Ron Paul might ensure victory for Hillary

[johngr]

By sucking away the anti-war democrats from closed-primary states (which New York conveniently switched to). The best he'll get from the primaries is a plurality. Then all they have to do is have the 2 runners-up cut a backroom deal and -- viola, instant President Hillary.

[Chester Copperpot]

I dont follow your logic

[CoreyBowen999]

i dont get it either..

[OptionsTrader]

Flawed logic. Nice try though.

[johngr]

I wasn't clear enough. Ron Paul's support comes in part from people who would otherwise vote in the Democratic primary and work to make sure that Hillary doesn't get nominated. Perhaps without their efforts (and in some cases votes) Hillary will get the nomination whereas it wouldn't have been possible without Dr. Paul running on the Republican side. One of the real anti-war Dems might have won.

Let me put it another way... how many Hillary-supporters will Dr. Paul draw from the Democratic side?

[MsDoodahs]

There are no anti war dems.

The neocons on several other boards have been doing this whole "a vote for Ron is a vote for Hillary" bullshit for a few days.

It's nonsense, just another neocon scare tactic.

[constituent]

who cares?

i can't think of a human soul less relevant to the campaign
than Hilary Clinton.

Also-ran.

Nothing more. Who is going to vote for the dynasty again?

nobody. Who are these 25% of people voting for Julie Annie?

No one. Romney? No one.

[johngr]

There are no anti war dems.

The neocons on several other boards have been doing this whole "a vote for Ron is a vote for Hillary" bullshit for a few days.

That's a straw man argument. Not do you misrepresent my argument, I happen to believe the opposite of your characterization. Let me make it clear: for anyone who would vote republican, A VOTE FOR [ANYONE OTHER THAN RON PAUL IS A VOTE FOR HILLARY. Got that?! Dr. Paul is the only candidate that can beat Hillary. My position is that the Democrats that Dr. Paul brings over to his side (a righteous side, I might add) will be ones who would have worked and/or voted to keep Hillary Clinton from getting the nomination. That plus the back-room deal between the two losers I anticipate will occur when Dr. Paul wins a plurality of the nomination might ensure Hillary winning. I don't want that but it looks like it could happen.

To reiterate NO ONE OTHER THAN DR. PAUL CAN BEAT HILLARY CLINTON.

[tfelice]

Hillary will get the nomination regardless of how many supporters Paul, or any GOP candidate, brings over to the GOP. None of the other Dems have a chance of defeating her.

Our focus now should be one one thing only, and that is winning the GOP nomination.

[kylejack]

By sucking away the anti-war democrats from closed-primary states (which New York conveniently switched to). The best he'll get from the primaries is a plurality. Then all they have to do is have the 2 runners-up cut a backroom deal and -- viola, instant President Hillary.
Which anti-war Democrats? Obama and Edwards also talk about the troops might not be home by 2013. Kucinich and Gravel are not viable.

[MsDoodahs]

Ron is the only GOP candidate that can win against Hillary, that I agree with completely.

[johngr]

Hillary will get the nomination regardless of how many supporters Paul, or any GOP candidate, brings over to the GOP. None of the other Dems have a chance of defeating her.

Our focus now should be one one thing only, and that is winning the GOP nomination.

We should be thinking about what we will do if he loses as well.

[alicegardener]

The top tier Democrats have overpowered the true anti-war Dems wheras the Republican voters are split and unenthusiastic (except you know who). Ergo, the best and first battle for peace will be to eliminate the worst threat (the Republican hawks) right off the bat. Any anti-war person would prefer the choice of any Democrat vs. Ron Paul over any other combination.

[KingTheoden]

We should be thinking about what we will do if he loses as well.

No we should be thinking about how best to implement tactics and strategies to get Ron Paul elected. If we operate with a defeatist mindset, then our fate is sealed by our own doing.

[DelandFreedomSeeker]

I have a feeling when he talks about anti war democrats, he's talking about the people not the candidates. He's saying that Ron Paul draws the anti war democratic voters away from the democrat side and over to the republican side to vote for Dr. Paul, leaving no one on the the Democratic side to vote for someone other than Hillary.

That's my take on what he is saying

[klamath]

We should be thinking about what we will do if he loses as well.

I thought I was following your logic but this last post has me puzzled. What are you suggesting? Are we susposed to turn anti Clinton Democrats away from RP?

[RP08]

Go Hillary! Buy back our freedom! ... 'r something like that

www.ClintonForums.com



.

