• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Could Ron Paul have won?

Redress said:
Nobody really cares about the age thing.
Click to expand...

Oh yes they do. All it takes is an interview or debate where he shows his age and his numbers will plummet. And like McCain, the VP choice would be critical and almost more important than the candidate himself. Remember Richard Nixon and Kennedy? Nixon looked "sick" on the first televised debates.. and he lost the election to the actually sick Kennedy (back problem). Visual perception is important.
 
PeteEU said:
Oh yes they do. All it takes is an interview or debate where he shows his age and his numbers will plummet. And like McCain, the VP choice would be critical and almost more important than the candidate himself. Remember Richard Nixon and Kennedy? Nixon looked "sick" on the first televised debates.. and he lost the election to the actually sick Kennedy (back problem). Visual perception is important.
Click to expand...
Imagine if Gingrich had somehow managed to pull off the GOP after his little Rip Van Winkle on video.

While visual perception is a good deal of how it is judged, thus Romney’s age was never talked about even though he would have been quite old, the underlying reason is sound. The job is grueling.
 
Dwight said:
Imagine if Gingrich had somehow managed to pull off the GOP after his little Rip Van Winkle on video.

While visual perception is a good deal of how it is judged, thus Romney’s age was never talked about even though he would have been quite old, the underlying reason is sound. The job is grueling.
Click to expand...

Difference between Romney and Ron Paul... Romney does not look his age... Ron Paul does.

Reagan was old, but he did not look his age... Carter was younger, but looked way older than he was.

Bush 1 looked old and was old, and went up against a virile young Bill Clinton...

Bush 2 and Gore were equal, but here charisma came into play.

Obama and McCain... McCain looked like a grandfather and Obama looked like a young man in comparison.

Like it or not, age DOES matter.
 
Which is why Biden couldn't really be the nominee, not only is he old buy he looks it too..... Though Chuck Norris is old he doesn't look it, maybe he could be the republican nominee :p
 
Sarcogito said:
I don’t believe Ron Paul could have won is he ran as a Libertarian, BUT if he had won the Republican nomination I think there is a very good chance he would have won.

Why? First, most Republicans are going to vote to for the Republican, regardless. So I think the overwhelming majority who voted for Romney would have voted for Ron Paul if he had been the nominee. Second, the Libertarians would have turned out in droves to vote for him. Third, there are plenty of lefties who would have at least given serious thought to the idea of voting for Ron Paul based on his liberal views about foreign policy, the war on drugs, and the government’s encroachment on civil liberties.

I am as liberal as they come and while I wouldn’t vote for him, I would have preferred him over Romney, which means it is likely many more independents and centrists would have left Obama for Paul.

So what do you all think?
Click to expand...

I think he could not have won the election anymore than Reverend Phelps could win a popularity contest among mainstream evangelical Christians. ;)
 
I think Herman Cain would have had a much better shot at winning than Ron Paul.
 
Sarcogito said:
I don’t believe Ron Paul could have won is he ran as a Libertarian, BUT if he had won the Republican nomination I think there is a very good chance he would have won.

Why? First, most Republicans are going to vote to for the Republican, regardless. So I think the overwhelming majority who voted for Romney would have voted for Ron Paul if he had been the nominee. Second, the Libertarians would have turned out in droves to vote for him. Third, there are plenty of lefties who would have at least given serious thought to the idea of voting for Ron Paul based on his liberal views about foreign policy, the war on drugs, and the government’s encroachment on civil liberties.

I am as liberal as they come and while I wouldn’t vote for him, I would have preferred him over Romney, which means it is likely many more independents and centrists would have left Obama for Paul.

So what do you all think?
Click to expand...

I have always supported Paul.

Even in a loss it would have been preferrable. Obama would have been forced to answer some tough questions. There would have been a real challenge in all three debates. But whether he could have won, I think would have been dependent on coming up with some real policies, which is often a hurdle for firebrands.

I think, you are wrong that all conservatives would have voted for him regardless. Lots of conservatives vote only for more war and to maintain the status quo of social preferences. Many of them would have stayed home or even voted for Obama.
 
Gina said:
I'm sorry, I'm liberal and there is no way I'd consider Ron Paul. He had plans to cut five departments from the government, starting with the Department of Education. He would do away with FEMA. He would more than likely do away with Health and Human Services and certainly The Affordable Care Act. I know there are more but it's late.

Once liberals and progressive got the full display of what a President Paul would offer, there is no way we could vote for him.

EDIT: I believe he wants to do away with Medicare and Social Security too.
Click to expand...

And you were considering Romney? Not likely. He certainly would not sway big government Democrats.
 
DashingAmerican said:
I think Herman Cain would have had a much better shot at winning than Ron Paul.
Click to expand...
LOL

While reading that I couldn’t help but think “So who’d have a better shot at winning the next Olympic 100m event, a dead guy or a slow dead guy?”
 
BayToBay said:
And you were considering Romney? Not likely. He certainly would not sway big government Democrats.
Click to expand...


I was responding to this in the OP:

Third, there are plenty of lefties who would have at least given serious thought to the idea of voting for Ron Paul based on his liberal views about foreign policy, the war on drugs, and the government’s encroachment on civil liberties.
Click to expand...

I'm a lefty who wouldn't have given any serious thought to Ron Paul.
 
Fiddytree said:
1) Not when you erode 2 powerful bases of Republican support: foreign policy and social conservatism

2) Libertarians come out in droves.....okay, how many droves? College kids don't count for crap in that market either.

