Ron Paul 2012: Path to Victory?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:21:24 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderator: Dereich)
  Ron Paul 2012: Path to Victory?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Ron Paul 2012: Path to Victory?  (Read 938 times)
Ernacius
Newbie
*
Posts: 3


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 18, 2020, 12:16:01 AM »

Could Ron Paul, long known libertarian Republican and a strong advocate for libertarian ideals during his tenure as a Representative from Texas, have won the presidency after securing the GOP nomination in 2012?

So far, what I devised is a rough scenario whereby Ron Paul flips the states of CO, OH, VA, NH, and FL in 2012, totaling his EC votes to 279, a slim margin against Obama's 259 votes.

Paul also manages to win 48.1% of the popular vote, compared to Obama's 46.2%.

From what I know, OH, VA, and FL were close in 2012 each having margins of victory of 3-4%, and I think CO and NH's libertarian streaks make them the states that put Paul over the edge in this scenario.
Logged
Huey Long is a Republican
New Tennessean Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,506
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 18, 2020, 09:54:54 AM »

Ron Paul was a populist candidate for sure and that showed in 2012 against Romney and the other candidates in the R Primary. His best hope for victory in the EC would be to take IN and NC back followed by claiming OH, FL, NV and VA, which would give him 272. He could also win IA, NH, and WI if he goes for the throat, but besides that, I don't think he'd be able to get past 292/293 (with ME-02). I can't see him picking up Colorado under any circumstance and MN, MI, and PA weren't ready to vote against Obama
Logged
Lechasseur
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,757


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2020, 09:39:02 AM »

I don't really see much of a path for him tbh
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2020, 09:48:06 PM »

I don't really see much of a path for him tbh

Paul would have attracted an Evan McMullin neocon-esque third party opponent. 

RON Paul (not Rand) had several major drawbacks as a Republican candidate in 2012.  One problem he had was that the GOP was not ready to repudiate the Bush Foreign Policy.  Another problem was that the GOP was simply not as anti-interventionist as Ron Paul was/is.  His positions on these issues placed him at odds with the bulk of the GOP.

But the BIGGEST drawback for Ron Paul was the simple fact that Ron Paul rarely endorsed the GOP National Ticket.  He never endorsed either Bush.  He gave a tepid endorsement to Bob Dole in 1996 when he was making a comeback as a Republican.  But he didn't endorse McCain in 2008 (he endorsed Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin) and he didn't endorse Romney in 2012. 

In his way, Ron Paul was a Republican whose relationship to the party was akin to the relationship George Wallace had with the Democratic Party.  The Democratic Party cared about what Wallace said and did, in particular with regard to the Presidential ticket.  Wallace didn't endorse McGovern, but this was because he viewed such a move as something that would cause both he and McGovern to lose credibility with their supporters.  (Wallace hated Nixon; he did NOT endorse Nixon, he probably voted for McGovern in the privacy of the voting booth, and he privately believed that Nixon sponsored his attempted assassination.)  The Democratic Party allowed George Wallace to speak on their 1974 telethon where they pushed for money.  (I actually remember HHH actually calling Wallace a "great Democrat" on national TV.)  The party put Mickey Griffin (Wallace's 1972 Political Director) on the Democratic National Committee, and he was a pretty influential member of the DNC for a while.  But Wallace was NEVER going to be the Presidential nominee, or even the VP nominee, simply because his views were too far, even then, from the Democratic mainstream.

That's Ron Paul's problem with the GOP.  Indeed, George Wallace was happier about being a Democrat than Ron Paul is with being a Republican, all things considered.  Neither party is going to put on its national ticket a candidate who has conspicuously not supported it as some point in their career.  Indeed, if Nelson Rockefeller had given a tepid endorsement to Goldwater in 1964 instead of remaining conspicuously neutral, he probably wouldn't have been forced from the ticket in 1976.
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,388
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2020, 10:01:08 PM »

Obama might be able to win all 50 states by repeating the words, “Social Security”.
Logged
Ernacius
Newbie
*
Posts: 3


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 29, 2020, 10:14:53 PM »

I don't really see much of a path for him tbh

Paul would have attracted an Evan McMullin neocon-esque third party opponent. 

RON Paul (not Rand) had several major drawbacks as a Republican candidate in 2012.  One problem he had was that the GOP was not ready to repudiate the Bush Foreign Policy.  Another problem was that the GOP was simply not as anti-interventionist as Ron Paul was/is.  His positions on these issues placed him at odds with the bulk of the GOP.

