Posted on 12/31/2011 6:36:09 AM PST by no dems
So my guess was correct, you have no basis that Obama would win if someone was on a third party. And a bit overreaction (”how dare you”) don’t you think?
Yeah, I know. That's the problem.
The only way I can see Paul out flanking Obama is on Foreign policy, 911 truther stuff. That's not going to happen.
I think you're taking me a little of context here...
I am not for a 3rd party run this year due to the danger O-bozo presents
I agree with you there . The strategy is for US to take over the GOP ( as they suck for sure ) But this election is VERY dangerous to play with .
My FIRST priority is to make sure Obama looses. If he wins all else is a moot point as there will be no country left to save , not by a 3rd , 4th or 5th party . It won’t matter. I HATE Mitt be assured of that .
I am not for a 3rd party run this year due to the danger O-bozo presents
We agree here !
And Clinton still pulled 49.2% of the vote. Perot got 8.4%.
Without Perot that could have been closer than 2000...
3rd party , Obama wins. THAT is the reality . My reality is that Obama MUST NOT WIN . If he does nothing else much will matter afterwards as America will become a bankrupt ,3rd world sh*t hole.
Got ya buddy .
You could be correct, but it would depend on what issues Paul would concentrate on and on how he would direct his attacks. On the whole though, I think that Paul would not attack Obama from the Left and he seems far more likely on the net to take votes from the GOP and to benefit Obama.
Gary Johnson is already running as a Libertarian. And there is also going to be a Green candidate.
I’d love to see a bunch of candidates. I hope there is a leftist challenge to Hussein, such as McKinney, Nader, or someone of that ilk. Someone well enough known to take some lefty votes.
I don't think there are nearly enough "thinking" Dem voters to sway things one way or another. The vast majority of Rat voters are simply mindless sheep that vote whichever way the MSM wants them to, easily controlled with propaganda and scare tactics. Unfortunately, there's a sizable chunk of the Repub voting block that is also easily controlled by the MSM.
So in the end, for a 3rd party candidate to have any chance at all of affecting the outcome of the election, the MSM would have to get behind them - and there's no way that's going to happen. We already know who the MSM anointed candidates are - ObaMao & Willard. I don't believe there are enough independently thinking non-sheeple voters on either the left OR right to change this. A third party candidate would get no support from the MSM, and would ultimately affect at most a percentage point or two in terms of swaying the overall vote. Which camp this 1%-2% swing would come from is anyone's best guess. But either way, we're going to end up with an MSM-anointed status-quo elitist in the executive office once this election is done.
A Romney nomination helps to re-elect Obama, whenter or not Paul runs 3rd party. But people don’t seem to be worried about that ... especially the RNC
Hmmm?
Problem is turnout would be so high from the left if both Obama and Paul were on the ticket, that even if we won the presidency, we would lose the House and Senate as they all checked off the down-ticket Ds.
Basically, we’ve got the presidency locked up if we nominate Newt, and definitely can’t win if we nominate Romney or Paul. Everyone else has a 50/50 chance.
Don’t be stupid, Be a smarty,
Come and join the Ron Paul Party!
Apparently, elephant, you didnt even read the Vanity Post.
Ref. your Post #21: Yes, your last statement is not only reasonable but is exactly the point I made in the Vanity Post.
The reality is that if a socialist wins it does not matter one damned bit if that socialist is Obama, or someone else. A socialist in the Republican party is actually worse than Obama as it gives the left both parties.
You really need to grow up and leave the highschool popularity contest view of politics your post just presented. There is a bigger and deeper view of the world that most adults grow into.
Seems Paul is running to keep his message alive - keep the country strong through sound money and non military involvement. His message is not supported now but let’s see in 2016 when he won’t be the issue. So I doubt he will run 3rd party unless the GOP kicks him out of debates.
In my view, this election basically ended for the worst for conservatives the day Sarah Palin decided not to run.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Yeah; Sarah, Jim DeMint, Paul Ryan..... the good ones decided, for whatever reason, not to run. So, we ended up with RINOs (Romney and Huntsman), wackos (Paul and Bachmann) and dummies (Perry and Cain). (Yes, I know I did not include Santorum and Gingrich in the RINOs, wackos and dummies). And, as far as Herman Cain, whom you mentioned......
Thank God we found out about Herman Cain before he got the nomination. I still say that if he was innocent of the charges, he would have stood and fought instead of running and hiding behind his wife and God. He let down a lot of people.
By the time Texas gets to vote in a primary....Iowa and NE states have already chosen the candidate.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If Ron Paul comes in first or second in Iowa, IMO, they are no longer relevant and should lose their “first in the nation” status.
Ref. your Post #32: I’ll tell you how to explain ‘96.
#1. It’s hard to defeat an incumbent.
#2. The GOP nominated a crusty, old fart who was entrenched in the Establishment just because it was his turn.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.