Black This Out- A Ron Paul 2012 Timeline
- Thread starter Zacoftheaxes
- Start date
- Status
Santorum stumbled with the N word in OTL (although I maintain he was trying to say "negotiator").
Cain would call him out on it, he went after Perry's camp, and Perry didn't even get to name it.
Perhaps that was a bit too cheap of a way to discredit Santorum. I'll take note.
Cain would call him out on it, he went after Perry's camp, and Perry didn't even get to name it.
Perhaps that was a bit too cheap of a way to discredit Santorum. I'll take note.
You're aware of the OTL semi-controversy, right? Of course, you could make the argument that IOTL Santorum never intended to use the word, but that his stuttering happened at a bad time. All the author is doing is shifting his gaffe from a speech to a debate, where it gets more airtime.
I did remember that, and the funny thing is I thought at the time he was clearly not going towards the n word and the press was making much ado about nothing. But rewatching that clip, I realize that it really does sound like he is going there, which changes everything (even though I will give him the benefit of the doubt). Something like that in a debate woud be fatal and I agree, in hindsight it is not completely crazy for this scenario to happen. But while Romney says his 47% gaffe at a fundraiser I cannot see him saying it at a debate. That's where candidates try to avoid controversy of that nature. Much of the debate gaffes were either (1) forgetting why you were on the stage like Rick Perry or (2) coming up with a policy idea that makes no sence (like self deportation). The truly great gaffes tend to happen at speeches (high on maple syrup), interviews (Libya?) or at fundraiser a (47%). Nonetheless, I withdraw my previous criticism on Santorum as I want to see a Ron Paul TL and I cannot live with myself if I turn into an Internet Rick Santorum apologist.
.......? Don't get me wrong I fucking love the amount of detail put into this timeline to the point where a C-grade internet star gets mentioned in a timeline about Ron Paul being elected president. However I doubt this would allow him to loose his youtube partnership, he has said much more taboo and/or heinous things then a Hitler joke.
"This and other comments", I have bigger plans for him, don't worry. That's not the end of that part of the story.
This might be a mistake, but here goes:
I'm hard-left on social issues and moderate on fiscal issues, which is to say that I'm reasonably sympathetic to libertarian candidates. I certainly think the Republican Party in the U.S. would be far better off if the the locus of activism and energy were concentrated in its libertarian ranks than in its nutball Tea Party ranks. So those are my credentials for evaluating Ron Paul. Keep that in mind when I tell you this:
Ron Paul does not pass the sight test (or the "smell test", or whatever you call it) as a plausible President, in the same way that Dennis Kucinich does not, that Barney Frank does not, that Cynthia McKinney does not, that, historically, George McGovern did not. If he were the nominee of a major political party for President, he would be headed for a massive, landslide of a defeat.
Now, I am not making this judgment on the basis of Ron Paul's politics -- which I think are also not calibrated to win on the national stage, but that's a topic for another post. I am making this judgment solely on the basis of Ron Paul's abilities (or lack thereof) as a candidate. And here it is:
Ron Paul is not a good candidate. He is not even an average candidate. I watched all of the Republican primary debates in both 2008 and 2012, and here's what I saw from Ron Paul: even when answering questions that were completely in his "sweet spot" (i.e., on military spending, on foreign aid, on the debt ceiling, etc.), Paul was never able to deliver a smooth, cogent, sound-bite-ready answer. Even at his very best, he was halting, prone to malapropisms, verbal tics, filler words and noises, and just generally not very smooth.
I don't think even most Paul supporters would disagree with this; after all, there's a reason you don't see long-form 60-second and 2-minute commercials featuring uninterrupted Ron Paul speeches (as you did this past election with Obama and Romney): he doesn't give good speeches. You can't find 60 seconds that are inspiring and uplifting. You just can't. And when called upon to venture beyond his comfort zone, Ron Paul often -- again, this is solely my opinion -- wandered into "old man yells at cloud" territory.
I'm not alone in this assessment: Ron Paul is the only candidate of either party in recent memory to prompt his primary competitors to state outright that they would not endorse him if he were to gain the nomination. This is really noteworthy: even fringe candidates like Pat Buchanan and Al Sharpton -- neither of whom are plausible Presidents, by the way -- were able to at least command that level of respect from their primary opponents. But not Paul.
There are not a lot of polls out there on Paul's electability, but the one I could find reinforces this view: when 2008 Republican party primary voters were asked whether particular candidates were the most "electable," Ron Paul ranked dead last by enormous margins -- 19% said "yes," and a whopping 72% said "no." (Among all voters, Paul's standing is even worse -- 72 to 17.)
