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

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

The forum discussion centers on Ron Paul's candidacy and his perceived chances of winning the Republican nomination. Participants express skepticism about his electability, citing his libertarian views as too extreme for mainstream voters. Despite some support for his principles, many believe his isolationist stance and social liberalism alienate potential supporters. The media's lack of coverage is attributed to his low chances of success, with users questioning whether media bias contributes to his marginalization.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of libertarian political philosophy
  • Familiarity with the U.S. electoral process and Republican primaries
  • Knowledge of social liberalism and its implications in American politics
  • Awareness of media influence on public perception of political candidates
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the impact of media coverage on political campaigns
  • Explore the principles of libertarianism and its appeal in modern politics
  • Examine case studies of candidates with similar ideologies and their electoral outcomes
  • Investigate the role of social issues in shaping voter behavior in primaries
USEFUL FOR

Political analysts, voters interested in libertarian ideologies, and individuals studying media influence on elections will benefit from this discussion.

  • #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
73K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
  • · 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