Ron Paul is polling really well, with nearly 20% of likely primary/caucus voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. What's really great, IMO, is that there are only three real possibilities now:

1. Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination and runs as a third party candidate: The new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll suggests Ron Paul would win 18 percent as a third-part­y candidate running against Obama and Romney. Obama wins.

2. Ron Paul drops out: fervent and stubborn Ron Paul supporters, a sizable portion of the populace now, stay home or write him in. Obama wins.

3. Ron Paul gets the GOP nomination­: Ron Paul gets the following voters:

• 2008 Obama voters that wanted "change" and didn't get it
• 2008 Obama voters who wanted to end the war/interventionist foreign policy
• The VAST majority of the Independent vote
• The entire GOP voting block that wants "anyone but Obama"
• And, of course, all the Ron Paul supporters coming out in DROVES

All that adds up to a Ron Paul victory.

Scenario #3, despite the extreme unlikelihood of its requisite circumstance, is full of laughably naive ideas.

"I'm so annoyed. I voted for a slick big-government socialist who was going to tax the rich and ram through unprecedented levels of new tax-payer funded regulation on everything from questionable "green" money pits to a tax-funded, government-run health care quagmire. He only managed to make the existing system worse, so I'm going to vote for an awkward old white isolationist who wants to eliminate the EPA and generally do the opposite of everything I think is great."

Also, Scenario #2 is just that: a giant, stinky number two. There are precious few people who are so dogmatic that they'd rather see Obama win than to vote for the lesser evil.

Deacon wrote:Scenario #3, despite the extreme unlikelihood of its requisite circumstance, is full of laughably naive ideas.

"I'm so annoyed. I voted for a slick big-government socialist who was going to tax the rich and ram through unprecedented levels of new tax-payer funded regulation on everything from questionable "green" money pits to a tax-funded, government-run health care quagmire. He only managed to make the existing system worse, so I'm going to vote for an awkward old white isolationist who wants to eliminate the EPA and generally do the opposite of everything I think is great."

Yeah, Democrats would never vote for Ron Paul. And they would definitely not switch parties in an effort to get him through the primary. Except for people like these.



And many of them are willing to change their views.

As for the "extreme unlikeliness" of Paul winning, keep in mind that polling has him second behind Gingrich in Iowa and second behind Romney in New Hampshire. Within striking distance of both, as Cain supporters move, not to an establishment candidate, but to Paul, as many of them supported Cain in the first place due to his view as an outsider. It's further strengthened by the fact that Romney is merely steadily losing support across the board, and Gingrich is likely to flame out spectacularly given his massive liberal stances (for the individual mandate while Obamacare was debated, wants federal action on climate change, etc.).

I really don't know why anyone would support a candidate that says something like this, even in a joking manner:



Or his comfort with the assassination of al-Awlaki (and his 16 year old son!) by the Obama Administration:

Also, Scenario #2 is just that: a giant, stinky number two. There are precious few people who are so dogmatic that they'd rather see Obama win than to vote for the lesser evil.

Let's see. I can vote for someone who wants to throw accused terrorists in Gitmo with no trial, like McCain or Romney, or just blow them up with Predator strikes like Obama and Gingrich. Or I could vote for another candidate that likes undeclared wars, avoids any real reform in spending, likes big government programs (often expanding them) and is not concerned with the Constitution. I'll leave you to sort out which candidate(s) I'm talking about (actually, no - this refers to all of the people in the race, except Paul - and to a lesser extent Gary Johnson). Or I can vote my conscience, and when the country falls apart from the switch between socialism and fascism, I can be content in the fact that I tried to do something about it.

Voting for anyone but Paul in the Republican primary or for President is to endorse a growing federal government, one that is violating both civil and economic liberties at an ever-increasing rate. There is no "lesser of two evils". There is but one choice. A vote for Obama is a vote to continue down a road to socialism, where the government seeks a utopian idea of enforced equality above all. A vote for Romney or Gingrich is a vote to switch back to a road that leads to imperialistic fascism, with a government that seeks another utopian idea - perfect security over all. Both of these roads are forms of the road to Serfdom, with the result an absence of human liberty.

