Ron Paul unelectable?

slightofjeff

Jason P wrote:

To everyone that's concerned with changing the current state of politics, and then flat-out states that Ron Paul is un-electable (with a that''s that attitude), why even complain about politics anymore?

We all claim we want change and hope, but when someone offers a version that doesn't meet the existing (and failing) Democrat or GOP blueprint, they are labeled a nut or fringe-outsider not worth listening to.

Stating a fact like "Ron Paul will never be elected president of the United States" doesn't mean you have to like it. It's just a fact.

I don't think we're saying Ron Paul sucks. Just that nobody will vote for him.

I'm not saying that's good or that's bad. It just is.

slightofjeff

unsung wrote:

In the latest Gallop poll the unelectable Ron Paul is statistically tied in an election against Barack Obama.

So is my neighbor's cat. Have you checked the economy lately?

mikepegg44

http://hampton-northhampton.patch.com/articles/ron-paul-id-be-a-good-whistleblower-video

the last sentence is the exact reason why the GOP establishment does not want him elected.

"...I would be a good whistleblower...right now whistleblowing is considered treason...I think we need more whistleblowers."

unsung

He's now up to 3rd behind Perry (Bush 3rd term) and Romney (Bush 4th term). I have full confidence that they split the neocon vote and Ron Paul will stand out.

VINNY GOOMBA

unsung wrote:

He's now up to 3rd behind Perry (Bush 3rd term) and Romney (Bush 4th term). I have full confidence that they split the neocon vote and Ron Paul will stand out.

In the latest Rasmussen Poll against Obama: Paul 38%, Obama 39%. I think he is gaining some serious traction.

maj4e

It's ok to get excited but remember the election is November NEXT year. So it's too early to say anything about anyone.

butterjam

So when he shows bad numbers, he's unelectable. When he poll's well, the election is too far away for the numbers to matter.

The fact of the matter is that what Dr. Paul has been saying for a long time, bring home troops, audit fed/monetary policy, etc., is starting to resonate with a lot of people.

Is a consistent policy of liberty and freedom that hard to argue with?

brianlux

maj4e wrote:

It's ok to get excited but remember the election is November NEXT year. So it's too early to say anything about anyone.

We all--- posters, media, bloggers-- got off to a ridiculously early start on discussing the election of 2012. Maybe we should start discussing 2020 and be ahead of the game.

mikepegg44

"I'm fascinated with your word 'unconventional,'" he told "Fox News Sunday. "Isn't it strange that we can apply that word to freedom and liberty and the Constitution and limited government and a balanced budget?'

"The one telltale sign of the support I'm getting is because of my foreign policy. I get more donations from active military duty people than all the other candidates put together, which tells me a lot and tells the American people a lot," Paul said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/28/paul-bernanke-is-out-options-to-save-economy/#ixzz1WReYt8Iu

it is interesting that the one person in the race with a track record of consistent action in accordance with his views is considered unconventional.

butterjam

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koe ... 39993.html

maj4e

Discussing an election 2 years away is ok. Even 4 years but to put any effort or stock in a poll of where someone may or may not be is an exercise in futility.

Here's a great article talking about fairly recent elections.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... =allsearch

puremagic

puremagic wrote:

It’s not an attitude problem; we all know how the political system works. Ron Paul’s running as a GOP candidate, if he doesn’t make the ticket, do you really think people are going to take the time to do a write-in, NO!

People do listen to Ron Paul, however, the fact is, he does not have the support from the Party on which he is running. If he was to switch and run as an Independent or any other Party, he would lose the one thing that keeps him relevant – creditability – thus, ending up like Nader & Specter.

Like I said before, Ron Paul is a good diversion and many in the GOP would now like to see him make a quick exit because they do see him doing more harm in the long run if he continues to gain attention. How do you make Ron Paul and his message irrelevant, easy, in comparison to Bachman and Perry, Ron Paul comes across as teetering on the liberal side, so you label him a liberal wannabe. So as things move forward you’ll see more GOP talking points attacking and identify Ron Paul’s positions as liberal.

That’s how it’s done in politics when you’re not the chosen one.

Here's your chance to ride that wave. If you like this guy and you think he’s electable you have to do two things,

1) You can’t let him become known as the 2nd Ralph Nader, you need to stop the comparison now, or he’ll lose his identity in the media.

2) TX is big, and the ballots are secret, but the money is not; it won’t be TX supporting him.

3) Perry plays for keeps when it is something HE WANTS or something that challenges HIS EGO and he is still the Governor of TX.



Ron Paul Has Become the Right's Ralph Nader

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/210717/ ... blican.htm

... During a commercial break in the debate candidate Rick Perry, the GOP front runner and Texas governor, continued a spirited exchange on stage. Suddenly, Perry grabbed Ron Paul's forearm, aggressively pointing, according to one report, his index finger towards the Congressman's face.

As a result on Thursday, the Internet has been blazing with Ron Paul's passionate supporters accusing Perry of assaulting their candidate while defending Paul as winning the debate. Some public polls after the debate even yielded the same result, with 70 percent or more suggesting that yes, Paul did win the debate.

It's the same type of passionate movement that Nader developed over the years, peaking in about 2000. But Paul, who comes from the right while Nader typically is viewed as coming from the left, has arguably more assets in his political war chest than Nader. After all, Paul is currently serving in the U.S. House, and he's from Texas, a great big state that wields considerably political influence.

ledvedderman

Parachute wrote:

unelectable.

Now his son on the other hand...... electable.

But Perry will be the President in 2012,
and Moochelle will have to go back to hating her country.

I know for a fact that Perry will not be president in 2012. Fact.

butterjam

ledvedderman wrote:

Parachute wrote:

unelectable.

Now his son on the other hand...... electable.

But Perry will be the President in 2012,
and Moochelle will have to go back to hating her country.

I know for a fact that Perry will not be president in 2012. Fact.

I was at a Ron Paul meetup for the debate, and only 1 of the 30-40 there would vote for Perry if he got the nomination. The rest of us will look elsewhere. Perry is a joke.

pandora

He's been around a long time, been admired and he inspires trust. A free spirit.
My extended family have been supporters since the 80's ...
a man we always hoped would have an opportunity to make a difference as President.

I told my boy last night this really scares me though,
he seems to be the last of a more honest generation, a dying breed.
I'm afraid the job might just do that to him ... kill him.

With that or the fact he can not overcome, fulfill promises out of a President's control,
this will kill a lot of hearts, a lot of faith and a lot of hope
at a time when these are already challenged and clearly needed.
At a time when we need these for moral.

I fear the... "if he can't do it no one can" ... will fail
and the "maybe no one can" settles in.

It could unmask a terrible truth if Ron Paul can not make a difference.

Giving up is not what we want to do but how many will fight for a country,
how many even know how, how many even care?

and where to start?