I'm calling it right now...

I think he will run as an independent, but he won't get a single electoral vote... unless libertarians finally saturated New Hampshire enough so he gets them.

 

Dr. Righteous; Keep in mind we use electorates in the US and these are based for the most part based on winner take all, per State. While Ron Paul has a solid 15% base, well spread through the Nation, he would not likely receive ONE electorate and he knows this. This meaning he would know in advance, running in a 3rd party would take more from the Republican Base, than the Democratic Base, very possibly giving Obama, FOUR MORE YEARS.

IMO and agreeing with Libertarians on many Domestic Issues, do not feel Dr. Paul at his age, having a rising star son in the Republican Party (Rand), would want to be remembered for causing that result.

 

well , Till the Last Drop I'd vote for Stonewall and help buy the rope..

But the GOP just don't have anyone that even remotely looks Presidential.

They all look like used car salesman to me ...

 

That is odrama's only hope for reelection. Paul doing exactly that worries me greatly. He has NO chance but he would get enough votes for odrama to get back in.

 

I almost agree with you. I think all GOP candidates and Obama look like non-presidential used car salesmen, except Ron Paul. He's the only one saying what he means and believes rather than selling you a whole lot of nothing that sounds real nice.

I completely disagree. Ron Paul has more support now than ever before. As to how much support he has total, no one can say with certainty. There is absolutely no way that you can prove that he has any less support than anyone else. That is unless you are capable of conducting a widespread scientific poll and no, the ones the media have released do not count. I hope you understand why.

It is possible, however, to speculate as to how much support he has based on a number of factors. Certain factors are irrelevant when trying to consider facts only, such as online polls, but they can still be useful for speculative purposes. I do not only consider how much support he has, but how the media treats him. Factors I have considered include, but are not limited to,

The fact that he has received more donations from active duty military members than any other gop candidate combined and more than Obama.

His online support base is huge. Now I'm not saying that this proves that the amount of online supporters of Ron Paul is directly proportional to the actual supporters in the population, but it does not disprove it either. This simply proves that a large portion of the people that use the internet support Ron Paul. His total support base could consist of just these people, or everyone in the world, but just to clarify, I am not trying to use this as a means of proving his total support.

The mainstream media treats him with significantly less respect than he deserves. I find this to be fishy at the least. An ideologically consistent 12 term congressman that came in less than 1% behind Bachman in the Ames straw poll got less media coverage in the few days that followed than just about every other candidate. The Daily Show segment on this just about covers what my thoughts on this are.

The fact that he won the first two debates when asked questions that were seemingly made with the sole purpose to paint Ron Paul as the bad guy. That may not be fact, but my own personal opinion. The questions about gay marriage, prostitution, and heroin seemed to be intended to make Ron Paul look bad but he was able to turn them around and win the debate. Now they try to skip Ron Paul altogether in these debates. The most recent one wasn't as bad in this regard but in both you could see that they asked the most important questions to everyone but him and changed it to something less important when they got to him. And to top things off there was a group of people in the tea party debate audience that cheered when asked if the 30 year old man should die and it seems like the same amount of people booed when Ron Paul mentioned that 9/11 didn't happen because we are a free and prosperous nation. Again, none of this necessarily proves anything but it does affect my opinion towards Ron Paul and how the MSM treats him.

There are more things I could put but that list could go on for a while. To clarify, I used these factors to determine that Ron Paul has a decently sized support base and that the MSM is either being forced, or through will of their own, to try and ignore and demonize Ron Paul. They would need a reason to do that and what reason could they have if he didn't have a threatening level of supporters?

Again, most of that is just pure speculation as there is little factual evidence to go on when determining the actual size of his support base.

