On 2012-01-11, at 2:21 PM, Alan Rudy wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 11, 2012, at 1:06 PM, Alan Rudy wrote:
>>
>>> You may be right about what Paul's talking about, Doug, but given the
>>> wider aggrieved rhetoric of Republicans, many self-styled independents
>> and
>>> a raft of Democrats it seems far more likely that Paul is _heard_ in
>>> Shag's/Patricia Rose's register than in the one towards which you've
>> nodded.
>>
>> That's not what the exit polls are showing. Paul gets a younger, less
>> well-off demographic. These are precisely the sorts who worry about
>> surveillance & incarceration.
Today's NYT exit poll which shag linked to, as well as at least one survey in Iowa suggest that Paul is more popular in percentage terms among liberals and independents than among Republicans:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/new-hampshire
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/12/28/poll_newsletters_not_hurting_paul_in_iowa.html
I expect that if Paul were to run as an independent, which I doubt, he'd have the same early attraction to liberal Democrats as did Nader, but they they would subsequently draw back when they realized, as in Nader's case, that he was unelectable. Of course, Nader had a much more compatible liberal program than Paul, and it was only panic that he would spoil Gore's chances of defeating Bush that Democrats turned so strongly against him. In Paul's case, liberals might conclude he would be a safe protest vote in that he would take away more votes from Romney than from Obama, and so would encourage his candidacy with who knows what result. Robert Naiman who posts here and on the Pen-L list is already in that camp.