Is Ron Paul mainstream now?

I heard an interesting thing on "Morning Joe" today.

It was pointed out that in the Iowa caucus Ron Paul won 21% of the vote, placing a very close 3rd behind Romney and Santorum. In New Hampshire, he placed 2nd with 22% of the vote.

So because Ron Paul has a large portion of the vote in these caucuses his views aren't seen as fringe they used to. Joe Scarborough was saying that you don't win 1/5 of the GOP vote unless you're a mainstream candidate.

I would like to get the opinions of others here on whether or not this is true. Can Ron Paul be considered more of a mainstream candidate now since his views are becoming more popular?

I'd say the electorate is getting less extreme. He's for living within your means and not attacking other countries. How was that ever considered extreme?

samsmart said:

I heard an interesting thing on "Morning Joe" today.

It was pointed out that in the Iowa caucus Ron Paul won 21% of the vote, placing a very close 3rd behind Romney and Santorum. In New Hampshire, he placed 2nd with 22% of the vote.

So because Ron Paul has a large portion of the vote in these caucuses his views aren't seen as fringe they used to. Joe Scarborough was saying that you don't win 1/5 of the GOP vote unless you're a mainstream candidate.

I would like to get the opinions of others here on whether or not this is true. Can Ron Paul be considered more of a mainstream candidate now since his views are becoming more popular?

Click to expand...

I think he could be considered more "mainstream" now, I don't think a lot of his views could be. You'd need a poll more closely related to those views than just Ron Paul in general. I don't doubt that there are many voters for Ron Paul that are similar to me in 2008 when I voted for him, who dislike the other candidates and ideologicly side with him on MOST things more than the others. However, with a disagreement on the length in which to take said ideology. I also think in part there's some attraction to Paul from single issues type voters...such as anti-war people, anti-israel people, anti-tax people, etc.

I think Ron Paul is definitely a "mainstream" candidate now, though I still think his chances on a national stage is slim to none, and being closer to the none side.

He's definitely a mainstream politician among the younger generation. I still think he's too fringe to be considered a serious one by the political establishment and older voters.

What I would say is that Ron Pauls positions aren't too mainstream, but the appeal of Ron Paul himself is mainstream.

I don't think it's right to generalize from Iowa and New Hampshire, as these are both very small voter blocks that aren't particularly representative of national views. And Paul burned a LOT of his powder in these two states.

Zyphlin said:

I think he could be considered more "mainstream" now, I don't think a lot of his views could be. You'd need a poll more closely related to those views than just Ron Paul in general. I don't doubt that there are many voters for Ron Paul that are similar to me in 2008 when I voted for him, who dislike the other candidates and ideologicly side with him on MOST things more than the others. However, with a disagreement on the length in which to take said ideology. I also think in part there's some attraction to Paul from single issues type voters...such as anti-war people, anti-israel people, anti-tax people, etc.

I think Ron Paul is definitely a "mainstream" candidate now, though I still think his chances on a national stage is slim to none, and being closer to the none side.

Click to expand...

I agree completely. I think a lot of people agree with Paul's general message of limited government, personal liberty, reduced spending, and pulling back from our role as world cop, but if you asked most people about how far Paul takes those concepts, you'd find fewer people in agreement and even fewer who agreed with how far he takes all of those positions.

The fact that Paul despite his radicalism, despite the fact that he can come off as a rambling cranky old man, depsite the fact that he can't or won't reduce his positions down to thirty second sound bites, despite all that he was able to rally 20% of the vote in two primaries is impressive. The GOP continues to ignore Paul's message and I think they do so at their own peril. In fact, I'm starting to hope the Republicans continue to push interventionist big government moderates like Bush, McCain, and Romney. People may eventually get fed up with the massive disconnect between Republican rhetoric (reduced spending, limited government) and Republican actions. People may start to get fed up with constant overseas interventions and neoconservative wars "to spread democracy". Then maybe things can really start to change.

Zyphlin said:

I think he could be considered more "mainstream" now, I don't think a lot of his views could be. You'd need a poll more closely related to those views than just Ron Paul in general. I don't doubt that there are many voters for Ron Paul that are similar to me in 2008 when I voted for him, who dislike the other candidates and ideologicly side with him on MOST things more than the others. However, with a disagreement on the length in which to take said ideology. I also think in part there's some attraction to Paul from single issues type voters...such as anti-war people, anti-israel people, anti-tax people, etc.

I think Ron Paul is definitely a "mainstream" candidate now, though I still think his chances on a national stage is slim to none, and being closer to the none side.

Click to expand...

I think the Tea Party helped Paul, though I don't consider him a Tea Party candidate. The attention to the crazy spending and so forth must have helped Paul appear more mainstrean than the last time he ran.

The biggest thing going for Paul right now is no one is actually running against him. His situation is ideal as he can spin his positive message out and no one actually bothers to point out all his negatives since he is not going to win the election. How well that works out for the candidates is hard to say, but it's hard to argue that Paul has had an almost ideal situation to run in.

1Perry said:

I'd say the electorate is getting less extreme. He's for living within your means and not attacking other countries. How was that ever considered extreme?

Click to expand...

It's "extreme" by today's standards apparently.

Ikari said:

It's "extreme" by today's standards apparently.

