How to guarantee Ron Paul won't run 3rd party

RLENT · Dec 18, 2011

Very smart lady ..... and perhaps an idea who time has come:

How to guarantee Ron Paul won't run 3rd party
Jenn Morrill

Whether it's Sean Hannity, David Gregory, or Jay Leno asking, they all want to know one thing from Ron Paul: "Assuming you don't win the GOP nomination, will you run third party?"

Paul has become annoyed at times when this subject is raised. No sooner had Paul sat down for his post-debate interview with Sean Hannity on Thursday than Hannity was trying to get Paul to say he would support the GOP nominee and not run third party. Visibly irritated, probably because he assumed he would get questions regarding the debate as Romney and Gingrich had just before him, Paul responded with, "I'll give the same answer I've given, oh, 39 times now. I have no intention of doing that." When Hannity pressed him to give an absolute statement, Paul replied, "I have absolutely no plans or thoughts of doing it."

This answer does not satisfy conservatives who are terrified of Obama in office for another four years and who know that Ron Paul did not throw his support behind John McCain in 2008 (he also didn't run third party).

Yesterday there was even the question raised in a Washington Times article if it's ethical for Ron Paul to run as a third party candidate. The article's author, Bob Siegel, wrote,

Our friend Ron Paul may soon be facing his own moment of truth. Is his passion really based upon a love for the American Constitution, or is it being fed by ego?

And Siegel concludes with,

Ron Paul, the day is dawning when you must put up or shut up: A second term of Obama may just end any honest application of the constitution you vigorously defend once and for all. How sad if you, of all people, make that happen.

Is it possible, though, that there is a solution out there that the pundits won't mention? If, as it has been implied, the GOP base will turn out in droves to support anyone other than Obama in the 2012 general election, then wouldn't that mean that they would even do so for Ron Paul? Despite their strong distaste for his foreign policy, they love his domestic policies far better than Obama's.

Public Policy Polling tweeted yesterday that, "Paul performs the best of the Republicans against Obama among independents on almost every poll we ever do." Independents are known to determine close elections; and Paul has a clear edge here over his Republican rivals.

Paul is the only GOP candidate who does and will appeal to the many liberals who have become disenchanted with Obama's presidency and his empty promises, and they, too, will vote for Paul because of his foreign policy, his record on supporting civil liberties, and his stance on ending the drug war. Then there are those people in the Libertarian and Constitution parties who would also support Paul. And while Paul may be the oldest GOP candidate in the field, his message has particularly resonated with the youth in America, which would provide a significant boost when running against Obama, who had a monopoly on that constituency in 2008.

If Romney or Gingrich wins the nomination, and Paul chooses not to run as a third party candidate, then they will still not have the support of Ron Paul supporters no matter what people tell them to do. And "Newt Romney" won't win the Independent or youth vote against Obama. Libertarians and Constitutionalists will stick with their own party. Choose Romney or Gingrich, it doesn't matter. Either would lose in the general election.

If Ron Paul does run third party, then he will likely siphon off at least 15-20 percent, and Obama will win.

But if Paul is chosen to be the GOP candidate in 2012, then he will get the entire GOP base to vote for him (not out of love for Paul, but seething hatred for Obama), he will have every supporter of his at the polls (that goes without saying), and he will win more independents and liberals than any other GOP candidate ever would.

While Romney seems to have the whole presidential package and Gingrich is a good debater and politician, the fact is Ron Paul appeals to the broader electorate, if the goal really is to beat Obama. The mainstream media would have everyone believe that Paul isn't electable and doesn't stand a chance against Obama, but reason (and Paul being elected 12 times to Congress) will tell you otherwise.

At any rate, it's the only way to know Paul "absolutely" won't run third party.

RLENT · Dec 19, 2011

Well, with the looming prospect of Tea Party Anniversary Money Bomb exceeding it's $4 million dollar goal (now a fact), and the new PPP Poll showing Dr. Paul pulling into the lead in Iowa, with 23%, apparently even Leroy is getting on the bandwagon. Thank you Newt !:

RLENT · Dec 19, 2011

Alternative Scenario:

........ If Dr. Ron Paul Wins Iowa, Fox News Doesn't Count .....

AMonger · Dec 19, 2011

RLENT said:
Very smart lady ..... and perhaps an idea who time has come:

How to guarantee Ron Paul won't run 3rd party

How can anyone possibly question Dr. Paul's love for the constitution, especially relative to his opponents? His opponents have no better record on constitutional fealty than Obama.

