186 votes

Post - Election Day Open Thread - Obama Wins; The Ron Paul Factor; Nullification in WA + CO;

Please contribute your news, observations and insights below:

Well everyone, this is IT! Election day. Did you vote? Was it crowded? What did you see / hear / observe? Please post your news, updates and insights below. If there is a specific issue you'd like to address, please feel free to start a new thread, but first check to see that it hasn't been posted already.

Thank you everyone, for everything.


Poll: Romney 49, Obama 48
Rasmussen has Romney at 49%, Obama trailing by 1, and 2% for everybody else (Libertarian, Green, etc.)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obam... h/t Drudge

Poll: Dead heat in battleground states
Politico/GW University poll shows 47% apiece for Romney and Obama in the battleground states. Interestingly, Romney grabs independents at 47 percent to 32 percent, a change from 2008 when Obama was strong with independents.

A failure to break 50% usually means trouble for the incumbent, but this race could go any which way.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83380.html h/t Drudge

First Results from NH: Tie
Continuing with the tie theme, the first results from the first town to vote in NH, Dixville-Notch: President Obama 5, Gov. Romney, Virgil Goode 0, Gary Johnson 0.

This is the first time that Dixville-Notch has voted a tie; is this a harbinger of things to come?


Third Parties: A Waste of Time?
Libertarian professor Randy Barnett says in the WSJ that third parties are a waste in the first-past-the-post system. Rather, libertarians should work to move the two existing parties toward liberty views.

Meanwhile, the Libertarian and Constitution parties have earned enough votes in past elections in Missouri to register candidates on par with the GOP and the Democrats. Third-party votes could reach 6% in Missouri this year.

What effect do you think third-party votes have on the election(s) this year?

Ron Paul: Best-Of Compilation
Here's best-of compilation of Ron Paul videos as we face this election that doesn't feature him on even a Congressional ballot for the first time in a long time: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL712F9B27550BCB07

Obama Predicted to Win Ohio
CBS News is predicting Obama will win Ohio. Without Ohio, it makes it very difficult for Romney to win.

Obama Wins Battleground States
NBC News reports Obama winning in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa. The GOP failed to take over the Senate, with a 50-50 tie being broken by Vice President Joe Biden.

Third Parties Poll 1.5%, Could Decide Election
Third parties are polling 1.5% in Ohio, and could decide the election. Caveat: Johnson is polling 0.9%. Added to Romney's 48.6%, it still doesn't match Obama's 49.8%.

Liberty Candidate Kerry Bentivolio Wins in Michigan
Preliminary results put Bentivolio (R, MI) US House candidate over the top.

Ron Paul Republican Justin Amash Stays
Liberty Republican Justin Amash keeps his US house seat in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Anti-Obamacare Propositions Mostly Pass
Thinkprogress whines about anti-Obamacare propositions on the ballot on Election Day: "Wyoming’s Amendment A, Florida’s Amendment 1, Alabama’s Amendment 6, and Montana’s Measure LR-122 would all prohibit state residents and employers from being forced to purchase insurance or participate in any externally-imposed health care system.

In Missouri, Proposition E seeks to prevent the state from instituting its own health insurance exchange."

Wyoming Amendment A passes
Ballotopedia link

Florida Amendment 1 fails to get 60%, getting only 48%
Ballotopeida link

Alabama Amendment 6 passes
Ballotopedia link

Montana Measure LR-122 passes 176,456 for and 92,020 against
Ballotopedia link

Missouri Proposition E passes with 62%
Ballotopedia link

Ron Paul NH Chairman Andy Sanburn Wins
Andy Sanburn (R) wins another term to the NH Senate. He scraped past Lee Nyquist with 15,435 votes to Nyquist's 15,225, requiring a recount. Sanburn has been a key liberty ally in the first primary state.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Not happy about Obama winning - we will all suffer

BUT - very glad that if you look at the several states - Romney lost by fewer votes than RP received in the primaries. Since we know 99% of those RP votes weren't going to Romney - it is bitter sweet to know he lost for turning his back on us.

