U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-07-2012, 06:49 PM
 
1,643 posts, read 2,102,086 times
Reputation: 1431

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
If Ron Paul were to get the GOP nomination it would not be the first time in history a candidate with the least amount of delegates won.

Clue: 1920 Warren G. Harding

It is a false premise of the OP's to suggest that a popular vote has been undermined should Paul become the GOP nominee.
If you somehow get bound Romney delegates to not cast their votes for Romney on the first ballot, then Yes, you are "undermining" the popular vote. Make all the excuses you want, but that's how I see it and belive me, that's how the voters will see it.

If by some crazy turn of events you actually get to a second ballot, then all bets are off. If it gets to a second vote and everyone stays kosher with the GOP rules then by all means, get down with your bad selves and make it happen!

But I don't want to get bogged down in the upteenmillionth discussion about those specifics though. That's not what this thread is about. I'm saying I actually would like to see you guys pull it off!! (and yet still I'm being insulted, again, fascinating.)

See below about Harding,

Quote:
Originally Posted by slackjaw View Post
Harding had three other candidates in the conventions that split the delegates, the highest among them on first round only had 35%. This forced multiple rounds of voting.

Ron Paul will have one other candidate with more than enough to take it first round.
Yeah, the Harding situation really is apples to oranges.

--------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr View Post
I doubt you have read all the RP threads. However, Are you saying these so-called threads are missing your fascination?
Probably not all, you guys are seriously prolific, but I've read a TON of them and it's not like you guys are subtle.

Paulites going on and on about him isn't fascinating, that's just obsession. No different then the cartoonish Obama "worshipers" everyone likes to make fun of. It is what it is.

Now, if you guys actually pull off this cockamamy delegate strategy? Now THAT will be truly fascinating to watch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-07-2012, 06:56 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,154 posts, read 33,583,941 times
Reputation: 14140
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
If Ron Paul were to get the GOP nomination it would not be the first time in history a candidate with the least amount of delegates won.

Clue: 1920 Warren G. Harding

It is a false premise of the OP's to suggest that a popular vote has been undermined should Paul become the GOP nominee.




Don't mention that name to a Progressive, their heads will explode.
That guy crushed Wilson's Progressive era.

Cut the size of the federal government buy 2/3rds, busted the union stranglehold on economic growth and created the atmosphere, for the greatest economic time in the USA.
He cut taxes but, didn't reign in the Federal reserve or the IRS, which got in bed with the banks and crashed the economy, when Hoover doubled down on the spending.

Last edited by BentBow; 05-07-2012 at 07:06 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2012, 11:39 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
21,232 posts, read 14,256,943 times
Reputation: 15725
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2e1m5a View Post
It is very presumptuous to say that Obama would beat Ron Paul in the general election. Paul has huge youth support (most former Obama supporters) as well as a nice chunk of the Democrat and Independent vote (maybe even moreso than the Republican vote). His supporters are aware and passionate.

Would Obama beat Romney? Yes, he would destroy him. Romney has ZERO electability among Dems and Indis.

Would Obama beat Ron Paul? IMO, absolutely not. Ron Paul would carry the "anybody but Obama" vote as well as many disgruntled Democrats and many Independents. Ron Paul and his pro gay-marriage, anti-drug war, anti-Fed, anti-nation building beliefs would sway many liberals who would finally realize they've been duped.



Now that Obama has proven there is no longer an Anti-War party, many Democrats that still have strong anti-war convictions are looking closer at Paul and starting to realize Bush, Obama and Romney are one in the same, puppets working for Wall Street and the Neo-CON agenda.

OBushMa or BaRockney, if you will.
Fine! Make it happen and we'll see the results come November. If you are right, I will be the first here to congratulate the good Dr. Paul. If you are wrong, will you do the same for President Obama?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2012, 11:51 PM
 
3,271 posts, read 2,627,054 times
Reputation: 1440
Even if he pulled off the upset of the century, Paul would lose in the general because the Illuminati-NWO-ZOG-Reptiloid banking cabal at the UN who control both the monetary and fluoridated water supply won't allow it.

