Your favorite comeback to "He can't win"?

[jm1776]

The "He can't win" attack seems to be the current and number one attack against Ron Paul. We see that argument everywhere, the rare mentions on the MSM on all stations, talk radio and in major publications. It's like everyone got the same memo. Stephanopoulos kicked it off mainstream.

I hear it from people I talk to who have heard of Ron Paul and like what he says. "Yes, but he can't win." The underlying connotations are; voting for Ron Paul is throwing away your vote, supporting Ron Paul is a waste of time. All of this from just three words!

I think we should be just as pervasive with counter arguments and we should have them at the ready. They should be in online posts, one on one and in our letters to the editors, fliers, etc... I think we should bring it up before they do and debunk it. Many people who don't say it will be thinking it.

Here are my current top two comebacks to "Yes, but he can't win".

1) Yes, but when you vote for someone you don't believe in, you can't win.

2) Yes, but that's what they said about George Washington.

What do you use?

- jim

[Sematary]

I tell people that he CAN win, if we vote for him
I also tell them that if we want to have a future our children can be proud of - we HAVE to vote for him.

[Brasil Branco]

I mention that Bill Clinton once polled single digits. I also mention the massive amount of support on the internet and grassroots, and the fact that there's still loads of time ahead!

[Kregener]

"Then neither can the spirit of freedom that was the American Republic"...

[SeanEdwards]

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that would be a win for America.

[john_anderson_ii]

My reply:

"Really? Watch this, watch it closely."

If that doesn't work:

"Ron Paul's philosophy pretty much owns the middle class who are subsidizing the rich companies and the welfare receiving poor alike. We want our money back for our families, and we are still huge. The only way Ron Paul can't win is if the middle class don't know about him. Since when did the middle class "miss" something that saves them money?" Once the working class knows we can keep what we make under Ron Paul...who else has a chance?

[BuddyRey]

"Yeah, well...so's your face!"

Just kidding, of course! Usually I'll tell them that the defeatist attitude we've been conditioned to adopt when it comes to real candidates is fed to us by the media with the elite's hopes that it will become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

[0zzy]

"Oh, you can predict the future can you? Then you should of stopped 9/11, but you didn't. You can't predict the f'ing future so stfu and stop acting like it."

"Ya, because, you know, that's democracy."

"Last time I checked I lived in America. Where do you live?"

[constituent]

Says who?

they say

'Everybody.'

who? on tv?

uhh, well. and uhh.. he's not even a top-tier candidate. he really is a longshot.
they get a funny look and trail off.

(or)

I've already made up my mind thanks (i'm voting for the black guy Obama because the means that i'm not a racist and I have compassion for the poor cuz universal healthcare).

say ok, and move on. nothing you can do, let the good dr. speak for himself.

[max]

"So what you are really saying is that we should only vote for those candidades that the media picks for us? Thats really pathetic . It's YOUR vote, not the media's!"


"Thats a defeatist mindset. It says a lot about your personality. If the people like you who say "I like RP but he can't win"...would get off your butt and do whats you re supposed to do, he would win!"

[john_anderson_ii]

"So what you are really saying is that we should only vote for those candidades that the media picks for us? Thats really pathetic . It's YOUR vote, not the media's!"


"Thats a defeatist mindset. It says a lot about your personality. If the people like you who say "I like RP but he can't win"...would get off your butt and do whats you re supposed to do, he would win!"


The Fred Heads try to take a somewhat "I'm lost" approach that I don't buy. My best friend since grade school is a Fred Head. I've had this argument many times. He thinks it's the "lesser of two evils".

I just recite the old proverb:

"I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it, then vote for what I don't want and get it."

He doesn't see the wisdom of these words.

[ChristopherJ]

For the "longshot" comments I like the definition of of the word.

Pronunciation: 'lo[ng]-"shät
Function: noun
1 : a venture involving great risk but promising a great reward if successful.

[Dustancostine]

I just look them in the face and say with determination and conviction.

Yes He Can!

BTW: This puts the burden of the argument on the other person. If they were unsure and just parroting MSM, they will likely trust me and start parroting me (He Can Win). If they truly believe that he can win, then they must present their argument and I can easily tear that to pieces.

This works much better than me having to "prove" he can win.

[richard1984]

I just look them in the face and say with determination and conviction.

Yes He Can!

Haha! I like that one.

I've used several different responses. They're usually something like, "well, you'd better hope he wins, because if he doesn't there is no hope for America because..." etc. etc. I'm gonna start using some of the ones posted so far. Some of them are great! :cool:

[nullvalu]

I usually say to people (who already think he's a good candidate) that you already know he's the best choice, so...the only reason he can't win is if people keep attitudes like that"

[jgmaynard]

"15 months from the election, Carter, Reagan, Dukakis (won nomination) and Clinton were ALL polling at similar levels. They won, didn't they?"

