If the GOP Primaries come down to these two candidates....

[Phony Moderate]

Discuss.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Option 1. Obama gets 300 EV minimum.

[Yelnoc]

We are speaking of the Texan Duo, yes?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The later. We would actually win with him...

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

The one who endorsed Reagan back in 1976. I agree with Sanchez's premise that we would win.

[RogueBeaver]

Perry, obviously.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

The later. We would actually win with him...

[Phony Moderate]

What's all this "we" sh**t?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The later. We would actually win with him...

sorry, I can assure you we wouldn't. but I'd rather lose with Paul than win with Perry.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

The later. We would actually win with him...

sorry, I can assure you we wouldn't. but I'd rather lose with Paul than win with Perry.

I have yet to see a single poll where Perry performs against Obama better than Paul.

[stegosaurus]

Perry, unquestionably.

People are blinding themselves to the sad realities of what a Paul administration would be like. Ron Paul is a hard liner, too extreme even for his own party; especially too much so for the Democrats. If he were given a term in the White House we would have dead lock and inaction worse than what we have today. His entire agenda would be DOA and nothing would get fixed. For reasons of mere practicality, Ron Paul could possibly be the worst candidate we could put in the White House...even more so than Obama.

[Zarn]

Perry, unquestionably.

People are blinding themselves to the sad realities of what a Paul administration would be like. Ron Paul is a hard liner, too extreme even for his own party; especially too much so for the Democrats. If he were given a term in the White House we would have dead lock and inaction worse than what we have today. His entire agenda would be DOA and nothing would get fixed. For reasons of mere practicality, Ron Paul could possibly be the worst candidate we could put in the White House...even more so than Obama.

Yes, because more legislation expanding the size of government even further is what we need.

[stegosaurus]

Perry, unquestionably.

People are blinding themselves to the sad realities of what a Paul administration would be like. Ron Paul is a hard liner, too extreme even for his own party; especially too much so for the Democrats. If he were given a term in the White House we would have dead lock and inaction worse than what we have today. His entire agenda would be DOA and nothing would get fixed. For reasons of mere practicality, Ron Paul could possibly be the worst candidate we could put in the White House...even more so than Obama.

Yes, because more legislation expanding the size of government even further is what we need.

On the contrary, I would argue that we need bills to deregulating and shrink the size of government.  I'm only implying that Paul's hard line ideas for doing this, while intriguing, are completely incompatible with the way that Washington works. A vote for Paul is a vote for the status quo, because he will be completely frozen in place and unable to pass a single piece of major legislation. If the Ryan plan can't hack it, then what ever Paul concocts will be laughed out of the halls of the Capitol Building.

[Zarn]

Perry, unquestionably.

People are blinding themselves to the sad realities of what a Paul administration would be like. Ron Paul is a hard liner, too extreme even for his own party; especially too much so for the Democrats. If he were given a term in the White House we would have dead lock and inaction worse than what we have today. His entire agenda would be DOA and nothing would get fixed. For reasons of mere practicality, Ron Paul could possibly be the worst candidate we could put in the White House...even more so than Obama.

Yes, because more legislation expanding the size of government even further is what we need.

On the contrary, I would argue that we need bills to deregulating and shrink the size of government.  I'm only implying that Paul's hard line ideas for doing this, while intriguing, are completely incompatible with the way that Washington works. A vote for Paul is a vote for the status quo, because he will be completely frozen in place and unable to pass a single piece of major legislation. If the Ryan plan can't hack it, then what ever Paul concocts will be laughed out of the halls of the Capitol Building.

Washington doesn't work. That's your first problem.

If Paul gets elected, it a huge sign to both Republicans and Democrats alike. If Reagan could bring in Dems by going directly to the people, so can Paul. Paul is also going to bring home all those troops as the commander-in-chief. That's saves a buttload of money that Perry would refuse to do.

No more back room deals!

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Perry, unquestionably.

People are blinding themselves to the sad realities of what a Paul administration would be like. Ron Paul is a hard liner, too extreme even for his own party; especially too much so for the Democrats. If he were given a term in the White House we would have dead lock and inaction worse than what we have today. His entire agenda would be DOA and nothing would get fixed. For reasons of mere practicality, Ron Paul could possibly be the worst candidate we could put in the White House...even more so than Obama.

Yes, because more legislation expanding the size of government even further is what we need.

On the contrary, I would argue that we need bills to deregulating and shrink the size of government.  I'm only implying that Paul's hard line ideas for doing this, while intriguing, are completely incompatible with the way that Washington works. A vote for Paul is a vote for the status quo, because he will be completely frozen in place and unable to pass a single piece of major legislation. If the Ryan plan can't hack it, then what ever Paul concocts will be laughed out of the halls of the Capitol Building.

(A) Were Ron Paul elected, people with views similar would soon rise up and join him in congress, not to mention that many of the opportunists would realize that "Cutting everything" had become popular and would join in. For sure, he wouldn't be able to cut most of the things needed, but the President can crank up the heat on many, many things if he dislikes them strongly. He could cut at least enough to make a dent. Furthermore, the circumstances that would lead to a Paul presidency would also lead to a general acceptance of his policies.

(B) If he had to, executive pardons could be used.

(C) As Commander in Chief, he could withdraw the American forces from across the globe without asking congress. That alone would cut spending by incredible margins.

[Averroës Nix]

To the extent that running a good campaign can make a difference, Ron Paul would be at a huge disadvantage. Both Obama and Ron Paul have obsessive grass roots supporters, but unlike Paul Obama has demonstrated that he can run a professional campaign that appeals to voters. Paul gets sympathy from most libertarians and some Tea Partiers, but his support mostly ends with his cult-of-personality.

I have no doubt that most Republicans and Republican-leaning independents would vote for Paul in a Paul/Obama match-up, but this would be important at the margins.