Ron Paul vs. the Tea Party – 2012 Republican Primary Exit Poll Analysis
You can learn a lot digging beneath the surface of data. Ron Paul finished 4th out of 4 (aka, last) in the South Carolina Primary today, but there is more to the story. First, I need to credit and thank the New York Times for all these tables and data. It’s awesome that this type of detailed info is even available. The results shown in this post are from New Hampshire exit polls, but the data is consistent from the other 2 primaries so far.
The first thing you’ll notice is that Paul captures a commanding majority of younger voters. Possible conclusions: 1) RP’s campaign methods (internet/social media focused) target (intentionally or unintentionally) younger people, 2) RP’s policies appeal to younger voters, 3) RP’s results can be extrapolated to indicate that the future looks bright for the libertarian philosophy. I’m confident that #1 is true, reasonably convinced of #2, and hopeful about #3.
Next, I’d like to dispel a common misconception, that Tea-Baggers and RP supporters are the same group.
Here we can clearly see that the Tea Party has the Republican Party divided, but not over Ron Paul. In fact, Tea-Baggers support Romney, and the anti-Tea-Baggers supported Huntsman. Hold this thought until we look at the data that comes next: The Tea-Party fad has been often characterized as not having a policy or objective other than being against the current establishment. In other words, they can easier be defined by what they are angry about (everything) than what they stand for.
Taking a look at the next result, we can see that voters who selected Romney did so because they believe he has the best chance to take down Obama, which is consistent with the Tea Party having many complaints but few solutions. On the contrary, Paul’s supporters know what he represents, his libertarian philosophy and his integrity.
Going a level deeper, we can see that Romney won on sizzle, whereas Paul only has substance.
The picture becomes quite clear. Romney won the State of New Hampshire for the wrong reasons – not for his ideas, or because he stands for something, but because voters mistakenly believe he can take down Obama. But the fact is that Obama still remains more intelligent, inspires more confidence, and has a much stronger hold on the middle (in many ways, he has behaved like a moderate conservative). Romney doesn’t stand a chance.
So who does stand a chance? For one, Ron Paul doesn’t, because he’ll never win the Republican nomination. But there is indication his campaign tactics are working, so his ideas could continue to spread. RP has been focused on registering voters for the primary, bringing independents and new voters into the Republican primary for the first time. The table below indicates it could be working, albeit not to a great enough degree.
As always, it’s shades of gray. I’m left with a bit of disdain for the intelligence of mankind, but some hope for the future as well.
Thanks again to the New York Times for the data. I particularly like the delegate tracker, as it displays a lot of info in a simple & clean format. I encourage you to check it out.
“Tea-Baggers”??? Spoken like a true Douchebagger. Hate to burst your bubble, sweetpea, but the reason Ron Paul will never get the nomination is because he and his followers are as nutty as a squirrel turd.
http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/message-to-ron-paul-and-the-paulbots-youre-as-nutty-as-a-squirrel-turd/
http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/ex-ron-paul-aide-pauls-foreign-policy-is-sheer-lunacy/
The Tea Party was formed by American citizens who are fed up with big government intrusion and want a return to the principles outlined in the Constitution. That’s what we stand for.
Cheers,
SFC MAC
22 January 2012 at 7:49 am
Haha. Thanks for the reply. I agree most of Ron Paul’s followers are nuts. In fact, most people are nuts, so this is pretty much a given, in my opinion.
Burst my bubble? What bubble? If you read my post, I state pretty clearly that Paul will never get nominated. He is not really a Republican ,so (as you indicate in your blog) it will never happen.
As for the antisemitism charge, I’m part Jewish, so let me be the judge of that. I don’t think the accusations are valid.
Anyway, as you describe what the Tea Party is for, it sounds more like Ron Paul’s philosophy than any of the other candidates. I’m curious to hear who you support and how you believe they align with your views.
22 January 2012 at 12:57 pm
Pingback: Religion becoming a divisive issue in the Republican primary « The Proteus Experiment
The top priorities of the Tea Party are the U.S. Constitution, less government, and the economic and national security of the United States. Paul’s lunatic fringe theories and philosophy disqualify him as a viable candidate to lead a Democratic Republic. You’ve latched onto a bona fide nutjob who is anti-semitic, blames America for 9/11, claimed that the Oklahoma City bombing was “an inside job”, has a collection of crazy conspiracy theories, and has loony foreign policy ideas.
Trying to draw a correlation between Paul’s insanity and Tea Party philosophy is just plain stupid.I suggest you READ the link: http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/message-to-ron-paul-and-the-paulbots-youre-as-nutty-as-a-squirrel-turd/ and focus on a more viable and more sane candidate.
SFC MAC
27 January 2012 at 6:02 am
sfc mac, who is the “more viable and sane” candidate your recommend?
As for your assertion that thinking the Tea party and Paul have a connection is stupid, you’re way off the mark. This may be the case today, but the TP has picked up a lot of RP’s ideas and made them their own. Today the differences are much more complex, as the TP has morphed (been hijacked?) into something very different from what it was at the start. From an outsider’s perspective (e.g., liberal media outlets), RP and the TP are basically the same. This is of course, very blunt, but to them it’s still similar enough that the distinction isn’t always worth the effort… personally, I always cringe when I hear RP and the Tea Party mentioned as being connected, because I think the TP dilutes and confuses what RP stands for.
I agree with the article I linked to for you that it is strange that the TP is not attacking RP on his positions, but on his character. Is it because you realize that attacking his positions will only serve to expose the flaws in your ideas and expose YOU as the one who is racist? Wait, it’s no secret that you are a racist from your blog, so I guess you’re not concerned about being exposed on that. And as for the flaws in your ideas, do you realize that being for a much larger military, for more security (via racist profiling, violations of civil liberties) is directly at odds with being for less government (I assume this means you want either more freedom or lower taxes – both at odds with the militarist state you propose) and for the constitution (which I assume means you believe in the rights of each man or woman, you believe in some personal freedom and protection from intrusion from our own government – which is basically at odds with your TP views on ‘security’). How do you reconcile your inconsistent beliefs?
27 January 2012 at 8:55 pm
Another link for you to consider:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/165323/why-ron-paul-not-tea-party-candidate
In your infinite wisdom, I’m sure you won’t benefit from it, but you it’ll help you think up a few more names for Paul or the author of that post maybe.
27 January 2012 at 9:13 pm