Ron Paul's path to victory in 2012

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Okay, yeah. I know for some teenagers Ron Paul has become a weird adolescent crush, but the reality is that he's a crank who isn't going anywhere in grown-up national politics.

It's not even necessary for the Democrats (in the bizzare alternate universe where Paul magically gets the Republican nomination) to focus on his dingbat political views, they can just bring up those racist newsletters he wrote.

By the time they got onto talking about how Paul's a capitalist fundamentalist who wants to privatise Social Security along with oxygen and sunlight the election would be over.

Why on earth would Gingrich's support leak to Paul, incidentally?

EDIT: BTW, it's not really the crazy policy ideas that bug me about the Paulbots. This is the Atlas forum, there's plenty of extremists of all ilks. It's their unparalleled conviction that "Dr. Paul" commands some great silent majority just waiting to rise up, overthrow the shackles of safe work environments and free streetlights, and electe an elderly Texas obscurity to the White House.

If libertarian ideas were as popular as the Paul crowd seem to think he wouldn't be the joke candidate he has been and remains.

Because we can certainly take people like Sarah Palin much more seriously.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Ron Paul could win fo'sho, it is just extremely unlikely.

The delusional view is that he cannot win, at all. That is, frankly, a pretty dumb view. Okay, so who do we have in opposition to Paul? We have Romney, who is at the peak of his performance right about now and has enough skeletons in his closet to fill a graveyard, particularly about his flip-floppery. He did well last time, and that was when the GOP's "centre" was far, far to the left of where it is now. He won't do so hot this time round. If you try to claim Huckabee is more electable than Paul, I am going to have to laugh a little. Outside of the Southeast, there is no way he will catch on. Bible thumping can only get you so far, and most of Huck's main credentials (pro life, etc) could be snatched up by most Republicans. Gingrich, like Romney, has similar skeletons, especially in regards to his collaboration with Nancy Pelosi on several important matters (for example, Cap'n Trade). Also, unlike Romney, he doesn't have a massive warchest of personal cash to spend, nor does he have the benefit of being considered the "serious candidate" that Romney is. Last and probably least, Palin cannot win, and I don't think she is dumb enough to try to run. She makes an idiot of herself whenever she is pressed too hard, she is viewed by a rather large portion of both parties as a moron regardless of what she does, and the only reason she is relevant these days is because people know her from reality TV.

Okay, we have them out of the way. Now, to Paul himself. In 2008, he was unelectable. That is entirely true. The atmosphere was distinctly farther away from his viewpoints than it is now. McCain, Romney, and Huckabee were all in far better condition. I mean, some people thought he could win, but he couldn't at that point regardless of how well things went.

2012 is an entirely different ballgame. Lets go through a checklist of differences, shall we?

-Back when the campaigns were starting up, Ron was polling somewhere between 0 and 1%. Now, he is averaging out at about 8%. Furthermore, his name recognition was, to say the least, low. Also, there were a couple of clear front runners by that point (Giuliani ended up crashing and burning, but Romney and McCain did quite well overall), whereas right now we have four or so candidates who can't really be considered front runners as they are only ahead slightly, and then we have Ron Paul, with very few exceptions, leading up the second tier and not too far from the bottom of the first tier.

-In 2008, Ron Paul's views, by and large, were completely out of the ballpark. He was predicting a recession while the economy was doing fine, he was opposing the war in Afghanistan back when it was cool, he was generally a complete outsider to the GOP debates. Now? Well, it seems like you guys are acting like dinosaurs, assuming he is still outside of the mainstream. The GOP's centre, as I said, moved far to the right, pushing Ron to the periphery of the mainstream. The approval for the war in Afghanistan has dropped quite a bit since Obama took charge (at least among the Indies and GOP, it rose among Democrats), so he isn't outside of the mainstream there. We just went through (and, in all likeliness, will go through a nastier) a big recession, just as he was saying, which is a nice bonus for his economic credibility. Enthusiasm for cutting government programs is at an all time high. Also, barring Palin, Ron is the only main candidate who could take advantage of the Tea Party in any meaningful sense. Huckster's focuses have always been mostly social, so he can't do much. Gingrich is lacking in any influence among them, and Romney can't get their support for obvious reasons. So Ron Paul has the circumstances on his side (for the moment).

