Ron Paul's candidacy

  • News
  • Thread starter Char. Limit
  • Start date
  • #1
Char. Limit
Gold Member
1,208
14
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?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,654
310
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?

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.
 
  • #3
skippy1729
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.

Skippy
 
  • #4
543
1
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).
 
  • #5
28
0
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
 
  • #6
MarcoD
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

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.
 
  • #7
28
0
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.

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.
 
  • #8
MarcoD
No need to excuse for anything. I didn't feel any offense anywhere.
 
  • #9
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
17,006
7,906
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).

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.
 
  • #10
505
0
Ivan Seeking said:
The media doesn't follow him closely because there is no chance that he could be elected.

daveb said:
He's not making headlines because the media doesn't think the public is interested in him.

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 ?'.
 
  • #11
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
17,006
7,906
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 ?'.

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.
 
  • #12
543
1
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 ?'.

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.
 
  • #13
505
0
I don't think the media has the power to change the fact that Paul is too radical for the American public to elect.
We elected GW Bush twice. Anything is possible.

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.
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.
 
  • #14
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
223
82
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.
(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.
 
  • #15
Evo
Mentor
23,488
3,013
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.

his band of followers having a well-earned reputation for flooding polls and forums like these.

What it portends for a possible 2012 presidential run is anyone's guess. Paul had a similar cult-like following during the 2008 election, only to garner a relatively small chunk of the actual vote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/20/cpac-2010-straw-poll-resu_n_470319.html
 
  • #16
142
1
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.

well that's funny, because they will follow Palin, Bachmann, and Trump.
 
  • #17
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
17,006
7,906
We elected GW Bush twice. Anything is possible.
.

Well, I gotta give you that one. :smile:
 
  • #18
142
1
ron paul wins
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/07/7658608-who-do-you-think-won-the-republican-debate-at-the-reagan-library [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
Dotini
Gold Member
633
231
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,
Steve
 
  • #20
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,654
310
well that's funny, because they will follow Palin, Bachmann, and Trump.

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.
 
  • #21
28
0
I'm willing to overlook Dr. Paul's idiosyncratic views on lesser issues such as abortion.

Even though he is anti-abortion, he's for allowing individual states, as opposed to the federal government, to decide their own rules on abortion.
 
  • #22
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,955
617
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.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/20/cpac-2010-straw-poll-resu_n_470319.html

ron paul wins
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/07/7658608-who-do-you-think-won-the-republican-debate-at-the-reagan-library [Broken]

The results Proton linked to indicate to me that Evo is right. Paul's supporters are more likely to vote in these unscientific polls, but I don't think he actually "won" the debate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Evo
Mentor
23,488
3,013
ron paul wins
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/07/7658608-who-do-you-think-won-the-republican-debate-at-the-reagan-library [Broken]
LOL, an online poll. His army of online (followers) do this to every online poll, which is (as mentioned in an earlier article) why the media doesn't mention him. The votes are bogus.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
142
1
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.

eh, i think there is more to it. there is a bit of an intentional shut-out on Paul in the major media. like here, Washington Post won't even list Paul as a loser. what's up with that? even Newt is up there, and Newt is the guy who's entire campaign team ran out on him recently.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rs-and-losers/2011/09/07/gIQA2XfpAK_blog.html
 
  • #25
Evo
Mentor
23,488
3,013
He's ignored by the media because it's well known that his support is a sham put on by a small number of people that try to make it look like they are a large unassociated group. Unfortunately, some of these organizers are so dumb, they admitted it.

The media isn't going to spend time on bogus numbers, they're going to spend time on real candidates.

Here’s a pretty safe bet: Ron Paul will win Saturday’s Conservative Political Action Conference presidential straw poll. Or at least he will do better than many better-known and better-financed 2012 Republican presidential candidates.

Why? The Texas congressman and 2008 presidential candidate almost always does. While his ardent supporters aren’t numerous enough to win him actual primaries or caucuses, they’ve mastered the unofficial straw poll format and they’ve decided those informal polls send an important message.
Well, it might if it wasn't for the fact that everyone that matters knows it's a sham, IMO.

“In 2007, when the media was all but ignoring Ron Paul’s candidacy we realized that straw polls were something we could win, and they are really about the only way to get Ron Paul any media attention at all. So we just all start showing up,” said Brandon Yates, an activist who has been showing up to straw poll events on Paul’s behalf since 2007.
:tongue2:

During the 2008 presidential election, Paul won small straw polls in at least 10 states. He rarely broke into double-digits in the real caucuses or primaries that year, but he would often win by a landslide in the straw polls — he took 4 percent in the Arizona primary, for example, but swept a Phoenix straw poll with 80 percent of the vote.
This is why he doesn't get media coverage. Well, except for media coverage of why he doesn't deserve media coverage. :biggrin:

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49391.html#ixzz1XOzYsvrY
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Ron Paul's candidacy

  • Last Post
8
Replies
197
Views
26K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
62
Views
6K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • Last Post
19
Replies
464
Views
36K
  • Last Post
20
Replies
492
Views
38K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
47
Views
7K
  • Last Post
30
Replies
735
Views
55K
Replies
109
Views
13K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Top