So I know a Ron Paul supporter and he makes this argument.
Don’t worry about the crazy stuff that Ron Paul talks about because we are electing a president not a king, he would never have the political support to get that stuff done but his good ideas would have the benefit of a bully pulpit. We could be living in libertopia by 2015.
So I said, he could never win the nomination of either party.
Au contraire he says. Paul is going to be top three along with Newt and Mitt in Iowa and New Hampshire. He is within one point of the Newt in both Iowa and New Hampshire placing him second and third respectively. There seems to be a concerted effort by the establishment Republican party to marginalize Newt (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/285787/winnowing-field-editors) and Ron Paul has been the subject of republican establishment marginalization since jump street.
He has a dedicated and passionate following and has picked up more from the tea party movement. People might think some of his ideas are too radical but they seem to think he is sincere in his beliefs (especially compared to someone like Newt or Mitt). If newt and mitt keep beating each other up, Ron paul might take Iowa and that might propel him to wins in other primary states where he is currently polling very competitively.
Noone took him seriously a few months ago and even now they think that he will only do well in the early primary states (WTF?) but that will give him a voice at the convention. But noone seems to think he will even have enough influence to get the second seat.
I think I am now convinced that Ron Paul might do reasonably well in the primary.
I think Ron Paul could do reasonably well simply because the clown parade is driving so many voters to vote for whichever candidate annoys the party establishment the most.
You can win the Iowa Caucus with a few hundred votes. It takes something like sixty million votes to get elected President. So if neither the Republicans or the Democrats want Ron Paul to be President, where does he see those necessary votes coming from? Let’s face reality, at some point you’ve got to convince the members of one of the two main parties to support you.
We’ve done this a million times and the answer is always the same.
Paul has a small cadre of enthusiastic supporters. The problem is that those not with him are actively hostile. People like a few libertarian policies but shy away as soon as the whole agenda is presented.
He has 0% chance of a nomination. This has not changed at any time in the campaign. Being consistently third in primaries translates into nothingness except as a none of the above vote.
There is Mitt Romney and the current right-wing not Romney flavor of the month. Nobody else counts. And the not-Romney flavor of the month doesn’t count either, although it allows reporters to fill time by broadcasting the illusion of a horse race.
You have the exact same chance of winning the nomination as Ron Paul. So do I. But so does your friend. Maybe that will give him some consolation when the results are announced.
A Ron Paul pregnancy is much likelier than a Ron Paul nomination. He’s batshit crazy and a racist old coot to boot. His supporters are naive and deluded, however enthusiastic they may be.
Naive in believing for a moment the notion that we can take a post-industrial society and govern it like it was an 18th century agricultural state. Naive in believing Paul’s whacko conspiracy theories about the Fed. Naive in believing that a man who opposed the Civil Rights Act and has no regrets about it and who published racist screeds in his newsletters for years is not a racist.
Speaking purely from personal experience, I’ve spoken to a fair amount of people whose biggest problem with Ron Paul is they don’t see him getting enough popular support for their vote to mean anything. If he wins some early primaries, that would be exactly what he needs to get the ball rolling. Once people start seeing him win they won’t be as scared to support him. Not everyone, of course – but possibly enough people. Especially if the Republican base can’t decide on someone to rally around.
Not going to happen. The people you’re talking to are right - Paul isn’t going to get enough votes. The Libertarians got 523,686 votes in 2008. John McCain got 59,934,814 votes in 2008 and lost decisively.
I’m willing to bet a very large sum of money that sometime between now and next November, the Republicans will nominate a candidate. They’ve managed to do it every Presidential election since 1856.
Really? You’d rather have the guy who thinks he should be allowed to have you assassinated without any form of oversight than the guy who is too naive?
I think Paul would be a good influence, precisely because I don’t think he’d get his own way all the time. He’d be a restraining influence on your government, and should rein in its more abhorrent ideas, like imprisoning people indefinitely without trial.
Ron Paul is a crank. If he successfully transplants his hard money inflationistas into the Federal Reserve, a lost decade would become a certainty. Elaboration.
Romney may talk nonsense, but he presumably has an understanding of textbook economics and would probably re-appoint Bernanke or somebody in the same quadrant. Sure, he’ll screw up health care and probably prop his fat cat friends, but at least he’s rational, even if his party is not.
ETA: But a Ron Paul nomination would secure an Obama victory. Go Ron Go!
I actually probably would rather have that. It was only 13 years ago that a police department in Texas busted in the door of a home and engaged in legally-sanctioned gay bashing. That act of malice by the state against its own people eventually resulted in the Supreme Court telling states that they couldn’t treat their citizens that way. Ron Paul says that states should be re-empowered to commit those acts of terror against their people.
For me, that cuts a lot closer to the bone than a guy in Yemen being blown up by a UAV. Even if Ron Paul never got that extremist legislation through Congress, would his Attorney General vigorously enforce civil rights laws?
Some of us worry more, and for good reason, about the state-empowered police helicopter than the federally-empowered drone.
How is it exactly that Paul’s “good ideas” would be enacted via Libertarian talk therapy, but the nutty/damaging stuff (including antivaccination views, gutting the FDA and letting business abuses run rampant) would not be taken up by adherents in Congress?
The fact that Ron Paul has not been getting a tremendous amount of media attention (largely because reporters and commentators realize that his gooney ideas and adherents render him unelectable) has been a big plus for his campaign. As soon as (if) he is perceived as a real contender through performance in Iowa and/or New Hampshire, he’s going to get a real going over. Once he’s under that spotlight along with his crazy-ass followers, his showing in the polls will melt away like those of Cain, Perry and Bachmann.
The above assumes that Paul will not run as a third-party candidate, the impossible dream of everyone in Obama’s campaign.
This argument right here pretty much demonstrates why I won’t vote for Paul- his supporters. As soon as anyone points out any sort of shortcoming on Paul’s behalf, his supporters swoop in with the vitriol and excluded-middle deflection. It’s tiresome.
If it wasn’t for his supporters, I might actually like the guy. But I wouldn’t be able to pull the lever next to his name without remembering all the times I had to end an argument with a RP supporter by backing away slowly and avoiding eye contact.