But the BIGGEST drawback for Ron Paul was the simple fact that Ron Paul rarely endorsed the GOP National Ticket.  He never endorsed either Bush.  He gave a tepid endorsement to Bob Dole in 1996 when he was making a comeback as a Republican.  But he didn't endorse McCain in 2008 (he endorsed Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin) and he didn't endorse Romney in 2012. 

In his way, Ron Paul was a Republican whose relationship to the party was akin to the relationship George Wallace had with the Democratic Party.  The Democratic Party cared about what Wallace said and did, in particular with regard to the Presidential ticket.  Wallace didn't endorse McGovern, but this was because he viewed such a move as something that would cause both he and McGovern to lose credibility with their supporters.  (Wallace hated Nixon; he did NOT endorse Nixon, he probably voted for McGovern in the privacy of the voting booth, and he privately believed that Nixon sponsored his attempted assassination.)  The Democratic Party allowed George Wallace to speak on their 1974 telethon where they pushed for money.  (I actually remember HHH actually calling Wallace a "great Democrat" on national TV.)  The party put Mickey Griffin (Wallace's 1972 Political Director) on the Democratic National Committee, and he was a pretty influential member of the DNC for a while.  But Wallace was NEVER going to be the Presidential nominee, or even the VP nominee, simply because his views were too far, even then, from the Democratic mainstream.

That's Ron Paul's problem with the GOP.  Indeed, George Wallace was happier about being a Democrat than Ron Paul is with being a Republican, all things considered.  Neither party is going to put on its national ticket a candidate who has conspicuously not supported it as some point in their career.  Indeed, if Nelson Rockefeller had given a tepid endorsement to Goldwater in 1964 instead of remaining conspicuously neutral, he probably wouldn't have been forced from the ticket in 1976.

McMullin didn't have a decisive impact on Trump's campaign, so I don't think it would doom Paul. However, I concede it could impact margins in places like Utah.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 29, 2020, 10:19:42 PM »

I don't really see much of a path for him tbh

Paul would have attracted an Evan McMullin neocon-esque third party opponent. 

RON Paul (not Rand) had several major drawbacks as a Republican candidate in 2012.  One problem he had was that the GOP was not ready to repudiate the Bush Foreign Policy.  Another problem was that the GOP was simply not as anti-interventionist as Ron Paul was/is.  His positions on these issues placed him at odds with the bulk of the GOP.

But the BIGGEST drawback for Ron Paul was the simple fact that Ron Paul rarely endorsed the GOP National Ticket.  He never endorsed either Bush.  He gave a tepid endorsement to Bob Dole in 1996 when he was making a comeback as a Republican.  But he didn't endorse McCain in 2008 (he endorsed Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin) and he didn't endorse Romney in 2012. 

In his way, Ron Paul was a Republican whose relationship to the party was akin to the relationship George Wallace had with the Democratic Party.  The Democratic Party cared about what Wallace said and did, in particular with regard to the Presidential ticket.  Wallace didn't endorse McGovern, but this was because he viewed such a move as something that would cause both he and McGovern to lose credibility with their supporters.  (Wallace hated Nixon; he did NOT endorse Nixon, he probably voted for McGovern in the privacy of the voting booth, and he privately believed that Nixon sponsored his attempted assassination.)  The Democratic Party allowed George Wallace to speak on their 1974 telethon where they pushed for money.  (I actually remember HHH actually calling Wallace a "great Democrat" on national TV.)  The party put Mickey Griffin (Wallace's 1972 Political Director) on the Democratic National Committee, and he was a pretty influential member of the DNC for a while.  But Wallace was NEVER going to be the Presidential nominee, or even the VP nominee, simply because his views were too far, even then, from the Democratic mainstream.

That's Ron Paul's problem with the GOP.  Indeed, George Wallace was happier about being a Democrat than Ron Paul is with being a Republican, all things considered.  Neither party is going to put on its national ticket a candidate who has conspicuously not supported it as some point in their career.  Indeed, if Nelson Rockefeller had given a tepid endorsement to Goldwater in 1964 instead of remaining conspicuously neutral, he probably wouldn't have been forced from the ticket in 1976.

McMullin didn't have a decisive impact on Trump's campaign, so I don't think it would doom Paul. However, I concede it could impact margins in places like Utah.

