PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul populist movement will it gain traction?


Logical
07-01-2007, 03:49 PM
Will he pull a huge upset and become the Republican candidate?

patteeu
07-01-2007, 04:59 PM
His chances are only slightly better than Mayor Bloomberg's which are hovering steadily at zero.

irishjayhawk
07-01-2007, 05:58 PM
I wish, but realistically no. Ideally yes.

BucEyedPea
07-01-2007, 06:55 PM
I say he's still a longshot because of name recognition only...BUT the 2004 election was the first election, or so say the pundits, where the blogosphere had an impact. And Paul is BIG, I mean BIG on the net with support.

I was surfing one night just for election sites and he came up consistently with like 45% to 60%!

His campaign could be an earthquake though.

Even Newt Gingrich has noticed, and even alluded to a possible Paul win....because all the top tier Republicans sound like George Bush.

He mainly needs money. There was a mathematical breakdown on some articles on LewRockwell on what it would take to get him that money...if that happened it could happen. I wouldn't take much something like if enough gave.
And if he won it; he'd beat Hillary in the national election.

Cochise
07-01-2007, 07:06 PM
I say he's still a longshot because of name recognition only...BUT the 2004 election was the first election, or so say the pundits, where the blogosphere had an impact. And Paul is BIG, I mean BIG on the net with support.

I was surfing one night just for election sites and he came up consistently with like 45% to 60%!

LMAO Is that why he's polling under 1%?

He has a very loud, very small group on the internet supporting him who are committed to flooding polls like they did the text message poll for the Fox News debate when he clearly went over like a fart in a spacesuit.

Can a sub-also-ran candidate be a "movement"? Well, not that kind of movement...

BucEyedPea
07-01-2007, 07:15 PM
LMAO Is that why he's polling under 1%?
You always say that despite being told three times now that Paul has not even been mentioned in all those polls and/or has little name recognition.

He needs money to change that.

He has a very loud, very small group on the internet supporting him who are committed to flooding polls like they did the text message poll for the Fox News debate when he clearly went over like a fart in a spacesuit.
Yet his name recognition went up after the debates too.

He may just have a more passionate group of supporters on the web, however I've read articles that interviewed those sites and as far as they can tell it's sincere and is not double voting.

Also, people are not particularly excited about the top tier candidates either. These guys are simply out-of-touch. And if Thompson continues with his adoption of all things Bush: compassionate conservatism, support for Iraq and still claims it was right to go in, and a blockade on Iran which is an act-of-war...well I say anything can happen between now and then. But the GOP loses the main election with that message and it is the message. I could supported him but when I saw him say that on Fox....forget it!

Note also I said "could"....I did not say "will." Nor did I vote for that reason. The key would be money...and that's what he needs. But don't underestimate the net's effect....it did have an effect in 2004.

Silock
07-01-2007, 07:41 PM
As a huge Ron Paul fan, I voted No.

The Republican party isn't ready to implode just yet. Maybe in '12.

Logical
07-01-2007, 07:46 PM
You always say that despite being told three times now that Paul has not even been mentioned in all those polls and/or has little name recognition.

He needs money to change that.


Yet his name recognition went up after the debates too.

He may just have a more passionate group of supporters on the web, however I've read articles that interviewed those sites and as far as they can tell it's sincere and is not double voting.

Also, people are not particularly excited about the top tier candidates either. These guys are simply out-of-touch. And if Thompson continues with his adoption of all things Bush: compassionate conservatism, support for Iraq and still claims it was right to go in, and a blockade on Iran which is an act-of-war...well I say anything can happen between now and then. But the GOP loses the main election with that message and it is the message. I could supported him but when I saw him say that on Fox....forget it!

Note also I said "could"....I did not say "will." Nor did I vote for that reason. The key would be money...and that's what he needs. But don't underestimate the net's effect....it did have an effect in 2004.

Truthfully I think you are letting your desire overcome your rationality.

BucEyedPea
07-01-2007, 08:34 PM
Truthfully I think you are letting your desire overcome your rationality.
I really don't appreciate psychological evaluations on a BB. The truth of the matter is I go up-and-down on it and I never said he "will." As I posted before I'm not gonna make such a certain predcition. I won't even do that for a football game.

I think it's very remote. But as a creatively inclined person, I do believe anything can be possible because I never thought he'd even create some of the effects he's created to date. There's been sudden shifts and unexpected things that have happened in history before. Afterall, the idea of woman's suffrage was considered "impossible" and not a contender including in men's smoking parlors...then suddenly it was passed. It wasn't exactly expected either.

Logical
07-01-2007, 08:51 PM
I really don't appreciate psychological evaluations on a BB. The truth of the matter is I go up-and-down on it and I never said he "will." As I posted before I'm not gonna make such a certain predcition. I won't even do that for a football game.

