Ron Paul 2004

Corned Beef Renegade

Banned
What if Ron Paul decides to be the Eugene McCarthy to Bush's LBJ and enter the GOP primaries in 04? Obviously he wouldn't win but if he did end up generating anywhere near the enthusiasm he did in OTL 2008 and finishing strong in New Hampshire it could have an interesting effect on Bush's second term (presuming he still wins the general) if you had a more active anti-interventionist right to perhaps align with the anti-war left on civil liberties and war issues.
 

David T

Paul would have done very poorly in 2004. Most Republicans were still in a very hawkish post-9/11 mood. Moreover, the economy was in reasonably good shape--or at least seemed to be, especially to Republicans.
 

CthulhuFhtagn

Banned
Corned Beef Renegade said:
There were anti-war conservatives and libertarians in the Bush years they just weren't very organized. Ron Paul jumping in would give them something to get fired up over.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but would that last when the GOP nominated Bush? Of course, they might start to show up in 2007 and 2008, as Bush becomes less and less popular.
 

David T

Corned Beef Renegade said:
There were anti-war conservatives and libertarians in the Bush years they just weren't very organized. Ron Paul jumping in would give them something to get fired up over.
Click to expand...

It's not just that they weren't very organized. It's also that they weren't very numerous. Let's not forget that *even in 2008* Paul only got 5.54% of the total GOP primary vote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008

Even in New Hampshire--where the anti-tax tradition, the ability of independents to vote in either party's primary, etc. should have helped Paul, he got only 7.8% of the vote in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_New_Hampshire,_2008
 

CELTICEMPIRE

CthulhuFhtagn said:
That's being generous. I'm pretty sure all Ron Paul supporters are high schoolers, and most of them can't vote.
Click to expand...

Well, Ron could get the endorsement of Pat Buchanan, an anti-war Conservative, if he ran and Pat was still very influential at that time IIRC. He also already had a small network of supporters such as Lew Rockwell.

College students are generally more open to third party candidates and more receptive to Ron Paul's ideas, as Ron himself recognizes. There are also a lot of Libertarians who sit out the elections, who would get out to vote if Ron was running. Ron wouldn't get the same support he would if he ran third party in '08 or 2012, but he'd have a decent following.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
2004 would have been way too early for Ron Paul. While a lot of Republicans would have loved his small government proposals, the party was still very much controlled by the War Hawks. After all, the Iraq War still hadn't turned into the utter disaster it would become.

2008 was much better. Ron established his credentials, organized the caucuses and did extremely well in identifying his fanatical base. His son also managed to establish himself in the Senate in 2010 and will inherit that machinery. The Revolution will happen, its just going to take a little time
 

Orville_third

Banned
It could have led to changes among Republicans in the House and Senate in 2006 and beyond. Perhaps it could have even ensured the defeat of the Bush escalation and the Bush bailouts.

He would have had my primary vote- if they allowed one.
 

sciscisciortino

I agree with the McCloskey bit. He wasn't a national figure, nor was libertarianism really mainstream, until after the establishment GOP imploded in 2005-2006. There's a reason why "libertarian" today is largely the buzzword for right-wingers that don't want to admit they voted for Bush.
 

David T

LordKalvert said:
2004 would have been way too early for Ron Paul. While a lot of Republicans would have loved his small government proposals, the party was still very much controlled by the War Hawks. After all, the Iraq War still hadn't turned into the utter disaster it would become.

2008 was much better. Ron established his credentials, organized the caucuses and did extremely well in identifying his fanatical base. His son also managed to establish himself in the Senate in 2010 and will inherit that machinery. The Revolution will happen, its just going to take a little time
Click to expand...

I'm puzzled that some people here, while conceding that 2004 was too early for Ron Paul, think he did well in 2008. Is 5.54 percent of the GOP primary vote really that great a showing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008 Even in the Iowa caucus, he couldn't quite break into double digits, and finished in fifth place behind Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, and McCain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Iowa,_2008#Results_2
 

LordKalvert

Banned
David T said:
I'm puzzled that some people here, while conceding that 2004 was too early for Ron Paul, think he did well in 2008. Is 5.54 percent of the GOP primary vote really that great a showing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008 Even in the Iowa caucus, he couldn't quite break into double digits, and finished in fifth place behind Huckabee, Romney, Thompson, and McCain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Iowa,_2008#Results_2
Click to expand...

Is 5.54% a great showing? Of course not- the purpose of 2008 was to lay the foundation for 2012 and beyond. Ron Paul long became the father of a movement.

The 2008 election led to his son's victory in 2010 in the Kentucky senate race. It laid the groundwork for Ron's much better run in 2012. Now, when Rand runs in 2016, he will be starting from Ron's 2012 base and that makes him a very powerful and formidable contender.

People have no idea how much Ron has done to transform the Republican Party. I was at the 2012 Texas Republican Convention and the number of Paulistas that got elected to party posts was truly outstanding. Its the nuts and bolts but it plays a huge role in what will happen in the future
 

Corbell Mark IV

CELTICEMPIRE said:
Well, Ron could get the endorsement of Pat Buchanan, an anti-war Conservative, if he ran and Pat was still very influential at that time IIRC. He also already had a small network of supporters such as Lew Rockwell.

College students are generally more open to third party candidates and more receptive to Ron Paul's ideas, as Ron himself recognizes. There are also a lot of Libertarians who sit out the elections, who would get out to vote if Ron was running. Ron wouldn't get the same support he would if he ran third party in '08 or 2012, but he'd have a decent following.
Click to expand...


Being anti-war during a war fever, would lead to increased stature once the war fever ended.

IMO.
 

pattersonautobody

I voted for Badnarik in 2004. He essentially said all the same things that Ron Paul said in 2008, but had no traction because Iraq was not considered a quagmire yet.

In 2008, Paul got attention because he was the only person saying the obvious (when it comes to war, no one supports his views on Civil Rights) in a room of 10 people during a debate. However, in 2004 he would not be viewed as right (though he would have been.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top