What Is Wrong with Purism?

[Capitalist Pig]

Not abandoned, just a long vacation.

I agree there will probably be more and more people who grow disenchanted with the two-party politics in America, it's just whether or not they are motivated enough to go to the voting booths. Along with the growing resentment for the major parties, comes a general sense of apathy toward the whole process.

Like Badnarik, Paul will come and go. Paul is probably lucky he's in Congress.

Quote by: Autolykos I read an article just now which states that "purist" candidates, such as Ron Paul, simply don't get elected. I'd like to understand why. Doesn't purism suggest consistency and integrity? What about honesty? Or do people, by and large, prefer candidates who make them feel good, without really meaning what they say? After all this time, have people learned nothing? Please help me to understand this. - Rob

I actually run political campaigns from time to time. Perhaps my opinions have some merit.

The fact is that most voters pay very little attention to who is running, notwithstanding what they tell pollsters. I doubt if the average voter devotes more than an hour to deciding who they will vote for. When they do decide, the overwhelming influence is the party of their parents. In your country, people raised in Democratic families tend to vote Democratic. Voters from Republican families tend to vote Republican. Which is one of the reason why a candidate not affiliated with an established political party, like Ron Paul, has almost no chance to win. All campaigns are based on influencing the minority of people whose votes are not predetermined by their families' voting history.

Ron Paul can't win because in the U.S. there are 55 million registered Republicans and about 72 million registered Democrats. 42 million are registered as independents and most of them lean either Democratic or Republican. The pool of voters that Ron Paul might conceivably draw from is likely less than 2 million. He can't win.

Regards
S.

[Osborn F Enready]

SDBest said: Ron Paul can't win because in the U.S. there are 55 million registered Republicans and about 72 million registered Democrats. 42 million are registered as independents and most of them lean either Democratic or Republican. The pool of voters that Ron Paul might conceivably draw from is likely less than 2 million. He can't win.

I would love to see how you arrive at that 2 million number if you can show me?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I would love to see how you arrive at that 2 million number if you can show me?

I'm basing it on my experience in election campaigns in the U.S., Canada, the United Kingdom and other countries of the EU over the last 25 years.

If you'd like to me do a comprehensive voting history analysis for you, I'd be please to send you a quote after you've sent me a $5,000 "good faith" retainer. However, it will likely show that there are about 2 million "swing" voters in the U.S. who usually decide elections.

Regards
S.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: sdbest I actually run political campaigns from time to time. Perhaps my opinions have some merit.

Perhaps.

The fact is that most voters pay very little attention to who is running, notwithstanding what they tell pollsters. I doubt if the average voter devotes more than an hour to deciding who they will vote for. When they do decide, the overwhelming influence is the party of their parents. In your country, people raised in Democratic families tend to vote Democratic. Voters from Republican families tend to vote Republican. Which is one of the reason why a candidate not affiliated with an established political party, like Ron Paul, has almost no chance to win. All campaigns are based on influencing the minority of people whose votes are not predetermined by their families' voting history.

Thanks. Now I need citations to empirical studies which have borne this out. Or are you simply making broad generalizations based on your "experience"?

Ron Paul can't win because in the U.S. there are 55 million registered Republicans and about 72 million registered Democrats. 42 million are registered as independents and most of them lean either Democratic or Republican. The pool of voters that Ron Paul might conceivably draw from is likely less than 2 million. He can't win.

Quite an absolutist statement you're making, there. I hope that your desire for him not to win is not interfering with your ability to make objective statements.

In case you haven't noticed, Ron Paul is running as a Republican. That suggests to me that he's quite aware of the voter-registration situation in the United States. So perhaps that is a rather moot point.

- Rob

[Autolykos]

Quote by: sdbest I'm basing it on my experience in election campaigns in the U.S., Canada, the United Kingdom and other countries of the EU over the last 25 years. If you'd like to me do a comprehensive voting history analysis for you, I'd be please to send you a quote after you've sent me a $5,000 "good faith" retainer. However, it will likely show that there are about 2 million "swing" voters in the U.S. who usually decide elections.

Forgive us if we do not take your pronouncements as true on faith alone.