I think it's very remote. But as a creatively inclined person, I do believe anything can be possible because I never thought he'd even create some of the effects he's created to date. There's been sudden shifts and unexpected things that have happened in history before. Afterall, the idea of woman's suffrage was considered "impossible" and not a contender including in men's smoking parlors...then suddenly it was passed. It wasn't exactly expected either.

Hold on, I may make pscych evals but that was not one of them. That was me viewing your post based on cold hard logic as I see it.

patteeu
07-02-2007, 06:17 AM
Afterall, the idea of woman's suffrage was considered "impossible" and not a contender including in men's smoking parlors...then suddenly it was passed.

And everything went downhill after that. :shake: ;)

Hoover
07-02-2007, 06:47 AM
I went to a Ron Paul rally in Des Moines on Saturday. Great event he had 1000 or so people there. I was really impressed. Now I wonder if he is going to be able to get those people to their caucuses in January.

BucEyedPea
07-02-2007, 08:05 AM
I went to a Ron Paul rally in Des Moines on Saturday. Great event he had 1000 or so people there. I was really impressed. Now I wonder if he is going to be able to get those people to their caucuses in January.
I heard about that. I am also hearing he's a big hit with the young crowd too. I'm also hearing about people who are changing party registration just to be able to nominate him.

Dean used the net effectively but his party sandbagged him because they didn't want another McGovern. Plan on the GOP Establishment pulling out all the stops to do the same if this movement gets bigger even if he raises the money. They don't like him. Don't forget it was someone in the GOP who allegedly threatened Perot.

Here's what Murray Sabrin, Ph.D.,professor of finance in the Anisfield School of Business, Ramapo College of New Jersey, where he is executive director of the Center for Business and Public Policy. I've seen this on several sites.


For Ron to become one of the "top tier" GOP candidates he has to have one quality that he does not have now Ė a media-anointed celebrity status. Currently, the top tier candidates are "celebrities" Ė Rudy, McCain, Romney, and Newt (even though he has not announced his candidacy). Ron can become a top tier candidate and a serious contender for the nomination if he can raise more funds than his own advisors, I suspect, think is possible by December 31, 2007.

According to many pundits, each of the leading candidates in both parties could raise as much as $100 million by the time the primaries are over. So, for the media to characterize anyone a top tier candidate throughout the year, he or she should be on track to raise at least $50 million or more. Could any of the presidential candidates that are currently in the back of the pack raise anywhere near that daunting amount?

If $50 million is the minimum that a candidate will have to raise to be taken seriously by the media, then every lesser-known candidate needs 50,000 individuals to make an average contribution of $1,000 to give him a $50 million war chest. (The maximum individual contribution is $2,300 per primary and general election.)

Ronís political base is fiscal conservatives, anti-tax citizens, anti-war Republicans, Democrats and Independents, constitutionalists, hard-money advocates, small business owners, civil libertarians, anti-universal healthcare physicians, pro-lifers, parents who home school, and anyone else who considers himself a real patriot. In other words, if Ronís substantial base provides him with volunteers, contributions and votes, he would be a very competitive candidate.

In the final analysis, about 50,000 to 100.000 Americans could determine the next presidential nominees of both parties. In the GOP presidential primary, if Ron Paul, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Tommy Thompson, or any other lesser known candidate excites GOP voters for the next 12 months, then Rudy, McCain and Romney will prove that in a marathon it is not who leads the pack that counts but who is the turtle in the race.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/sabrin5.html

There was another article that said if Paul supporters mailed in just $7 a month he could raise it too. This is only one of his major hurdles. Next will be dirty tricks of the Etablishment, mainly GOP, possibly some on the left and their media handmaidens.

Logical
07-02-2007, 04:53 PM
Only bkkcoh has availed himself of the opportunity to declare my insanity. I must be OK afterall.;)

cripple creek
07-02-2007, 05:05 PM
no, but until they officially nominate someone else, I'll keep hoping

DaneMcCloud
07-02-2007, 10:43 PM
His chances are only slightly better than Mayor Bloomberg's which are hovering steadily at zero.

Well, here's something that I've been hearing from a few well-connected politicos in NYC: Bloomberg is indeed going to make a run and his Vice Presidential mate will be none other than Arnold Schwarzenegger. Both are prepared to spend enormous amounts of money towards the election, with Arnold hoping to somehow "back in" to the Presidency.

Logical
07-02-2007, 10:48 PM
Well, here's something that I've been hearing from a few well-connected politicos in NYC: Bloomberg is indeed going to make a run and his Vice Presidential mate will be none other than Arnold Schwarzenegger. Both are prepared to spend enormous amounts of money towards the election, with Arnold hoping to somehow "back in" to the Presidency.

That is interesting, is Arnold allowed to run for VP?

