of industrial plant, mid 50s, worked the same place for thirty years, unionized but not necessarily beholden to the union, largely indifferent on social issues though doesn't appreciate radicals, looking forward to medicare and social security upon retirement in ten years, inherently conservative though politically moderate (I mean feels an uneasiness toward drastic change).

I can imagine this guy would probably vote for the generic Republican against Obama in most cases, since he's probably disappointed in Obama and feels he's failed to deliver on his implied promises of better days across the rust belt. Yet, Ron Paul scares him. He's afraid of Paul abolishing large parts of the government. He's worried about his job and retirement. He's worried about what happens to him if he loses it.

I imagine Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich will get this man’s vote. If Ron Paul is the Republican nominee, I’ll bet he votes for Obama. Am I wrong?

[Jacobtm]

Yeah, Paul's worst region would likely by the Rust Belt, Appalachia and the South-East. He'd do better in the North-East, and the whole West.

Of course, Paul v. Obama, anyone hoping for a retirement based on the government would vote for Obama. It'd be a landslide.

Though Obama/Romney/Paul, I don't see why the unionized rust belt worker would vote for Romney, who also wants to reduce Government help to people in general.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I once had hopes as you do. That Republicans could go into the Rust Belt and start winning states like PA, MI (does NJ count?), etc. However, my hopes have been dashed as the Obama Administration has worn on. My new strategy is to root for with wild abandon the candidate who is most fun to root for, not necessarily the one who will win. As of now I'm rooting for Paul. However, I doubt he will win the nomination (get second to Romney? Looking like it), and I will gladly support Mittens in 2012, though I of course, still can't vote.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Depends. Does he have children? Because a candidate who is focused on expanding wars could scare him as well. The swing voter you have in mind most likely does not follow politics, and when he does, he listens to Fox News. If Fox (reluctantly) leans towards Paul, he very well may vote for Paul while holding his noose shut.

Its not like Paul's actually going to get his way if wins anyway. Just like Obama, and Bush, most of this stuff is just campaign rhetoric. Yes, of course he actually believes in what he is saying, but everyone knows the Congress wont go along with it.

I think Paul can perform well in the Southeast. The deep South, in particular. His states rights approach is popular. West Virginia will go for Obama, as will Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio. Indiana will be a swing state. I think NC could be won by Paul, but Virginia will stay for Obama. I can see Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Maine, all Obama states, swinging for Paul. My Paul vs Obama projection:

I have no idea how Washington and Oregon would vote but I think its more then likely to be for Obama. 

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Depends. Does he have children? Because a candidate who is focused on expanding wars could scare him as well.

Remember, this type of voter went for Bush in '04.

[TJ in Oregon]

Depends. Does he have children? Because a candidate who is focused on expanding wars could scare him as well.

None of the candidates are actually focussed on expanding wars. Other than Ron Paul, the rest of the Republicans are pretty much the same as Obama. Unless someone goes crazy on the campaign trail, I highly doubt many people will be thinking about that over the economy. Also, since we don't have a draft, unless he has kids in the military (in which case the entire scenario changes somewhat) he's not going to be too scared.

Its not like Paul's actually going to get his way if wins anyway. Just like Obama, and Bush, most of this stuff is just campaign rhetoric. Yes, of course he actually believes in what he is saying, but everyone knows the Congress wont go along with it.

The problem isn't that Paul is going to be able to implement everything he wants. It's just that his rhetoric is going to scare people. A lot of people believe what politicians say to a much larger degree than they'll admit.

[TJ in Oregon]

I once had hopes as you do. That Republicans could go into the Rust Belt and start winning states like PA, MI (does NJ count?), etc. However, my hopes have been dashed as the Obama Administration has worn on. My new strategy is to root for with wild abandon the candidate who is most fun to root for, not necessarily the one who will win. As of now I'm rooting for Paul. However, I doubt he will win the nomination (get second to Romney? Looking like it), and I will gladly support Mittens in 2012, though I of course, still can't vote.

But it's not just MI and PA, Ron Paul will probably lose IN and almost certainly lose OH as well. We just can't have him and expect to win unless he has some crazy ability to carry states otherwise out of reach. CO and NV aren't enough.

[TJ in Oregon]

Though Obama/Romney/Paul, I don't see why the unionized rust belt worker would vote for Romney, who also wants to reduce Government help to people in general.

