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.
I've noticed that the word 'electability' seems to carry a lot of weight with Republican primary voters, and they like to claim that Dr. Ron Paul has none. I realize this has become 'conventional wisdom', but if history is any guide, conventional wisdom is seldom very wise. I'd just like to give my thoughts on the matter.
Most Republicans have stated that they will vote for whoever gets the nomination, because they MUST defeat Obama come November. Ron Paul supporters, on the other hand, have made it clear that unless Paul is the nominee, they'll be voting for a 3rd party candidate, writing in Ron Paul, or skipping the whole thing completely. As you know from my posts, I happen to belong to that group. Many Republican strategists have come to the realization that no Republican candidate can win in November without the support of the Ron Paul people, as has been evidenced by their pronunciations over the last few weeks. This leaves the Republican party in a quandary. Do they nominate someone who will NOT get the support they need to win in November, or do they nominate the ONLY candidate who can garner ALL the votes it will take to unseat Obama?
Many people here on C-D have advised the Ron Paul supporters to give up on Paul because he's 'unelectable'. My advice to them is this... If you want to get rid of Obama you'd better get behind Ron Paul, because without him you CAN'T WIN.
THINK about it...
Since the only person electable is Obama, kind of makes this moot. All the electable Repubs said, naw, I'll wait for 2016.
Are there 10 million Paul voters out there? Or rather, did nearly 10 million stay home and not vote? McCain lost by just under 10 million. Barr received ~500,000 votes. So, if every Paul/Barr supporter voted would it be that high?
I ask honestly. Of course, this does not take into account the electoral college and how states may have shifted (I do not have the capability to do that research and make it worth my while ) but on a purely popular vote standard I would be surprised if there were that many Paul supporters out there.
Again, I ask honestly and please inform me because I am ignorant to the numbers.
There were about 131 million votes cast in 2008. The Census says there were 146 million registered to vote. That means that 15 million registered voters did not cast a ballot. Obviously we can't assume that ALL of them were RP supporters, and we can't determine how many votes McCain or Obama got from people who preferred Paul, so to answer your question... I don't know.
I do know that Paul was polling in the 5-10% range, which would total 7-15 million registered voters.
I think all of the GOP candidates right now are too flawed to beat Obama. Romney polls the best in swing states, but after these past few weeks I don't see him keeping those leads. The GOP establishment is getting nervous.
I think all of the GOP candidates right now are too flawed to beat Obama. Romney polls the best in swing states, but after these past few weeks I don't see him keeping those leads. The GOP establishment is getting nervous.
Good, the real conservatives want the "establishment" to get nervous. They've failed us time and time again so they must change or get out of the way!
They're nervous about winning. The four top contenders left will have a hard time beating Obama.
Well actually, historical evidence suggests otherwise regarding Obama's chances to get re-elected. But putting that aside, I'd argue that the establishment would be overjoyed for Romney (i.e...little concern that they can't heavily influence how he governs) , much less euthused about Newt or Santorum (can't quite decide on which would fall where), and scared to death of RP.
So yeah. They're nervous. There is only one candidate left that they feel is within their control. (Perry would have made them happy too IMO.)
Well actually, historical evidence suggests otherwise regarding Obama's chances to get re-elected. But putting that aside, I'd argue that the establishment would be overjoyed for Romney (i.e...little concern that they can't heavily influence how he governs) , much less euthused about Newt or Santorum (can't quite decide on which would fall where), and scared to death of RP.
So yeah. They're nervous. There is only one candidate left that they feel is within their control. (Perry would have made them happy too IMO.)
We're in uncharted territory here. History doesn't always match up with what's happening today. Obama has the organization, the money, and economy that is improving. He also has the luxury of having the GOP candidates duke it out for a long time. That's going to drain the resources of whoever actually wins the nomination.
The GOP establishment doesn't really care who the nominee is, even if it Ron Paul, all they care about is winning and that's what they are getting nervous about. They see their chances at beating Obama slipping away.
We're in uncharted territory here. History doesn't always match up with what's happening today. Obama has the organization, the money, and economy that is improving. He also has the luxury of having the GOP candidates duke it out for a long time. That's going to drain the resources of whoever actually wins the nomination.
The GOP establishment doesn't really care who the nominee is, even if it Ron Paul, all they care about is winning and that's what they are getting nervous about. They see their chances at beating Obama slipping away.
And the whole point of this thread is the conclusion that Ron Paul is the only candidate standing that has that chance. He is a solid fiscal conservative. He is a social conservative that doesn't want the Federal government telling you what you can or cannot do. He has demonstrated his principles by not changing his positions, not taking lobbyist money and returning a portion of his annual budget. He has demonstrated his wisdom by correctly predicting our current sad state of affairs on the floor of the House 10 YEARS AGO.
I remember when the GOP 'establishment' didn't want Reagan, either. Now they consider him a hero.
And the whole point of this thread is the conclusion that Ron Paul is the only candidate standing that has that chance. He is a solid fiscal conservative. He is a social conservative that doesn't want the Federal government telling you what you can or cannot do. He has demonstrated his principles by not changing his positions, not taking lobbyist money and returning a portion of his annual budget. He has demonstrated his wisdom by correctly predicting our current sad state of affairs on the floor of the House 10 YEARS AGO.
I remember when the GOP 'establishment' didn't want Reagan, either. Now they consider him a hero.
Elect another hero, elect Ron Paul!
I don't think Ron Paul's opposition to Social Security, Medicare, and public education would play well in a general election.
I don't think Ron Paul's opposition to Social Security, Medicare, and public education would play well in a general election.
I think it would play exceedingly well when people get educated as to what they're getting in return for what they're PAYING for 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.
) but on a purely popular vote standard I would be surprised if there were that many Paul supporters out there.