JM

[Trance Dance Master]

I always respond with "he WILL win" and I say it confidently while looking them in the eyes. I've never seen anyone say "he can't win" while maintaining eye contact. I always maintain eye contact with every person I debate with, it's an honest signal of high status behavior.

[Darren McFillintheBlank]

..

[stevedasbach]

"Ron Paul is the only Republican who can win."

[Slugg]

"I like him, but he can't win"

"Why?"

"The system is corrupt, someone like him could never win."

or

The one answer I hear, over and over again, is "Because he isn't on television." This one is tough, because in some way's I agree (which is why we fight so hard).

I usually then ask, "Have you ever voted in a primary?"
All, so far, have said, "No."

Then I explain how he is the guy most non-politically involved people have been waiting for. And, as a result, it's next to impossible to predict his votes. Top that off with a little grandstanding on how WE ARE THE PEOPLE. If you like the guy, at the very least register republican and vote for him. Then, donate 20 bucks. I finish off with, "If everyone who liked him would simply donate $20 and vote for him in the primaries; he'd win by a landslide. So, if he doesn't win, don't blame the system; blame the public.

[swissmiss]

I'm always baffled by this "can't win" attitude. The one thing people around the world love about your country is the "everybody can make it" mentality. Wasn't it that what they used do call the Amercian dream?

[Joe Knows]

What do you use?

- jim

If they are familiar with Ron Paul, I always agree. (That's the old salesman coming out.) I say,

"Yes, I agree, Ron Paul might not win. But do you like his positions?"

If they respond positively, I come back with,

"If you like his message, why don't you help us change the national debate?"

Sometimes I use a variation.

"Yes, I agree with you. Ron Paul might not win. But do you like the direction the country is headed? Or do you like what's happening to America?

When they respond negatively, I come back with,

"Then, help us change the national debate and let's get this country back on track no matter who the nominee is."

Most of the time it is easier to agree on the issues than Ron Paul, but once they agree on the issues it is just a very short step to support.

[cjhowe]

If they are familiar with Ron Paul, I always agree. (That's the old salesman coming out.) I say,

"Yes, I agree, Ron Paul might not win. But do you like his positions?"

If they respond positively, I come back with,

"If you like his message, why don't you help us change the national debate?"

Sometimes I use a variation.

"Yes, I agree with you. Ron Paul might not win. But do you like the direction the country is headed? Or do you like what's happening to America?

When they respond negatively, I come back with,

"Then, help us change the national debate and let's get this country back on track no matter who the nominee is."

Most of the time it is easier to agree on the issues than Ron Paul, but once they agree on the issues it is just a very short step to support.

+1

[Rivington Essex]

MY REPLY IS RON PAUL IS WINNING. I used this successfully twice last night on a lawyer and a teacher I both overheard talking politics. They are almost converted. He almost made a donation.

1. Ron Paul beat Rudy in 15 / 16 polls.
2. Ron Paul won in New Hampshire.
3. He beat McCain in Iowa. He had more money on hand after q2.
4. He won a straw poll in Alabama.
5. I am surprised you haven't heard of him. You must not follow politics.

People like winners. They follow crowds. And they hate to look dumb, as in "I have never heard of this guy."

[Slugg]

MY REPLY IS RON PAUL IS WINNING. I used this successfully twice last night on a lawyer and a teacher I both overheard talking politics. They are almost converted. He almost made a donation.

1. Ron Paul beat Rudy in 15 / 16 polls.
2. Ron Paul won in New Hampshire.
3. He beat McCain in Iowa. He had more money on hand after q2.
4. He won a straw poll in Alabama.
5. I am surprised you haven't heard of him. You must not follow politics.

People like winners. They follow crowds. And they hate to look dumb, as in "I have never heard of this guy."

I had one chick say, " I know of Ron Paul, and I really like him. But I shouldn't have to 'look up' my candidate. I shouldn't have to go online to find out about him. So I'm voting for Fred Thompson!"

I wanted to smack her face, puke on her, and stamp "Idiot" on her forehead. Sadly, I said, "Oh... well, thanks for being part of the problem." And left.

[Dustancostine]

That is a good point. Sometimes I feel like carry around little Bill Engavil "stupid" signs and passing them out to the idiots.

[Paul4Prez]

I reply that I don't think Republicans will nominate the pro-choice, pro-gun control Giuliani, the Massachusetts flip-flopper Romney, the pro-amnesty McCain, or the ex-lobbyist Thompson.