-In 2008, Ron Paul was rather lacking an infrastructure for a campaign, compared to the other candidates. Now? Well, several of his allies are now taking up space in congress and senate, and several state legislatures have fervent supporters of Ron Paul around. In congress, the most obvious person would be Rand Paul (who has the benefit of tea party star power for the moment, which is infinitely useful for Ron if he runs), but lower profile members like Justin Amash and Mike Lee are also more likely than not going to back him, compared to the massive endorsements he received in 2008, amounting to one congressman (if I remember right, at any rate). In state legislature, the biggest example I can think of is the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance, which seems to have taken over the NH legislature. Almost all of their endorsed candidates won, and almost all of them are distinctly Ron Paul republicans (I could go over all of the new bills they are shooting out over there, but that is for another thread). Besides that, he has a very powerful grassroots campaign out there, and this time he already has several organizations to back it up (LibertyPAC, Campaign for Liberty, Young Americans for Liberty, etc), whereas in 2008 all he had were enthusiastic supporters willing to toss money at him.

-On that note, Ron is the only candidate with a strong grassroots campaign in his support. Okay, Palin has one too arguably, but her supporters are unlikely to manage as much as Ron Paul's can. Romney and Huckabee are comparably weak in that regard. Money bombs are their specialty, so the Paul campaign definitely won't be lacking in cash.

-His opponents' supporters would never go to each other. Huckabee and Romney are fundamentally entirely different, and there is no way their supporters would prefer the other over Ron Paul, the same applies to most of Ron's opposition (in regards to certain candidates). Okay, Neoconservatives will never go for Ron, but Neoconservativism is dying very quickly now that Bush is gone and Obama is in charge. Libertarians are, by and large, going to go for Paul regardless, Conseratives would probably prefer him to Romney, and Liberals/Moderates would prefer him to Huckabee. Yes, that is a generalization, but Ron Paul is not anathema to, say, conservatives who vote for the candidate that is pro-life always (Ron Paul happens to be pro-life, which is more than Romney can claim).

Now, could he win? Unlikely. But possible this time. Really, if he could pull off a strong showing in New Hampshire or Iowa and win the other state, followed by a victory in Nevada (and lets be honest, if Ron Paul managed to win either starting state, he would almost certainly win Nevada), he might be able to ride the momentum to victory (provided he had a divided opposition). Oh, and if Palin didn't run or dropped out, her support would either dissolve into nothingness or go primarily to Paul, which would be a fine bonus for him.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

If Paul were to win the primary he would need to focus more on the less government angle and less on the noninterventionist angle.  He always makes a point to talk about getting out of foreign entanglements in speeches, etc.  While I favor that view, harping on it isn't going to curry favor with people he needs to win the nod.  I think a good way to do this would be to promise unconditional Israel support while he can still talk about getting us out of the other foreign entanglements.   

Priority one, however, is Obamacare.  Our candidate will need to know the bill inside and out to be able to beat the heck out of Obama in the debates.  They can't be rattling off the same talking points - quote the lines and the sections in front of his face and make him defend it.  Paul is not a talking point guy and that makes him more attractive in terms of candidate selection. 

Heres what he stresses in order of primary salience:

Obamacare
Jobs
Federal Debt and Deficit
Social Issues - he is a social conservative, lest hard libertarians forget - he can weave this into talking about cutting federal programs
Gas Prices
Foreign Policy

Another potential problem he could have is his association with Alex Jones.  I'm not dissing this personally, but the 9/11 truther thing and other conspiracies (many which I believe do exist) could hurt him.

Depends on the political climate when campaigning starts. Noninterventionism is much more popular among Republicans now, and it might gain him a niche. However, his strongest points are definitely based in economics, fiscal policy, etc.