Although Republican Congressman Ron Paul has a slim to none chance of winning the GOP nomination, I could still see Paul shaking up the election come next November. I could truly see Ron Paul running as a third party candidate. Ron Paul could be the conservative version of 2000's Ralph Nader. In 2000, Nader ran as an alternative to those who were unhappy with Gore or Bush. Ron Paul has a chance to do the same next year.
While Paul would have a zero percent chance of winning the general election, he would take away votes from both the Democratic and Republican candidates. Which party he takes more votes from will depend on how he positions himself come next year. Nader, in 2000, positioned himself to the left of Al Gore and therefore attracted more Democrats than Republicans. If Paul runs solely on his anti-war position, then clearly that would hurt the Democrats. It would provide a second option for those who dislike Hillary, or for that matter, dislike whomever the nominee may be. The money, so to speak, however, lies with Paul running as the social conservative alternative if Giuliani is the Republican nominee.
Ron Paul is clearly not seen as a typical "christian-right-wing" politician, but he is, possibly more than any other candidate, socially conservative. He has a 100% pro-life voting record----And, by the way, I should also point out that the official pro-life position states that unnecessary war is a big no no, so in that sense, Paul might be the only pro-life Republican candidate. Paul would also prove to be a challenge to Rudy on Rudy's pro-gun control position in states where that issue is very important. If Ron Paul ran as this type of candidate, he would definitely detract voters from Guiliani and would likely prove to be like Nader in yet another way---he would cost the Republicans the election, much the way Nader cost the Democrats the election in 2000.
One big difference between Nader and Paul is that Paul has money. In just one day, Paul raised $4.3 million. That broke the record for the most money any Republican has raised in one day. Ron Paul has a huge following and slowly, but surely, he is getting his name out there. Paul's ability to raise a lot of money would be a huge asset if he does indeed decide to run as a third party candidate. What I'll look the most for, though, is seeing how Paul will define the central message of his campaign---would it be solely anti-war, which would hurt the Democrats, or would it be a socially conservative alternative to Giuliani? The latter, as I mentioned, would almost guarantee that a Republican wouldn't win the White House. The GOP will need every last vote it can get in '08, and a conservative third party option would undoubtably throw a wrench in the GOP's already damaged plan if Giuliani wins the nomination. So I say to all those Ron Paul fanatics----keep up the hard work and you might just see your candidate on the ballot in '08.
6 comments :
I don't know what phony poll you are looking at but my poll says Dr Ron Paul is leading. Every tv debate so far when asked to text in or call in your vote has Dr Ron Paul winning by a wide margin. Not to mention the poll you are looking at does not even include him in the voting. The media is purposely avoiding Dr Ron Paul because the powers that be own the media outlets and fear him. Big Govt. is doomed if he gets elected.
^Well to the Ron Paul fanatic above, I would just say what poll are you looking at? Sure, he is winning the debates by the votes of viewers, but lets be honest, Ron Paul is not going to be the Republican nominee.
I think that after the 5th, Ron Paul has a decent chance of moving up in the polls. If any of the leading candidates screw up somehow, his chances are even better.
bpr
Your analysis is as ridiculous as most of Paul's positions. Ron Paul has exactly 0% chance of drawing voters from the "Democrats". He is rather radically opposite to them on virtually every issue. The only proximity is the opposition to continuing the fruitless invasion and occupation of Iraq. But Paul is not the only conservative or libertarian to have expressed this view--he's just the only conservative presidential candidate to have done so.
But take a closer look at Paul constituency. His financial support might be coming from the broader swath of conservatives and Republicans particularly pissed off at the party's effort to exclude Paul from debates. Given the Republican message uniformity on Iraq, it is rather remarkable that this effort to silence Paul failed miserably. But if anyone remembers the Dukakis campaign, it is the Republicans that most closely resemble it. In fact, at the moment, the race looks like Hillary and the Seven Dwarfs (or eight or nine, depending on who is counting and how). Paul's success and the resiliency of his message is a tribute to the weakness of the field.
But who are Paul's constituents? There is the radical libertarian wing that normally votes fairly conservative, but, more to the point, Paul is a spitting image of Pat Buchanan. So he attracts the same nutty groups--isolationists, segregationists, neo-nazis (he's quite popular with the latter, in fact). That pretty much excludes the possibility of drawing votes away from the Democratic nominee--even if that nominee is Hillary (unless you mean the supposed South Florida Jewish vote for Buchanan in 2000).
Paul does not have the draw to win any states, but he may have enough pull to swing some of the traditionally conservative states (particularly those with the most illiterate population) to the Democrats. More importantly, however, he would have virtually no down-ballot effect, eliminating the presumed coattails for the Democrats. In this sense, a Paul candidacy may well be a blessing for the Republicans, who have a lot more to lose in a two-candidate race with disaffected electorate.
Just take a look at the most recent results in Kentucky--the only Republican elected to a state-wide office was a guy who outspend his opponent by $500,000 to $12,000, and he still only won by 15 points.
Let's face it, Paul's ideas are insane and unimplementable, but they sound good on the stump.
Oh, and by the way, it's the Democratic Party--despite Fox News protestations to the contrary, it has always been the name and will remain that as long as the party gathers more than token support. You only sound gullible and stupid when you fall for this sort of cheap propaganda.
^"Oh, and by the way, it's the Democratic Party--despite Fox News protestations to the contrary, it has always been the name and will remain that as long as the party gathers more than token support. You only sound gullible and stupid when you fall for this sort of cheap propaganda."
wow, sorry, so I made a mistake. You can look back at any of my other posts and see that I do indeed say Democratic Party. It was simply a typing mistake and I promise you that I don't fall for any propaganda, especially from Fox. So again, I'm terribly sorry as that was indeed a terrible mistake on my part, but it certainly wasn't done on purpose.
And yes I agree that Paul is radically opposite from Democrats on many issues. But, if Paul runs as an independent solely on an anti-war message, who does that take more votes away from??? Definitely not the GOP.
Now if Paul runs on his conservative and libertarian views, then certainly he takes more away from the Republicans. It all depends on how Paul presents himself to the voters.
Do you really think normal voters analyze each candidates' every position? No, of course not, ordinary voters look at the central message of a candidate. If they like the central message, they vote for them and vice-versa.
I do know Paul's positions, and as a liberal democrat, I would never vote for Paul. The sole issue I agree with him on is the Iraq War. But to voters who just "glance" at a candidate, Paul's anti-war message might appeal to them.
A case can be made for Ron Paul taking votes from Republicans and Democrats if he decided to run as an independent. American voters in all walks of life have voted for third party candidates in the past in some instance as a protest vote. That is not really a help in turning the country in the right direction. Ralph Nader proved that in 2000. The bottom line on third party candidates is that they likely will never be elected in a general election because of the electoral college vote that is necessary to elect a president. Mr. Paul may be first in the debate polls and on line poles but he is not first in the general polls. I think Ron Paul is good for the debates because he brings something extra to the republican debates. You won't find him invoking Reagan or Bush to copy like the other moron's do. The media never gives much attention to candidates that are generally not in the top three. Thats not fare but that is how they control the subject matter.
Post a Comment