Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
Things are getting interesting. Who would be Ron Paul's choice for VP candidate in the hypothetical scenario that he becomes the nominee? Hm?
Black This Out- A Ron Paul 2012 Timeline
- Thread starter Zacoftheaxes
- Start date
- Status
I have had a lot of talk about that with some people and I'm not 100% settled, but I have my top pick, I'm interested in more suggestions however.
Could a mainstream Republican run a third-party challenge against Paul? It seems likely, since many voters would never vote for Obama or Paul.
In otl there was talk of napolitano. Personally, I see that as being a great ticket, but to beat Obama all you'd need is a highly mainstream candidate, attractive to grandmothers but non-threatening to Paulites.
I think it might be possible for Paul to beat Obama with Romney as his vp pick.
Here's how:
Paul as the nominee suddenly has the GOP on his side. This is huge because now they have to pump money into a candidate that actually appeals to middle America (socially liberal, fiscally conservative) as well as young people. Grooming dr. Paul should be pretty easy. He's in good health for his age and he'll be eager to communicate his message with some finesse after coaching becomes available.
Meanwhile, Romney campaigns as hard as otl, but without the gaffs associated with his presidential campaign. He sees this as his ticket to take over after Paul dies in office.
You now have voter enthusiasm over otl for the GOP. Paul/Romney takes all the states Romney won otl, plus possibly Nevada, Iowa, Connecticut, Florida, New Hampshire, Ohio, and/or Virginia by slim margins. You also throw all of Gary Johnson's votes to Paul and many of Jill stein's not to mention independents who voted against mittens and democrats who are anti ndaa and droning.
It's close. But with mittens as the neoconservative face behind Paul, you could have President Paul by just slightly over 270 electoral votes and a popular vote that might look about fifty fifty.
I think it might be possible for Paul to beat Obama with Romney as his vp pick.
Here's how:
Paul as the nominee suddenly has the GOP on his side. This is huge because now they have to pump money into a candidate that actually appeals to middle America (socially liberal, fiscally conservative) as well as young people. Grooming dr. Paul should be pretty easy. He's in good health for his age and he'll be eager to communicate his message with some finesse after coaching becomes available.
Meanwhile, Romney campaigns as hard as otl, but without the gaffs associated with his presidential campaign. He sees this as his ticket to take over after Paul dies in office.
You now have voter enthusiasm over otl for the GOP. Paul/Romney takes all the states Romney won otl, plus possibly Nevada, Iowa, Connecticut, Florida, New Hampshire, Ohio, and/or Virginia by slim margins. You also throw all of Gary Johnson's votes to Paul and many of Jill stein's not to mention independents who voted against mittens and democrats who are anti ndaa and droning.
It's close. But with mittens as the neoconservative face behind Paul, you could have President Paul by just slightly over 270 electoral votes and a popular vote that might look about fifty fifty.
Rand Paul! No, but seriously I think it would have to be someone very establishment. In fact, I actually think Paul Ryan could work well. But honestly, he's Ron Paul, and I think there are very few Republicans who, if Mike Huckabee or someone ran third-party, would still vote for Paul. I mean, there are only about three senators who I think would definitely endorse him (his son, Mike Lee, and the then-unelected Ted Cruz). Obviously that doesn't really do well to gauge support among the base, but even so, with pretty much any Republican anyone's ever heard of jumping ship, Paul's running mate options are sort of limited (also he'll certainly finish a distant third in the general election).
Nazi Space Spy
Banned
Brian Moore, the socialist candidate in 2008, voted for Pat Buchanan in 2000, because of his trade and labor positions.Why would Green Party voters vote for a paleoconservative?
Wait, what? No. First of all, Ron Paul is far from socially liberal. For all his talk of being a libertarian, he has the political positions of Pat Buchanan. Yes, he would get some youth support. But none of the party establishment would support Ron Paul if someone like Huckabee (or even Romney) ran third-party.
Why would Green Party voters vote for a paleoconservative?
A lot of Green Party voters aren't Green Party members so to speak. A lot of dejected Paulites voted green in spite of that party's big government ideology because of its socially left wing positions.
d32123
Banned
The dejected Paulites either
1. Didn't vote
2. Voted for Johnson
3. Backed Romney
As someone who voted for the Green Party and knew a lot of people from the campaign, I can absolutely assure you that the amount of Paulites voting Green in November was negligible at best.
Also Ron Paul is not a social liberal. He's a paleoconservative with a thing for decentralization. Literally the only thing he could be described as "socially liberal" on is the War on Drugs.
The way you could describe Ron Paul is an "accidental social liberal" in that his policies sort of vaguely resemble social liberalism, but it's mostly due to his extreme dislike of government in people's lives and not entirely sincere.
Orville_third
Banned
Both Libertarians and Greens favor decentralization of government in many ways. (Greens less so than Libertarians.) There's also the all-important issues of civil liberties and the war.
And the flow does go both ways- Justin Raimondo, a major Paul supporter and libertarian author endorsed Ralph Nader in 2004- and in his congressional district, he endorsed Cindy Sheehan (against Raimondo's former opponent, Nancy Pelosi) in 2008.
And the flow does go both ways- Justin Raimondo, a major Paul supporter and libertarian author endorsed Ralph Nader in 2004- and in his congressional district, he endorsed Cindy Sheehan (against Raimondo's former opponent, Nancy Pelosi) in 2008.
Nazi Space Spy
Banned
Many Stein supporters would vote for Paul simply because he had the best chance to crack the establishment open.
I'm a Republican and I would never vote for a Paul. Now, Paul isn't socially liberal like most Libertarians, but he is very far-right on fiscal policy and he's so far right on foreign policy that he looped around the spectrum and is considered as radical as Dennis Kucinich, more even
Interesting.
So, hypothetically you have no third party to choose from and your options are Paul and a more mainstream veep, or Obama/Biden.
Do you vote for Obama or just not vote?
Obama because Paul's foreign policy is very unnerving and I trust Obama on foreign policy - not entirely, but he's very acceptable. Honestly, I don't view the president as a terrible president, but I think he's done a lot wrong (namely Obama Care). Either way, I suppose this isn't the place to get into a discussion of present-day politics...
No, you're right, although it was almost inevitable. I take responsibility for the over bump here as well and apologize.
Still, I was just curious as to your stance personally, and while I should have pmed you, I appreciate your honesty. That's not a position I would have expected from many republicans.
So which Republicans might run as an independent or something because they oppose Paul's views?
- Status