Who does that leave? Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee, and Dr. Paul's record on taxes and immigration is a LOT more conservative than Huckabee's.

[leipo]

1) Yes, but when you vote for someone you don't believe in, you can't win.

That's the best response i've heard so far.

[ThePieSwindler]

I telll people that it is essentially a larger waste of a vote to vote for someone who will undoubtedly be the winner, because everyone else is going to vote for them right? So theres no point in going out, lets just stay home because Giuliani/thompson/Romney will win! Oh wait, but then EVERYONE thinks that, stays home... and they get barely any support at straw polls and whatnot. Always vote on principle, because then you can live with the consequeces of whatever ensues. Seriously, i find it a hilarious yet frustrating delimma - so many people WOULD support Ron paul if "he had a shot"... but if all those people supported him, he'd be the frontrunner by far.

[james1906]

I say that the media has made the mistake of comparing the presidential race to a horse race. With a horse race, you're supposed to bet for the horse you THINK is going to win. With the presidential race, you're supposed to vote for the candidate you WANT to win. The media thinks voting for someone that isn't considered a contender is a bad bet (wasting your vote), but there's no extra reward for someone who votes for the winner in a presidential election compared to someone who votes for the loser. In a horse race, there's a reward for voting for the winner.

I also mention that the mentality of voting for the lesser of two evils will only keep evil in power.

[dircha]

Here are my current top two comebacks to "Yes, but he can't win".


"Not unless people like me and you join the thousands of other volunteers working around the country to get the word out and vote for him in the primaries. Go to ronpaul2008.com and sign up to find out what you can do to help right now; I'll send you an email tonight to help you get started if you run into any problems."

[Trance Dance Master]

I also enjoy subtly threatening insurrection.

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showpost.php?p=709827&postcount=25

[SWATH]

response:
He HAS to win...or we're all screwed

[jblosser]

The "he can't win" argument has 0 credibility given the events since and including Iowa. I say this as someone campaigning inside the Republican Clubs in TX up to the Straw Poll. Several of them who like Ron's message give me that line with a guilty voice because they do want to vote for him. I immediately show them his real numbers from this recent offline polls and their tune changes immediately. These are people that know how the system works and this data speaks to them.

Ron is winning on the ground right now. He started out online, and those numbers mean nothing to these people, but now that he is winning pay-to-play straw polls as well they are noticing. They just have to hear about it.

[gravesdav]

35,000 grassroots volunteers across the country

[Paulitician]

I really have no comeback for it. I could pull the patriot card, but it's really no use. If one were a true patriot, then one would likely vote for Ron Paul (given that he or she actually knows of him), anyway. I find most people aren't patriots though. Or I can asked them why they allow themselves to be brainwashed by corporate-corrupt media. I think a big problem is the whole system is utterly corrupt, so I don't blame people for not even caring anymore. Being part of this campaign takes some serious dedication and patriotism just to try to get Ron Paul the same amount of face time as the frontrunners on TV and such. Once Ron Paul has more name recognition, hopefully the brain-dead masses will give him a chance. A lot of the problem stems from the system, but it's our complacent compatriots who don't shit about it.

Edit: I hate it when people say Ron Paul is equivalent to Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel. That is utterly false. I first point out that both Kucinich and Gravel have 3 grounded top tier candidates they're going to have to combat: Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Also, some pretty well supported 2nd tier like Richardson and Biden. They seriously have no chance in that regard. On the other hand, is America going to vote for another Bush Republican? John McCain is pretty much out. Romney has his flip-flop history, besides that he's doing ok. Giuliani... well where do we start with Giuliani? Once people start to find out about him, he'll become a goner. At the same time the neocon votes will be split among like 4, 5 or 6 candidates. Secondly, Ron Paul has way, I mean way more grassroots support and money. (Huckabee can't even touch him, and he's being propped up by the media as the only alternative to the current "top 3" of the Republican candidates.) No contest, Kucinich and Gravel put together don't even have half of Ron Paul support any way you look at it. Their chances are astronomical. Ron's are more down to earth.

[AnotherAmerican]

The only "poll" that matters is the one where we all vote; everything else is commentary. The appropriate place to bet on the outcome of the election is Las Vegas. In a voting booth, you're being asked what you really want. Respond accordingly.

Suspend Habeus Corpus, legalize torture, conduct warrantless searches, keep a permanent record of every phone and bank account in the country, require a "National ID" and/or passport for internal travel, and hold citizens indefinitely without charge or trial... ten years ago, did you think that could "win?"

[devil21]

"They said the Patriots couldnt beat the Rams in the Super Bowl too" (obviously audience oriented)

"We respect and appreciate things more when we have to work for them" (everyone can understand that one)

I like to play the underdog card.