Click to expand...

The entire political establishment moved so far towards Fascism that anything else is fringe.

Sarah Palin, of all people, told the gop voters not to ignore Paul's message. Iowa Caucus Results: Ron Paul Vows 'We Will Go On'
Hes got some good ideas, hes got some really out there ideas; the media seems to focus on the out there ideas as much as possible.

Redress said:

The biggest thing going for Paul right now is no one is actually running against him. His situation is ideal as he can spin his positive message out and no one actually bothers to point out all his negatives since he is not going to win the election. How well that works out for the candidates is hard to say, but it's hard to argue that Paul has had an almost ideal situation to run in.

Click to expand...

I think you have a bit of a point there.

I think another reason for Ron Paul's popularity is that the Democrats aren't currently embracing many of the planks of his platform that coincides with the rhetoric (although not, apparently, the reality) of the Democratic Party.

By that I mean the end to the War on Drugs, reduction in military spending, respect of sovereignty of foreign nations, repeal of the PATRIOT Act and other laws that infringe on civil liberties and the like.

Basically, Ron Paul has been capitalizing on the popularity of many ideas that he shares with Democrats like Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders. But the only reason why Ron Paul has been able to is because the Democrats don't dare call Obama out on these issues because it will impair his re-election chances.

samsmart said:

I think you have a bit of a point there.

I think another reason for Ron Paul's popularity is that the Democrats aren't currently embracing many of the planks of his platform that coincides with the rhetoric (although not, apparently, the reality) of the Democratic Party.

By that I mean the end to the War on Drugs, reduction in military spending, respect of sovereignty of foreign nations, repeal of the PATRIOT Act and other laws that infringe on civil liberties and the like.

Basically, Ron Paul has been capitalizing on the popularity of many ideas that he shares with Democrats like Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders. But the only reason why Ron Paul has been able to is because the Democrats don't dare call Obama out on these issues because it will impair his re-election chances.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Paul holds many of the views that liberals have championed for years. I can understand some on the right not supporting them but the left?

Not by a longshot. His rather limited 'success' - if indeed you could call it that since he has yet to really win anywhere - is more of a testimonial to the moving of some folks to the far right rather than anything else.

I think people are chiefly worried about the economy, and Ron Paul is the only candidate who seems serious about cutting the deficit, as well as being pro-biz.

Otherwise a lot of his positions remain relatively extreme, yes.


Probably a lot of people voted for him on the basis of "Ron Paul, the Best of a Bad Lot!"

Goshin said:

I think people are chiefly worried about the economy, and Ron Paul is the only candidate who seems serious about cutting the deficit, as well as being pro-biz.

Otherwise a lot of his positions remain relatively extreme, yes.


Probably a lot of people voted for him on the basis of "Ron Paul, the Best of a Bad Lot!"

Click to expand...

I will agree that Ron Paul seems to be the only presidential candidate - from the GOP as well as from the Democrats - who is seriously addressing issues that average Americans care about rather than dismiss them off-hand.

Even if you disagree on his position on such an issue at least he is standing up and talking about. Which the other GOP candidates and even Obama just isn't doing.

samsmart said:

I will agree that Ron Paul seems to be the only presidential candidate - from the GOP as well as from the Democrats - who is seriously addressing issues that average Americans care about rather than dismiss them off-hand.

Even if you disagree on his position on such an issue at least he is standing up and talking about. Which the other GOP candidates and even Obama just isn't doing.

Click to expand...

Exactly, yes. I think Ron Paul is a very honest man who is upfront about his beliefs, and I have to respect him for that even if I disagree with a number of his policy positions... because I look at the contrast, all the other candidates "positioning themselves" based on what people want to hear, the dishonesty of it all... I'm tempted to say give me an honest man I disagree with any day, rather than a liar who says what I want to hear then breaks his word.

There are many of us Republicans who are not interested in an Evangelical agenda. Many of us go back as far as Ike. His plan was to warn us of the continuing to build defense weapons instead of rebuilding America after WW2. Many of us are still wanting Capitalism to allow us to invest for our retirement years. The problem is at this time, the corruption has taken over the Congress and Wall Street. Unless we work on removing the corruption before we take another step, we are asking for a massive federal government to tell us all what not to do. This corruption was triggered by a movement from the religious right to allow all members of the Christian faith to take over our moral values ignoring the growing corruption within the GOP that melted into the both sides of the aisle. Greed became the new conservative groups.

Paul is the one man who will move to destroy this corruption but he cannot do it without a Congress based on integrity. We all have seen the failure that is President Obama caused by electing a congress in total disagreement with him. To give Dr. Paul a chance to stop the wars and bring our manufacturing jobs home, he will need a new Congress.

The voters failed Ross Perot by not giving him a strong congress. The voters are not prepared for change and America will continue the same old fear of prohibitions of sins. Our GOP is run by Evangelicals who will not stop until every American Citizen is under the rule of terrorism in the form of an Evangelical God. Count me out!

In order for Dr. Paul to run as a Republican he had to pledge his support to the 2000 GOP Agenda which is based solely on the New Testament. For all of you who are Christians, may I offer some advice. Live as Christians but do not force the rest of us to do it. This is still America where we have choices of religion, or no religion.