I don't think it cost him the election but it would've been much closer.

Plus I think many of RP's supporter's were probably like myself, disenfranchised liberals.

Well, giving Paul a fair shot at the nomination would have been a good start. Making him or Rand the VP nominee would have also been a nice overture. The analysis may be poor, but the thesis isn't bad.

How did Paul not have a fair shot at the nomination, dub? He was allowed in the debates and put on almost all the ballots? (The few that excluded him excluded most the other candidates too).

Yeah I doubt many RP supporters were ever going to vote Romney. RP's main impact on this election is limited to the effect on the primaries to the extent that he somehow influenced the ultimate selection of Mitt Romney.

The GOP's treatment of Ron Paul supporters did not cost Romney the election. Having said that, they were treated poorly and the Republican Party needs to find a place for sane libertarians.

My memory of the GOP primaries is a bit fuzzy, so I am taking what the article listed at face value. If the article is portraying history wrong, then just ignore my first comment. The second still stands.

Ron Paul people always overstate their support. He lost all those primaries not because of some grand conspiracy by party elders and the media, but because he didn't appeal to a majority of the Republican electorate. Santorum, who also lacked support from those groups, came scarily close to the nomination.

Moving forward, libertarian thinking is what will save the GOP, but the reason for the loss this year was not because Reince Priebus was mean to all the Paulies.

You're right, Invictus, although in fairness, libertarians need to find a place for sane libertarians, too.

I hear ya. If only they really were just Republicans who like to do drugs and get laid. For every five of those you tend to get at least two Gold Bugs or Truthers or some other such embarrassing line of thought.

Yeah.

For there to be a full merging of the two movements, a few things will have to happen. First, libertarians will have to find a way to compromise on abortion. Some are already pro life, of course; but for the rest, I think the path forward will be to accept overturning Roe v. Wade and then fighting the issue on the state levels. Not only is this more constitutionally coherent (and libertarians love them some originalism), but it will depressurize the issue as a national political thing (at least mostly -- but both parts would likely agree to end federal funding, for example). In the short term, this would basically entail libertarians signing on as pro life, since that is synonymous with "end Roe v. Wade."

Next, Republicans will have to compromise some on gay marriage. Again, they won't necessarily have to accept it in Texas and Arkansas, but they should stop making it a big issue of national rhetoric, etc.

Next, the GOP will have to modulate a little on crime, etc. For example, they'll have to get real about marijuana and LSD (and libertarians will have to get real about heroin and cocaine, at least for the time being).

Finally, they'll all just have to meet in the middle on foreign policy. Mostly libertarians will have to move on this, but the GOP should walk all the way off the neocon ledge.

Accomplish all these, and I think you get a robust marriage of the GOP and libertarians.

The more likely option is they nominate Rubio, endorsing his amnesty-light, and snag just enough Latinos to get in without changing anything else. I have a hard time buying in to a truly radical rebalancing of the party until Baby Boomers are either too old to be in power or all dead. That could be forty years away.

Mostly true again, although even Rubio will have time to redefine himself some in four years if he cares to reach out to another base.

I think the way forward for Republicans on drugs is not to speak on legalization, but to speak of federalism. There can be strong federal laws penalizing the importation into any state _against its law_, strong laws against importation into the country, etc., etc.

"Federalism" means legalization since drugs are banned at the federal level. As much as I would like to see drugs legalized (as a matter of policy, my only vice is booze), what the states are doing now is probably not constitutional. You'd need to repeal the federal laws, which basically means ending the war on drugs. A good idea, but not something politicians are ready for. Remember, Obama has never came out in favor of legalization. It's still toxic to a huge amount of people. People like the goddamn Baby Boomers, but also others.

I agree that in a perfect world each state deciding what drugs were allowed in tis borders would be great, but getting there is so hard as to almost be impossible.

First of all, drugs are banned at both the state and federal levels. You're right that the effect of what I'm saying would be to repeal (actually replace) the federal laws, but what's key is how you frame the discussion. The effect would not be to legalize, but to federalize.

Second, it wouldn't even end the federal-crime status in states where it's illegal. So it's not true that it would really decriminalize it. It would only give states control over whether it would be criminal or not. That's the point of making it a crime to own or transport drugs "in violation of the laws of the state" where it happens.

And I also agree it probably won't happen, but it's kind of too bad. If the GOP introduced that law tomorrow, it would put the President (and the Democratic party) in a very weird place.