DaneMcCloud
07-02-2007, 10:56 PM
That is interesting, is Arnold allowed to run for VP?

From what I've been told, yes. There's no provision in the Constitution that says the VP has to be born in the US, only the President. So if something were to happen Bloomberg...Arnold's backs in.

Logical
07-02-2007, 11:04 PM
From what I've been told, yes. There's no provision in the Constitution that says the VP has to be born in the US, only the President. So if something were to happen Bloomberg...Arnold's backs in.Yes that makes sense. I remember them talking about the fact that Kissinger was in the line of succession

DaneMcCloud
07-02-2007, 11:09 PM
Yes that makes sense. I remember them talking about the fact that Kissinger was in the line of succession

It will be very interesting if this actually comes to fruition. They both already have money, power and fame, something that usually can't be said for an incoming Prez & VP.

It could make for the most exciting election since 1992.

Logical
07-02-2007, 11:51 PM
It will be very interesting if this actually comes to fruition. They both already have money, power and fame, something that usually can't be said for an incoming Prez & VP.

It could make for the most exciting election since 1992.

Frankly I really like what I have read about Bloombergs political beliefs I would vote for him.

DaneMcCloud
07-02-2007, 11:57 PM
Frankly I really like what I have read about Bloombergs political beliefs I would vote for him.

At this point in time, Bloomberg and Fred are the two candidates that interest me the most. I'm also a big believer in having a grumpy old man in the White House. They're usually far more conservative and less rash than a man in his 40's and 50's. Done it all, seen it all. And to me, that makes for a better America.

ClevelandBronco
07-03-2007, 12:28 AM
Frankly I really like what I have read about Bloombergs political beliefs I would vote for him.

That's my best possible scenario with what you could do with your vote, my friend.

Logical
07-03-2007, 12:34 AM
That's my best possible scenario with what you could do with your vote, my friend.I think I am being insulted somehow.ROFL

ClevelandBronco
07-03-2007, 12:54 AM
I think I am being insulted somehow.ROFL

Not insulted. I'm just hoping you, uhh, neutralize your vote. So to speak.

Logical
07-03-2007, 12:57 AM
Not insulted. I'm just hoping you, uhh, neutralize your vote. So to speak.If you are worried I might vote for a Democrat, don't unless they come up with a suprise candidate that just doesn't seem likely. Course none of the Republicans except for maybe the nutcase Ron Paul appeal to me in the slightest.

patteeu
07-03-2007, 06:36 AM
Well, here's something that I've been hearing from a few well-connected politicos in NYC: Bloomberg is indeed going to make a run and his Vice Presidential mate will be none other than Arnold Schwarzenegger. Both are prepared to spend enormous amounts of money towards the election, with Arnold hoping to somehow "back in" to the Presidency.

Arnold can't back in to the Presidency, unless by "back in" you mean constitutional amendment.

Yes that makes sense. I remember them talking about the fact that Kissinger was in the line of succession

Kissinger held an office that was in the line of succession, but Kissinger could not have become President. Whoever you remember talking about it, was wrong.

patteeu
07-03-2007, 06:37 AM
Frankly I really like what I have read about Bloombergs political beliefs I would vote for him.

Have you admitted to yourself that you're a liberal yet? :shrug:

DaneMcCloud
07-03-2007, 10:03 AM
Arnold can't back in to the Presidency, unless by "back in" you mean constitutional amendment

I didn't get specific (it was at a high profile dinner party and I didn't want to start asking pointed questions-I was a guest) but I think that Arnold has a better chance to ascend through a Constitutional Amendment if he's already the VP, as opposed to trying to persuade Congress as Presidential candidate.

DaneMcCloud
07-03-2007, 10:05 AM
Have you admitted to yourself that you're a liberal yet? :shrug:

So you consider Bloomberg to be a liberal?

Cochise
07-03-2007, 10:27 AM
So you consider Bloomberg to be a liberal?

If you look at him issue by issue then yeah.

DaneMcCloud
07-03-2007, 10:57 AM
If you look at him issue by issue then yeah.

Interesting. The main reason I'd give him a closer look is that he's not been a politician his whole life, is a billionaire who doesn't need the money and has done a fairly good job with NYC since being elected mayor.

Logical
07-03-2007, 11:21 AM
Arnold can't back in to the Presidency, unless by "back in" you mean constitutional amendment.



Kissinger held an office that was in the line of succession, but Kissinger could not have become President. Whoever you remember talking about it, was wrong.
It might create a question for the Supreme Court. If Arnold were VP and Bloomberg died (lets say natural causes to not get diverted) Arnold would automatically be Pres. Not sure what the Supreme Court would do but initially Arnold would succeed into office.

Logical
07-03-2007, 11:23 AM
So you consider Bloomberg to be a liberal?