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.

RLENT · Dec 19, 2011

More confirmation - Nate Silver over @ FiveThirtyEight Polling tweets:

Our Iowa forecast, reflecting PPP poll, now shows:

Paul 24, Romney 21, Gingrich 16, Perry 11, Bachmann 11, Santorum 10

greg334 · Dec 19, 2011

listening to Fox this morning and they seem to ignore the Paul gains and over on MSNBC, they seem to be thinking that it is a good thing.

The funny comment of the day came from CNN, they said Paul has less chance of winning against Obama but Romney may beat him if Obama doesn't run.

Talking to one of the few remaining FDR democrats alive I know, he seems to think that if Paul doesn't win, Obama will because a lot of dems will vote for Paul but will not Romney.

RLENT · Dec 19, 2011

Drudge is runnin' with it:

chefdennis · Dec 19, 2011

As i pointed out in another thread, I can and do support Paul, even though i do not totally agree with him. That being said, the people I talk to about Paul , those that won't vote for him, are not beinf swayed by any of this..they just are not going to vote for him.....and nothing is going to change that...it is a "either or " situation...

greg334 · Dec 19, 2011

God don't they get it?

Listening to some "conservative" talk show, they were discussing the idea that if Paul doesn't win the nomination, the voters that he "controls" will go with the republican candidate. One caller was kind of on the money by calling the host a fool for thinking that the voters would even consider Romney, or Gingrich. He pointed out that if there isn't one in the pack that has a lick of sense, expect Obama to be long into his second term before the republicans knew what hit them.

chefdennis · Dec 19, 2011

The people that i have talked to that won't vote for Paul, also will not vote for barry,,they'd vote for a bum on the street before barry and they are voters....mostly independent voters also...

muttly · Dec 19, 2011

greg334 said:
listening to Fox this morning and they seem to ignore the Paul gains and over on MSNBC, they seem to be thinking that it is a good thing.

The funny comment of the day came from CNN, they said Paul has less chance of winning against Obama but Romney may beat him if Obama doesn't run.

Talking to one of the few remaining FDR democrats alive I know, he seems to think that if Paul doesn't win, Obama will because a lot of dems will vote for Paul but will not Romney.

Greg your mischaracterizing Fox News. They have on numerous occasions by plenty of analysts say that Paul has a very good shot of winning Iowa. I just heard A.B. Stoddard say just that 15 minutes ago.

muttly · Dec 19, 2011

Regarding this article, the writer might assume too much by saying "he will get the entire republican base to vote for him".
After all isn't a lot of the republican base according to some of the Ron Paul supporters nothing more than warmongering neocons.

RLENT · Dec 19, 2011

muttly said:
Regarding this article, the writer might assume too much by saying "he will get the entire republican base to vote for him".

Well, here da thing - mebbe not the entire republican base (hyperbole) ..... I would think that based on various comments on here (that have been against Obama), anyone that's paying attention could probably put together a list of who's who on here that will probably pull the lever for the good Dr. given the choice of him or Obama ....

muttly said:
After all isn't a lot of the republican base according to some of the Ron Paul supporters nothing more than warmongering neocons.

I wouldn't characterize it quite like that .... (although maybe I already have

)

Those on the far right are the really die-hard, warmongering neocons - the more you move a little to the center, the more reasonableness and willingness to look at whether the whole neoconservative thing is really working out all that well .....

However that doesn't mean there is no hope for them ...... afterall, I was once a warmongering neocon myself

....

I cheered on the first Gulf war, spent big coin (for me) in support of the Shrub to get the Bush v Gore recount done in 2000, then cheered on Afghanistan and Iraq .....

And then, and after being one of the most totally died-in-the-wool Fox News fanboys there ever was, I put down the Kool-aid and turned the channel, started looking for alternatives to the corporate-owned lamestream media .... and actually started educating myself ....

The MSM does report data that are true - but they also omit, twist, mis-represent, and outright lie in support of an agenda - and the Right is just as guilty as the Left of doing so.

It's done to control minds and stop thought.

You could say it's a multitude of both accidental and intention, de facto (not formal) conspiracies, that largely occur as a matter of people just having similar ideologies, and not having enough personal integrity to just tell the truth, and ensure the American people are aware of it.

Much of the "press" and "news media" will have a lot to answer for in the coming years.

