Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jermaine88 probably has it about right. The fact is, if you're a conservative, Ronald Reagan Republican, every option you face at this point has some kind of huge downside. Newt and Romney are not conservatives. I am just not comfortable with the idea as Paul as commander in chief, as much as I like him on economics. I wish Perry would do better. I can't believe that he is really the idiot he appears to be, after having been a successful gov. of a successful state.
There's no good option now. I'm still hoping for some kind of late entry.
Ron Paul has said over 50 times he will not run 3rd party and I think he will stay true to his word. Let use some logic here which avoids the OP like the plague, a 3rd party run does nothing to advance his message. Due to the fact as Paul has stated and anyone with a ounce off common sense knows you can not win unless you are in the 2 pathetic parties. The deck is stacked to ensure that the 2 parties never ever lose control.
Paul wants his message to carrry on and a 3rd party run that might have helped Obama get elected will be remembered by the {R} party. Did the OP and others forget that his son Rand is a Senator in the {R} party? Who do you think will carry the torch if Paul does not get the nod? Do you get it now? only the MSM and other idiots think Paul will run 3rd party.
Jermaine88 probably has it about right. The fact is, if you're a conservative, Ronald Reagan Republican, every option you face at this point has some kind of huge downside. Newt and Romney are not conservatives. I am just not comfortable with the idea as Paul as commander in chief, as much as I like him on economics. I wish Perry would do better. I can't believe that he is really the idiot he appears to be, after having been a successful gov. of a successful state.
There's no good option now. I'm still hoping for some kind of late entry.
I agree with just about everything you've said here. I face a similar conundrum. I really like Huntsman the best, but I am supporting Romney.
Because most Ron Paul supporters want change. They certainly won't get it with four more years of Obama and I think they'd prefer Romney (who wouldn't be as bad as W) to Obama.
Voting for Ron Paul would be "throwing away" a vote, voting for Romney would not be.
The problem with the extreme Ron Paul supporters is that they live in Fantasy Land/Dream World. Their ideas for change are too grandiose and radical and they have this "my way or the highway" attitude. That doesn't get you very far in Reality Land/Real World.
I think the average Ron Paul supporter could care less if Romney beats Obama. They want to stand up be counted for real change. Perot had a big impact on American policy because he had such a huge following.
Clinton was in dead last until Perot dropped out then Clinton shot to the top. Perot was taking Clinton's votes, not Bush. Clinton also stomped Dole in 96, If Perot didn't run, Clinton likely would have beat him by even more.
The thing to keep in mind is Paul's core base are very liberal college age people. Paul is going to take a pretty substantial part of Obama's liberal vote if he runs 3rd party. Also most people that at least i've observed who do support Paul are going to support him and only him, and wouldn't vote for the GOP anyhow.
The thing is to remember, historically every time in history 3rd parties have taken dem votes (nader anyone?) I can't think of any time they didn't.
If Paul runs 3rd party it's going to be trouble for Obama, not the GOP.
What planet were you on in 1996? Perot ran against Dole that primary cycle and lost but he thought his charts and graphs were so great. I fear that you have been listening to some Dems who tell that story like you repeated it and you ate it up. Perot was a Republican all the way and he certainly took way more votes from Dole than from Clinton. Ask old Bubba his side of that story.
This is pretty much a win win for me. I favor Paul, but Obama is my second choice. I'm having trouble seeing the problem here.
No you aren't having any trouble seeing the story as I tell it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