FL- Romney losing by about 50,000 RP primary votes: 150,000
OH - Romney lost by 100,000 RP Primary votes: 100,000
VA - Romney lost by 110,000 RP primary votes: 110,000

I would imagine NH(how the heck did Obama win here either way), Iowa and a few others tell the same tale.
Consider that a portion of those RP votes actually voted Obama and these were easy wins if only the GOP - well - wasn't the GOP.

They will not come out and say it - but these are numbers geeks - they see the folly now and I hope it hurts.

The 99%

"99% of those RP votes weren't going to Romney"

This just isn't true. DP people and those who worked for RP's campaign surely, but we do not amount to half the votes RP got in the primary. Many of those who voted for RP went to Romney or (to a lesser extent) Obama in the general.

Big fact we all need to recognize going forward: There are many more people out there who merely support many of the policies Ron Paul advocates than actually buy into the philosophy of liberty. This majority will only vote in the general election for a liberty candidate they think can win. They are not going to log a protest vote so long as they can still discern a "lesser" of the two evil choices.

It is not inevitable

that a non Demopublican vote be merely a
protest vote.

WRT the presidential election, there is nothing
to stop individual states from awarding elector
positions on a proportional basis, for example.
That would change the dynamic a lot.

As far as that goes, there is no legal obstacle
I'm aware of to states adopting some kind of
proportional representation, which would give
minor parties a direct role in governing.

Not easy to achieve, but in states where there
the initiative system exists and where there
are large numbers of independent voters
it should be possible to get measure on the
ballot for 2014 - if they pass, then the would be
in place for 2016.

I still think the liberty vote for Johnson/Stein/
Goode/Obama/Ron Paul write-ins and non-vote
of people who otherwise would have voted
Republican but declined to vote for Romney
probably accounted for Obama's EC margin.

Would have been nice if Obama had been held to
under 50% of the popular vote, but ...

Or, they didn't bother voting

Or, they didn't bother voting this time around.

Stop gloating people. Do you

Stop gloating people. Do you really want to take credit for re electing one of the worst presidents in our history? There will be blow back from this as well. Heed my words.

We as a people would have

We as a people would have lost either way. If Romney would have won then the liberty movement would have an almost impossible task come next primary due to the rules the Romney camp installed. I think although we have to walk though 4 years of hell we will have a better chance at a far greater reward in 2016.

I completely agree...4 years

I completely agree...4 years or 8? I realize that we now have a chance to pick up the pieces in 16 but there should be no celebration. We all lose. But I'd rather not take credit when this thing tanks. Let the blood be on the hands of the RNC.

each president is worse than the one before

so Romney would have been worse than Obama. Each president keeps the powers appropriated by his predecessor and adds new ones.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

I think we deserve one

I think we deserve one day.


Yes and no

There would be blow back no matter who won. I think most people on here agree that it will be more obvious now. If Romney had won there would have been a false perception that would have lasted longer than four years.

That being said - you are correct - worst president in history - and he is only getting started.

I'm just saying...we lose

I'm just saying...we lose either way.

True that

true that.

Any new Constitutional Sheriffs?

Any reports of new Constitutional Sheriffs elected anywhere? I want to know where to move?

Don't come to St Charles

Don't come to St Charles County, MO. We just lost our Sheriff dept.


This imposter is NOT my president

The great imposter is NOT my president, he NEVER was, nor EVER will be!

Ron Paul is my president!

" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

American Presidential Election

$ 1 billion dollars
Bill O'Reilly's exploding head- PRICELESS!

Romney got DESTROYED

by Obama. Should have picked RON PAUL!

ATTN: Delusional trolls that think the GOP will reform anew

Please go somewhere else.

If you intend to spend your time and energy trying to reform the "wife-beater" GOP, then please go elsewhere.

There is serious business to take care of for 2016 and it doesn't involve the GOP or Republican Party.

That party is OVER!

Anyone that wants to stick with it deserves to be with it and dwindle in its infighting, dishonesty and eventual collapse.


It seems to me

It seems to me that the best path forward...is ALL OF THEM.

Attn : Save Resources ...

+1, for = "serious business to take care ~ ~"....

yes, let's start a new party,

yes, let's start a new party, a party "libertarian" in nature. that is sure to go over well.

You are kidding me. The GOP

You are kidding me. The GOP is about to self implode. Why would you want to leave now?