And to see that, you only have to look at the current Congress. Worried about indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA? Don't look for support from the Republicans - that was a bipartisan effort written by Senators McCain(R) and Levin(D) with only 7 senators voting against it (after they admitted that, yes, it does allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens, in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments). Worried about SOPA and PROTECT IP's effects on the American usage of the Internet? Again, bipartisan effort. How about the violation of Fourth Amendment rights through the TSA and the very mis-named PATRIOT Act? Nope - both Obama and the majority of Republican candidates are for those. Worried about the budgetary and debt problems facing America? Don't look to the current parties - efforts from Senator Paul and Congressman Ryan to do even relatively minor cutbacks have failed to gain traction with either party. Looking for action to be taken on state's rights in the face of the growing Leviathan that is the federal government? Don't look to the current crop of candidates - except for Dr. Paul, all Republican candidates are looking to "solve" America's "problems" with federal legislation to "fix" big government programs (instead of end them) and Constitutional Amendments for marriage, etc. And forget asking them to abide by the Constitution - most of them can't even articulate what it says, and it isn't even a difficult document to understand.

---

Do me, and logical debate, a favor, please. Don't call Paul an isolationist. You should be more intelligent than that. Especially if you are looking for a reasoned discussion, as opposed to just calling my favored candidate crazy and dismissing the man who I think you will end up voting for, even if you stick to your misguided philosophy of "anyone but Obama". He is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. And there is a vast difference.

collegestudent22 wrote:Don't call Paul an isolationist. You should be more intelligent than that.

Fuck off and don't tell people what to do. I was casting the mainstream impression of him.

I merely asked you not to. Please, calm down. And I feel you were casting the mainstream Republican view. Many Democrats, especially those concerned with peace, are non-interventionist themselves, and will not fall for that incorrect view. And since it was them we are talking about, I felt it to be a little disingenuous.

collegestudent22 wrote:I merely asked you not to.

You should be more intelligent than that.

Clearly, I should have known that reasoned argument and a stand based in principles would be foreign to you, and you would choose to focus on a minor request at the end and avoid dealing with all that.

collegestudent22 wrote:Many Democrats, especially those concerned with peace, are non-interventionist themselves, and will not fall for that incorrect view.

While you're right about that part--and don't forget how quickly "let's end the war on drugs" would win over the more hippie-minded Democrats (if Vermont, California, Massachusetts, and Oregon had major Republican primaries, we could pencil Ron Paul into the nomination right now)--Paul's economic stances would turn a lot of Democrats away immediately and permanently. Think of the more idealist Democrats that want what is basically a philanthropist federal government that takes in a ton of money and spends every dime of it. Around here, there are a lot of people who hear the word "libertarian" and immediately picture people like Gordon Gekko from Wall Street. It's a mindset that the Democrats often portray as callous and cold. The Occupy crowds would be especially angry at a successful Ron Paul campaign.

That's not to say that there are members of the Democratic party that could be convinced. But I live around many, many Democrats, and on the rare occasions we talk about politics I see these sentiments. Remember, both of the major parties are political machines focused on keeping power. Marginalizing non-standard viewpoints is pretty much their strongest suit.

The Cid wrote:

collegestudent22 wrote:Many Democrats, especially those concerned with peace, are non-interventionist themselves, and will not fall for that incorrect view.

While you're right about that part--and don't forget how quickly "let's end the war on drugs" would win over the more hippie-minded Democrats (if Vermont, California, Massachusetts, and Oregon had major Republican primaries, we could pencil Ron Paul into the nomination right now)--Paul's economic stances would turn a lot of Democrats away immediately and permanently. Think of the more idealist Democrats that want what is basically a philanthropist federal government that takes in a ton of money and spends every dime of it. Around here, there are a lot of people who hear the word "libertarian" and immediately picture people like Gordon Gekko from Wall Street. It's a mindset that the Democrats often portray as callous and cold.

Let me assume, for a moment, that these idealistic Democrats amount to half the Democratic party's base (and I think that is overstating it a bit). That amounts to about 10% of the overall national vote (counting Independents and Republicans as well) - less if some of them, as I think they will, stay home out of a dissatisfaction with Obama.

But there is a significant portion of the Democratic party that is less concerned with economics. There are, of course, the "Blue Dog Democrats", who supported Reagan, despite his desire to end the Department of Education, etc. There are also Democrats primarily concerned with getting out of wars and protecting civil liberties (repeal the PATRIOT Act, etc.), which Obama has failed to do. And, of course, the War on Drugs. Yes, on it's own, that coalition couldn't do much, but combined with the libertarians, who have no other real choice, and the Republicans who will vote for anyone but Obama, Paul would basically have to get the nomination and then keel over dead to not win.

The harder part is getting the nomination. But given the current field of viable candidates (double digit poll numbers) is now Romney, Gingrich, and Paul, I think he will get some real consideration from the Tea Party folks - those that want to cut government spending and prefer an "outsider" are going to go to Paul, now that Cain is out and the social conservatives are basically dead in the water. Remember that, in Kentucky at least, these people did elect his son as their Senator based on their Tea Party ideals.

