Ron Paul; the only Republican that can defeat Barrack Obama

That is simply not the case with Ron Paul. So why do republicans ignore the facts? Why do they support people that they know do not have appeal beyond their main base of support? Why do they seem so keen on losing an election when they express and acknowledge so much is at stake?

reply to post by sageofmonticello


Because it is a rigged game all along. Two Bushes make a tree, hahaha! 3 Bushes (Jeb Bush) make a Royal Ruling Bush Family! Let's hope we don't have to put up with Jeb Bush's foreign policy in the world! If they think Mr Paul's foreign policy is dangerous, look out, there's much worse danger to contend with!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

You're not? Hmm.. Okay.

I think it is pretty clear what I am saying. I think if any republican can beat Obama that Ron Paul is the only one that has a chance. I thought that was pretty clear by the words in my post. Maybe i should of said it closer to the top of the post.

I am saying that chances are that Obama is going to get a second term but the only chance that he won't will be if Ron Paul can get the nomination, then we have a small small small chance of waking the american people up.

I see your point though, the headline could certainly be taken out of context another way. I just feel like the context clears it up pretty well.

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by Revolution9

 

I know, I know. I am just talking about a hypothetical situation in which Ron Paul got the nomination. His chance of getting that nomination are pretty much irrelevant in that discussion.

I agree with you completely and appreciate your contribution to the post, I just wanted to explain that it wasn't really what I was talking about.

Thanks. I have read your OP. It is very good. You are a man of very sound scruples yourself and how I wish for a world where there could be honour in politics. I don't blame Politicians really; there is so little room to manouevre for politicians these days.

I am just a disillusioned old beggar. See through the game these days and have lost hope.

You are very eloquent and you demonstrate a great aptitude for Politics and your commentary is very professional. They need people like you in POLITICS. I am not going to grumble all over your OP any longer with my misery. Thanks for a great read.

The only reason Paul is not leading the polls is because the majority of people who vote for the primary also rely on Fox News for their "fair and balanced" view of the candidates. Paul has been ignored, even before Iowa when the Dr. was leading polls they would manage to fudge their polling numbers to keep him down. They will vote for who ever the media pushes.

To those who think his foreign policy, our military supports him for a reason. If any group of Americans have a realistic view of the world it would be our military since they do spend some time overseas and they do interact with 'friendlies' even in 'war zones.' How many of you who think his foreign policy is dangerous have been overseas recently?

reply to post by Revolution9


Thanks, I appreciate your sentiments. I didn't mean to sound like I wanted to chase you away, I was just afraid you or others didn't understand what i was saying.

I am pretty disillusioned myself. I just find it so crazy that republicans want so badly to beat Obama yet can't seem to make a logical argument as to how Romney, Santorum or Gingrich could ever do that.

At least with Ron Paul, he has appeal on the opposite side of the political fence. Sorry if my response wasn't all that well worded to what i was trying to express, I wasn't expecting to have to make so many responses so quickly.

I like Rasmussen polls. They only poll likely voters, so they often get closer to the actual results. To avoid being insulted again, I will only prodece the results of their most recent polling.

As far as winning the nomination, Santorum is ahead. By a lot.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters finds Santorum with 39% support to the former Massachusetts governor’s 27%. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich follows from a distance with 15% of the vote, and Texas Congressman Ron Paul runs last with 10%. Three percent (3%) like some other candidate in the race, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

www.rasmussenreports.com... ial_primary (OK, I see the link is too long to fit. Go to rasmussenReports.com, it's on the home page. Under Political Issues, then Under Daily Presidential Tracking poll.)

As far as a Republican who has a chance to beat Obama:

In potential Election 2012 matchups, both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have pulled to within two points of the president. Obama leads Romney 45% to 43% and if Santorum is the Republican nominee, the president leads 46% to 44%.

They didn't say what Paul's numbers are, I'd have to subscribe, and the money is tight. But it doesn't sound as though Paul is as close as those two.
www.rasmussenreports.com...