I don't think you can have something be a federal crime in one state but not another. I could be wrong, but I doubt I am. Surely a federal law must apply to the whole country, and not just to the states who agree to go along with it? Isn't that what the Nullification Crisis was all about?

You'd have to get the feds out of the game all together, or limit it to whatever the analogous standard there is in situations like this. Say smuggling foie gras into California, or something. That would be really, really hard to do. There's only so much give-a-damn in public life, and a lot of it is going to be eaten up by the prospect of at least four more trillion dollar deficits.

"If the GOP introduced that law tomorrow, it would put the President (and the Democratic party) in a very weird place."

It would also put 4/5 of the Republican Party in a weird place. Boehner's good, but he's not that good.

No, Invictus, you are wrong. The nullification crisis was about a STATE deciding not to follow a federal law that was textually general in its application. The feds can write whatever they want, however.

For example, consider the federal law at issue in Stevens v. United States (which was overturned, but for other reasons). It made it a crime to record or sell videos of cruelty to animals _if that cruelty was illegal in the state where the recording or sale took place_. That means that, had any state decided to legalize dogfighting (say), then it would have been legal, both state and federally, to sell videos of dogfights in that state. But in another state, with anti-dogfighting laws, it would have been a _federal_ crime to sell or record such videos.

* (Note: in 2007, 8 years after the law in question was passed, it became a _federal_ crime to engage in dogfighting, but that doesn't bear on the issue in question).

The Nullification Crisis was about South Carolina threatening secession through the use of the Nullification Act due to high tariffs. They expected the South to follow them in toe, and they would have, but Andrew Jackson sent a message using the military which shot down any chance of that, and when the rest of the South bailed, South Carolina did too. They compromised later, saying that the tariffs would be gradually decreased.

bo_sox.... just.... wow.

Libertarianism is irrelevant. Its crushing defeat in the GOP primaries, despite the apparent rise of the "Tea Party", demonstrates its utter lack of popular support in America. Ron Paul supporters should be asking themselves why their candidate failed so spectacularly despite getting the most favorable media treatment of any candidate in the field. They shouldn't pretend that they succeeded when they failed.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/8106/ron-paul-s-2012-presidential-campaign-was-a-disaster

The same source of Tolstoy's obligatory whine-fest has this interesting commentary about RP's total disaster of a campaign.

^ Lots of factually incorrect statements (newslettergate, for instance, first popped up in 1998, not 2012) from someone who obviously doesn't know a whole lot about Ron Paul and doesn't like him in the first place. There are plenty of legitimate complaints with how Ron Paul's campaign was run this year (like a campaign manager who was more interested in ingratiating himself with party power-brokers than promoting Dr. Paul), but this hit piece completely missed the boat on all of them.

As for libertarianism being defeated, while the Republican Party as a whole lost seats in congress, the Republican Liberty Caucus gained a several. Paulists also took over several state GOPs. While Ron Paul was prevented by strong-arm tactics from winning any states in the presidential primary process, the message of liberty made some big gains this year. I'd also like to know what you're smoking when you claim that Dr. Paul got "the most favorable media treatment of any candidate in the field."

I'm smoking facts.

http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_press_1_18_12.html

Crybaby Paulistas hate facts. They must have this conspiratorial chip on their shoulder or they can't breathe.

In the technology world, there are several popular web browsers, including Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera and something awful called Chrome. There are also several minor players in the web browser world. My personal favorite is a browser called Links.

But there is one very small, very minor browser called Opera, and what's notable about Opera is not anything related to technology or performance. Rather, it's notable because their fans are pretty loud and always seem to be pretty ticked that no one is using their web browser. They usually attribute this to a conspiracy rather than to note the possibility that plenty of people have tried Opera, but that most of us don't really like it that much.

Is it possible with the Libertarian crowd that most of it's adherents tend to reject the fact that they're bit players?

http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/romney_report

Ron Paul enjoyed the most consistently positive portrayal of any candidate in the race. Paul had 11 weeks out of 15 in which the media attention paid to him was clearly more positive than negative. In all, 3% of Paul’s coverage scrutinized his personal background or public record, the lowest of any candidate in the primaries.

" (newslettergate, for instance, first popped up in 1998, not 2012)"

The article didn't say the story originated in 2012, he said it wasn't brought up until Ron Paul became relevant for a very short period of time, and of course RP was allowed to storm off the set without asking questions, when no other candidate would be let off the hook like that.

"but this hit piece completely missed the boat on all of them."

