Would Ron Paul have had a better chance in the primaries had he run as a DEMOCRAT?

F

FirstFreedom

Moderator
I'm sure I'm not the first one to think of this, but I truly think Mr. Paul would have a better chance at the POTUS nomination through the primary process had he run as a Democrat. He's pretty unpopular among the status quo Repubs who control the "machine" - the Bush/neocon/pro-war types, which is of course severely hurting his chances in the R. primary (although he's doing extremely well in spite of this). Conversely, being an anti-war candidate, he would seriously contend with Hillary and Obama among the base hardcore Democrats, and his other libertarian ideas are not as unpopular among Democrats as one might think. Hillary has no serious opposition because, to Dems, what's the alternative? Obama? Richardson? Kucinich? "Hair Hat" Edwards? Who else? Are any of these characters strongly anti-war, in tune with their base and the country at large which put Dems in Congress in 06? Ron Paul would be a powerful force that could have severely undermined Hillary's juggernaut here.... just a crazy thought.
 
...and how well would his stressing of personal responsibility fly in the Democratic party with its standard playbook of fosterring special treatment for various "oppressed and less able" people?

Not well.
 
I submit that he could be a powerful force to undermine Hillary's juggernaut as the Republican nominee for the presidency.

He'd be ripped to shreds as a Democrat. He's anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-tax, anti-big-government, anti-welfare state, anti-socialism, and was an early supporter of Ronald Reagan, who ranks right up there with Dick Cheney as a bugaboo of the Dems. And on top of all that, he's only ever been married once, fifty-some years ago.

In spite of what many seem to think, there's a lot more to his record than his opposition to using the US military as a world police force.
 
No, because he has not chance to win.

If Paul decides to run as an independent, after dropping out of the Republican race, he would probably shave enough votes from the Republican nominee to put a Democrat in The White House.
 
No. He's an unapologetic Goldwater conservative.

"Would have had" implies that he has no chance for the Republican nomination and I strongly disagree. The only thing that indicates that is the national polls... the same ones that proclaimed Kerry would never get the Dem nomination last cycle, Dubya would get trounced by McCain, Clinton would get trounced by the entire field....

He's got the grassroots, plenty of cash, a commanding lead in the straw polls, and a massive organization. The reports of his demise are highly exaggerated. ;)

It is a bonus, tho', that he's stolen as much support from under the Dems as he has. It shows that he can beat them just like Reagan did.
 
Ron Paul will not get either the Republican or Democrat nomination. And the only thing he will accomplish by continuing his bid as an Independent is siphoning votes away from the Republicans, since he has more in common with conservatives, thus assuring the election of Hillary Clinton.

It wouldn't even surprise me if some of his campaign money, unbeknown to Mr. Paul, is actually coming from the Democrats, hoping he will run as an Independent. Because if he does, he'll be the best thing that's ever happened to the Clinton campaign.

The term "Divide and conquer" didn't become famous for no reason.
 
The term "Divide and conquer" didn't become famous for no reason
Click to expand...
Well then, by all means, let the Republicans join together as conservative, limited government, protectors of the constitution. You know, kinda like that Ron Paul fella.
 
No

:p

His best chance would be to run in France.... wait... they have a guy now!

:p

He is a constitutionalist and that don't fly well with the Dems. If he were a bit more realistic about foreign policy and less whiney, he'd make a good Republican.
 
Strange, I think he is realistic about foreign policy...

I hope he does run as an independent and sink the Republicans if Rudy gets the nod. I would LOVE for that to happen. Rudy or Hillary, it doesn't really matter at all, they are both the same. At least the point would be made to the RNC that you can't run a liberal in a conservative party and keep party support. As far as I am concerned if Rudy gets the nod the election is lost anyway.
 
Ron Paul will not get either the Republican or Democrat nomination. And the only thing he will accomplish by continuing his bid as an Independent is siphoning votes away from the Republicans, since he has more in common with conservatives, thus assuring the election of Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...

I agree that voting for an outsider takes away votes from the mainstream candidate, but this is why we often end up with bad mainstream candidates! How on earth is anything ever going to fundamentally change in American politics if someone with good but very different ideas like Ron Paul is virtually locked out because of fears like posted above?

But on the original question: no, I don't think Ron Paul should run as a Democrat. He's about as far from a Democrat as I can imagine, but he isn't a typical Republican either, unfortunately. Even though IMO Republicans should stand for the same things Ron Paul does. It seems the "new fangled" Republicans, such as are in power now, are all for big intrusive government.
 
If he were a bit more realistic about foreign policy
Click to expand...

I did not think we had a realistic foreign policy now so perhaps Ron Paul
would be a step in the right direction.

Please remember the media loves Rudy and Hillary any good press will be
directed at them no one else.
 
I think that the sad truth is that Ron Paul doesn't have a chance, period.

That is because he is so different from both sides; the Republicans won't side with him because they can't control him, and the Democrats won't side with him because of his political beliefs.

Even if he were to get elected, his Presidency wouldn't accomplish much because of the above reasons and that he would probably make a lot of folks angry by telling the truth. I also have a feeling that RP would try to end a lot of the "Pork" politics and that will never do in Washington.

That being said, I believe in his message will vote for him.
 
Strange, I think he is realistic about foreign policy...
Click to expand...

Ron Paul’s foreign policy is unrealistic. Nothing wrong with reigning ourselves in, but you can’t un-ring a bell. We’re way too deep into dependency on and the internal affairs of others to stick our collective head in the sand.
 
Why would Paul take votes away from the Republicans if he did run third party? I wasn't going to vote for any of the likely candidates anyway. Only a strong constitutionalist will get my vote. I expect that many conservative Paul supporters are in the same boat. And I also expect that most of the other Paul supporters would never vote Republican, except for somebody like Paul. So, in this case a third party Paul candidacy (very unlikely to happen) will not strip enough votes to make a difference.

If Paul is too "wacky" for you, find me another strong constitutional candidate. If you can't, then quit complaining about me not voting for the lousy, stinkin' Republican
 
If Ron Paul wasn't running as a Republican I would not even consider voting R. I would be voting for whoever was running as the Libertarian candidate. Ron Paul is the only candidate who could garner my vote for the Republican party.
 
^^^ I'm with Danzig. I've been voting libertarian ideals since 1980 and mostly the Ds annd Rs have sucked at least that long. This is the first time I've even considered voting Republican let alone donate money. I'll vote for RP in the primary and if he is on a ballot in the general election he get's my vote then too.
 
It wouldn't even surprise me if some of his campaign money, unbeknown to Mr. Paul, is actually coming from the Democrats, hoping he will run as an Independent. Because if he does, he'll be the best thing that's ever happened to the Clinton campaign.
Click to expand...

Heheh...ya think?

Of course that's the case...The Daily Show can't book him often enough. The left is loving Perot. Oops, I mean Paul. I'm easily confused by others around here doomed to repeat history.

Hillary and a Dem Congress WILL be the end of the gains we've made regarding gun rights in the last fifteen years. It might...probably will...be even worse than that.

Oh well...we reap what we sow.

Just so we're all on the same page: Does ANYONE here think that Dr. Paul will break 15%?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top