nitePhyyre wrote:If the non-majority front-runner was LOVED by the people voting for him, I could see a problem. If the back room delegate candidate was hated, I could see a problem. Romney isn't loved though. And Paul isn't at the back of the pack because he is disliked. I just don't see people getting pissed off at losing the ability to ignore Paul. If Paul walks away with the nomination The reaction won't be "Fuck that guy, he's not the one I voted for", nor will it be "Fuck that guy, I hate him and everything he stands for." The reaction will be more "Paul? Who is that guy? Oh well, I'm sure he's still better than that ni##er in the white house."
It's not about how much they like their candidates, it's about how much they feel the candidates have earned the nomination. Paul has been consistently at the bottom of the pack in primaries, with only a handful of exceptions where he's done better than last or second last place. He has the least delegates, I'm 99% sure he has the least number of accumulated votes. He's the candidate that is least likely to win the nomination. People will get annoyed with seeing someone that they have consistently not chosen to be the nominee end up the nominee.
nitePhyyre wrote:Paul is more-or-less suffering under a media blackout. Once the MSM stops being able to sweep him under the rug, his numbers will go up.
That's not an accurate assessment of Paul's relation with the media at all. For most of the early parts of the campaign, they ignored him because he wasn't polling well (just like they did to Santorum, Gingrich, and Huntsman when they polled poorly). They didn't ignore him because he was Paul, or because of his positions, they ignored him because they didn't think anyone else gave a shit about him. When he started polling well, and the media wanted to cover him, he ignored them. Or walked out of interviews. His media problems are almost entirely self inflicted.
Pointing out that Romney, Santorum or Gingrich will have trouble beating Obama doesn't change that Paul would have an even more difficult time (except for Gingrich, anyway) than them.
lutzj wrote:There's a distinction between states overriding legitimate laws they don't like (the tariffs that sparked the Nullification Crisis under Andrew Jackson, for example) and states overriding laws that the federal government wasn't allowed to enact in the first place under the Constitution . Almost all states'-rights advocates since the Civil War have argued for the latter.
How do you ensure that only unconstitutional laws get nullified? If you've proven that the law is unconstitutional, then it should have been removed from books by the supreme court. If you haven't proven it, then you're left in a situation of just nullifying if because you think it's unconstitutional, which could very easily be shorthand for "We don't like this law".