I recognize that for many of Paul's supporters, these attributes may be part of what you like about Ron Paul. That's fine; I'm not trying to argue you out of your support for your guy. I'm just saying, as someone who's been pretty active in politics, that Ron Paul does not pass the smell test as a plausible president, and I think if he were ever the nominee of the Republican Party, he would lose in a massive, 1972-style landslide to whomever the Democratic nominee happens to be.
I don't expect to convince Paul supporters of this, but I figured it should be said. To me -- and I think, to ~70% of the country -- Ron Paul is just not "Presidential," regardless of his politics.
I'm hard-left on social issues and moderate on fiscal issues, which is to say that I'm reasonably sympathetic to libertarian candidates. I certainly think the Republican Party in the U.S. would be far better off if the the locus of activism and energy were concentrated in its libertarian ranks than in its nutball Tea Party ranks. So those are my credentials for evaluating Ron Paul. Keep that in mind when I tell you this:
Ron Paul does not pass the sight test (or the "smell test", or whatever you call it) as a plausible President, in the same way that Dennis Kucinich does not, that Barney Frank does not, that Cynthia McKinney does not, that, historically, George McGovern did not. If he were the nominee of a major political party for President, he would be headed for a massive, landslide of a defeat.
Now, I am not making this judgment on the basis of Ron Paul's politics -- which I think are also not calibrated to win on the national stage, but that's a topic for another post. I am making this judgment solely on the basis of Ron Paul's abilities (or lack thereof) as a candidate. And here it is:
Ron Paul is not a good candidate. He is not even an average candidate. I watched all of the Republican primary debates in both 2008 and 2012, and here's what I saw from Ron Paul: even when answering questions that were completely in his "sweet spot" (i.e., on military spending, on foreign aid, on the debt ceiling, etc.), Paul was never able to deliver a smooth, cogent, sound-bite-ready answer. Even at his very best, he was halting, prone to malapropisms, verbal tics, filler words and noises, and just generally not very smooth.
I don't think even most Paul supporters would disagree with this; after all, there's a reason you don't see long-form 60-second and 2-minute commercials featuring uninterrupted Ron Paul speeches (as you did this past election with Obama and Romney): he doesn't give good speeches. You can't find 60 seconds that are inspiring and uplifting. You just can't. And when called upon to venture beyond his comfort zone, Ron Paul often -- again, this is solely my opinion -- wandered into "old man yells at cloud" territory.
I'm not alone in this assessment: Ron Paul is the only candidate of either party in recent memory to prompt his primary competitors to state outright that they would not endorse him if he were to gain the nomination. This is really noteworthy: even fringe candidates like Pat Buchanan and Al Sharpton -- neither of whom are plausible Presidents, by the way -- were able to at least command that level of respect from their primary opponents. But not Paul.
There are not a lot of polls out there on Paul's electability, but the one I could find reinforces this view: when 2008 Republican party primary voters were asked whether particular candidates were the most "electable," Ron Paul ranked dead last by enormous margins -- 19% said "yes," and a whopping 72% said "no." (Among all voters, Paul's standing is even worse -- 72 to 17.)
I recognize that for many of Paul's supporters, these attributes may be part of what you like about Ron Paul. That's fine; I'm not trying to argue you out of your support for your guy. I'm just saying, as someone who's been pretty active in politics, that Ron Paul does not pass the smell test as a plausible president, and I think if he were ever the nominee of the Republican Party, he would lose in a massive, 1972-style landslide to whomever the Democratic nominee happens to be.
I don't expect to convince Paul supporters of this, but I figured it should be said. To me -- and I think, to ~70% of the country -- Ron Paul is just not "Presidential," regardless of his politics.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
If Paul were the nominee could we get him to make that same endorsement of secession?
Either way: popular vote Paul 38 percent Protest votes 5 percent Obama 57 percent electoral vote Obama 411 Paul 127
Either way: popular vote Paul 38 percent Protest votes 5 percent Obama 57 percent electoral vote Obama 411 Paul 127
If with Paul as their nominee the Republicans are perceived as weak wouldn't it be possible that dissatisfied Democratic voters are less likely to vote for the lesser of two evils for a change so that more leftist third party candidates, like Stein and Anderson are more succeful in this scenario as well?
Now the challenge would be to have enough dissatisfied leftist and Democratic voters turn to these other options (or not turn out alltogether) to throw to election to Paul (though likely with only a plurality of the popular vote).