- Rob

Quote by: Autolykos Thanks. Now I need citations to empirical studies which have borne this out. Or are you simply making broad generalizations based on your "experience"?

Based on my experience in politics--which is extensive and one of my fields of expertise that people pay me for--I offered you some insights, which, in good faith, I though you might find helpful.

Reject them, if you will. And reject the good faith in which I offered them. I'm not about to put together a research paper for you, particularly when you could do the research yourself if the question you posed is of any real interest to you. If my refusal to provide you with "citations to empirical studies" causes you to reject my expert opinion, it's of no consequence to me. Choose to remain ignorant of electoral realities if you will.

As for Ron Paul, I have no material interest in whether he wins or loses. Moreover, with the exception of my good faith response to your question, I don't recall ever commenting on him or his campaign. For you to suggest otherwise is a deliberate mischaracterization. Why you would make it, eludes me.

At any rate, Ron Paul will not win--of that I'm sure. And when he loses--or drops out of the race--you can manufacture whatever reasons you want for that loss. No doubt you'll personally exert the energy and time to do the necessary research to support your reasoning.

Regards
S.

[Autolykos]

Looks like I struck a nerve there.

- Rob

Quote by: Autolykos Forgive us if we do not take your pronouncements as true on faith alone. - Rob

Clearly, you'll not become one of my clients any time soon. Next time you pose a question, I'll assume that it's disingenuous and act accordingly.

Regards
S.

[Autolykos]

Thanks for the advance warning.

- Rob

Quote by: Autolykos Looks like I struck a nerve there. - Rob

Acting in bad faith, and deliberate, malicious, personal mischaracterizations often do--and should.

Regards
S.

[Autolykos]

It was not malicious. But if you took it as such, so be it. I cannot control your reactions.

Based on your comments elsewhere on this forum, it would appear to me that you would strongly desire for Ron Paul to lose. His ideas seem to be nearly antithetical to yours. Am I missing anything here?

- Rob

Quote by: Autolykos It was not malicious. But if you took it as such, so be it. I cannot control your reactions. Based on your comments elsewhere on this forum, it would appear to me that you would strongly desire for Ron Paul to lose. His ideas seem to be nearly antithetical to yours. Am I missing anything here? - Rob

I have no interest in Ron Paul, and have no idea what his polices are, and I don't even want to know.

You posed a question about whether or not a "purist" might be elected, and posed some notions of yours. I responded with a technical answer based on the many hundreds of campaigns in which I've been involved. You apparently don't agree with--or don't accept on "faith"--my evaluation on Ron Paul's--or any other candidate who is not the nominee of the major parties--chances of winning.

The bottom line is that I provided you with some thoughts based on my experience about how elections are decided, and why a candidate like Ron Paul can't win in the U.S. unless there is some catastrophic political upheaval. It has nothing to do with Ron Paul's policies.

You have frequently taken exception to people making assumptions about your positions on various issues. You might consider not making assumptions about the views of others.


Regards
S.

[Osborn F Enready]

Rob, have you hugged a socialist today?



Me neither.......

[Autolykos]

Quote by: sdbest I have no interest in Ron Paul, and have no idea what his polices are, and I don't even want to know.

In that case, why would anyone trust you to make judgements about him? For example, you seem to have been unaware that he is a major-party candidate (Republican).

You posed a question about whether or not a "purist" might be elected, and posed some notions of yours. I responded with a technical answer based on the many hundreds of campaigns in which I've been involved.

You call that a "technical answer"? Sorry, but I must disagree.

You apparently don't agree with--or don't accept on "faith"--my evaluation on Ron Paul's--or any other candidate who is not the nominee of the major parties--chances of winning.

FYI, there have been no nominations yet. That is what Mr. Paul is currently seeking.

The bottom line is that I provided you with some thoughts based on my experience about how elections are decided, and why a candidate like Ron Paul can't win in the U.S. unless there is some catastrophic political upheaval. It has nothing to do with Ron Paul's policies.

Actually, given that Mr. Paul is a major-party candidate seeking his party's presidential nomination, I'd say that it has everything to do with Ron Paul's policies.

You have frequently taken exception to people making assumptions about your positions on various issues. You might consider not making assumptions about the views of others.