Lets start the Liberty Party! Or even better, why don't we hold a compitition for a party name and logo. Why not this: let's take Jefferson's advice and not have a party, and just hold a money bomb, raise money, and have it prepared for all future liberty candidates, including president. We can try to get people like Tom Woods to run for president.

mittens obama-lite romney, NOT a very popular governor.

it looks like mittens was not very popular as governor. only 37.5% of massachusetts voted for him today. i guess living with his policies is not something they want to experience again.


Taking credit for everything

Watching the Romney/Kennedy debate is essential to understanding the psychosis of this man and his deliberate willingness to take any side, to ford any river, to enhance any position, to change any equation, all to get elected.

Willard Romney took credit for every success going on in Massachusetts, all the while claiming government can't do anything for the general welfare of the people that a business can't. This hypocrisy of his knew no limitation.

Coming from a northeast state myself, I think one of the main things that lost him in Massachusetts was claiming, during the debates with Ted Kennedy, that he was pro-choice, would protect Roe v. Wade, for an aggressive expansion of the school system, etc. Essentially, he said and did everything that liberal democrats and left-leaning Republicans in that state wanted to hear.

In reality, once he did reach governor of Massachusetts, he angered the legislature so much, that both sides of the aisle overrode his vetoes on more than one occasion. This included refusing to increase salaries for state teachers even while the state was ranked the top in education. Fast forward to the presidential debates, and he was claiming he was responsible for the best education system in the country. As part of his spending cut program, which was reasonably successful, he also attempted to cut entitlements in the state that most of his constituents, including conservatives, had grown accustomed to. Since not every state operates the same way, reasonably, and since some prefer more government subsidized controls than others, people were reasonably horrified to see Governor Romney proposing measures to eliminate programs that were reasonably effective in that state and took decades to implement.

Mindful that what works in Massachusetts would not necessarily work, in say, Texas, Romney gained a reputation for his Romneycare system, that was simply a step forward from efforts made by previous state governors and the state legislature. As Romney wrote in his novelization of events, this system was suitable enough to be enacted on a national level. He did, in fact, change the content of his book, to placate the national Republican base during the primaries. This is not a hogwash conspiracy theory, but the plain old truth, as many readers still owned copy of the original book.

It is not easy to be a conservative governor in a traditionally liberal state, but it is even harder to pass off a record of success that doesn't exist when running for president after serving in that state. Thus, any success he had as governor came from running a liberal agenda in the state. This, again, reiterates my point that Romney lost to his own record. At some point near the end of his governorship, he was vetted by the GOP to run for national office. I note that Deval Patrick, a Democrat, is currently the governor of the state.

It is unlikely that incumbent Romney would have won re-election after his vetoes had been repeatedly overturned by the legislature, and as his governance record there became increasingly criticized. Indeed, late into his term in office, the same criticisms he faced on the national stage polarized him locally in Massachusetts, and he had privately enraged most of the Republicans in the state government by that time, whose constituents had just about had it.

Remember, Romney did run to the LEFT of Ted Kennedy on a number of issues for the state governorship. Ultimately, this is saying a lot about Romney's lack of character or principle. For most of us, it would be torturous to hold office, implementing ideas that we did not necessarily believe in, but this is assuming that we have core beliefs. I am still not sure that Romney has ANY. Flashback to his debate against Kennedy, and you will see what I am talking about.

During the primaries, Romney claimed he wanted to OUTLAW ABORTION. Meanwhile, during the debates with Kennedy, he claimed that he SWORE TO HIS OWN MOTHER that he would uphold Roe v. Wade. That kind of change is PSYCHOTIC in an adult male.

I will not even go into his issues whereas blacks were not allowed into the Mormon church while he was a GROWN, ADULT participant of the church. In fact, he became a Bishop of the church. When confronted on the issue, he claim he remembered when the church was desegregated. He claims he was driving alone, in his car (as a multi-millionaire... hmm), and heard the news on the radio. He pulled over to the side of the road and wept, because he knew the church had done the right thing.

This is a man whose lies were so severe, that I truly fear that had he defeated Obama, the country would actually be in great turmoil within a short number of years, far more than we have seen in a long time. It is obvious he was going to allow Israel to unilaterally, or with American support, launch an attack on Iran. This is without even looking at the national security situation or having security clearance. In his religion, the destruction of Israel, as well as part of the United States, would be in fulfillment of scripture.