I would also like to say that you might think it foolish to vote for Ron Paul when it might let Obama win, but there is something you might not quite understand. I, and I'm sure other Ron Paul supporters believe this as well, think that if Ron Paul doesn't win then it really won't matter who does win. You say anyone would be better than Obama. I say anyone with a chance of winning other than Ron Paul wouldn't really be that much different than Obama. I say that because I don't have any reason to believe them when they say they will keep their word in doing what they say they will. Ron Paul on the other hand, I can believe to do that. A good chunk of one of the debates consisted of this, "Perry: I will repeal Obamacare! Romney: No, I will repeal Obamacare! Bachman: NO I will repeal Obamacare! Santorum: NO, I will repeal Obamacare!"

 

Ron Paul will be 77.5 years old by inauguration day. He will be past 77 on election day. 77+8=85 after 2 terms. AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. And I'm in my 70's too. I feel 100% like I could go another 50 years, but I also understand what "reality" is.

Paul is unelectable both for some of his positions and his age. His time WAS,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

And everyone claiming they will repeal obamacare. Nothing to it, if the Republicans take the Senate too. The Republicans in the House have already submitted, debated, voted, and passed a bill repealing obamacare and sent it on to the Senate. Reid has not allowed the House bill to come to the Senate floor. Guess he doesn't want to take a chance that the Democrat controlled Senate might pass it too. The House would have to do it again after the new bodies are seated, but they certainly will.

 

Honestly I feel that age is probably one of the most irrelevant factors in determining who should be president. Ronald Reagan was in his 70s when elected and he is known as one of our best presidents.

Also I can't stand the term "unelectable". There is only one set of rules that could make someone unelectable and that set is as follows.

- Native-born U.S. citizen
- At least 35 years of age
- Must live in the United States for at least 14 years

But in all seriousness, no one is unelectable if we the people choose them. That and I have proven time and time again how much support Ron Paul has. He is the only man ideologically consistent and out of all the GOP candidates, he did the best against Obama in the polls. Also, I've seen many passionate Ron Paul supporters but the supporters I've seen for other candidates act as if they only support them because they are the lesser of two evils. Many Mitt Romney supporters I've seen have said that he isn't their favorite but he has the best chance to win. I feel like if Ron Paul doesn't win, then whoever does win won't really be all that different than Obama. They all seem like smooth talking used car salesmen with hidden motives.

 

Better to buy a used car from a used car salesman..

Than to elect a snake oil sales man to the White House...
Friends dont let friends..Vote Obama.

Romney/Pawlenty 2012.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

This is the compilation of all the polls. Its not right or left biased.

I have seen NO poll anywhere where Paul was anywhere near odrama.

And you have PROVED nothing. You have strongly stated your opinion, which is your right to do. But your opinion is not proof of anything, just as mine is not. If I felt Paul WAS the strongest candidate and had the best chance to displace the idiot odrama, I'd be all for Paul. Even with some of his wild ideas. They're still better than odrama's wild commie/socialist/anti-American ideas. But my opinion is,,,,,,,,Paul has no chance. Reagan got elected at his age because he didn't look his age. And he was a crowd pleaser. That's not how a president SHOULD get elected, but it is how presidents DO get elected.
Paul is old, looks old, has some strange ideas, looks dorky and sounds dorky. It may be for all the wrong reasons, but he is unelectable. If odrama continues to step on his dick day after day as he has been doing, then Paul may become electable. But he'd still have to beat out his fellow, better looking, younger, more presentable Repubs.

 

First, lol @Realclearpolitics link.

Second,

http://www.dailypaul.com/178780/ron-paul-most-competitive-against-obama-in-latest-poll

There are other polls that say the same thing.

I'd elaborate more but I gotta get going right now. I'll be back later tonight or tomorrow.

 

Dan
Great points..and I would add Reagan had executive experience before he ran for president.. and was far more mainstream ..

and light years ahead of Paul in communication skills.

Reagan would never advocate unilaterally disarming our nukes and withdrawing troops from over seas bases..
Paul's economic theory's are un proven..and even un tried.
Now is not the time for another grand social experiment.

 

I hope he steals votes so Perry or Romney doesn't win.

 

Executive Experience doesn't mean anything if the person involved is liar... being Mainstearm today is like being a tory in the American Revolution.