He is a centrist and he is against the war which makes him a liberal to patteeu.

DaneMcCloud
07-03-2007, 12:04 PM
He is a centrist and he is against the war which makes him a liberal to patteeu.

Okay, that's what I thought. I saw him more as a centrist (even though he was a Republican) and the more I'm on this forum, the more I understand that anyone who's against war is automatically branded a Liberal.

That labelling makes no sense to me, whatsoever. But then again, many of the views here make no sense to me because it *seems* that too many people treat their political affiliations as religious affiliations; their Church is infallible, as is their political party.

As a pragmatist, it's a completely foreign concept to me.

patteeu
07-04-2007, 07:32 AM
Interesting. The main reason I'd give him a closer look is that he's not been a politician his whole life, is a billionaire who doesn't need the money and has done a fairly good job with NYC since being elected mayor.

Yes, I consider him a liberal, although not a whacky MoveOn.org type liberal. He definitely has some bona fides as a competent businessman though. I'm not very familiar with the job he's done in NYC, but I've heard that he's well respected in some quarters for it.

patteeu
07-04-2007, 07:37 AM
It might create a question for the Supreme Court. If Arnold were VP and Bloomberg died (lets say natural causes to not get diverted) Arnold would automatically be Pres. Not sure what the Supreme Court would do but initially Arnold would succeed into office.

I don't think so.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

I don't think there is any ambiguity here that would allow Arnold to ascend to the Presidency, regardless of the path taken, without a constitutional amendment.

The ambiguity, if any, comes in whether or not Arnold would be eligible to hold the office of VP. I tend to think not, but I'm not sure about it.

patteeu
07-04-2007, 08:00 AM
Okay, that's what I thought. I saw him more as a centrist (even though he was a Republican) and the more I'm on this forum, the more I understand that anyone who's against war is automatically branded a Liberal.

That labelling makes no sense to me, whatsoever. But then again, many of the views here make no sense to me because it *seems* that too many people treat their political affiliations as religious affiliations; their Church is infallible, as is their political party.

As a pragmatist, it's a completely foreign concept to me.

Are you aware that Bloomberg was a long-time democrat until he changed parties because the path to the nomination for Mayor was easier through the Republican party than the democrat party? His short affiliation with the Republican party of New York isn't much of an indicator of his politics. He's pro-gun control, comfortable with tax increases, an enviro-hawk (mandated that NYC's taxi fleet convert to hybrid vehicles, for example), and he's shown no interest in cutting government spending. He's also socially liberal, but that isn't something that bothers me as much.

As for the war, I don't see support/opposition for the war as a conservative/liberal thing so that's certainly not why I call him a liberal. I call him a liberal because he's prone to believe in big government solutions instead of backing government out of our lives. He's wrong about the war too, but that's a different complaint and had nothing to do with my question for Logical in post #28.

trndobrd
07-04-2007, 08:14 AM
12th Ammendment:

"....But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

BucEyedPea
07-04-2007, 08:18 AM
Okay, that's what I thought. I saw him more as a centrist (even though he was a Republican) and the more I'm on this forum, the more I understand that anyone who's against war is automatically branded a Liberal.
Just know that assertation, false though it is, comes from those who watch or read the following: Fox News, Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, The Weekly Slandered...oops! I mean "Standard," National Review, Commentary mag, WSJ OpEd pages. These are the main disseminators of that pov.

patteeu
07-04-2007, 09:13 AM
12th Ammendment:

"....But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

Thanks. Now that you mention the 12th, I have no idea what the 11th amendment is. It's like my constitutional awareness takes a leap from the 10th directly to the 13th.

P.S. I just looked it up and here is the 11th amendment for anyone who cares:

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

wazu
07-04-2007, 10:05 AM
I am voting yes just to help Ron Paul win yet another internet poll.

BucEyedPea
07-04-2007, 10:14 AM
From the National Republican Senatorial Committee (http://www.nrsc.org/survey/?sid=googl)
2008 Republican Presidential Preference Survey

http://www.nrsc.org/nrscwebimages/survey-results.gif

You can vote here too but you'll, unfortunately, be put on their mailing list.

Logical
07-06-2007, 12:29 AM
12th Ammendment:

"....But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

If you think about it this amendment makes sense.

Frankie
07-06-2007, 08:46 AM
Actually I hope Hillary will be smart enough to have someone from the opposing party in her cabinet. And my choice is Ron Paul.

Cochise
07-06-2007, 08:52 AM
Kind of funny, I was standing around last night after a softball game with 8 or 10 guys who were talking about the primaries, and one of them mentioned Ron Paul, but he said he kept reading about the guy but couldn't remember which one he was from the debates. No one else in the group had ever heard of him. Mostly they lamented that there were so many candidates at the early primary, but I found that humorous since a few entertain the idea that he could get the nomination.