Paulites possibly seizing control of NV county conventions

[Bacon King]

Further news from the takeover of the Clark County GOP:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Bacon King]

And here's an RCP article on the Clark fiasco.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

OK these guys are MASSIVE epic f**king Freedom Fighters. Both giving a massive black eye to the GOP establishment and making the Republicans more unelectable!

[Reluctant Republican]

I'm torn on this. Obviously it helps my guy, but if we're trying to change the party, I am not sure rolling in and steamrolling over all the other parts of it will gain us much respect. This sort of tactic can only bring blowback, and I'd not be surprised to see the local Republican parties drastically change their rules to do what they can to combat this by 2016 if it becomes  a serious issue this time. If that happens, Paul's supporters will have done more harm than good.

On the other hand, I admit I enjoy the chaos it brings. How exciting. And as someone who believes dirty tricks were used against Paul a few times during this campaign, it is refreshing to see the establishment given a taste of its own medicine.

[ajb]

And here's an RCP article on the Clark fiasco.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This part seems crucial. Controlling party machinery isn't just about fighting primary battles -- it's also about doing the work of finding seventy million voters who will support your guy in November. The Republican party used to be really good at this stuff, as recently as 2004. They don't seem to be doing a great job of it these days.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I will say - to the groups who lose control: They deserve it.  So often people don't show up to these things because they don't care (of course the Paulites won't show up for the most part after this), so why should they stay in power?

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Pauls folks are essentially stuffing ballot boxes. I say, why stop there? If they really want to bully their way into the convention, why not just get some guns and hold the convention hostage until they add a "End the Fed" plank to the platform?

lol, Romney did literally the exact same thing to Paul in the Virgin Islands.

http://vigop.com/

Note that Paul actually won the territory, but Romney won the delegates. I suppose Romney supporters are going to hold the convention centre hostage too?

[RI]

Uncommitted won the Virgin Islands, not Paul. Furthermore, the only reason Paul was in that position was because he had the most delegate slates--twice as many as Romney. Because of that, when you tally up the results of all the delegates, of course Paul will have more, but that's not representative of the composition of the electorate that voted.

[Beet]

I will say - to the groups who lose control: They deserve it.  So often people don't show up to these things because they don't care (of course the Paulites won't show up for the most part after this), so why should they stay in power?

That's true in the long run, but right now they might just not be showing up because they don't realize what's going on. It's like your house is on fire but you aren't going home to save it because you don't know it's on fire.

In any case what it seems to me is that the Paulites represent a vanguard, if you will, a thin layer of more highly educated, involved persons who are as yet outside of the inner circle of power. Think if you will of a tranche of CDOs. The Paulites are like the second-highest tranche. Think of a pair of pruning shears cutting off the lower tranches. People who do not vote [Sllicceee. Gone.] People who vote, but not primaries [Slice.] People who vote in primaries, but do not have several hours to spend at a caucus [Slice.] People who caucus, but do not read political articles online, or comment on them [Slice.] Now who are you left with? People who follow politics closely, participate online, and are willing to show up to state conventions. They know about things like Austrian economics, NDAA, and the 16th amendment. Everything we know about political behavior suggests to us that these people have generally high "socio-economic status". The educated; the wealthy (but not too wealthy); the civic. Civic is the best word. Curiously the exit polls find that the Paulites get most of their primary support from the lower income brackets. So there may be two different kinds of Paulites. Or perhaps Paul is encouraging civic engagement from a lower socio-economic strata, which would make him functionally a kind of left-wing. But for all of their involvement and knowledge, these are not the people in the inner circle. They are not 'connected' in politics. They are not part of the 'establishment'. That is the highest tranche. And this is what makes them angry. The establishment, like a King reaching out to the peasants to help him beat back a revolution by the nobility and perhaps the urban bourgeois in 1848 Europe, have defeated the Paulites in the popular vote because the average Republican is against them.

But Paulism is potent. As a class, they are ideally positioned to make change in American politics, because the civic class is always the most well positioned. The civic class were abolitionists; they voted for Grover Cleveland, led the Progressive movement, and their children made the Sixties. Ideologically they are also well positioned. Their champion, uniquely among both parties, has sat in Washington and maintained a consistently ideological voting record. He has refused to play their game, singularly. The left has no one like him, and wishes it did. (I fully admit this, as a man of the left). He is on the right side of almost all of the populist issues-- audit the Fed, sound money (for some reason in this epoch sound money has become a populist issue, rather than the opposite; it has to do with how monetary policy operates today) civic liberties issues, foreign policy, and even on social issues. The only ones he really misses are campaign finance issues, regulation of Wall Street, and what the Republicans deride as 'class warfare'. But in exchange for these he can stake a claim to a consistent narrative of ideology of liberty.

That he is able to wrap up and package all of the right populist stances with a far right wing economic message, that he is able to wrap up populist rhetoric that gets him his strongest performance among the poor and the young, with a drastic reduction in the federal government's economic power which largely goes to support the poor; is the big perversion (and in my opinion lie) which is why he is such a big threat to the left. Because this untruth is so convincing, because our leaders in Washington have so corrupted government, because the present workings of the system appear so unattractive to those outside of it, that it is too hard in these days for any of us to see government as an instrument for the poor and disadvantaged. The left has itself to blame, letting its guard down, letting its heroes get away again and again with nonsense at a time when the vanguard is paying closer attention. Wallowing in peripheral issues such as gay marriage and insurance for contraception-- identity politics red herrings. Real issues, to be sure, but not central ones. And this comes at a time, post-financial crisis, where the poor need the government's help more than ever. They can't afford for the utter insanity of Paul's lies to be exposed through implementation and experimentation. Here is at once a movement that must be marginalized as much as possible, yet at the same time is ideologically and socio-economically in an almost prime position. There is a strong hope of defeating them this year in the peasants, but in the long run the success of Paulism, I am convinced, will be determined in large part by what the Progressive alternative does in the next several years.