If he even came remotely close before Tampa, Romney would call up his finance buddies to fire up the HAARP machine and drop Morgellon's-laced chemtrails over Paul's house.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 12:03 AM
 
Location: NoVA
1,383 posts, read 2,265,068 times
Reputation: 1930
Quote:
One thing missing from all the Ron Paul threads.
The same thing that's always missing from every presidential campaign that he mounts; a tap-dancing chance in Hell.


Seriously though, a ham sandwich will take the Oval Office before Paul does. Especially if I include Dijon mustard, that'll definitely seal the deal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 12:14 AM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
21,232 posts, read 14,256,943 times
Reputation: 15725
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
If Ron Paul were to get the GOP nomination it would not be the first time in history a candidate with the least amount of delegates won.

Clue: 1920 Warren G. Harding

It is a false premise of the OP's to suggest that a popular vote has been undermined should Paul become the GOP nominee.
There are few comparisons to be found in any election compared to the one in 1920.
President Wilson was fully incapacitated by a stroke for the last 18 months of his Presidency. By all standards, Wilson should have been removed from office due to being completely unable to serve, but his stroke was so well hidden from the Capitol and the public that very few even knew he was sick.
His wife was the de-facto President until his term expired, signing bills that came to the White House and speaking for him by way of memorandums and notes. No one really knows how bad he was, but it's a fact that he was unable to speak or move his hands. He was completely silent and bed ridden for the entire last year of his Presidency. And the public never knew he was even sick.

This simply cannot happen again today. The Republicans got a completely full ride, campaigning against a President's policies when the man himself could not defend them in any way during the entire year of 1919.

Similar events occurred in the Repbulican Party. By late 1918, Teddy Roosevelt was the runaway candidate for the party, and was sure to win election, but his health suddenly failed at the end of the year, and by 1919, he was dead. This left both parties with no widely known candidates.

Back then, the convention was everything. They were long and drawn out, and often lasted more than a month. The Republicans had 10 candidates going into the election, and Harding won only through a very protracted series of votes that weeded out the other nine. Every vote came from extended back room wheeling and dealing in ways that are illegal today. Harding was a Senator who had no reputation as a leader, and Calvin Coolidge was Governor of Massachusetts.

The Democratic nominee, James Cox was a complete newcomer to national politics and a total unknown outside of Ohio, where he was the governor. The only politician on the ticket who was widely known was his V.P., Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who had been the Sec. of the Navy during WWI. None of the four had ever run for the office of President or Vice President before. Of them all, Calvin Coolidge, with his plain-spoken ways, came to be the most popular of all as the campaign progressed. Roosevelt was only 32, and was seen as being too young to be qualified.

The 1920 election was the last to be covered only by newspapers. There were no radio networks at the time, and very few radios. The candidates disseminated their positions by way of Victrola recordings, which were mailed to newspaper office and courthouses across the nation. People flocked to hear them, as they were the only way to hear the candidates actually speak.

Compare this to 2012. There are two candidates going into the convention, not 10. Mitt Romney and Ron Paul have both run for President in the past. They are both known candidates. Each represents one side of a deep split that has nearly broken their party, and there is very little party unity to be found. Each side is more intent on gaining for it's own than winning the election.

They are both facing a President who is in full command of his faculties and still has a tight 50-state organization behind him. As much as the Republicans try to deny it, Obama still has wide and deep support.

Every event in the conventions will be instantly covered. Smoke-filled rooms do not exist any more at the convention sites; any back room deals are cut in other places far away from the convention site on cell phones. The public will know what is going on more than the delegates on the floor, unless the delegates are glued to their iPads and cell phones. Eager beavers will spill the beans at the slightest drop of the hat.


Trying to find similarities to 1920 and 2012 is a ridiculous stretch. There are simply none to be found.