Now the challenge would be to have enough dissatisfied leftist and Democratic voters turn to these other options (or not turn out alltogether) to throw to election to Paul (though likely with only a plurality of the popular vote).
Dude, one of the most popular timelines on this subforum has Ross Perot winning without any real strong reason. If I wanted to make something incredibly realistic, I'd do a timeline where Mitt Romney wins the second debate, wins a a few more states but still loses.
I'm very well aware this is not a likely scenario.
Rex Mundi
Banned
If you don't mind me asking, what is your political standpoint? You have 'anarchy' in your username yet you voted in the election; you also have a Che Guevara quote in your signature but you supported a Libertarian. Is that supposed to be like, ironic or something?
Sorry, finals are hectic
Pawlenty, Gingrich Rebound in Polls
drudgereport.com
December 12th, 2011
~
“The months of November and December are some of the least memorable of the campaign. We started releasing more ads, which were fun to watch come alive, but things started to get predictable. Santorum had a giant burn out, and Herman Cain would suspend his campaign in early December after allegations of an affair. There was a fun moment where Governor Perry briefly could not remember any of the departments he wanted to cut, but he remembered soon after. Ron followed up by pointing out that he wanted to cut eight departments, calling Perry's plan “wimpy”. The governor was not able to come up with a good comeback.
Pawlenty suddenly got his momentum back that he lost slowly after the straw poll. People must have remembered he existed. He was the most inoffensive of the bunch, polarized by the rise of Newt Gingrich, who made Michelle Bachmann seem like a teddy bear by comparison. Both capitalized on strong debate performances and where quick to attack Romney over the abortion debacle. Whatever chance Romney had with social conservatives was dead, but as the election would show, as long as you divide them up enough in the beginning, you're fine.
As far as I can remember, it was all boring as hell until the polls came in around Christmas time. Ron Paul was #1 in Iowa. The media already used the one thing they had on him, those newsletters. The media collectively freaked. With nothing to go after him with, they went with the oh-so-typical anti-Ron Paul argument. Ron Paul can't win.”
-Jesse Benton, All The King's Horses
~
“Ron Paul may very well win Iowa, but Iowa does not frequently pick Presidents.”-Glenn Beck, Twitter, December 28th, 2011
~
“Gary Johnson is going to be a spoiler for Ron Paul, one could even call him a libertarian vampire.”- Stephen Colbert, December 29th, 2011
~
“Paulbots, please stop calling me. He's not going to win anything. If Ron Paul wins Iowa, I'll openly endorse President Obama. That's how sure I am Paul is going to lose. This Gary Johnson guy, he's gonna steal votes, and people are gonna come to their senses and vote for a real conservative. Paul will be lucky to get second place.”- Rush Limbaugh, December 30th, 2011
~
“I'll be honest with you, the winner depends on the weather. A snow storm is a Paul victory.”- Mike Huckabee, December 31st, 2011
~
“And it would indeed snow. Not as hard as expected, but it was chilly and windy all day, Who knows how well we would have done without the sudden change in weather, but I'm glad it came. Gingrich would under-perform without debates to lift him up, it was also a problem that fifty five percent of the ads were ads against him. Pawlenty, who campaigned intensively in Iowa, got a big bump.”
-Jesse Benton, All The King's Horses
~
Iowa Caucus results:
Ron Paul: 24%
Tim Pawlenty: 23%
Mitt Romney 20%
New Gingrich: 11%
Rick Perry: 9%
Rick Santorum: 7%
Michelle Bachmann: 3%
Gary Johnson: 1%
Jon Huntsman: >1%
Others: 1%
~
"Well, I'm waiting for Rush Limbaugh to endorse Barack Obama."- Ron Paul, during his Iowa victory speech.
drudgereport.com
December 12th, 2011
~
“The months of November and December are some of the least memorable of the campaign. We started releasing more ads, which were fun to watch come alive, but things started to get predictable. Santorum had a giant burn out, and Herman Cain would suspend his campaign in early December after allegations of an affair. There was a fun moment where Governor Perry briefly could not remember any of the departments he wanted to cut, but he remembered soon after. Ron followed up by pointing out that he wanted to cut eight departments, calling Perry's plan “wimpy”. The governor was not able to come up with a good comeback.
Pawlenty suddenly got his momentum back that he lost slowly after the straw poll. People must have remembered he existed. He was the most inoffensive of the bunch, polarized by the rise of Newt Gingrich, who made Michelle Bachmann seem like a teddy bear by comparison. Both capitalized on strong debate performances and where quick to attack Romney over the abortion debacle. Whatever chance Romney had with social conservatives was dead, but as the election would show, as long as you divide them up enough in the beginning, you're fine.