[ecliptic]

I always respond with "he WILL win" and I say it confidently while looking them in the eyes. I've never seen anyone say "he can't win" while maintaining eye contact. I always maintain eye contact with every person I debate with, it's an honest signal of high status behavior.

WINNER!!!!

By showing them your absolute confidence, indomitable spirit, and unshakeable faith in your candidate Ron Paul . . . you WILL make an impression on them. When was the last time they saw such spirit?

[LibertyEagle]

Here is part of my toolkit for dealing with such comments.

From Jennifer....
"If you don't vote for what you want you will NEVER be able to GET what what you want."

I also use this...
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams


And sometimes top it off with this, which also came from someone on this board (sorry, I don't remember who)...

If Republicans want to win in November of 2008, they must nominate Ron Paul.
If they nominate anyone else, they will assuredly lose.
The Reagan coalition has turned into the Ron Paul Revolution.


Or, even this.... (but, of course I was a little perturbed at the moment) ;)

FACT: The Republican Party has shrunk greatly. A large number of traditional conservatives have left the party and have largely become Independents or members of the Constitution Party.

FACT: No one is going to cross the aisle to vote for a Republican who is a warmonger, who is willing to break the Christian Doctrine of Just War and pre-emptively nuke a country that has not attacked us, nor poses an imminent threat. Nor, will they vote for any guantanamo-doubling, habeas corpus stealing, illegal wiretapping, Constitution-burning, BIG government totalitarian.

And neither will I.

THOSE ARE THE FACTS. Ignore them, and you will end up with Hillary or Obama.

[Thunderbolt]

...

[Thunderbolt]

...

[LibertyEagle]

I think I like Jennifer. lol

You like the first one the best? In the mood I'm in today, I much prefer the last one. :D

[quickmike]

My comeback would be "Oh ok, so if you had to play a game of golf against Tiger Woods and beat him for the right to live, you wouldnt even play because you cant win?" Then I would say "Yeah, just dont even try because you cant win, just give in and vote for some big government shill just because he has a better chance even though you dont like him. Its not a horserace where you somehow win something by guessing who the winner is. Its about voting who you want to win. If everyone did that, we would be living in a much different world. Unfortunately, sheep just feel good if they vote for the person they think will win, even if they dont like him, and somehow thats a win for you because you picked who it would be. "

Seriously, I really believe that about 30 - 40% of the people in this country vote strictly on who they think the winner will be and not who they really agree with. Some sort of ego trip they put themselves on. Who knows.

[jj111]

How about this:

If you know someone well enough that you have ongoing conversations with them, ask them this:

Well, if you think Ron Paul can't win, you are saying that his odds of winning are zero. But you probably don't really mean that, but instead mean that his odds of winning are very low.

What do you think is a closer approximation of the odds of his winning?

a. 1 in a million
b. 1 in 100,000
c. 1 in 10,000
d. 1 in 1000
e. Anything else you think the odds are

Now if they tell you something like 1 in 1000, I would tell them, I'll give you triple the odds, and make it 333 to 1. Now since you're so confident that Ron won't win, how about making a wager?

A 333 to 1 bet is your $100,000 to my $333.
If that's too much for you, how about your $10,000 to my $33?

Please make a bet with me and you can take advantage of this situation financially, since you think his odds of winning are 1 in 1000 and I think his odds are better.

Whoever is given that opportunity will never take such a bet. At that point, they realize in their own mind that the reason they won't take such a bet is because Ron Paul really CAN win.

[Marceline88]

What if the idiot response to his name is......He's losing in the primaries.

And what if the idiot speaking is your dear Grandfather???

The only thing I could stammer to him was...."Well, you'll be surprised how many will become Republicans because of him." He mumbled and dropped it.

I wanted to say, "Awww, you just hate me cuz' I believe in the Constitution."

Hard to argue with authoritarian ex-marine Grandfathers who's dear wife find Romney handsome or something.

[quickmike]

What if the idiot response to his name is......He's losing in the primaries.

And what if the idiot speaking is your dear Grandfather???

The only thing I could stammer to him was...."Well, you'll be surprised how many will become Republicans because of him." He mumbled and dropped it.

I wanted to say, "Awww, you just hate me cuz' I believe in the Constitution."

Hard to argue with authoritarian ex-marine Grandfathers who's dear wives find Romney handsome or something.