As things get worse (as they most assuredly will), the number of people that reject the two-party paradigm will grow - since the awareness will continue to rise as to what is the source of the problem.

aristotle · Dec 19, 2011

If Ron Paul wins in Iowa, which looks likely right now, the Republican machine will find a way to stop him. The Republican establishment, along with Fox News, is totally in the tank for Mitt Romney. By any means necessary, Ron Paul will be made unacceptable to voters. The machine will have its way.

What was done to Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Newt will be tame in comparison. It's a sad commentary we can't have a straight up election. Obama's reelection looks more sure than ever.

RLENT · Dec 19, 2011

greg334 said:
God don't they get it?

They don't have a clue ...... Boobus at it's very finest ....

greg334 said:
Listening to some "conservative" talk show, they were discussing the idea that if Paul doesn't win the nomination, the voters that he "controls" will go with the republican candidate.

LOL ... that right there could appropriately called the lunatic fringe ....

Depending on what dirty trickery those on the Right decide to engage in to try and deny Paul the nomination, I can tell ya of several that I know (myself included), that might just be inclined to vote for Obama (spit) .... seeing him as the lesser of two evils ....

Bad little boys and girls need correction .... and need to be "punished" ...... and taught a lesson.

And then sit back, from elsewhere .... and watch what unfolds for all the morons that were too stupid to do what was in their best survival interests ....

In any event, I will not ever vote for any of the other Republican candidates, besides Dr. Paul.

greg334 said:
One caller was kind of on the money by calling the host a fool for thinking that the voters would even consider Romney, or Gingrich. He pointed out that if there isn't one in the pack that has a lick of sense, expect Obama to be long into his second term before the republicans knew what hit them.

You'd think, that given the whole "doing what's politically expedient" paradigm, these dipwads could take the ideological blinders off long enough to see what is in their own best interests.

Maybe not

Survival is predicated on both making correct decisions, but also avoiding wrong ones .... those that fail to, probably won't ....

greg334 · Dec 19, 2011

aristotle said:
If Ron Paul wins in Iowa, which looks likely right now, the Republican machine will find a way to stop him. The Republican establishment, along with Fox News, is totally in the tank for Mitt Romney. By any means necessary, Ron Paul will be made unacceptable to voters. The machine will have its way.

What was done to Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Newt will be tame in comparison. It's a sad commentary we can't have a straight up election. Obama's reelection looks more sure than ever.

Yes that is all true but like the democrats, even after they are told. It shows the true colors and level of intelligence in the party to the public and will pave the way for not just Obama but possible a BIden running and winning in 2016.

RLENT · Dec 19, 2011

The shoe has finally dropped ..... major pundit Howard Fineman has just went against conventional wisdom

.... and commented on Hardball with Michael Smerconish on MSNBC that it is actually possible for Dr. Paul to attain the Republican nomination ....

Probably the two best things about it were:

1. Considering the viewership (MSNBC) the message will reach those more to the left and liberal side .....

2. Fineman reiterated all of Dr. Paul's policy positions - many of which, for the Obama dissatisfied, is like a laundry list of reasons to vote for him

RLENT · Dec 19, 2011

aristotle said:
If Ron Paul wins in Iowa, which looks likely right now, the Republican machine will find a way to stop him. The Republican establishment, along with Fox News, is totally in the tank for Mitt Romney. By any means necessary, Ron Paul will be made unacceptable to voters. The machine will have its way.

Out of the mouths of babes ....

Ari, you have just made a prima facie case for why the Party should not .... and must not be supported ..... it is totally corrupt.

It is a realization that many (on both sides of the aisle) have already had ..... and more and more are coming to every day.

aristotle said:
What was done to Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Newt will be tame in comparison. It's a sad commentary we can't have a straight up election.

It's what happens when one's compromises their ideals .... in the interest of political expediency ......

It ends being a bitter soup .... that many, after sampling, no longer wish to partake of ....

aristotle said:
Obama's reelection looks more sure than ever.

We (and that includes you) have the power to change it .....

If that isn't ..... in fact ..... true .... you, and all the rest of us, are longer .... a free people ..... we are simply ruled ... with a choice of which of the faces of a two-faced monster, will rule us ....

The choice, with a little candid and honest reflection, ought to be fairly self-evident - if we (and mean those from anywhere on the political spectrum) do not band together to ensure an honest election, our country is doomed .. we've simply run out of time as a nation ...