3) Liberals would give "serious thought" for Ron Paul, might even praise him (as so many did only a 6 years ago), but then would immediately pull the trigger for Obama. Libertarians threaten the existence of almost all of their domestic policy agenda. No way would liberals go for that, and if they did, they would have sour grapes as soon as Paul had his fingers on the budgets for those programs. Liberal stupidity and short-sightedness does not account for either the numbers who would vote for him, nor for his ability to maintain support of that coalition.
Click to expand...

I agree, with point one, Republicans are largely motivated by hate for minority groups and foreigners. Many of them would sooner vote for Obama or would turn out for Paul in lower numbers. There are plenty of liberals that would vote for Paul, but it would not likely be enough.

It is possible a more moderate libertarian can win them over. Maybe, Rand Paul will. If not then libertarians will be forced to keep reminding statists that their central planning does not work.

But the libertarian policy agenda is going to do just fine. We won big on legalization and marriage equality. When it comes to tax and spending the realities of market dynamics will always keep the big government statists in check. Eventually, they are going to be forced to pull back as they always have been. Foreign policy is another reason Romney lost and while Obama is not really libertarian he is preferrable to the neocons.
 
Gina said:
I was responding to this in the OP:



I'm a lefty who wouldn't have given any serious thought to Ron Paul.
Click to expand...

Or any Republican. That's my point. You are not likely to vote for any Republican.

Frankly, I think Gary Johnson offered a better mix and would have been more electable as a Republican than Paul.
 
BayToBay said:
Or any Republican. That's my point. You are not likely to vote for any Republican.

Frankly, I think Gary Johnson offered a better mix and would have been more electable as a Republican than Paul.
Click to expand...

You don't know me or my political history, so don't assume you know my thinking on this issue.

I was a moderate Republican and nothing could convince me to vote for Ron Paul even back then. As a moderate, I don't cotton to Paul's extreme ideas, or to libertarianism at all, no matter the candidate who represents it.
 
Gina said:
You don't know me or my political history, so don't assume you know my thinking on this issue.

I was a moderate Republican and nothing could convince me to vote for Ron Paul even back then. As a moderate, I don't cotton to Paul's extreme ideas, or to libertarianism at all, no matter the candidate who represents it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is why I asked you the question. There is no point in GOP running Democrats.

A moderate Republican that does not support libertarianism, at all... What does that look like? Who are some of the Republicans you have supported with a vote or contribution?
 
Sarcogito said:
I don’t believe Ron Paul could have won is he ran as a Libertarian, BUT if he had won the Republican nomination I think there is a very good chance he would have won.

Why? First, most Republicans are going to vote to for the Republican, regardless. So I think the overwhelming majority who voted for Romney would have voted for Ron Paul if he had been the nominee. Second, the Libertarians would have turned out in droves to vote for him. Third, there are plenty of lefties who would have at least given serious thought to the idea of voting for Ron Paul based on his liberal views about foreign policy, the war on drugs, and the government’s encroachment on civil liberties.

I am as liberal as they come and while I wouldn’t vote for him, I would have preferred him over Romney, which means it is likely many more independents and centrists would have left Obama for Paul.

So what do you all think?
Click to expand...
He would have gotten trounced. Romney was the only realistic shot that the GOP had, and and even then he was doing dismally until he pivoted to the middle in the first debate. Sure Ron Paul would have gotten kudos for being principled and honest, but he would have been slaughtered in the general.

The presidential election is a meatgrinder. The guys that run are the best politicians in the world, and the process often makes them look like ridiculous caricatures. Throwing a B-lister into that area would be ugly.
 
BayToBay said:
Yeah, that is why I asked you the question. There is no point in GOP running Democrats.

A moderate Republican that does not support libertarianism, at all... What does that look like? Who are some of the Republicans you have supported with a vote or contribution?
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should clarify, that when I think of Libertarianism, I think of no EPA and bare bones regulation. In other words extremely small government. I can't go with that.

Ronald Reagan and the first George H.W. Bush. Yes, I consider, looking back, Reagan a moderate. I didn't like his union busting and embrace of the Moral Majority, but he worked with O'Neill to make government work.
 
Gina said:
Perhaps I should clarify, that when I think of Libertarianism, I think of no EPA and bare bones regulation. In other words extremely small government. I can't go with that.

Ronald Reagan and the first George H.W. Bush. Yes, I consider, looking back, Reagan a moderate. I didn't like his union busting and embrace of the Moral Majority, but he worked with O'Neill to make government work.
Click to expand...

He was a substantive conservative. But program budget realities made it difficult to budge further, and at that time he refused to denounce FDR and the New Deal. That's a substantive change from Republicans decades prior to his arrival, but he was still a decently strong conservative. If you want to consider his stances as well as end results in governance in comparison to libertarianism, yes, then he would come off as a moderate-but then so would everyone else the the "economic/government Left" of libertarians, and to the Right of economic/government liberals.
 
Fiddytree said:
He was a substantive conservative. But program budget realities made it difficult to budge further, and at that time he refused to denounce FDR and the New Deal. That's a substantive change from Republicans decades prior to his arrival, but he was still a decently strong conservative. If you want to consider his stances as well as end results in governance in comparison to libertarianism, yes, then he would come off as a moderate-but then so would everyone else the the "economic/government Left" of libertarians, and to the Right of economic/government liberals.
Click to expand...

That is probably the prism through which I view Reagan. He didn't attack FDR and the New Deal, and then backed off of eliminating the DOE. Those issues coupled with what followed Bush 41, makes him in my view, much less stridently conservative. Republicans since then have refuted and tried to eliminate or loosen New Deal reforms. So, looking back, from this point in time, he does seem moderate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom