Why Paul would trounce Hillary:

[Bartholomew Roberts]

What purpose does that negativity serve? Why tell us to be content with the same-old, same-old instead of trying to exercise our democratic liberties to make a substantive change? The simple fact is, the candidate with the most votes wins.

Well clearly the issue is trying to achieve "substantive change." We have a political system that is built around the concept of compromise and the more change you try to introduce into that system, the less likely you are to achieve it. To use just one example, the change introduced by the 14th Amendment and the Emancipation Proclamation took around 110 years to be implemented and some would argue it isn't fully implemented even now.

It strikes me that most of the people arguing in this thread agree about the types of changes they would like to see, where they disagree is how rapidly those changes can be implemented. I would imagine that most of what you perceive is negativity is concern that by asking for too much too fast (Ron Paul for some people) you will instead get nothing at all.

Your perspective appears to be that by asking for too little, too slow (any candidate but Ron Paul), the rate of change will be unacceptable and so small that it may as well be that no change happened at all.

The thing is - if half of us place bets on incremental change and the other half place bets on substantive change now, then we both run a big risk of getting no change at all and even losing ground. So both sides bicker at the other.

And for the inevitable gunboard comment of "Good, I hope so and so wins so that we can get that much closer to the revolution." - I would just point out that if you haven't mastered the skills necessary to win a political campaign (logistics, communications), you certainly aren't going to win an armed fight.

That is the whole point of a representative republic - if you have the people to win a revolution, you don't need to fight because you can simply vote. If you don't have those people, then fighting won't help you because you've already demonstrated you don't have what it takes to win. So I have to seriously question that particular meme. Fighting is only an option when, like our Founding Fathers, the system is not representative of the people in it. I think that is another big disconnect between some of our members here as well. They labor under the belief that their values are widely shared and the system is not representative instead of accepting that they just hold a minority viewpoint. I notice many of the same members often have an idealized vision of what the past was like as well - which tends to lead them to believe that things were so much better in the past when in fact they faced many of the same issues and debates we argue about today.

 

[Thumper]

You know, I've supported Dr. Paul for a long time, but lately it seems that his power base has gone from thinking, rational, successful types to adolescents and nutjobs.

Makes me mad, because Dr. Paul deserves better than some of his "proponents" around here.

In my opinion, support for Dr. Paul pushes the Republican Party back to where it needs to be. Of course, he's got about as much chance of winning the nomination as Daffy Duck, but he can still influence the platform. I hope he gets a significant portion of the vote. He gets mine in the primaries. He still has ZERO chance of winning.

I'll be waiting for my check.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Here's the deal guys, Ron Paul could win a lot of the people who would otherwise vote for a Democrat, independents and Democrats.

What evidence do you have for that? Paul can't even get fellow Republicans to support him for the nomination.

 

[pcosmar]

Vern Humphrey asked,

What evidence do you have for that? Paul can't even get fellow Republicans to support him for the nomination.

There is a lot of evidence, on this board and on others. He is gaining support across the spectrum.
How many quotes, from how many people does it take to "prove" that he has support?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

How many quotes, from how many people does it take to "prove" that he has support?

It's votes, not quotes, that win elections. Every poll shows him so far down that he's almost invisable.

So I say again, what evidence do you have that Paul can win the Republican Primary, let alone the General Election? What evidence do you have that Independents and Democrats will vote for him?

 

[pcosmar]

Every poll shows him so far down that he's almost invisable.

No, sorry that is wrong.
Every antiquated landline telephone poll, with a very limited response shows that.
Every poll taken after a debate, by those actually interested, shows a very different result.
Straw polls in states that are preparing for the primary show he is doing quite well.
In every state there is a grass roots base of support, and they are growing, at the same time the "Top Tier" front runners are losing support. McCain is closing campaign offices and staff is jumping ship.
Rudy is not far behind. He has some big money support, but not the support of people. Romney has been supporting his campaign out of his own pocket. He shows up at events with his own cheering section, that is not support.
Ron Pauls money has come from small donations, from real people.
That is support.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

No, sorry that is wrong.
Every antiquated landline telephone poll, with a very limited response shows that.
Every poll taken after a debate, by those actually interested, shows a very different result.

Unfortunately, elections are not held right after a debate, and the franchise is not limited to those actually interested who attended the debate.

If he has such support, let him show it by winning the primaries.

 

[ArmedBear]

An attempt at assessing the realities of a political situation is not "negativity" when the results don't come out as you wish.

This may have made a great Romantic Era poem, but it's not a great way to win a war...

1.

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!
"Charge for the guns!" he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

2.

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

3.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.

4.

Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air,
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reel'd from the sabre stroke
Shatter'd and sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.

5.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.

6.

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred.

Alfred Lord Tennyson

Sometimes the kind of "positive thinking" some people advocate can kill.

 

[Biker]

Like Harley Davidson said: "Better to be dead and cool than alive and uncool".



Biker

 

[oldfart]

There is a real disconnect here between the "official" polls and those held on-line. The "reputable" organizations all report Dr. Paul's support as minimal while the web polls show him to be strong and gaining ground.
I don't know why this is. There are theories from both sides which purport to explain this issue but they're just theories at this point and only add fuel to the fire of an already heated debate. There is only one true measure of his support: the primary elections. We can call him and each other names until we get banned from the board but - until the primaries we won't know anything more than what's in our own hearts.
As I have said before: All my votes, since I came of age to vote, have either been for the lesser of two evils or against the candidate I considered most flawed. I have never had the opportunity to vote for a good man and I'm not going to let this chance pass. It may be my last. I'm voting for Ron Paul.

 

[Correia]

Nevertheless, there will still be people on this very forum who insist that he "can't win". This is because they're being paid to say it by people who are very afraid of Dr. Paul.

Damn! Foiled again!

All right, I'll come out and admit it. We're being paid by the Reptoids of the Hollow Earth. Ron Paul is their immortal enemy in the struggle to defeat the surface world. Fred Thompson is actually an android constructed by the Reptoids to appeal to NeoCons. Rudy is actually a grey alien hybrid, totally different group, and I'm not affiliated with them at all.

Drat! Quick my minions, to the escape pods! Retreat before Ron Paul destroys us with his laser heat vision!

And we would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for you pesky kids...

 

[ArmedBear]

There is a real disconnect here between the "official" polls and those held on-line.

Official polls are taken using long-established statistical methods. Great care is taken to keep from simply attracting people of a certain persuasion and skewing the sample. (The cellphone factor does remain as an interesting question mark, only to be analyzed fully in hindsight after the next election.)

On-line polls do little BUT attract people of a certain persuasion and skew the results.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

There is only one true measure of his support: the primary elections. We can call him and each other names until we get banned from the board but - until the primaries we won't know anything more than what's in our own hearts.

Amen!

At the Battle of Spion Kop, the British had dug a trench and piled the earth in front for a parapet. The Boers simply shot at the parapet, and the bullets passed through, killing British soldiers who thought they were behind cover.

Ernest Swinton summed it up, "There is no excuse for having a parapet that is not bulletproof, since the means to test it are so readily at hand."

And there is no point in arguing over which candidate has the support to win -- the means to test it (the primaries) are readily at hand.

 

[R127]

And there is no point in arguing over which candidate has the support to win -- the means to test it (the primaries) are readily at hand.

The problem is that only tests if the party will elect a certain candidate in the primary, not whether or not that candidate can actually win a general election. The party will get behind whoever wins the primary rather than letting the opposite party have an easy win. The real test is whether or not that candidate can pull in enough votes outside his party to actually win a general election.

SaMx said it best.

Here's the deal guys, Ron Paul could win a lot of the people who would otherwise vote for a Democrat, independents and Democrats. Ron Paul is the only republican candidate who could do that. All republicans would vote for Ron Paul if the choice was between him a Hillary. Ron Paul may be the only republican candidate who can win. Voting for Ron Paul in the primaries would not help the Democrats.

Damn! Foiled again!

All right, I'll come out and admit it. We're being paid by the Reptoids of the Hollow Earth. Ron Paul is their immortal enemy in the struggle to defeat the surface world. Fred Thompson is actually an android constructed by the Reptoids to appeal to NeoCons. Rudy is actually a grey alien hybrid, totally different group, and I'm not affiliated with them at all.

Drat! Quick my minions, to the escape pods! Retreat before Ron Paul destroys us with his laser heat vision!

