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.
Its funny that no matter what some how Obama is the other option or the GOP nominee.
I already know that the GOP nominee will be if not Paul and Obama is never someone I would vote for because of the big government thinking.
So I will have other options and that is to not vote at all because its a waste of time I will get crap from Obama and the GOP nominee. So I will have to see what other options AMERICA can put on the table for liberty.
I vote on princple not the stupidity of more government.
I'm channeling my inner Dave Carney, and wanted to find out a little bit more about the Ron Paul supporter base. Specifically, to all you Ron Paul supporters out there:
If Ron Paul didn't win the GOP nomination, would you vote for him if he ran as an independent? If not, where would your vote go? Democrat or Republican?
The reason I ask may not be completely obvious, but I guarantee it will become relevant come this time next year. For those who want to learn more about why I'm asking, read one of the following article about the new "Karl Rove":
As an Independent I would seriously consider Paul, IF he gets the GOP nomination. I would add his running mate would be very important because of his age. If he runs as an Independent, I will vote Obama, the reason is he would not have his Parties support meaning he would be a lame duck President right out of the gates, that would not be good for the Nation. Oh, and the rest of the GOP candidates are either past retreads, rejects, neo-cons or moonbat crazy so here is no way I would support any of them.
Casper
I'm sorry about not offering the third party option. That should have been in there.
Anyway, I guess the results point to maybe 50% or so of Ron Paul voters would lean Obama if their candidate wasn't an option in the general election.
So I bring up this topic because it's no secret that independent candidates have benefited Rick Perry in the past. I think the idea is that if you can't win independents, then at least split them so your opponent doesn't get them all. That may have happened in the last 2 Texas Gubernatorial elections. And it certainly happened in 2004, when current Perry strategist Dave Carney lobbied successfully to get Nader on the ballot of certain states. Nader split off some independents that might have voted for Kerry, but would have never been inclined to vote for Bush.
Will the technique play out again? I'm torn, because I don't necessarily want to see Paul taken advantage of... but on the other hand, ruthless campaigning is what wins elections. And nothing would be more ruthless than getting Paul to run as an independent, simply to split those votes that Perry could never get. It will be interesting to watch.
I'm sorry about not offering the third party option. That should have been in there.
Anyway, I guess the results point to maybe 50% or so of Ron Paul voters would lean Obama if their candidate wasn't an option in the general election.
So I bring up this topic because it's no secret that independent candidates have benefited Rick Perry in the past. I think the idea is that if you can't win independents, then at least split them so your opponent doesn't get them all. That may have happened in the last 2 Texas Gubernatorial elections. And it certainly happened in 2004, when current Perry strategist Dave Carney lobbied successfully to get Nader on the ballot of certain states. Nader split off some independents that might have voted for Kerry, but would have never been inclined to vote for Bush.
Will the technique play out again? I'm torn, because I don't necessarily want to see Paul taken advantage of... but on the other hand, ruthless campaigning is what wins elections. And nothing would be more ruthless than getting Paul to run as an independent, simply to split those votes that Perry could never get. It will be interesting to watch.
Paul will be all the way out if he does not get the GOP nod. He understands reality that a 3rd party has no chance since the major parties have the decked stacked to hold onto their power. That is the only reason why Paul is in the {R} party and to try to reform it from with in. Like I stated in another of your threads it is doubtful if he does not get the nod that he would even endorse the nominee. Considering he endorsed Chuck Baldwin in 08 who was the closest to his views.
I was thinking the same thing. Romney/Perry would be
a terrible ticket anyways.
It would have to be Perry/Romney. Perry does nothing for a Romney ticket (he'd earn those Southern states anyway) but Romney would help a Perry ticket by bringing some independents back.
Anyway, I didn't technically mean Romney/Perry combined ticket, just meant the GOP ticket in general... assuming that it would be either Romney or Perry.
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.