Fair enough. If I have made incorrect assumptions about your views, I wil be happy to stand corrected. No disingenuity there, I promise.

- Rob

Quote by: Autolykos In that case, why would anyone trust you to make judgements about him? Actually, given that Mr. Paul is a major-party candidate seeking his party's presidential nomination, I'd say that it has everything to do with Ron Paul's policies.

Well, Autolykos, now that you've judged that my views about Ron Paul's chances of winning the U.S. Presidency are hog wash or, at least, not worthy of "trust" perhaps, you can tell me why you think Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination and the U.S. Presidency. I'm guilty of assuming that's your position based on your screed against my technical response to your initial post.

If you don't think Ron Paul will win either the Republican nomination or the Presidency perhaps you can tell us why. If you can provide citations, they would be welcome.

If you have little knowledge or expertise on these matters, on what basis do you judge the value of my or any other response to your initial post?

And lastly, are only the views of champions of Ron Paul worthy of your consideration?

Regards
S.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: sdbest Well, Autolykos, now that you've judged that my views about Ron Paul's chances of winning the U.S. Presidency are hog wash or, at least, not worthy of "trust" perhaps, you can tell me why you think Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination and the U.S. Presidency.

I'm not sure if Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination or the U.S. Presidency. Did I say otherwise somewhere? If so, please point it out.

I'm guilty of assuming that's your position based on your screed against my technical response to your initial post.

I suggest you consider your own advice about making assumptions. Also, am I incorrect in claiming that your use of the word "screed" is nothing more than condescension?

If you don't think Ron Paul will win either the Republican nomination or the Presidency perhaps you can tell us why. If you can provide citations, they would be welcome.

Many people still believe in government. That's why Ron Paul may well not win either the Republican nomination or the Presidency.

If you have little knowledge or expertise on these matters, on what basis do you judge the value of my or any other response to your initial post?

I feel that I do have knowledge and expertise on these matters.

And lastly, are only the views of champions of Ron Paul worthy of your consideration?

No. Keep in mind, also, that I wasn't talking about only Ron Paul in the OP. I was talking about any purist candidate, i.e. a candidate whose platform derives from a set of first principles.

- Rob

Quote by: Autolykos That's why Ron Paul may well not win either the Republican nomination or the Presidency.

Then we are in agreement.

Quote by: Autolykos I feel that I do have knowledge and expertise on these matters.

Only "feel"?

Quote by: Autolykos No. Keep in mind, also, that I wasn't talking about only Ron Paul in the OP. I was talking about any purist candidate, i.e. a candidate whose platform derives from a set of first principles. - Rob

Just as I wasn't only speaking about Ron Paul, but more generally.

BTW, all candidates speak from a set of first principles--even if those first principles are their own selfish ambitions. Perhaps you might want to clarify what you mean by "set of first principles."

Regards
S.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: sdbest Then we are in agreement.

I see. You seemed to be making a different argument from mine.

Only "feel"?

Yes.

Just as I wasn't only speaking about Ron Paul, but more generally.

Fair enough, then. It seemed otherwise to me.

BTW, all candidates speak from a set of first principles--even if those first principles are their own selfish ambitions. Perhaps you might want to clarify what you mean by "set of first principles."

I was afraid that you would bring this up.

Let me try to clarify. By "set of first principles" I mean principles that are logically consistent and apply to all people at all times (i.e., universal). If you need more clarification, please just ask -- and I mean that honestly.

- Rob

Quote by: Autolykos I was afraid that you would bring this up. Let me try to clarify. By "set of first principles" I mean principles that are logically consistent and apply to all people at all times (i.e., universal). If you need more clarification, please just ask -- and I mean that honestly. - Rob

I think that this might be the topic of another thread. Speaking honestly, too, I'm not sure that--as attractive as the notion may be to some--that there are sets of first principles that can apply to all peoples at all times. Perhaps there are some base principles (do unto others as you'd have them do unto you, brush your teeth after every meal), but as social, political, and economic complexity increases or decreases and as the availability of resources wax and wane I'm not so sure. Universal set of first principles, all peoples, all times, hmmm?

Regards
S.