And we would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for you pesky kids...

The only part of that I believe is that Thompson may be an android.

 

[Daemon688]

The elections aren't even close and I've already grown tired of all these debates. I'm willing to bet a majority of the primary voters don't like any of the major candidates (including myself). Once the 08 election rolls around and my choice is Hillary or Rudy either way the vote goes, the Dems still win as far as I'm concerned. I'll be voting third party, screw them.

Until then, I stand by my support of Ron Paul. Maybe then the Republican party can get their **** together after the dems muck things up.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Rudy Guiliani is Hillary Clinton in drag.

 

[ArmedBear]

Perhaps he is.

However, if he is true to his word, he could be a real friend to RKBA, whether or not he so intends.

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/07/better_judges_better_courts.php

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -Bill

I.e., I'm not exactly ready to paint myself into Hillary's corner 16 months before the election.

 

[frank23185]

"Rudy Guiliani is Hillary Clinton in drag."

Might be the other way around...

 

[wQuay]

So I say again, what evidence do you have that Paul can win the Republican Primary, let alone the General Election? What evidence do you have that Independents and Democrats will vote for him?

I'm a member of the RP facebook group. Many of the other members surprise me. Democrats, independents, people who have never voted, etc. There are very few who are traditional conservatives. Ron Paul has a pretty wide base.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Ron Paul has a pretty wide base.

Then let him show it by winning the primaries.

 

[ArmedBear]

Democrats, independents, people who have never voted, etc. There are very few who are traditional conservatives.

That's a two-edged sword. It supports the assertion that there could be some crossover votes for Paul, and it also supports the assertion that there would be lackluster support, at best, from conservatives, who also make up a large voting bloc.

Hence, it won't be over 'til the fat lady sings. It never is.

Then let him show it by winning the primaries.

Yup. It might be noted that Howard Dean could say some of the same things last time around.

On the other hand, Ron Paul is not going to come unhinged in the same way, so he does have a real advantage over Howard.

 

[oldfart]

The thing that bothers me most about this whole debate is reading posts from people who say they support what RP stands for but won't vote for him, because he can't win.
Then there are those who call us crazy when we vote based on a single issue - gun control - but won't support RP because of his stance on some other single issue.
No candidate can or will completely satisfy me - except me, and I doubt I'd get more than one vote. No matter who gets into the oval office he (or God forbid, she) won't satisfy everybody. Even I, a rabid Paulist, wish he were a bit more statesmanlike in his bearing. He delivers great ideas and thoughts while sounding and looking a bit like Howdy Doody. A certain group here seems to love making that comparison too. I wonder how they would have handled Lincoln, who, in hindsight, seemed to be almost a caricature of a man.
Like a lot of others here and elsewhere, I'll be voting for RP in the primaries and hoping enough voters follow suit to get him the nomination. I like the logic that started this thread for I too believe he could beat her. But he has to have the chance and (to quote Spiro Agnew) some of the "nattering Nabobs of negativism" need to realize that Guliani, Romney, McMain and Thompson are, one and all, byproducts of the current political machine and it matters little whether they put a (D) or an (R) after their names.

 

[Master Blaster]

It really simple Ron Paul, is the only candidate who will not propose and end to RKBA, so I will be voting for him.

Otherwise they are all the same Democrat or republican.

BTW in the primary i will vote for Obama because he has the least chance of winning less than Hillary.

 

[seektruth]

Then let him show it by winning the primaries.

Don't worry, he will. The so-called 'scientific' polls are so far from an accurate representation that they're not even worth referencing. Kinda like all the internet/text message/whatever polls that folks like to write off.

 

[ArmedBear]

The so-called 'scientific' polls are so far from an accurate representation that they're not even worth referencing. Kinda like all the internet/text message/whatever polls that folks like to write off.

ROTFLMAO

You mean all those polls that get it within a few percentage points every time, or maybe the average done by RCP, that's proven to be even better?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national-primary.html

Wishes, fishes. Two different things.

For those who are too dense to understand the difference between seeing something and wanting something, that doesn't mean I WANT Guiliani vs. Clinton, and there's a lot of time between now and then, anyway. But Ron Paul has a lot of ground to gain, in order to win.