And I think the campaign is recognizing that opportunity to go after those that want to cut spending:

The Occupy crowds would be especially angry at a successful Ron Paul campaign.

This being the same Occupy crowds that are often shouting things like "End the Fed" and "no more bailouts"? I don't think they would be as averse to Paul winning as you think. They may be misguided fools running in all directions at once, but there is a way to reach out to them through their anger with the Federal Reserve and the bailout system.

Here is what I'm talking about with Democratic Paul supporters. In a recent NBC News/Marist poll in Iowa, they had this to say (emphasis added):

Against Paul, 42% of registered voters in Iowa support Obama while the same proportion -- 42% -- backs Paul. A notable 16% are undecided. Paul attracts 15% of Iowa’s Democrats and leads President Obama 42% to 35% among independent voters. Paul also has a 14 percentage point advantage over Obama among voters under 45 years of age.

As for Ron Paul being the only Republican to be able to beat Obama, I present this additional evidence from the same Iowa poll:

In a matchup against Romney, the president has a seven percentage point lead. 46% of registered voters support Mr. Obama while 39% favor Romney. 15% are undecided. Against Gingrich, the president garners 47% to 37% for Gingrich, a 10 percentage point lead. 16% are undecided.

Other Republican candidates fare even worse. Paul causes Obama to hit the lowest poll numbers, and is the only one to run a close contest, being in a statistical tie with Obama. And, remember, despite the emphasis on Iowa's social conservatives the media spits out leading up to the caucus, Iowa is not a red state. In the last four elections, the Democrats won Iowa three times - the exception being (barely) voting for Bush in 2004.

Poll source (PDF)

collegestudent22 wrote:This being the same Occupy crowds that are often shouting things like "End the Fed" and "no more bailouts"? I don't think they would be as averse to Paul winning as you think. They may be misguided fools running in all directions at once, but there is a way to reach out to them through their anger with the Federal Reserve and the bailout system.

Case in point:



But, you may be right, Cid. We probably need someone younger, perhaps famous, to help spread the message. Maybe someone like... I dunno. Vince Vaughn? He's pretty popular, thanks to some movies he made. At least, that's what I hear.

Well after the news came (and went??) about the secret Fed loans of $7.8 trillion at 0.01% I'm not as surprised the Occupy folks are annoyed...

Nice video.

That's how Paul was able to predict terrorist attacks PRIOR to 9/11:



Another "What If?" for you - one that should enlighten you as to why Iran hates the US so much:

"What if Obama had not been elected?

What if John McCain had won the election, but was then removed from office in a coup d’état fomented by covert agents of a foreign government? What if that government then installed Barack Obama as president, overriding the wishes of the American electorate? What if that foreign government propped up the Obama administration for decades and American citizens were unable to depose him peacefully through the electoral process?

What if Americans decided to rebel against this tyranny and overthrow Obama in a revolution? What if the foreign government called the American rebels insurgents or terrorists for removing the tyrant, when it was obvious to the whole world that the Americans had been justified in deposing Obama as a usurper backed by foreign interests?

What if, after the revolution, Americans elected a leader that they felt represented their values but that people in other countries did not like? What if the foreign government that had previously overthrown John McCain joined with other countries and imposed sanctions upon Americans, using military force to prevent voluntary trade between the United States and other countries? What if that foreign government sent billions of dollars to Mexico, allowing her to arm herself with nuclear weapons, but forbade the United States to similarly arm herself in her own defense?

What if that same foreign government armed and supported Canada in waging a decade-long war against the United States? What if that government then turned on Canada and invaded her, setting up military bases on her soil, with tens of thousands of troops capable of striking at the United States at any moment?

What if Americans resented the sanctions and threats of violence directed at them and responded with threatening statements of their own? What if Americans were vilified as terrorists for opposing these aggressive actions with manly firmness? What if the United States had not invaded another country in over 200 years, but was still characterized as a threat to the whole world by a government that routinely invaded other nations, had already overthrown the U.S. government once in the past, had armed America’s neighbors with weapons of mass destruction, and regularly issued official government statements calling for “regime change” in the United States?

What if there were credible rumors that a preemptive nuclear strike by Mexico was imminent? What if the foreign government pledged its full support for Mexico and warned Americans not to attempt to arm themselves adequately to prevent this unprovoked attack? What if it was apparent to all Americans that they had no chance to fight their enemies in a conventional war and win?

What would Americans be prepared to do then?"

(Hint: replace US with Iran, Mexico with Israel, Canada with Iraq, and "foreign government" with the USA)

Source

Well, the good news is, if there were an election for President of The Internet, Ron Paul might have a shot.