I'll tell ya what. If Ron Paul doesnt get the Repub nomination, Ill pull the Hillary or Obama lever in the general elections, just to f--k this country up as bad as I can help do. The way I see it, the quicker we fall into a totally socialist form of government, the quicker the sheep might finally wake up and start voting common sense instead of fluff and empty talk. Im serious........... Ill actually vote Hillary in 08 LOL

[risiusj]

Mike, you're crazy. People won't wake up until people wake them up. As long as the media tells them what to think, they will.

[quickmike]

Mike, you're crazy. People won't wake up until people wake them up. As long as the media tells them what to think, they will.

Oh I agree completely. Ive been telling people about Ron Paul since the middle of may going door to door every weekend spreading the word. But if thats still not enough, I think it will actually take first hand experience of a socialist country for people to realize the crap they are in. Some people just dont care enough about true liberty enough because things arent that bad right now. You can talk and talk all you want to some people and they wont accept the truth until it smacks them in the face and its too late to do anything about it. Ever hear the old saying "you dont know what youve got till its gone"? Well, thats all im saying here. Im not saying I like Hillary clinton, im saying that some people just wont listen to you and agree with what you say until they see it for themselves. Thats all im saying. If someone like Mitt Romney got elected we would end up with "socialism lite" and that would drag out the fall into a socialized state of govt healthcare, repealing of the 2nd amendment, freedom of speech etc etc etc.

Why not just speed the inevitable and get it over with? See what im saying. Then we will have enough people that will see first hand what happens with a Hillary or Obama because they didnt vote for the true conservative. Might actually make people think twice about supporting a pseudo conservative next time. Sometimes a good lesson is a tough one. Sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better.


This is all assuming RP didnt get nominated, but I have hope.

[LibertyEagle]

What if the idiot response to his name is......He's losing in the primaries.

And what if the idiot speaking is your dear Grandfather???

The only thing I could stammer to him was...."Well, you'll be surprised how many will become Republicans because of him." He mumbled and dropped it.

I wanted to say, "Awww, you just hate me cuz' I believe in the Constitution."

Hard to argue with authoritarian ex-marine Grandfathers who's dear wife find Romney handsome or something.

I'd tell him that we HAVE NOT HAD the primaries. They are months away.

Then, I would proceed from there.

[Nefertiti]

I say it all boils down to who makes it to the polls on election day. Voter turnout is normally very low, but Ron Paul's supporters are more dedicated to him and WILL go to the polls. I tell them there is a big difference between the effort needed to answer a telephone poll and actually going to the polls and voting, so for a candidate to get elected, he needs supporters who are willing to take that extra step. Ron Paul has those kind of supporters and none of the other Republicans do.

[quickmike]

I'd tell him that we HAVE NOT HAD the primaries. They are months away.

Then, I would proceed from there.

I would also tell him that the leader in the primaries obviously doesnt need your vote anyway unless of course you actually like him more than you like Ron Paul, in which case he should at least be honest about it and not give some lame excuse. Also ask him "If the leader in the general election was Adolf Hitler would you vote for him just because he was the leader, and his answer is no, ask him why this is any different?"

[Tn...Andy]

He can't win ? Then are you ready for Hillary as your next president ?

Because THAT is the choice.

The Republicans lost Congress in 2006 because the American people are tired of broken promises of smaller govt, lower taxes and this war without end building nations.

What Republican candidate is NOT simply a continuation of business as usual, stay the course OTHER THAN RON PAUL ????

So if you vote for ANY republican OTHER THAN RON PAUL, you are simply electing Hillary by default.

IS THAT WHAT YOU REALLY WANT TO DO ?????

[quickmike]

He can't win ? Then are you ready for Hillary as your next president ?

Because THAT is the choice.

The Republicans lost Congress in 2006 because the American people are tired of broken promises of smaller govt, lower taxes and this war without end building nations.

What Republican candidate is NOT simply a continuation of business as usual, stay the course OTHER THAN RON PAUL ????

So if you vote for ANY republican OTHER THAN RON PAUL, you are simply electing Hillary by default.

IS THAT WHAT YOU REALLY WANT TO DO ?????


Amen brother!!!

[jmarinara]

"but he can't win!!!"

My response: I don't care, the duty is ours and the results are GOD's.

I then go on to explain that we aren't to worry about what might happen and change our approach on that basis, we are merely to choose to do the right thing no matter what.

If you aren't the Christian type, you could simply say "I refuse to not do the right thing because I've been told it can't be done. I'd rather do the right thing and fail, than do the wrong thing and succeed."

[Politeia]

"I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it, then vote for what I don't want and get it."
BTW, this was a slogan of the Ron Paul campaign in 1988; made sense then and makes sense now.


I say that the media has made the mistake of comparing the presidential race to a horse race.
It's not a "mistake"; it's a deliberate manipulative technique.


