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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Char. Limit
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on Ron Paul's candidacy and his lack of media attention despite his distinct views. Participants express skepticism about his chances of winning the Republican nomination, citing his libertarian beliefs as too extreme for mainstream acceptance. Many agree that his socially liberal stances, such as support for drug legalization and gay marriage, alienate potential supporters from both conservative and liberal backgrounds. While some participants acknowledge his consistency and principled stance on issues like war and debt, they also label his ideas as impractical or radical. The media's marginalization of Paul is debated, with some suggesting it stems from his perceived unelectability, while others argue that the media influences public perception by focusing on more mainstream candidates. Overall, there is a consensus that Paul's unique ideology does not resonate broadly enough to secure significant electoral support, despite a dedicated following that excels in informal polls.
  • #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
71K
  • · Replies 176 ·
6
Replies
176
Views
29K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 85 ·
3
Replies
85
Views
14K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
Replies
91
Views
15K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K