[justinc.1089]

I wasn't clear enough. Ron Paul's support comes in part from people who would otherwise vote in the Democratic primary and work to make sure that Hillary doesn't get nominated. Perhaps without their efforts (and in some cases votes) Hillary will get the nomination whereas it wouldn't have been possible without Dr. Paul running on the Republican side. One of the real anti-war Dems might have won.

Let me put it another way... how many Hillary-supporters will Dr. Paul draw from the Democratic side?

Clinton is going to be the Democratic candidate anyway. There is very little chance of it being someone else, and if it is someone else the only other person with a chance is Obama.

And why would the democratic supporters of Paul be the ones working to prevent Clinton from being nominated on the democratic side? I saw a comment on a Paul video on youtube of a person who said they hope Paul is the Republican because they like him better than Clinton, but if he does not get the nomination they want Clinton next. I mean democratic Paul supporters don't like his conservative ideas, they like his ideas that aren't really conservative or liberal, such as leaving Iraq. The reason they support him is because they like his sincerity and honesty, and for various personal reasons that will be different from person to person.

Plus if Ron Paul gets the nomination that means the Republicans get the best shot at beating ANY democrat period because they will get some of the anti-war vote, where as with any other candidate they will not. And if the dem is Clinton, then its the same situation, except for the fact that Ron Paul has WAY more liberal support and democratic support than any other Republican has EVER had, or at least to my knowledge. I would be shocked to find out some other candidate has generated the number of dems and liberals saying they like them that Paul has.

[Wendi]

I've had the same concerns since the early days of this campaign. Prior to Dr. Paul's announcement that he was going to run, I had planned to vote *against* Hillary in the *democratic* primaries for precisely this reason. I didn't *care* who wins... they're all the same anyway. I just didn't want a *Clinton* on the ballot again. Not after what they did the last time they were in power...

But here's the deal. If Ron Paul gets *on* the ballot, HE CAN BEAT HILLARY. So it doesn't *matter.*

The neocons are desperately trying to *scare* some of those voters who have switched over... into going back... *before the primaries.*

Why?

BECAUSE IF THEY SUCCEED, RON PAUL WON'T *BE* ON THE BALLOT.

And then, the Democrats will win. And you know who their candidate is likely to be?

HILLARY.

So I see where you're coming from, but I think you've got it all backwards. You're suggesting that we give up on Ron Paul so that we can keep Hillary from winning... I'm saying that Ron Paul is our *only chance* to beat her *when* she gets the democratic nomination.

Not *if,* but *when.* Ron Paul vs. Hillary Clinton in '08. A line in the sand for our nation...

[Kregener]

You are funny Johngr.

Now post something meaningful.

[johngr]

I thought I was following your logic but this last post has me puzzled. What are you suggesting? Are we susposed to turn anti Clinton Democrats away from RP?

No, I couldn't in good conscience suggest that. But he will need a majority of the primary vote in enough states to be assured the nomination and I don't think that's likely.

Suppose you had put 10000 to win on Dr. Paul when the odds were 200 to 1. Those 2 million dollars would allow you to retire. Of course, you would do everything you can to get him elected. But would you not give a thought to how you would plan for your retirement if somehow he doesn't make it?

Part of me thinks sometimes that being involved in politics and voting (I wasn't involved for many years -- very cynical about the dirty business) is a waste of time. While we finally have a worthy candidate, they have Diebold and other dirty tricks.

I'm just saying, what do we as a movement do if Dr. Paul doesn't win. One thing I would do is live so that I did not have to pay taxes and boycott -- to the extent practical -- the Federal Reserve.

If enough of us did that...

[Wendi]

It is worthy to look ahead, but not at the expense of any chance to win. There's no sense in dwelling on the fact that support for Ron Paul might pull folks' out of the democratic party and allow her to get the nomination for them. If those folks don't come out of the democratic party and support Ron Paul in the primaries, we could end up with Hillary on the ballot against Guliani. I'd rather stake everything on the possibility of giving her some decent opposition than keeping her off in the first place. What do we do as a movement if RP doesn't win in '08? We pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off and carry on. Bottom line? The Ron Paul campaign is one battle in a much larger war of ideals. If you're in it just for Ron Paul - great. We're glad to have you. Just ignore the rest of this post. If you're in it for the movement, the ideals... then you know. Losing the battle doesn't mean the war is over. We will keep fighting, and someday... we will win.

[ThePieSwindler]

Uh, hillary will suck, but its not like its worth giving up on Ron Paul to vote for a "lesser" of two evils JUSt to stop hillary, when they will be only slightly worse. Go balls deep, or not at all. Ron paul or bust, motherfuckers. If he loses, we are fucked whether its hillary, giuliani, or even Obama. Besides, your logic might seem sound to you but its not really based in reality at all, and is just speculation.