When you start to look at where this was leading with Romney, it was a dark and quite creepy place. For all his money, the man is a liar and his record on job outsourcing is also quite dubious. I suspect we would have done much better with Presidential candidate Paul at the helm. There is no doubt in my mind that he would have given Obama a run for his money, and if elected, we would be in a much better place.

For more reference, you should go look at what TMOT, a well-known Paul supporter, has had to say about Romney. I couldn't agree with the man more.

One would think Dr. Paul

One would think Dr. Paul would have won...only if the rest of the GOP would have backed him. Reality is that the old dogs of the GOP did not want him and rejected him and his supporters. They money would have stopped coming in and they probably would have voted for Obama just to sabatouge our movement.

The reality is that we have to hit bottom...only then will the people beg for a leader like Dr. Paul. We are a country that lives in hind sight.

exactly. why would a

exactly. why would a multimillionaire seek the presidency?

power and narcissism.

There are more important things than the presidency

Hopefully this move sent a CLEAR SIGNAL to Senate Democrats and House Republicans to STOP PLAYING POLITICS with our nation's future. We have some serious issues including:

The loss of jobs, the outsourcing of jobs, the economic situation, an out of control Fed, etc.

Guns and Butter issues. Pick your poison, but this President will preserve the status quo for things like abortion, which become major focal points during the election, driving people at each others throats every four years, and then the next day, everybody forgets about it and goes back to their daily business. Let's see if we can get beyond GAY MARRIAGE, ABORTION, HEALTHCARE, and start talking about BALANCING THE BUDGET. After all, half of the issues I just mentioned above are things the American people DON'T NECESSARILY CARE ABOUT. I do not know anyone in my family HAVING AN ABORTION, ENGAGING IN GAY MARRIAGE OR BEING PREVENTED FROM DOING SO, or TRYING TO ACQUIRE GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED HEALTHCARE. Although, the latter may actually be an important issue once IMPLEMENTED. It seems most Americans do favor a healthcare OVERHAUL. The exact IMPLEMENTATION needs to be refined. However, if the HOUSE REPUBLICANS continue to remain in STAUNCH OPPOSITION to any type of reform, even as we pay more money per capita than any nation on earth on government subsidized healthcare under PRE-OBAMACARE law, it is time to start arguing about it and start WORKING ACROSS THE AISLE.

LIBERTY MOVEMENT: Obviously, people have caught wind that the money makers on Wall St. have a HIDDEN SECRET UP THEIR SLEEVE. This secret is NOT THE FREE MARKET, but their CONTROL OF A CENTRALLY PLANNED ECONOMY UNDER THE FEDERAL RESERVE. It will become more apparent, as QE3 is a PERMANENT solution from the Fed, so that they do not have to suffer the lasting embarrassment of QE4. Essentially, the government is, on a permanent basis, lending around 100 BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH to the top central banks, which are likely MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD ANYWAY.

If this campaign taught us one thing it is that:

Americans are still concerned about CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS. They identify with the DEMOCRATS for that reason, and not the Republicans.

Americans will CONTINUE TO ELECT THE ANTI-WAR CANDIDATE, as Obama pledged to remove all troops from Afghanistan by 2014, while Romney/Ryan tried to fuddle with the dates during the debate.

Americans are SICK AND TIRED of a corrupt political process. It may actually be a GOOD THING there is NO INCUMBENT in 4 years.



I was with you there

right up to the Rand Paul part.

Agree, in general, though...

Ran across an interesting forum ...

I found a thread on a forum from the year 2000. Looks like nobody has posted there in 12 years. I have no idea what the website is about, but the thread itself is "Why do libertarians do poorly in general elections?"

Again ... this is from the year 2000. This is a particularly interesting dicussion because many non-libertarians, even anti-libertarians, weigh in on the discussion but there is very little bashing. There are some very good insights on why libertarians (they are specifically talking about the Libertarian Party) do poorly in elections -- and this would, of course, include Ron Paul's 1988 run as the LP presidential candidate.

With the hindsight of 12 years later, it is interesting to reflect that we have the EXACT same problems today.

What's that old saying about repeating the same thing over and over ...


Might be worth a read.