Shouldn't numbers like these affect our thinking?

reply to post by Revolution9


The possibility of a Jeb Bush presidency scares the crap out of me. I would like to believe that the American people are smarter than that.... I am not so sure.

I might even become an Obama supporter if Jeb Bush somehow gets the nod. I never vote for the lesser of two evils and honestly think Obama is just as bad as Bush but in a different way but seriously, I could not just sit around and let that happen. If another Bush ever gets in power that will be my cue to get the heck out of dodge as the american people will have completely lost their minds.

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by Revolution9

 

Thanks, I appreciate your sentiments. I didn't mean to sound like I wanted to chase you away, I was just afraid you or others didn't understand what i was saying.

I am pretty disillusioned myself. I just find it so crazy that republicans want so badly to beat Obama yet can't seem to make a logical argument as to how Romney, Santorum or Gingrich could ever do that.

At least with Ron Paul, he has appeal on the opposite side of the political fence. Sorry if my response wasn't all that well worded to what i was trying to express, I wasn't expecting to have to make so many responses so quickly.

Not atall. You are very gracious. I am just longing for those rolled up shirt leeves, sweaty boardroom days, haha!
I expect that has gone forever though, replaced with the Cheshire cat grin of Tony Blair et al. Personally, I really do think Mr Paul would walk it if there was more media coverage and the game was fair. He has so many talents and beyond all the others he has a face that people might still believe.

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by Revolution9

 

The possibility of a Jeb Bush presidency scares the crap out of me. I would like to believe that the American people are smarter than that.... I am not so sure.

I might even become an Obama supporter if Jeb Bush somehow gets the nod. I never vote for the lesser of two evils and honestly think Obama is just as bad as Bush but in a different way but seriously, I could not just sit around and let that happen. If another Bush ever gets in power that will be my cue to get the heck out of dodge as the american people will have completely lost their minds.

edit on 21-2-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)

I totally agree wholeheartedly. Yet I do fear for the worst. I can tell from over here who they are pushing. Jeb Bush's name is being spoken about in the media here today. Troubles are brewing!!!

reply to post by charles1952


I get your point but

I like most Americans have never met a pollster. I think most of those polls simply show that republicans will vote for republicans and that democrats will vote for democrats.

That is why I based my argument on the fact that Ron Paul is the only republican that can pull support from democrats. What makes him unpopular in his own party is what makes him popular in a general election. That is all I am really saying when you break it down.

Ron Paul has shown in Rasmussen Polls to have around the same numbers as the two you showed vs Obama. I am trying to find the link now. will update

ETA:
here is one though I know I have seen something more recent. I will keep looking for a bit it was like 49% to 48% or something like that.
www.rasmussenreports.com...

Here it is. This article says Paul, Romney and Santorum are all tied according to Rasmussen dated 2/2/2012
thehill.com...

and here is Rasmussen source they link to
www.rasmussenreports.com...

I still don't give polls much credence though none claim to be accurate because they are not and most are simply tools used to impart a thought of consensus when in reality none exist. That's just my opinion though.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

Ron Paul can't even beat Gingrich or Santorum; what chance would he stand against Obama ?

Are you sure about that? The MSM makes it seem like he has no chance, but guess what the revolution is in full swing and it seems like Ron Paul is finally receiving the credit he deserves after all these years of the MSM blocking him out of the picture. What chances does he have against Obama you may ask, well that's simple the support of the people... And even if they were to debate what does Obama have on RP? You can't debate consistency especially when you been in politics before Obama graduated High School..

reply to post by sageofmonticello

Dear sageofmonticello,

Am I embarassed! I forgot to mention that the second poll, the one showing Santorum and Romney as close to Obama, was conducted among all Americans, Republican or otherwise. That leads me to think that, at least now, both of thos gentleman have a chance of taking Obama nationally.

Here it is. This article says Paul, Romney and Santorum are all tied according to Rasmussen dated 2/2/2012

I believe you, but that doesn't strengthen the argument that Paul is the only one who can win.