It would have required a guy with McMullin's issue positions, but with a lot more juice.  Someone who, at a minimum, had been elected to something significant.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 30, 2020, 03:53:23 PM »

I don't really see much of a path for him tbh

Paul would have attracted an Evan McMullin neocon-esque third party opponent. 

RON Paul (not Rand) had several major drawbacks as a Republican candidate in 2012.  One problem he had was that the GOP was not ready to repudiate the Bush Foreign Policy.  Another problem was that the GOP was simply not as anti-interventionist as Ron Paul was/is.  His positions on these issues placed him at odds with the bulk of the GOP.

But the BIGGEST drawback for Ron Paul was the simple fact that Ron Paul rarely endorsed the GOP National Ticket.  He never endorsed either Bush.  He gave a tepid endorsement to Bob Dole in 1996 when he was making a comeback as a Republican.  But he didn't endorse McCain in 2008 (he endorsed Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin) and he didn't endorse Romney in 2012. 

In his way, Ron Paul was a Republican whose relationship to the party was akin to the relationship George Wallace had with the Democratic Party.  The Democratic Party cared about what Wallace said and did, in particular with regard to the Presidential ticket.  Wallace didn't endorse McGovern, but this was because he viewed such a move as something that would cause both he and McGovern to lose credibility with their supporters.  (Wallace hated Nixon; he did NOT endorse Nixon, he probably voted for McGovern in the privacy of the voting booth, and he privately believed that Nixon sponsored his attempted assassination.)  The Democratic Party allowed George Wallace to speak on their 1974 telethon where they pushed for money.  (I actually remember HHH actually calling Wallace a "great Democrat" on national TV.)  The party put Mickey Griffin (Wallace's 1972 Political Director) on the Democratic National Committee, and he was a pretty influential member of the DNC for a while.  But Wallace was NEVER going to be the Presidential nominee, or even the VP nominee, simply because his views were too far, even then, from the Democratic mainstream.

That's Ron Paul's problem with the GOP.  Indeed, George Wallace was happier about being a Democrat than Ron Paul is with being a Republican, all things considered.  Neither party is going to put on its national ticket a candidate who has conspicuously not supported it as some point in their career.  Indeed, if Nelson Rockefeller had given a tepid endorsement to Goldwater in 1964 instead of remaining conspicuously neutral, he probably wouldn't have been forced from the ticket in 1976.

McMullin didn't have a decisive impact on Trump's campaign, so I don't think it would doom Paul. However, I concede it could impact margins in places like Utah.

It would have required a guy with McMullin's issue positions, but with a lot more juice.  Someone who, at a minimum, had been elected to something significant.
I'm thinking it'd be someone like Huntsman.
Logged
Agonized-Statism
Anarcho-Statism
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,802


Political Matrix
E: -9.10, S: -5.83

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 30, 2020, 04:47:35 PM »

Could his path to victory be through the Rust Belt? Paul isn't Trump, but both speak to a segment of voters disaffected by globalization.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 30, 2020, 09:37:38 PM »

I don't really see much of a path for him tbh

Paul would have attracted an Evan McMullin neocon-esque third party opponent. 

RON Paul (not Rand) had several major drawbacks as a Republican candidate in 2012.  One problem he had was that the GOP was not ready to repudiate the Bush Foreign Policy.  Another problem was that the GOP was simply not as anti-interventionist as Ron Paul was/is.  His positions on these issues placed him at odds with the bulk of the GOP.

But the BIGGEST drawback for Ron Paul was the simple fact that Ron Paul rarely endorsed the GOP National Ticket.  He never endorsed either Bush.  He gave a tepid endorsement to Bob Dole in 1996 when he was making a comeback as a Republican.  But he didn't endorse McCain in 2008 (he endorsed Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin) and he didn't endorse Romney in 2012. 

In his way, Ron Paul was a Republican whose relationship to the party was akin to the relationship George Wallace had with the Democratic Party.  The Democratic Party cared about what Wallace said and did, in particular with regard to the Presidential ticket.  Wallace didn't endorse McGovern, but this was because he viewed such a move as something that would cause both he and McGovern to lose credibility with their supporters.  (Wallace hated Nixon; he did NOT endorse Nixon, he probably voted for McGovern in the privacy of the voting booth, and he privately believed that Nixon sponsored his attempted assassination.)  The Democratic Party allowed George Wallace to speak on their 1974 telethon where they pushed for money.  (I actually remember HHH actually calling Wallace a "great Democrat" on national TV.)  The party put Mickey Griffin (Wallace's 1972 Political Director) on the Democratic National Committee, and he was a pretty influential member of the DNC for a while.  But Wallace was NEVER going to be the Presidential nominee, or even the VP nominee, simply because his views were too far, even then, from the Democratic mainstream.