[Erc]

I will say - to the groups who lose control: They deserve it.  So often people don't show up to these things because they don't care (of course the Paulites won't show up for the most part after this), so why should they stay in power?

That's true in the long run, but right now they might just not be showing up because they don't realize what's going on. It's like your house is on fire but you aren't going home to save it because you don't know it's on fire.

Except in Nevada, this isn't the first time the house caught on fire.  It's fire season again and they think the fireproof safe they bought to protect their valuables will protect the whole house.

[Хahar 🤔]

God bless entryism.

[Free Palestine]

I'd rather have Paultards than fascist Santorumite theocons or Romneyite moderate hero warmongers.

[LastVoter]

I will say - to the groups who lose control: They deserve it.  So often people don't show up to these things because they don't care (of course the Paulites won't show up for the most part after this), so why should they stay in power?

That's true in the long run, but right now they might just not be showing up because they don't realize what's going on. It's like your house is on fire but you aren't going home to save it because you don't know it's on fire.

In any case what it seems to me is that the Paulites represent a vanguard, if you will, a thin layer of more highly educated, involved persons who are as yet outside of the inner circle of power. Think if you will of a tranche of CDOs. The Paulites are like the second-highest tranche. Think of a pair of pruning shears cutting off the lower tranches. People who do not vote [Sllicceee. Gone.] People who vote, but not primaries [Slice.] People who vote in primaries, but do not have several hours to spend at a caucus [Slice.] People who caucus, but do not read political articles online, or comment on them [Slice.] Now who are you left with? People who follow politics closely, participate online, and are willing to show up to state conventions. They know about things like Austrian economics, NDAA, and the 16th amendment. Everything we know about political behavior suggests to us that these people have generally high "socio-economic status". The educated; the wealthy (but not too wealthy); the civic. Civic is the best word. Curiously the exit polls find that the Paulites get most of their primary support from the lower income brackets. So there may be two different kinds of Paulites. Or perhaps Paul is encouraging civic engagement from a lower socio-economic strata, which would make him functionally a kind of left-wing. But for all of their involvement and knowledge, these are not the people in the inner circle. They are not 'connected' in politics. They are not part of the 'establishment'. That is the highest tranche. And this is what makes them angry. The establishment, like a King reaching out to the peasants to help him beat back a revolution by the nobility and perhaps the urban bourgeois in 1848 Europe, have defeated the Paulites in the popular vote because the average Republican is against them.

But Paulism is potent. As a class, they are ideally positioned to make change in American politics, because the civic class is always the most well positioned. The civic class were abolitionists; they voted for Grover Cleveland, led the Progressive movement, and their children made the Sixties. Ideologically they are also well positioned. Their champion, uniquely among both parties, has sat in Washington and maintained a consistently ideological voting record. He has refused to play their game, singularly. The left has no one like him, and wishes it did. (I fully admit this, as a man of the left). He is on the right side of almost all of the populist issues-- audit the Fed, sound money (for some reason in this epoch sound money has become a populist issue, rather than the opposite; it has to do with how monetary policy operates today) civic liberties issues, foreign policy, and even on social issues. The only ones he really misses are campaign finance issues, regulation of Wall Street, and what the Republicans deride as 'class warfare'. But in exchange for these he can stake a claim to a consistent narrative of ideology of liberty.

That he is able to wrap up and package all of the right populist stances with a far right wing economic message, that he is able to wrap up populist rhetoric that gets him his strongest performance among the poor and the young, with a drastic reduction in the federal government's economic power which largely goes to support the poor; is the big perversion (and in my opinion lie) which is why he is such a big threat to the left. Because this untruth is so convincing, because our leaders in Washington have so corrupted government, because the present workings of the system appear so unattractive to those outside of it, that it is too hard in these days for any of us to see government as an instrument for the poor and disadvantaged. The left has itself to blame, letting its guard down, letting its heroes get away again and again with nonsense at a time when the vanguard is paying closer attention. Wallowing in peripheral issues such as gay marriage and insurance for contraception-- identity politics red herrings. Real issues, to be sure, but not central ones. And this comes at a time, post-financial crisis, where the poor need the government's help more than ever. They can't afford for the utter insanity of Paul's lies to be exposed through implementation and experimentation. Here is at once a movement that must be marginalized as much as possible, yet at the same time is ideologically and socio-economically in an almost prime position. There is a strong hope of defeating them this year in the peasants, but in the long run the success of Paulism, I am convinced, will be determined in large part by what the Progressive alternative does in the next several years.

No the success of Paulism means it's possible that true leftists can hijack the democratic party.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

See, even a possibility of losing candidate's supporters seizing control over delegate selection represents what's wrong with caucuses in general.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If I ever won the lottery or something, I'd donate the maximum allowed to Ron Paul (of course I'd also do the same for Obama and various other Democratic candidates.)