Last edited by banjomike; 05-08-2012 at 12:36 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 06:21 AM
 
Location: Gone
25,235 posts, read 13,999,179 times
Reputation: 5916
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr View Post
So says the Ghost from Texas. (LOL)
Yes, he does say so, and I am proven correct on daily basis here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 06:39 AM
 
53 posts, read 112,713 times
Reputation: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sporin View Post
So I am firmly on record as thinking Ron Paul's whole "Delegates" strategy is bunk. i think his supporters have built it up in their minds to such mythological proportions that they actually think winning delegates in a few small states will get them the nod. That somehow "infiltrating" is better then actually WINNING these state races. That these supposed "Constitutional Patriots" think that the popular vote is something to be subverted, and bypassed, based on their own tin-foil-hat rantings about "cheating."

Whatever. Everyone is allowed their own theories and opinions.

But the one thing I think is missing in all these discussions is that I would actually be FASCINATED if they pulled it off. I think it would be the most significant election event in US history.

I think the IMPLOSION this would cause in the GOP would be deeply interesting, historically catastrophic.

I already predict that the President will win reelection in a close race against Romney. But against Ron Paul? After pulling a delegate coup in Tampa against the GOP establishment? I think you'd see Ron Paul lose in landslide numbers that will set records.

But let's see it, make it happen Paulbots, bring on the show!
So you'd rather our choices in the general election be a socialist who's been bought by the banking system and an investor who's been bought by the banking system?

I do not think that Ron Paul will "get the nod" as you say, but that didn't stop me from casting my primary ballot in his direction or campaigning for him. I think the fact that he came in 3rd in my county whereas he came in 4th in the state shows that our grassroots effort had some effect.

One of the bigger problems is that a lot of the public just doesn't understand what Paul stands for, and the media not even mentioning him does no favors. The gullible public was more fascinated with Santorum (another Neocon, not so much like Bush, but more like Cheney, Rove and Wolfowitz...scary!) as an alternative to Romney than they were with Paul and Gingrich. As if Romney is anything special to be alternate to.

I don't know what the fascination is with Romney either other than that the media chose him very early on ((after the hilarity of Herman Cain was over, and Bachman, and Perry were vetted in Iowa (as if they had a chance) and Huntsman in NH.)) and that many voters feel he's just the guy to unite around.

I also honestly think that a lot of People chose Romney (back when he was competing with Santorum), only because people did NOT want Santorum to win their state and because of that did not choose Paul or Gingrich as more sane alternatives.

The best thing about a Ron Paul victory (should he pull of the delegate storm) is that he'd draw MILLIONS of independents who were not eligible to vote in the primaries and caucuses, and he's draw hundreds of thousands (perhaps even a few million) of registered democrats who're fed up with their current leadership. Do you really think that people who voted for Romney or Santorum or Gingrich in the primaries would NOT back Paul in the general? I don't think so. Would they back Obama? Certainly not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 06:45 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,154 posts, read 33,583,941 times
Reputation: 14140
Truth and freedom, brings everyone together. Paul does this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2012, 06:51 AM
 
2,943 posts, read 2,994,993 times
Reputation: 1104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sporin View Post
So I am firmly on record as thinking Ron Paul's whole "Delegates" strategy is bunk. i think his supporters have built it up in their minds to such mythological proportions that they actually think winning delegates in a few small states will get them the nod. That somehow "infiltrating" is better then actually WINNING these state races. That these supposed "Constitutional Patriots" think that the popular vote is something to be subverted, and bypassed, based on their own tin-foil-hat rantings about "cheating."
How is it cheating if we are just following the rules. It has been said many time, even by the establishment themselves, the rules of the game is DELEGATES, not popular vote.

Paul's campaign fight an up hill battle. Unlike Romney, who has unlimited funding from Wall Street (who has no problem "contributing" multiple millions), Paul has limited funding, and they are form small potato like myself who can only chip in $10, $25 at a time.

When odds are against you, you have to use strategy. In a war game, if I have an army of 100,000 and want to capture a city only have a defense of 500, without a doubt, I just march in. But what if you only have 500 and the city is defense with 100,000 strong? Can you just march in?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:26 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top