Because he's mad at Obama for leading him to believe that more jobs and better wages were coming if he voted for Obama in '08.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I once had hopes as you do. That Republicans could go into the Rust Belt and start winning states like PA, MI (does NJ count?), etc. However, my hopes have been dashed as the Obama Administration has worn on. My new strategy is to root for with wild abandon the candidate who is most fun to root for, not necessarily the one who will win. As of now I'm rooting for Paul. However, I doubt he will win the nomination (get second to Romney? Looking like it), and I will gladly support Mittens in 2012, though I of course, still can't vote.

But it's not just MI and PA, Ron Paul will probably lose IN and almost certainly lose OH as well. We just can't have him and expect to win unless he has some crazy ability to carry states otherwise out of reach. CO and NV aren't enough.

Indiana will go for Paul; its the Ohio-WV-PA region which goes for Obama this time. Pauls running mate could help or hurt him, but, lets assume its someone well known and liked. Jim DeMint perhaps?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Very few Americans, particulary in the group in question, are militantly "against the wars". They are supportive of the military and supportive of military action when necessary. They are also willing to support a conflict if the administration is clear about the purpose and there is a plan for success. People become war weary when things go awry and are spiraling out of control. In that case, they can be won back with a change in strategy or a new plan and clearer defining of the purpose.

Because of this, it is possible to resist anti-war sentiment and still win an election. McCain's competativeness prior to the economic collapse is testament to the fact that such is possible if the guy supported the war with the caveat of a different approach, in this case the surge.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Though Obama/Romney/Paul, I don't see why the unionized rust belt worker would vote for Romney, who also wants to reduce Government help to people in general.

It is about vision, plan and message. It is most certainly possible to do. Especially with a candidate like Romney who has acknowledged the need to take a multi-faceted approach to fixing the economy unlike some who think it's all taxes and regulations alone. Romney discusses education, trade, energy independence, and so forth. He has acknowledged the need for some regulations albeit with some modernization and improvement, and attacks on job losses at Bain can be spun into advocacies for a new direction on trade or tax/regulatory policy where these played role in the losses, turning a campaign liability back into an asset while illustrating his economic experience and translating it into changing policies that hurt job creation. He did this on the FNS interview last weekend.

[memphis]

Not that people "average" particularly well, but the average voter in the Rust Belt only votes GOP in 1984 style landslides. Look at some election returns. The Great Lakes is a Democratic stronghold. At this point there's no way Obama would lose this voter against anybody. I think you're right that Paul would underperform, but that's true everywhere. And I think you're projecting your own opinions as "average" for yor part of the country when they're not.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Libertarian leaning conservatives are on the rise in Indiana. If the voter wants lower taxes and to keep civil liberties he would.

[TJ in Oregon]

Not that people "average" particularly well, but the average voter in the Rust Belt only votes GOP in 1984 style landslides. Look at some election returns. The Great Lakes is a Democratic stronghold. At this point there's no way Obama would lose this voter against anybody. I think you're right that Paul would underperform, but that's true everywhere. And I think you're projecting your own opinions as "average" for yor part of the country when they're not.

Ohio is a swing state, you know. Yes, the shore of Lake Erie is more Democratic than the state in general, but it's not like 100% Democratic. Also note the entire population of the Great Lakes region is not along the shoreline. And yes, I've looked at voting results before. Notice how many posts I have in the Political Demographics Board about Ohio? But yeah, memphis, I'm sure you know a ton more about the rust belt than I do

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Depends. Does he have children? Because a candidate who is focused on expanding wars could scare him as well. The swing voter you have in mind most likely does not follow politics, and when he does, he listens to Fox News. If Fox (reluctantly) leans towards Paul, he very well may vote for Paul while holding his noose shut.

Its not like Paul's actually going to get his way if wins anyway. Just like Obama, and Bush, most of this stuff is just campaign rhetoric. Yes, of course he actually believes in what he is saying, but everyone knows the Congress wont go along with it.

I think Paul can perform well in the Southeast. The deep South, in particular. His states rights approach is popular. West Virginia will go for Obama, as will Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio. Indiana will be a swing state. I think NC could be won by Paul, but Virginia will stay for Obama. I can see Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Maine, all Obama states, swinging for Paul. My Paul vs Obama projection:

I have no idea how Washington and Oregon would vote but I think its more then likely to be for Obama. 

You do realize that the lastest poll shows Obama beating Paul in NM 51%-38%, right?

[Jackson]

Shh Fuzzy, don't interrupt their RON PAUL fantasy.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Shh Fuzzy, don't interrupt their RON PAUL fantasy.

Oh, whoops. 


[hides]