[BillyDkid]

Frankly, as much as I detest Hillary, I would take ten Hillarys over one Ghouliani. But it's all a moot point. Ron Paul has to win and we have to make it happen. There is no other choice.

[mdh]

But he will need a majority of the primary vote in enough states to be assured the nomination and I don't think that's likely.

Blah blah, pathetic worthless defeatist attitude, blah blah. gb2/hannity/.

Seriously, if you don't think we can win but will vote for Dr. Paul anyway, go do so quietly. Don't spread your bullcrap here. This is a place for winners, not people who concede defeat before the battle is fought.

So, winners, let's ignore this dork and get back to work. Losers need not apply.

[Wendi]

Hey, take it easy on him. There are probably a lot of people who *want* to win but are sooooooo used to losing... they need some motivation, encouragement, helping hand :)

Lift our allies up... don't squash them down. Yes, winning is the only option. That's why we need *everyone* in this deal! :)

[RP4ME]

i think RP is their worst nightmare....hahah
Clinton said Huckabee would be tough to beat? Pick teh biggest loser...they are scared of Paul - if he is competeing against Hillary - he WILL get the airtime and people WILL know his paltform unlike now - and he will win. Its the Nomination that we need to worry most about!

[JosephTheLibertarian]

It is worthy to look ahead, but not at the expense of any chance to win. There's no sense in dwelling on the fact that support for Ron Paul might pull folks' out of the democratic party and allow her to get the nomination for them. If those folks don't come out of the democratic party and support Ron Paul in the primaries, we could end up with Hillary on the ballot against Guliani. I'd rather stake everything on the possibility of giving her some decent opposition than keeping her off in the first place. What do we do as a movement if RP doesn't win in '08? We pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off and carry on. Bottom line? The Ron Paul campaign is one battle in a much larger war of ideals. If you're in it just for Ron Paul - great. We're glad to have you. Just ignore the rest of this post. If you're in it for the movement, the ideals... then you know. Losing the battle doesn't mean the war is over. We will keep fighting, and someday... we will win.

I wouldn't be in it if not for Ron Paul... I'd probably be doing my own thing right now

[DahuiHeeNalu]

This post makes no sense.

[johngr]

Blah blah, pathetic worthless defeatist attitude, blah blah. gb2/hannity/.

Seriously, if you don't think we can win but will vote for Dr. Paul anyway, go do so quietly. Don't spread your bullcrap here. This is a place for winners, not people who concede defeat before the battle is fought.

So, winners, let's ignore this dork and get back to work. Losers need not apply.

You attacked me when I did not attack you associating me with someone I have nothing to do with. You said nothing in response to the points I raised. In other words, you have adopted the tactics of the other side. I plan for winning the nomination (after that the election wins itself) and losing it. Win or lose, judging by your response, I don't expect to see you around after the election.

[Tina]

By sucking away the anti-war democrats from closed-primary states (which New York conveniently switched to). The best he'll get from the primaries is a plurality. Then all they have to do is have the 2 runners-up cut a backroom deal and -- viola, instant President Hillary.

This post is word salad. Makes no sense.

[Corydoras]

1. Backroom deal ain't gonna happen. A presidential election is too big for a stab in the back like the Dems pulled on Lieberman, and Lieberman won anyway.

2. Let Ron Paul decide what to do if he doesn't win the primary. For example, he might choose to pull a Kucinich, by which I mean going around the country getting enough delegates to have some influence on the party. Or he might not. It's up to him.

3. As for what you yourself are going to do, and as for what liberty-loving people are going to do... there was a movement before the campaign and there will be one in the future whether or not there is a President Paul. He didn't appear out of nowhere backed by nobody.

[johngr]

But what could we accomplish if we did something useful like boycotting the federal reserve and setting up alternative economic systems instead of staying involved in the dirty business of politics and voting (assuming Dr. Paul doesn't win. If he does win, he's still going to need our help.) I liked better in some ways when liberty lovers were by and large fully disgusted with politics and eschewed it.

[Starks]

Which anti-war Democrats? Obama and Edwards also talk about the troops might not be home by 2013. Kucinich and Gravel are not viable.

As a former Democrat, that is a gross misstatement. The candidates are alienating their anti-war base, not the other way around.

[erowe1]

I wasn't clear enough. Ron Paul's support comes in part from people who would otherwise vote in the Democratic primary and work to make sure that Hillary doesn't get nominated.

If you think Hillary will not get the nomination, you're mistaken. She will.


One of the real anti-war Dems might have won.


You mean Gravel or Kucinich? You're joking right?

But you're still not being clear enough. What kind of back room deal were you talking about in your first post?