If Ron Paul doesnt get the Repub nomination, Ill pull the Hillary or Obama lever...
Well, I don't think I'll go so far as to vote for either of them (against my principles -- see first quote above), but in fact my second choice would be Hillary: If the disease has to run its full course, let's go ahead and get it over with.

In 1988 I got this same response from many friends: He can't win. Well, why can't he win? Because no one will vote for him. Why will no one vote for him? Because he can't win. Hello? This is why politicians love democracy, the more the better -- because the great mass of humans are herd animals.

One friend in 1988 even said that I was the only person he knew who was voting for something -- and then he went ahead and voted for Mondale (or whoever the Demogogue candidate was that year). I'm going to alert him he has a second chance this year. How many real second chances do we get in life?

[dude58677]

He is NOT a third party candidate, he has much a chance as everyone else.

[lynnf]

Here are my current top two comebacks to "Yes, but he can't win".

1) Yes, but when you vote for someone you don't believe in, you can't win.

2) Yes, but that's what they said about George Washington.

What do you use?

- jim


Here's one: Isn't that what they said to David before he went out to meet Goliath? And we know how that turned out.


lynn

[fj45lvr]

That's a hell of alot better than "He shouldn't win"!!!

[lucius]

Here's one: Isn't that what they said to David before he went out to meet Goliath? And we know how that turned out.


lynn

I will save that for my Christian skeptics, Thanks!

[hatefalseweight]

100,000 people who control the corporations and media pool their dog track money (say $1000 eacj) and spread a hundred million between a handful of candidates to make it look like a fight when in fact all of the "frontrunners" are CFR members who have no intention of doing anything other than what their corporate masters tell them to do.

On the other hand, 1 million constitutionally literate and even mildly committed individuals could easily identify a principled candidate with a pro-American, constitutional track record and donate $100 ( a few months of cable and starbucks) and easily overwhelm the collectivist candidates and make it impossible for such a well-funded candidate to be ignored.

So we can't get 1% of the population (note - they wouldn't even have to be voting age to contribute) to combat the 0.1% of the population of "spammers " in the media who run a brainwashing operation and get people to think for themselves?

If you have 200 people at your workplace, this means you need 2 people giving $100 to the campaign. If you've given your $100, then you need one more for your company to do their part.

[Roxi]

I say, it voter turnout for the primaries is very low, and it would take such a small amount of people from each state to win each primary. Right now there are thousands of grassroots supporters doing just what were doing to spread the message and get people to vote in the primaries. His popularity has grown 50X in the last 4 months, imagine 15 more months to the primaries!

[Akus]

I tell them that if he won't win, neither will the rest of the Jesus party (my name for GOP these days).

I also say that he has won as many straw polls as the other guys and almost alway either wins or comes close second in at those.

[Oregon 4 RP]

Ron Paul "can't win"?

I answer by first listing all the things Ron Paul HAS WON!

Start with 10 U.S. Congressional races - people who know him return him consistently - Reps Dems, Indes,etc
Ron Paul won all four GOP presidential debates - don't be mislead by Fox's faux poll in second debate (S.C.) Use ABC and MSNBC polls for that debate
Ron Paul won the military contributions race (2nd Qtr) All candidates, all parties
Ron Paul won the meet up groups race
Ron Paul won you tube videos race
Ron Paul has won several straw votes
Ron Paul is a winner!:)

Then go to the several other arguments listed on this forum:)

[Jive Dadson]

I hear it from people I talk to who have heard of Ron Paul and like what he says. "Yes, but he can't win." The underlying connotations are; voting for Ron Paul is throwing away your vote, supporting Ron Paul is a waste of time. All of this from just three words!

First and foremost, do not argue.

Compliment the person. Tell him you understand his position, and that it has merit. Say you choose to vote for Ron Paul for personal reasons. Appeal to his nobler instincts. End with a challenge. Something like this:

"I can tell you have thought about this, and I'm glad that you agree with the good doctor's Freedom message. I have heard a lot of people say Ron Paul cannot win, and I've got to admit, you have a pretty strong case. The media certainly do not make it easy to get his message out, and all the big political powers want him out. I'll just say this. I have been waiting all my life for a candidate like Ron Paul, and I am not going to miss this opportunity. I have registered as a Republican, and I am working for Ron Paul every day. There are at least 35,000 of us volunteers, and more are signing up all the time. If he doesn't win, it won't be because we didn't give it our best shot. Your vote is yours to spend the way you see as best for America. But let me ask you to do something for me. Think it over, and see if you can think of a way he could win."