Thanks a lot for posting, it's the kind of thoughtful response that I dig through ATS trying to find.

With respect,
Cahrles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Thanks. I just love it when we can all play nice together!

I realize what your saying, the polls wold certainly show that all three, Romney, Paul and Santorum are in the hunt in my hypothetical situation from my OP. My whole line of thinking is just that Ron Pauls foreign policy can bring votes from the opposite political spectrum while Santorum and Romney simply push those "would be" republican votes back over to Obama.

I totally concede that you have point though. I just feel like any republican that gets the nomination will get the republican vote but only one can take votes from Obama.

I just don't see Obama supporters voting for Romeny or Santorum but I do see and know Obama supporters that would vote for Ron Paul.

Thanks for the discussion. My best to you and yours.

reply to post by sageofmonticello

Dear sageofmonticello,

I think you're right, in the main, but there are just too many unanswerable questions for me to have a firm opinion on the matter.

Question 1.) Can Paul get the nomination?
Question 2.) What happens when the media starts attacking him instead of ignoring him?
Question 3.) Will Paul supporters vote for Obama instead of a generic Republican?
Question 4.) How can we know how Independents would split in a Paul-Obama race.
Question 5.) Will the big corporate interests donate to "End the Fed" Paul?

There are more, but this should give you some idea why I'm so confused. That confusion seems strange when faced with the certainty expressed by Paul supporters. Are they justified in their certainty?

Oh, the key question in a Paul-Obama race: Can Paul make layups? Just had another question, 6 is it? Will age be a factor, and will it help or hurt Paul.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by spacekc929


Thanks for adding your thoughts in this thread. That is pretty much exactly what I was attempting to say. Hopefully the way you put it will make more sense to people than the way i put it.

"Anyone but Obama" should really be saying "Anyone who agrees with us"

That is pretty much it. They want to beat Obama but they are completely unwilling to admit that anything they have ever supported in the past could possibly be wrong or not in our best interest despite overwhelming proof slapping them in the face. Ron Paul 2012 in many ways is running on Barrack Obama's 2008 platform which in many ways resembles Ron Pauls 2008 platform.

Adherence to the constitution, no illegal wars, personal liberty, repeal the patriot act. Obviously the message differs in many places but those are the bullet points and either one of them could be saying it. I agree Ron Paul would actually do it, that is why he gains Obama supporters or at least that is what they have told me.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by sageofmonticello

 

Dear sageofmonticello,

I think you're right, in the main, but there are just too many unanswerable questions for me to have a firm opinion on the matter.

Question 1.) Can Paul get the nomination?
Question 2.) What happens when the media starts attacking him instead of ignoring him?
Question 3.) Will Paul supporters vote for Obama instead of a generic Republican?
Question 4.) How can we know how Independents would split in a Paul-Obama race.
Question 5.) Will the big corporate interests donate to "End the Fed" Paul?

There are more, but this should give you some idea why I'm so confused. That confusion seems strange when faced with the certainty expressed by Paul supporters. Are they justified in their certainty?

Oh, the key question in a Paul-Obama race: Can Paul make layups?

Just had another question, 6 is it? Will age be a factor, and will it help or hurt Paul.

With respect,
Charles1952

I obviously can't answer those questions for you nor do I think you are asking me to but I can certainly give you my thoughts on them.

1) No, In my opinion the best he can do is trade his delegates for a spot on the ticket for his son, Rand Paul and in that way hedge their bets for 2016 and a Rand Paul run. His popularity outside of the republican party is what makes him unpopular within it. Though if he did get the nomination I think republicans would hold their nose and vote for him. Much like they are doing with Romney now. I haven't met anyone who likes Romney for Romney but rather they seem to like Romney because they think he can beat Obama. I am sure Romney has some genuine supporters out there, I just have never met one. The ones I have met that do support him are definitely holding their nose and just taking the medicine.

2)Nothing really. When they are not ignoring him they are already attacking him. If it came down to Obama vs Paul the left media will attack him and the Right media will support him basically creating a wash out with the spin on both sides.