As far as I can remember, it was all boring as hell until the polls came in around Christmas time. Ron Paul was #1 in Iowa. The media already used the one thing they had on him, those newsletters. The media collectively freaked. With nothing to go after him with, they went with the oh-so-typical anti-Ron Paul argument. Ron Paul can't win.”
-Jesse Benton, All The King's Horses
~
“Ron Paul may very well win Iowa, but Iowa does not frequently pick Presidents.”-Glenn Beck, Twitter, December 28th, 2011
~
“Gary Johnson is going to be a spoiler for Ron Paul, one could even call him a libertarian vampire.”- Stephen Colbert, December 29th, 2011
~
“Paulbots, please stop calling me. He's not going to win anything. If Ron Paul wins Iowa, I'll openly endorse President Obama. That's how sure I am Paul is going to lose. This Gary Johnson guy, he's gonna steal votes, and people are gonna come to their senses and vote for a real conservative. Paul will be lucky to get second place.”- Rush Limbaugh, December 30th, 2011
~
“I'll be honest with you, the winner depends on the weather. A snow storm is a Paul victory.”- Mike Huckabee, December 31st, 2011
~
“And it would indeed snow. Not as hard as expected, but it was chilly and windy all day, Who knows how well we would have done without the sudden change in weather, but I'm glad it came. Gingrich would under-perform without debates to lift him up, it was also a problem that fifty five percent of the ads were ads against him. Pawlenty, who campaigned intensively in Iowa, got a big bump.”
-Jesse Benton, All The King's Horses
~
Iowa Caucus results:
Ron Paul: 24%
Tim Pawlenty: 23%
Mitt Romney 20%
New Gingrich: 11%
Rick Perry: 9%
Rick Santorum: 7%
Michelle Bachmann: 3%
Gary Johnson: 1%
Jon Huntsman: >1%
Others: 1%
~
"Well, I'm waiting for Rush Limbaugh to endorse Barack Obama."- Ron Paul, during his Iowa victory speech.
Limbaugh, think about it, which one do you want, really? Despite all the "socialist" rhetoric, you know that Obama is a centrist. Paul's far-right and will kill the GOP.
Which one will you endorse? The "socialist" Barack Obama, or the far-right Ron Paul?
Me? I endorse Jill Stein for President!
Which one will you endorse? The "socialist" Barack Obama, or the far-right Ron Paul?
Me? I endorse Jill Stein for President!
A quick update
"Ron Paul's victory in Iowa was not legitimate. If it hadn't been for that snow storm, Ron Paul would not have one. I await for him to be thrashed in the New Hampshire primary."- Rush Limbaugh, January 4th, 2012
~
"I'm dropping out of the race and endorsing Ron Paul"- Gary Johnson, January 5th, 2012
~
“I am dropping out.”- Michelle Bachmann, January 5th, 2012
~
New Hampshire Primary Results:
Jon Huntsman: 23%
Ron Paul: 22%
Mitt Romney: 22%
Tim Pawlenty: 11%
Newt Gingrich: 10%
Rick Santorum: 5%
Rick Perry: 3%
Others: 4%
~
"This was more a loss for Mitt Romney than a victory for Jon Huntsman. Mitt Romney thought he had New Hampshire wrapped up, when he came in third, it was a blow to his campaign. He'd recover from it, but not nearly enough for it to save him."
-Jesse Benton, All The Kings Horses
~
"I'm dropping out of the race and endorsing Ron Paul"- Gary Johnson, January 5th, 2012
~
“I am dropping out.”- Michelle Bachmann, January 5th, 2012
~
New Hampshire Primary Results:
Jon Huntsman: 23%
Ron Paul: 22%
Mitt Romney: 22%
Tim Pawlenty: 11%
Newt Gingrich: 10%
Rick Santorum: 5%
Rick Perry: 3%
Others: 4%
~
"This was more a loss for Mitt Romney than a victory for Jon Huntsman. Mitt Romney thought he had New Hampshire wrapped up, when he came in third, it was a blow to his campaign. He'd recover from it, but not nearly enough for it to save him."
-Jesse Benton, All The Kings Horses
Great update! You really manage the tones well - I would point out Limbaugh isn't as anti-Libertarian/Paulite as people think. You want a talk radio guy to bash Ron Paul, go for Glen Beck.
I'll probably have some other voices against Paul, I'll have to go back and figure out who came up with the term "Branch Paulvidian" in OTL. I'm getting a little tired of knocking on Limbaugh myself, everyone else does it.
- Status