Ron Paul: why he could win.

[Thumper]

So you're saying you're trolling?

Obviously not...I'm pointing out weaknesses in your credibility.

...and giving hero worshippers an opportunity to out themselves. You consistantly oblige.

Hero worship and an unnatural identification with a public figure are known psychological abnormalities. We saw this a lot with the Dean people, hence my earlier question. You demonstrate the symptoms well, and it speaks directly to your credibility.

And when did he ever give "his word" that he wouldn't run a third party campaign?

It would surprise me very much if you didn't already know the answer to your question. Surely you don't intend to waffle "I don't intend..." into something else.

A third party run would only serve to help Hillary... Painfully obvious to anyone that exhibits the slightest political acuity.

Here, in video format: "no intention to run" straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. They even press him on it, pointing out that he would simply be a spoiler, and he agrees that third parties have no chance.

 

[GoSlash27]

I'm giving hero worshippers an opportunity to out themselves

IOW trolling. Post reported. We'll just let the mods decide.
I repeat: At what point did he "give his word" that he won't?

You used the term "his word", as in "I solemnly promise to not seek or accept the nomination for a third party run". We all know how far "no intention" goes. If you need clarification, check in with Sen. Wide Stance.
And AFA how it would affect the Republican (or Dem) chances should he choose to go that route, it's not germane to this discussion.

 

[Thumper]

You used the term "his word", as in "I solemnly promise to not seek or accept the nomination for a third party run". We all know how far "no intention" goes. If you need clarification, check in with Sen. Wide Stance.
And AFA how it would affect the Republican (or Dem) chances should he choose to go that route, it's not germane to this discussion.

If one of my employees told me that they had no intention of doing something, I would consider that their word. This is obvious to most.

Integrity is the only thing Ron Paul has going for him.

He might resent your maligning that integrity by wishfully attempting to fudge his words.

Or mine. "Post reported," indeed.

 

[Wuchak]

Saying that you don't intend to do something is much different then saying you won't. Won't is fixed, intention can change. I never intended to sell my previous house and move half way across the country from my family, but I did.

Paul running independent won't necessarily help Hillary since she has NOT received the Democrat Party's nomination yet. Personally I think that it's looking more like Obama in the top spot everyday. I hope if he gets the nomination he's smart enough not guarantee his assassination by making her VP. Actually I can't say that I like any of the other Republican hopefuls that much better than Obama. It's like choosing my favorite cancerous tumor.

 

[Thumper]

Saying that you don't intend to do something is much different then saying you won't. Won't is fixed, intention can change.

Absolutely, 100% technically correct.

Is this the light in which you wish to paint Dr. Paul? I was really hoping you guys were at least in line with Ron's whole "integrity" thing.

 

[GoSlash27]

Once again, this has nothing to do with the topic.
He has not said he will run third party. He has not said he won't. None of that has any bearing on his competition for the Republican nomination.

 

[Thumper]

Do you agree that he said more than once that he had no intention of running third party?

Hint: There's video of it in the link I provided above.

 

[crashm1]

Hero worship and an unnatural identification with a public figure are known psychological abnormalities. We saw this a lot with the Dean people, hence my earlier question. You demonstrate the symptoms well, and it speaks directly to your credibility.

We also saw this a lot with GW Bush supporters or at least I did and still do.


I don't know if Ron Paul can win the primary or not, I do know that I am seeing more and more of his supporters on the other forums I frequent. Now that could be all 38 of RPs internet commandos leaving the basement but why they would spend time on MN sportbike forums and Buell forums I have no idea. Many have even been posting for years on these forums as moles while waiting for Dr Paul to send out the secret activation code, heck many were even for other candidates at first. (One of the other important questions is what the heck are motorcycle forums doing having political discussions.) The other thing I have noticed is Dr Paul is getting an awful lot of money from non traditional sources, i.e. not PACs or Special interest groups so maybe he has more broad based popular support than some think.

 

[Thumper]

We also saw this a lot with GW Bush supporters or at least I did and still do

Agreed. I think most public figures generate these types. Introjection is quite common, for instance, among bright people with self esteem problems.

 

[GoSlash27]

Thumper,

Do you agree that he said more than once that he had no intention of running third party?

Yes. Do you agree that he never said he wouldn't do it?

Absolutely, 100% technically correct.

so let's drop all this diversionary nonsense and get back on topic.
To refresh your memory: Ron Paul: why he could win (or not).

 

[qednick]

The difference between Ron Paul and all the other candidates is that all the others have supporters whereas Ron Paul has disciples. Also looks like Ron Paul is on course to be the biggest GOP money-raiser in Q4. Dismiss these facts all you want but they are true.

To not vote for a candidate simply because Fox News tells you he has no chance of winning or because his disciples piss you off is the most ridiculous reason to not vote for a candidate I've ever heard of.

You vote for the candidate that most matches your views - anything short of this (or no vote at all) then you probably don't deserve a vote at all. It doesn't matter who that candidate is: Huckabee, Giuliani, Thompson, Paul or even Clinton. You vote for the candidate that you want to vote for - not who Rupert Murchoch wants you to vote for!!

 

[johnbt]

"Seriously, what chance do you give Ron Paul to win the nomination?"

Close your eyes, what do you see?

