Ron Paul's Candidacy - Should You Vote For Him?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Char. Limit
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Ron Paul's candidacy for the presidency, focusing on his chances of winning, media coverage, and the implications of his political views. Participants explore various aspects of his campaign, including public perception, ideological alignment, and the role of media in shaping electoral outcomes.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about Ron Paul's chances of winning the Republican nomination, citing his libertarian views as too extreme for mainstream acceptance.
  • Others argue that media coverage is biased against Paul, suggesting that his lack of headlines reflects a deliberate marginalization rather than public disinterest.
  • A few participants note that while they may not support him in the primaries, they would consider voting for him in the general election, particularly against candidates like Obama or Hillary Clinton.
  • There is a discussion about the ideological divide among voters, with some indicating that Paul's socially liberal views may alienate potential supporters from both conservative and liberal backgrounds.
  • Some participants question the media's influence on public opinion and whether it could change if Paul received more favorable coverage.
  • Concerns are raised about the practicality of Paul's radical ideas and their potential impact if implemented.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the viability of Ron Paul's candidacy and the reasons behind his media coverage. While some believe he is unelectable due to his views, others suggest that media bias plays a significant role in shaping public perception.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the influence of media on electoral outcomes and the definitions of political ideologies discussed. The conversation reflects a range of perspectives on the implications of Paul's policies and their acceptance among voters.

  • #571
So he's trying to score big with backroom deals for state delegates?

Seems like a throwback to the days of smoke-filled rooms.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #572
lpetrich said:
So he's trying to score big with backroom deals for state delegates?
I think Paul's intention was to make some sort of impact regarding his message, which, to a certain extent, he's done, imo.

lpetrich said:
Seems like a throwback to the days of smoke-filled rooms.
I think that back room negotiations have always been, and still are, a major part of politics at any level. It's just that these days the rooms are less smoky. :smile:
 
  • #573
It's not Ron Paul's fault that the Republican establishment requires that delegates in Minnesota are selected in shady backroom deals instead of having a primary
 
  • #574
Office_Shredder said:
It's not Ron Paul's fault that the Republican establishment requires that delegates in Minnesota are selected in shady backroom deals instead of having a primary
1. Can you please source that assertion, as I can't find backing for it. Clearly there *was* a Minn primary held back in February. 2. Does the outcome of the Minnesota primary impact Paul, now, in any way?
 
  • #575
mheslep said:
1. Can you please source that assertion, as I can't find backing for it. Clearly there *was* a Minn primary held back in February. 2. Does the outcome of the Minnesota primary impact Paul, now, in any way?
I don't think the phrase shady backroom deal means that the room was actually shady or that it was in the back or even that a deal was made in a room. Probably it just refers to the fact that Paul got 27% of the vote in Minnesota, but 83% of the delegates. That's not Paul's fault. He didn't make the rules, he just plays well by them.
 
  • #576
mheslep said:
1. Can you please source that assertion, as I can't find backing for it. Clearly there *was* a Minn primary held back in February. 2. Does the outcome of the Minnesota primary impact Paul, now, in any way?

No they had a caucus not a primary. Caucuses are just straw polls and typically have no effect on the delegate selection process. Depending on each state's byzantine rules local caucuses select delegates (independent of the straw poll typically) to send to a larger convention to select state delegates
 
  • #577
Jimmy Snyder said:
I don't think the phrase shady backroom deal means that the room was actually shady or that it was in the back or even that a deal was made in a room. Probably it just refers to the fact that Paul got 27% of the vote in Minnesota, but 83% of the delegates. That's not Paul's fault. He didn't make the rules, he just plays well by them.

Perhaps, but that was not my take. I think the "backroom" phrase does not refer to an assumption of unfair, existing rules. I think it means to infer that the rules were ignored or at the least manipulated by the powerful, so that the outcome is fixed. Here the process is asserted as fixed by a Republican process in Minnesota that is inherently corrupt, as compared to others, all without evidence. Now, the phrase may be justified as corruption in politics is hardly unheard of. But then neither are whining and bogus claims from the unsuccessful.
 
Last edited:
  • #578
I think that "backroom deal" is a completely appropriate term for something that took place behind the scenes, outside of public view.

If Ron Paul's followers have a lot greater fraction of delegates than votes, as they seem to do in some places, then it reflects on their politicking skills, not on what the voters had wanted.
 
  • #579
lpetrich, if that's your only criterion you should be railing against all the winner take all states. You can have a candidate take ALL the delegates without winning a majority
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 735 ·
25
Replies
735
Views
74K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
3K
  • · Replies 176 ·
6
Replies
176
Views
29K
  • · Replies 85 ·
3
Replies
85
Views
14K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
Replies
91
Views
16K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K