That's Ron Paul's problem with the GOP.  Indeed, George Wallace was happier about being a Democrat than Ron Paul is with being a Republican, all things considered.  Neither party is going to put on its national ticket a candidate who has conspicuously not supported it as some point in their career.  Indeed, if Nelson Rockefeller had given a tepid endorsement to Goldwater in 1964 instead of remaining conspicuously neutral, he probably wouldn't have been forced from the ticket in 1976.

McMullin didn't have a decisive impact on Trump's campaign, so I don't think it would doom Paul. However, I concede it could impact margins in places like Utah.

It would have required a guy with McMullin's issue positions, but with a lot more juice.  Someone who, at a minimum, had been elected to something significant.
I'm thinking it'd be someone like Huntsman.

In 2012, yes.  Nowadays, Huntsman's making nice with China will not serve him well.
Logged
538Electoral
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,691


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 02, 2020, 04:03:58 AM »



291-247
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,450
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 09, 2020, 09:58:05 PM »

Nah, this can't happen. Paul bombed in the 2012 primaries & even if he were somehow nominated, he'd lose to Obama. Obama's team could/would easily paint Paul as a racist, right-wing extremist, so he'd lose & badly at that.
Logged
Orwell
JacksonHitchcock
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,413
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2020, 12:38:31 AM »

I don't really see much of a path for him tbh

Paul would have attracted an Evan McMullin neocon-esque third party opponent. 

RON Paul (not Rand) had several major drawbacks as a Republican candidate in 2012.  One problem he had was that the GOP was not ready to repudiate the Bush Foreign Policy.  Another problem was that the GOP was simply not as anti-interventionist as Ron Paul was/is.  His positions on these issues placed him at odds with the bulk of the GOP.

But the BIGGEST drawback for Ron Paul was the simple fact that Ron Paul rarely endorsed the GOP National Ticket.  He never endorsed either Bush.  He gave a tepid endorsement to Bob Dole in 1996 when he was making a comeback as a Republican.  But he didn't endorse McCain in 2008 (he endorsed Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin) and he didn't endorse Romney in 2012. 

In his way, Ron Paul was a Republican whose relationship to the party was akin to the relationship George Wallace had with the Democratic Party.  The Democratic Party cared about what Wallace said and did, in particular with regard to the Presidential ticket.  Wallace didn't endorse McGovern, but this was because he viewed such a move as something that would cause both he and McGovern to lose credibility with their supporters.  (Wallace hated Nixon; he did NOT endorse Nixon, he probably voted for McGovern in the privacy of the voting booth, and he privately believed that Nixon sponsored his attempted assassination.)  The Democratic Party allowed George Wallace to speak on their 1974 telethon where they pushed for money.  (I actually remember HHH actually calling Wallace a "great Democrat" on national TV.)  The party put Mickey Griffin (Wallace's 1972 Political Director) on the Democratic National Committee, and he was a pretty influential member of the DNC for a while.  But Wallace was NEVER going to be the Presidential nominee, or even the VP nominee, simply because his views were too far, even then, from the Democratic mainstream.

That's Ron Paul's problem with the GOP.  Indeed, George Wallace was happier about being a Democrat than Ron Paul is with being a Republican, all things considered.  Neither party is going to put on its national ticket a candidate who has conspicuously not supported it as some point in their career.  Indeed, if Nelson Rockefeller had given a tepid endorsement to Goldwater in 1964 instead of remaining conspicuously neutral, he probably wouldn't have been forced from the ticket in 1976.

I agree with Fuzzy here, but I would like to add something. I know Congressman Greg Laughlin's nephew and he was a classmate of mine, Laughlin was primaried by Paul in 1996 for those who didn't know after Laughlin had defected to the GOP in 1995 for a seat on the House Ways and Means Committee.
Logged
NewYorkExpress
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,823
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2020, 12:45:21 AM »

Paul's path to victory is probably being selected as Romney's running mate and then hoping Romney dies between the convention and the general election.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.05 seconds with 12 queries.