Thanks for your detailed rebuttal. You cling to the newsletter story and ignore RP's complete failure in the primaries (losing to none of the above in some of them) and complete failure to become the lead challenger to Romney despite everybody from Donald Trump to Hermain Cain having time in the sun.

"Republican Liberty Caucus gained a several. Paulists also took over several state GOPs"

This miniscule caucus barely endorsed anybody in the 2012 elections. One of the RLC members is Ted Cruz, an unhinged homophobic extremist. But I guess he qualifies as being "libertarian", since standards are so low.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/ted-cruz-texas-senate-conspiracy-theories

Another one of these "pro-liberty" folks is the Muslim hating Kerry Bentivolio, but I guess Muslim baiting is a-ok if you attach "liberty" to your name, in Tolstoy's book.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/109496/islamaphobia-surfaces-in-ugly-michigan-congressional-race

"How did Paul not have a fair shot at the nomination, dub?"

How about shutting down state and county conventions when it was obvious Ron Paul was going to win? How about cancelling the caucuses in Maine ONLY in counties where Ron Paul had strong support? How about all the missing ballot boxes in Iowa and other shenanigans, which resulted in the GOP state chair resigning? How about party hacks siccing the police on Ron Paul supporters at state conventions in Missouri and Louisiana and elsewhere? We could go on (and on).

"They have to assume there are twice as many RP supporters as actually voted for him in the primary, but that the other half did not vote in the primary because they're socially liberal and wouldn't want to identify as Republican."

Ron Paul actually polls worse among Republicans than he does with independents (and I believe Democrats as well). In 2008, a fair number of Paulists (Republican and otherwise) voted for McCain. Those same people did not vote for Romney this year. I talked a Ron Paul supporter (who knocked on my car window at a drive-through because he wanted to tell me he liked my RP bumper sticker) out of voting for Romney just the day before the election.

And the damage to Mitt Romney went beyond just lost votes from Ron Paul supporters. The Nevada (a swing state) GOP, for instance, was taken over by Paulists who were so ticked off by how they had been treated by the Old Guard that they refused to cooperate with Romney's campaign after he had secured the nomination. The Romney campaign had to create a shadow state party from scratch, which (beyond eating up lots of time, money, and energy) could never be as effective as the legitimate state GOP organization. Romney lost in Nevada. In Maine, the state GOP chair (who was not a Paulist) was so ticked off about the rigged Romney 'victory' in his state's caucuses that he refused to attend the national convention and I'm sure didn't do much to support Romney for the general election. I'm sure situations like this were repeated all across the country, with Republican volunteers - the people who actually make the phone calls and walk the precincts that are necessary to win elections - either not working on behalf of Romney because they are Paulists or not supporting Romney because they don't want to volunteer for a GOP org dominated by Paulists.

Also, Ron Paul so frightened the party establishment that the party hacks pushed through a lot of major bylaws changes at the national convention that would prevent an insurgent candidate like Dr. Paul from ever being allowed to win the nomination - no matter how popular (s)he might be - without the assent of the party bosses. This ticked off not just Paulists but a lot of mainline conservative value voters (think 'Santorum voters') - both categories constitute about 90% of the volunteer base for Republicans causes and candidates.

The war on Ron Paul within the Republican Party was extremely corrosive for the party as a whole. The loss of volunteers and organization (and to a much lesser extent, donors) had an extremely negative effect and certainly made a difference in close swing states like Florida. When you consider also that more than 10 million less votes were cast in 2012 than in 2008, this election was undeniably decided by people staying home instead of voting. Romney gave Paulists and freedom-lovers in general every reason to stay home.

"http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_press_1_18_12.html"

"We say Ron Paul got favorable coverage, therefore he got favorable coverage."

I notice that the only mention of a media person talking about Ron Paul in this press release has Krauthammer calling Paul "fatally flawed". That doesn't sound like a positive media mention to me.

"Ron Paul enjoyed the most consistently positive portrayal of any candidate in the race."

You're on crack. And so are the people who wrote this "study". Ron Paul was consistently portrayed as crazy, kooky, America-hating, and all kind of other negatives. And of course, he "had no chance to win" - even after an essentially three-way tie in Iowa and coming in second in New Hampshire. The only positive media he ever got was from Democrats who wanted to showcase how mean nasty and evil the GOP establishment was to him. Also, your two studies contradict each other on whether Romney received more positive than negative or more negative than positive coverage. I see no reason to take either of them seriously.