Ron Paul prefers not to use Childrens Books and talking points to speak to a crowd of ADULTS.

Ron Paul spoke for disarming our entire Nuclear Arsenal? I call bull(*)(*)(*)(*)! Nice try with the lies again Pal.

Yeah? I guess he wouldn't but, he never followed the Constitution either (Oh noes I'm hiding behind it! Lol...) considering his Drug/Arms deals to fund Rebel/Terrorist organizations along with other shady dealings. Also what's wrong with not having those bases? Is there reasons for us to to keep making a wall around the Evil Fallen USSR/Russia? The Government is living in the past and they're making excuses for the existence of the Militarism.

Obviously the status quo is working for us so well right now isn't it? I guess when someone advocates for Free Market Economics and low regulations the countries with the most prosperity happen to follow that... go figure? I guess you're just interested in Central Economic Planning that has been Proven not to work and has been beat to death from the Federal Government.

Now is the time for Liberty.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

 

The DAILY PAUL and Rasmussen. I like Rasmussen's site but it is right leaning.

The DAILY PAUL?????????? That's hilariously unbiased!!!!!!!!!

Why not post the Paul Family poll too?

You're no different than the obamalamaloopas. Religiously backing your candidate against all logic and reality.

 

I gotta make this quick. I really gotta get to work.

Yes, I know, but it my haste that's what I found right now. There are more than just that. That and realclearpolitics combines all polls together which isn't biased itself but those polls from fox, cnn, msnbc, etc are very biased.

I'll try and find more unbiased results and elaborate further later on when I can.

 

One can also say you're Religiously against Ron Paul even it flies against all logic and reality.

 

You think he can be elected? I don't.

If I thought he could I'd vote for him. If he IS the Republican candidate, I WILL vote for him. I will vote for NOT OBAMA, whoever it is. But I won't vote for any 3rd party candidate. That just allows odrama another reign of terror.

You see, its odrama I'm religiously against, FOR logical and real reasons. He is grossly incompetent and needs to be fired..

 

Well you're set in your ways in defeating Obama... but who is going to take his place? Everyone on the Republican Side really the best choice? The thing I'm against is Obama as well but, also the rise of another loser who has the same way of thinking yet offers it in a Light version. I'm on the side of Ron Paul because he is the exact opposite of Obama concerning nearly every issue... it's a pity that a lot of ther men/woman on stage aren't too far apart when it comes to a lot of decisions Obama has made.

 

Another undercover radical liberal here to promote odrama. Both Perry and Romney have much more executive experience than odrama has now. Much more. And successful executive experience, odrama has none, and will have none in 2012. He is in way above his meager capabilities. He may have a high IQ. He has no common sense. He would be best suited in a classroom,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,sweeping up or doing minor repairs, not teaching.

 

Eh. This would have been true in 2008. Obama has been POTUS for three years now, so I think him not having any experience is pretty much out the door (especially the experience of the highest office in the land). Whether he has learned from it or not is another story.

 

What a way to debate! Considering I hate nearly everything he stands for and everything he passed through... I'm just another Liberal Radical undercover for the "Man". Hahaha

Being scumbag liars of the year and not knowing what is Constitutional Law concerning issues or using Executive Orders to mandate crap isn't exactly something to look at wonder too. They'll keep the system going as it was before... Romney is a Big Government dog and so is Perry.

Having Executive Experience doesn't always make a great Leader at all or an Honest person either.

 

Your presidential ideal is Andrew Jackson? A man who trashed the economy and committed ethnic cleansing, is what you want more of? Jackson is one of our very worst presidents.


PS. Though I agree with your sentiment, that looking presidential couldn't be any less important. That didn't become an issue until the 1960s(and TV). That trend is how we got so many incompetent presidents since that time. Reagan was a terrible president, but he was handsome and charming, so people loved him. It is a big joke.

 

My point is that he is still saying the exact same things he said while campaigning. He has learned nothing. He had no executive experience, he has acquired none.