(Props to Dale Carnegie - How to Win Friends and Influence People)

[rajibo]

I hear it from people I talk to who have heard of Ron Paul and like what he says. "Yes, but he can't win." The underlying connotations are; voting for Ron Paul is throwing away your vote, supporting Ron Paul is a waste of time. All of this from just three words!

First and foremost, do not argue.

Compliment the person. Tell him you understand his position, and that it has merit. Say you choose to vote for Ron Paul for personal reasons. Appeal to his nobler instincts. End with a challenge. Something like this:

"I can tell you have thought about this, and I'm glad that you agree with the good doctor's Freedom message. I have heard a lot of people say Ron Paul cannot win, and I've got to admit, you have a pretty strong case. The media certainly do not make it easy to get his message out, and all the big political powers want him out. I'll just say this. I have been waiting all my life for a candidate like Ron Paul, and I am not going to miss this opportunity. I have registered as a Republican, and I am working for Ron Paul every day. There are at least 35,000 of us volunteers, and more are signing up all the time. If he doesn't win, it won't be because we didn't give it our best shot. Your vote is yours to spend the way you see as best for America. But let me ask you to do something for me. Think it over, and see if you can think of a way he could win."

(Props to Dale Carnegie - How to Win Friends and Influence People)

Is this the real Jive Dadson! Hell, you're the less sexy, male version of LadyJade.

Keep it up!

:D

[micahnelson]

Voter apathy regarding the poor choices among a large field of “big name” candidates, paired with the dedicated grassroot support that second tier candidates are solidifying may mean we will be in for a shock in January. Remember back to your 5th grade math classes:

Question: If there are 5 candidates on a ballot and the votes are spread evenly, what is the smallest percentage of the vote that could secure victory?

Answer: 21%

Full Article (http://www.micahnelson.com/?p=92)

[Lois]

I say -- "We have to try." "We can't give up Hope". "Without Hope, we're doomed."

[kickzman]

Mine is "Fuck you." It works well with young voters.:D

[Eric21ND]

"That's what they said about Ventura and he won!"

That line works well around Minnesota/North Dakota and young people. :)

[born2drv]

I tell them one of 2 things:

1) Every month his user base more then doubles, he has won more straw polls then any other candidate and his message is spreading like wildfire.

2) 70% of Americans do not Favor the War. Ron Paul is the Only Republican against the war. So if he is not nominated we're going to lose to the Liberal Democrats no matter what.

[mtmedlin]

Mine is "Fuck you." It works well with young voters.:D

ya, i was going to go with a quote from the comedian Ron White.

"Oh ya, well Fuck you!"

[Ninja Homer]

No offense, but it looks like most of you give too many facts and statistics. Most people forget about them within about 30 seconds, if they even consider them at all. Facts and statistics work great on the Internet or in writing, but not in person (unless the person is very analytical).

Try something like this:
They say he can't win.

Give them a look of total shock like they just said something that makes them sound crazy.

"Where'd you hear that?!? Everybody I talk to is pretty certain he is going to win!"

That alone might do it. If they answer where they heard it, no matter who it is, just say:
"They must want Barack or Hillary to win. The truth is, Ron Paul is the only Republican who could beat either of them."

If they still don't seem convinced that Ron Paul can win, then say:
"Ron Paul is hardly ever in the news, and he hasn't even started running any kind of ads yet, and he is still winning almost all of the recent straw polls."

Another thing that helps is to always talk as if Ron Paul is guaranteed to be the next President. So rather than, "If Ron Paul is elected as President, he will..." say, "When Ron Paul is President, he will."

Whether people are conscious of these little things or not, they do pick up on them. Talk like you believe it (you do believe it, right?). Share your excitement with them. Excitement is contagious.

[Politeia]

"That's what they said about Ventura and he won!"

And, BTW, that's what they said about George Washington.

[quickmike]

And, BTW, that's what they said about George Washington.

True about Ventura, good comparison.................... but George Washington???? He didnt have Faux News to contend with and all the sheeple who hung on their every word. Not to mention all the lobbyists dumping money to his competition. George had it easy compared to Ventura and Paul. If Washington were around today it would be "Do you really want a president who disrespects the environment by chopping down cherry trees? Do you really want a president who has wooden teeth? Can america really handle four more years of George Washington?" He would be FINISHED.:D

[tnvoter]

I mention that Jimmy Carter was virtually unknown one year before he won the election. When he called his mother to tell her he was going to run for president, she asked him: "president of what?"

haha

[monkeyman]

If its someone like a parent or grandparent or something they say 'but he cant win' you look shocked/disapointed and respond something like 'I thought you taught me to do what was right over what was popular'. Some variation like 'Sorry I thought you were the type to do whats right rather than just follow the crowd'.