 

[Luke223]

 

[STAGE 2]

Stage2,
Goes to show how inaccurate your view of "reality" is.

Point #1 Most closed primary states are allowing people to register at the polls this year. And since you never defined "the states that matter", let me remind you that right now there's 5 of 'em. Iowa (registration at the door), New Hampshire(registration at the door), North Carolina (one stop absentee voting for late registrees), Michigan (open primary), and Nevada (20 days left to register).

That would be relevant if it were not for the fact that there has NEVER in the history of american politics where crossover voters have ever made a difference in an election, or have evne come close.

Point #2 The volunteers have been working nationwide to get people registered throughout the year. Nobody knows how many new Republicans are on the list this year, but it's safe to surmise that people who are donating their time and money aren't going to suddenly find themselves too disinterested to register.

I'm not sure if you realized this, but you pretty much just contradicted yourself. Since no one knows how many new republicans there are its a farce to suggest that there is this huge untapped base for Paul.

Point #3 Perhaps the problem lies in your picture of the "Republican base". For instance, in my state even most Republicans are against the war.
Your "Republican base" agrees more with Pat Buchanan than George W Bush.

Again, thats bogus. Not only a majority of republicans, but a majority of americans want our troops to stay long enough to get the job done. They want the war finished, but they don't want to leave outright a la Paul.

And not that your broken-record act about national random polling is relavant, but this statement is false too.

I'm not sure whether you actually read what you linked to, but what you posted shows Paul so dismally far behind the other republicans that they either had to enter a blank or an NA for him in many of the categories. And nowhere on that pdf file did I see any percentages either.

Of course that doesn't matter since your response was a sidestep to my question so I'll ask it again. There has never been a candidate to win a nomination in either party who never broke 5% in the national polls. I'm talking zogby, rasmussen, gallup or pew.

Is Paul going to break all these political records or will reality remain reality.

 

[publius42]

Weren't you asking about Ron Paul with reference to 2% support not long ago, Stage2? Then wasn't the standard 5%? Rasmussen has him at 5% as of a couple weeks ago, and now the standard is "breaking 5%". Not to worry, that will come soon.

Even if he loses, we have all already won a lot from the Paul campaign. He has captured the interest of college students in large numbers, many of whom would not otherwise encounter many conservative ideas. He is already building a legacy similar to Goldwater's, which I think proved beneficial to the cause of limited government. It's hard to say who will benefit politically, since the GOP seems determined to drive away Ron Paul supporters, but in the war of ideas, it is good to see Ron Paul's campaign bringing in young blood.

 

[Northern Sod Breaker]

We saw this a lot with the Dean people,

Speaking of which. Who remembers '04? Howard Dean was supposed to win the DFL nomination then the primaries came and Kerry won. Just goes to show. Politics is a hard game to call and don't shoot the horse 'til he's dead.

PS I second what qednick said. I add to it that anyone who votes based on polls is as bad as those who vote the party line.

 

[Thumper]

I add to it that anyone who votes based on polls is as bad as those who vote the party line.

Um...who votes based on polls? Are you familiar with the phrase "strawman argument?"

Pointing at time proven polls when discussing whether or not Ron Paul has a chance is quite legitimate.

Speaking of which. Who remembers '04? Howard Dean was supposed to win the DFL nomination then the primaries came and Kerry won.

Nope. Kerry led.

Besides, terrible analogy comparing Paul to Dean. Dean was in second place. The proper analogy would be Kucinich, who was polling at about 4%. Sound eerily familiar?


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/22/elec04.poll.kerry.lead/index.html

 

[Northern Sod Breaker]

Besides, terrible analogy comparing Paul to Dean. Dean was in second place. The proper analogy would be Kucinich, who was polling at about 4%. Sound eerily familiar?

What I was comparing was the situtation preceeding the primary as it relates to the canidates. And using this logic are you saying the Rudi will win the nomination. I actauly have a quite radical idea. Only those who will actauly vote in the primary should be allowed to post in this thread. Of course it would be too hard to prove. I'm not saying I support Ron Paul. I am how ever saying that if you are going to bash him, you'd better be able to back it up. So far in the last 8 pages I have not seen any of this. Polls are an educated quess at best. There is no way a polling agency can ask every regisistered voter, As such they use percentages. Doing so opens the door to many inaccuracies. The only poll that I trust is the actual one. Because among other things it's the only one that matters and it's (with a few exceptions) 100% accurate Will Paul win/ I don't know but until someone prvide valid proof he won't, I certainly am not going to rule it out.

 

[STAGE 2]

Weren't you asking about Ron Paul with reference to 2% support not long ago, Stage2? Then wasn't the standard 5%? Rasmussen has him at 5% as of a couple weeks ago, and now the standard is "breaking 5%". Not to worry, that will come soon.

No, I wasnt. And according to most national polls, Paul is still polling below 5%. At the rate his support is increasing I'll be able to collect social security before he has enough for the nomination and I'm not that old.

 

[Thumper]

And using this logic are you saying the Rudi will win the nomination.

Well, not at all, of course. You're having a hard time with this strawman stuff, huh?

I'm saying that someone that's polling somewhere in the realm of possibility will win the nomination.

This is all moot anyway. I have absolute proof that Ron Paul won't win the nomination.