3)Some just might. I could see myself voting for Obama if Jeb Bush somehow got the nod. I think that there is a distinct possibility it would be a split between people. Some Paul supporters would go to Obama (or back to Obama), some would stick with the republican nominee and some simply wouldn't vote.

4)That's the main question. The independents are going to vote for who they see as the lesser of two evils. The debates would decide that. I say Paul can beat Obama in a debate because he can call him on his rhetoric.

5)Not much of a chance. He has some very wealthy supporters Like Thiel (paypal guru, facebook investor) but I think his campaign would be financed in much the same way it is now I imagine. I have noticed the corporate donors tend to end up donating to both sides of the fence and supporting each candidate though in different amounts. Kinda like betting on both horses in the race. I think they know better than to give Paul any money, it would be a waste of time for them. The Lobbies gave up on trying to influence Ron Paul long ago.

6) I don't know about basketball but I believe Ron Paul is the only congressman to ever hit a homerun in their annual softball game.

7)I think his age helps him with some hurts him with others.

I remember in the Bush vs Gore race, my girlfriend at the time voted for Gore because she thought he was better looking. I was the registered republican that voted for Nader as I could never stomach Bush senior and knew G.W. was going to bring us to war. Gore's politics make me sick so Nader got my vote but it was really a vote against the 2 party system as obviously Nader was not going to win. My point is just that people vote one way or another for many unpredictable crazy reasons.

Just my thoughts.

Cheers

You hit the nail on the head. Two things appeal to independents who might vote against Obama - isolationism and fiscal restraint. Ron Paul is the only Republican that can appeal in both areas. Most Americans prefer isolationism as an ideal even if it might be irresponsible at times. So Ron Paul is the best candidate to beat Obama.

Why is it that Ron Paul is treated as such a joke by the media? For the same reason that he appeals to independents - isolationism and fiscal restraint. The media and government have a cozy relationship and they both want government involvement to grow in all areas - domestically and internationally.

My favorite candidate is Gingrich, but I think Ron Paul would be the most likely to beat Obama.

reply to post by Carseller4


Why do you believe his foreign policy is a fail? Is it because you have been told over and over that it is (just like his electability) by the media or others who don't really know what he is really about? To say he has a horrible foreign policy is the same as saying our "Founding Fathers" had a bad foreign policy. They wrote the Constitution to keep the power with the people.

Ron Paul's official stance has always been to protect America first and let Congress decide if an Act of War should be declared. By the Constitution, the President commands the military, but cannot declare War! What is Ron Paul's Foreign Policy? It's the "Original" Foreign Policy, which many of us Americans have forgotten! Just because the US has moved away from this stance after WWII, doesn't mean that the old way was wrong.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower's exit speech on Jan.17, 1961, warned us about the Military Industrial Complex taking on more powers than it should have. With every passing President we have moved further away from what our "Founding Fathers" created and it is about time we start getting back to it!

Ron Paul is the only Candidate who has this "Strong", "Noble", "Conservative" Foreign Policy stance! It's not weak! It's empowering the people through Congress to make that decision; it was never the President's in the first place! Anyone who disagrees needs to lookup what Democracy and a Republic is, then compare that against a Dictatorship and Communism is.

So I ask who is the only true non-progressive conservative running for office.................?

.......This is the part where you say to yourself, "Oh ya, I guess it is Ron Paul, huh?"

Originally posted by filosophia
Can you imagine a television debate between ron paul and obama? That would be historic, of course it will never happen. Obama showing up to debate ron paul live on tv would be like obama showing up to his court hearing in Georgia.

haha hilarious Nice analogy

Mark my words: If anyone other than Ron Paul wins the primary, Barack Obama will serve a second term. I have absolutely no proof of this but I have a strong feeling this is what's about to go down.

I don't have much faith in the voting process but I'm gonna still show up and cast my vote for Ron Paul. The more the media downplays him the more I want to vote for him because I've taken the time to research for myself. I don't choose to believe whatever I'm told.

I'm not going to be programmed by TV programs.