Ron Paul's candidacy

  1. Char. Limit

    Char. Limit 1,937
    Gold Member

    So I was watching some news, and I noticed that Ron Paul really wasn't making much headlines, despite his views on many issues. So I wanted to know what you think of his candidacy. Does he stand a good chance of winnning? Would you vote for him?
  2. jcsd
  3. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,122
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The media doesn't follow him closely because there is no chance that he could be elected. He doesn't even have a chance of winning the Rep nomination.

    No, I would never support him. His views range from interesting, to extreme, to nutty.
  4. In the Republican primary I think (and hope) he has less chance than Newt of Herman Caine. I would never vote for him in the primary. He is too isolationist. I would vote for him in the general election against Obama. If he ran against Hillary I would have to give her a second look.

  5. He's not making headlines because the media doesn't think the public is interested in him. The Daily Show ran a great piece about how he came in third for the straw poll, and the media mentioned the 1st and 2nd place winners, then skipped 3rd (who was Paul) to talk about the 4th place It was hilarious (can't find a link to the piece though).
  6. His chances of winning the republican primary alone are extremely small, given that his libertarian convictions are only semi-accepted by the majority of people. Being a fiscal conservative with socially liberal tendencies generally means neither traditionally liberal or conservative voters will be entirely apt to vote for him.

    I live in Canada, but if I was an American and if he somehow managed to win the primaries, I would vote for him in the general election, as I am on similar ideological footing with the man
  7. Uh, social liberalists are not liberal socialists or libertarians (I am getting tired of myself here too :rolleyes:.)

    Social liberalism is what I am inclined to too (nice it exists in Canada), mostly because of lack of other progressive parties. Having said that, I agree also with about everything the guy wants, because his basic principle is maximizing freedom too. I differ a lot on economy, though.
  8. Sorry, I did not mean to suggest that Ron Paul was an actual social liberal per say. The point I was trying to make was simply that his views on social issues are generally more liberal than most conservative voters are willing to accept (such as drug legalisation, gay marriage, immigration, etc.), and that this tends to alienate many potential Paul supporters. Although please don't interpret that as me suggesting that he should compromise his views for accommodation's sake; that would merely destroy his integrity.

    You are another excellent example of the semi-enthusiast I'm talking about. You agree with his social tendencies towards maximising freedom, but your economic ideologies don't align.
  9. No need to excuse for anything. I didn't feel any offense anywhere.
  10. Yeah, I think if it had been a 2-man race between, say Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, and Ron Paul had won, then much of the media would have run headlines along the lines of "Romney takes strong second place, Ron Paul comes in next to last."

    I give the man great kudos for consistency, unlike any other current politician I am aware of, and I think his heart is in the right place, but I have to agree w/ Ivan that he's just too extreme. I think a lot of his ideologically pure ideas would be a disaster in the real world.
  11. The media seems to have chosen to marginalize Paul. But the media has the power to popularize or marginalize. Isn't it possible that with enough positive media exposure, and subtle marginalization of other candidates, that Paul could be the made the leading contender? Is it possible that the media is marginalizing Paul for reasons other than their perception of public opinion of Paul -- which is something (public opinion) that the media has the power to radically alter?

    Assuming it's too late to get Paul nominated, I'm just wondering 'what if ?'.
  12. I don't think the media has the power to change the fact that Paul is too radical for the American public to elect. You seem to want to not believe that the media marginalizes him because he is unelectable and to believe the reverse instead. I don't think that works.
  13. This is an interesting idea, and probably somewhat true. After all, Fox News popularizes far right candidates, and MSNBC popularizes far left candidates. I doubt either of these extremes would be as popular if the media didn't cover them.
  14. We elected GW Bush twice. Anything is possible.

    I'm asking how it does work. Are they marginalizing him because he's unelectable, or because, for whatever reasons, they don't want him elected? How can they possibly know that he's unelectable? One thing seems certain, if they marginalize him, then he's unelectable.
  15. BobG

    BobG 2,351
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    (bolding mine)

    Yes, I think his views are interesting, but unworkable in the real world.

    And interesting isn't even the same as desirable. It's something to give some thought to, but what comes after that can vary from person to person.

    As such, interesting only lasts so long before it becomes old. And that's where Paul stands now. He's just not as interesting (and new) the second time around as he was the first time around.

    If you're only 'out there' on a couple of issues, there's a chance you're ahead of your time and those issues won't be considered so 'out there' the next time you display them. If you're 'out there' on too many issues, then even having one or two them 'ripen' doesn't change the perception that you're a flake. You need to show some judgement and pick an issue or two where you really can make a difference if want to be taken seriously.
  16. Evo

    Staff: Mentor

    Ron Paul isn't considered a vaild candidate for many reasons. His band of followers make his support seem far greater than it really is, so he's largely ignored.
  17. well that's funny, because they will follow Palin, Bachmann, and Trump.
  18. Well, I gotta give you that one. :smile:
  19. Dotini

    Dotini 750
    Gold Member

    If you are fighting and broke, you will never accomplish a thing.

    Ron Paul has been consistently right on the two biggest issues of our time - war and debt - and the others have all been off base.

    I'm willing to overlook Dr. Paul's idiosyncratic views on lesser issues such as abortion.

    Another valuable quality of Ron Paul is that he points out the many ways we are not following the Constitution. We should either follow it, amend it, or burn it up altogether. Take your choice and do something, because to say one thing in our highest document and do another in our actual practice is insane.

    Respectfully submitted,
  20. Ivan Seeking

    Ivan Seeking 12,122
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Given that Palin, Bachmann, and Trump have all been darlings of the right at one time or another, and given that Palin was the vp candidate at one point, I don't see your point.

    Paul doesn't even have a chance of being nominated, much less elected. Trump finally buried himself with his birther idiocy - that's when he fell off the map. Palin has been discredited and hardly a headliner anymore. And Backmann won the Iowa straw poll.

    I guess I should have said nominated, not elected. The Republicans do seem to be trying their best to nominate someone who isn't electable.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thead via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?