In general or it the above response wouldnt likely make the folks from the above groups rethink their position then I like the response, 'So you plan to vote for Hillary? If not then youre truely wasteing your vote. Across the board 70% of voters oppose the war and a large part of the rest dislike Bush, so any of the Republicans who resemble Bush and/or are for 'staying the coarse' in Iraq will send more than 70% of voters to Hillary in ADDITION to the folks who will vote for her either because they are diehard Dems or just to get the first woman in the office and she will win by a landslide. The ONLY Republican that stands a chance IS Ron Paul.

Pointing out that already HAS won the majority of all the straw polls is a great one also, along with the fact that he raised over $1M in under a week from private donations and that he has more voters registered to support him through meet up groups than ANY other candidate in ANY party.
I also like the idea that was mentioned about letting them state the odds they think pertain then give them double or tripple odds and make the biggest bet you can with them. Aside from anything else if they take you up on it then you can make a load of money when he wins!

[TechnoGuyRob]

"Yeah, but he can't win."

"Hahahahahaha...ha...ha....wait. You're serious? You do realize, right, that..."

[justinc.1089]

I really liked the response saying that if 5 candidates are divided evenly, the smallest percentage that could win is only 21%, and the response saying I would rather do what is right when everyone says it can't be done than do what is wrong because everyone says it can be done.

[work2win]

Winning means nothing if the wrong person wins. The RIGHT PERSON winning is what counts.

If the "lesser of two evils" crap comes up, there's about 20 years of evidence to show where that takes us.

[OptionsTrader]

Your favorite comeback to "He can't win"?

"If you assert he can't win, then you should take the following bet becasue logically it must then be true that you can't lose.

Give me 200:1 odds, and I'll bet you $1,000 Ron Paul wins. If I am wrong, you win $1,000. If you are wrong, you owe me $200,000.

Still think he can't win?

If so, prove it"

[USPatriot36]

70 percent of Americans are against the War, so if the Republicans elect a pro-war candidate they are doomed. Ron Paul is the ONLY chance of beating Hillary!

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Your favorite comeback to "He can't win"?

FU

[justinc.1089]

"If you assert he can't win, then you should take the following bet becasue logically it must then be true that you can't lose.

Give me 200:1 odds, and I'll bet you $1,000 Ron Paul wins. If I am wrong, you win $1,000. If you are wrong, you owe me $200,000.

Still think he can't win?

If so, prove it"

I don't like that one too much because it comes off as rude kind of. Its like saying "Prove you're right that he cannot win or I am going to prove to you he can win and that you are wrong." People just don't like to be told they're wrong blatantly like that, so I think its better to go with a more casual conversation type of response, not a proving argumentive type of response because there is little chance of giving them confidence in Paul that way. It just divides you and them even more in my opinion.

[Captain Shays]

Is that your only criteria for voting for a candidate, or do you ever vote on principle and your own convictions?

[Hope]

I tell them that that's what they said about Ronald Reagan and I tell them that Bill Clinton was polling at the same numbers Ron Paul is now at this stage in the campaign. :)

[Perry]

If Ron Paul had a dollar for every time someone said he couldn't win he'd have five million dollars. Wait a sec...he DOES have five million dollars!! :p

[Original_Intent]

True about Ventura, good comparison.................... but George Washington???? He didnt have Faux News to contend with and all the sheeple who hung on their every word. Not to mention all the lobbyists dumping money to his competition. George had it easy compared to Ventura and Paul. If Washington were around today it would be "Do you really want a president who disrespects the environment by chopping down cherry trees? Do you really want a president who has wooden teeth? Can america really handle four more years of George Washington?" He would be FINISHED.:D

I think George Washington was in reference to the war, not the presidency. ;)

[ConstitutionGal]

I mention that Jimmy Carter was virtually unknown one year before he won the election. When he called his mother to tell her he was going to run for president, she asked him: "president of what?"

haha
I wouldn't bring Carter up because you just might be talking to somene that remembers that the main reason he won was because the NEA got behind him to get him to create the Fed. Dept. of Education after the elections....:mad:

[thehyperaspist]

I respond that, to the contrary, Ron Paul is the only candidate who _can_ win the general election.

He has a stronger anti war record than hillary does, which has been and will continue to draw off antiwar democrats.

He has a compromise solution to the abortion issue which will be strong enough to hold the conservative right wing, which is threatening to bolt if Giuliani gets elected.

He has broad based middle-america appeal on the issues, and there's nothing america likes more than an underdog.

It was said that both Lincoln and Reagan couldn't win. Yet they did and went on to be some of our best presidents.

[cmc]

http://www.cs.wm.edu/~cmc/images/dewey_defeats_truman.jpg