What Is The Bare Minimum (vote percentage) you would consider a "win?"

[trey4sports]

What Is The Bare Minimum (vote percentage) you would consider as a "win" for Ron Paul in 2012?

[wormyguy]

The minimum required to, you know, actually win.

[MozoVote]

It's not about vote percentage. If you don't win the nomination, then you HAVE to at least succeed in earning some cabinet positions on a handshake behind the scenes.

Stuff like passing party planks and getting public congratulations, do not have any hard political value. The game is about achieving influence.

[keh10]

The minimum required to, you know, actually win.


lol +1

[RyanMoran]

A "win" would be having a liberty candidate getting the nomination.

[Brett]

If we're running to win then... yeah.

If we're running to educate I'd be fine with 25-30

[JeremyDahl]

WTF:confused:


this is easily the gayest thread next to the ufo and 9/11 ones

[MelissaCato]

Become the President. That's the goal eh ? Or no ? :rolleyes:

What kinda question is this anyway ? Are we gonna win 2012 or what ? :mad:

[eok321]

I think 25% of the vote may be enough to win Iowa or New Hampshire, we can pull that off if we work our asses off and after that who knows what can happen.

Personally i will be keeping my feet on the ground this go round because the optimism coupled with the devastation in the early primaries of 2007 was to much to go through again.

[squarepusher]

lol @ this thread

[trey4sports]

in 08 we recieved roughly 6 percent of the total votes in the republican primaries. I considered that a "win" because it lit a fire under the libertarian-conservative base, a base which had been alienated for the last 40 years.

The fact that 6% of the republican base voted for someone who wants to end the war on drugs, end the fed, end the income tax, privatize social security, and drastically reduce our military presence all around the world.

Judging by the join dates of most of the posters in this thread I can see why they don't understand how incredibly hard it was to get that 6% and how incredibly difficult it will be to actually win the nomination.

I think getting 15% across the board would be an incredible achievement considering Ron Paul is not another cookie cutter Republican with interchangable policy positions.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

The minimum required to, you know, actually win.

+1 for stating the obvious.

What kind of question is this? :rolleyes:

[MelissaWV]

I agree with the "stating the obvious" folks. I wouldn't call it a "win" unless something is actually won. You'd be stretching it even with the cabinet position negotiating.

However, there are ways for there to be a positive outcome without it being a winning one, and that's not going to break my heart. I'm hoping things go well, but I'm wary of all the people screaming "win win win! rah rah rah!" type mantras, because they tend to vanish when things stop going perfectly. If the only acceptable goal is winning the presidency, then will those people peel away if a straw poll is lost, or if the first few states don't seem like they'll go Dr. Paul's way? That's happened already, and what it meant was that when things were REALLY happening, when primaries were in full swing, and when it was time to find delegates and get them to show up and vote in states where that was all that mattered... it meant that the forums and the movement in general were proverbial ghost towns.

[anaconda]

Perhaps what the OP means is: What percentage must the winner beat the opponent by so that the other side doesn't bitch and moan that maybe there was voter fraud or "there was no mandate" or that "the majority doesn't really want the winner" or something? For example, if Rand Paul wins by 22% again the media will be saying that there is overwhelming support for something of some sort, even if they try to spin it into elitist objectives. But if Rand wins by 2% then the media will say that the anti big government movement is in serious peril and that Rand is not legitimate and on and on.

So I will say about 6 or 7 per cent would give a significant "win." Double digits is a solid licking. 20+ like Rand did in the primary is just a horrendous ass kicking.

If the OP meant what percentage of the vote would Ron need to get in the primaries to be considered a "win" I would say about 33% at least for 2012. And I mean average 33%. In other words, 43% in some states and 23% in others. This should also make him competitive for the nomination.

[trey4sports]

Perhaps what the OP means is: What percentage must the winner beat the opponent by so that the other side doesn't bitch and moan that maybe there was voter fraud or "there was no mandate" or that "the majority doesn't really want the winner" or something? For example, if Rand Paul wins by 22% again the media will be saying that there is overwhelming support for something of some sort, even if they try to spin it into elitist objectives. But if Rand wins by 2% then the media will say that the anti big government movement is in serious peril and that Rand is not legitimate and on and on.

So I will say about 6 or 7 per cent would give a significant "win." Double digits is a solid licking. 20+ like Rand did in the primary is just a horrendous ass kicking.

If the OP meant what percentage of the vote would Ron need to get in the primaries to be considered a "win" I would say about 33% at least for 2012. And I mean average 33%. In other words, 43% in some states and 23% in others. This should also make him competitive for the nomination.

Thank you for the response. The wording of the question has obviously confused some and that is my fault.

In 2008 we received roughly 6% of the GOP vote and it kick-started a revolution, i considered that a "win." The question I asked is how much of the GOP vote must we get for you to consider this election a "win." There's a very slim chance we actually win the GOP nod in this primary so I'm hoping for 15% of the total primary vote.

[Kregisen]

I think we'll end up with about 15%, but I wouldn't be happy with it. If we got into the 20's and still lost, I'd probably be content. It would mean a liberty candidate has a real chance in the republican party and could further the liberty movement immensely.

There are so many unforeseen things coming up before the primaries that polls right now don't even matter that much, though they show that Ron has gained a LOT of support since 2008.

I'm just gonna keep waiting.

[MozoVote]

I'm sticking with my point. You have to develop influence. A party plank is not influence. Getting some speech time at the convention is not influence. That is the usual sop to losing candidates. Pat on the head... thank you for your support...

A winner gets something concrete like VP, a cabinet position, maybe an understanding of support for legislation in the first 90 days (remember Bush holding his nose for McCain-Feingold).

Settling for less, means starting over in 2016 to actually achieve something.

[JenH88]

in 08 we recieved roughly 6 percent of the total votes in the republican primaries. I considered that a "win" because it lit a fire under the libertarian-conservative base, a base which had been alienated for the last 40 years.

The fact that 6% of the republican base voted for someone who wants to end the war on drugs, end the fed, end the income tax, privatize social security, and drastically reduce our military presence all around the world.

Judging by the join dates of most of the posters in this thread I can see why they don't understand how incredibly hard it was to get that 6% and how incredibly difficult it will be to actually win the nomination.

I think getting 15% across the board would be an incredible achievement considering Ron Paul is not another cookie cutter Republican with interchangable policy positions.

+1 i coulda typed this myself.. lol. exactly! 10-20% would be a dancing on the tables kind of day! =)

[RonPaulFanInGA]

10-20% would be a dancing on the tables kind of day! =)

Good grief. That's some low standards. "We lost by less than in 2008, woo-hoo!" :rolleyes:

You win or you lose. Either Ron Paul is the GOP nominee, or Romney/Huckabee/Palin/Gingrich is.

[MelissaWV]

Good grief. That's some low standards. "We lost by less than in 2008, woo-hoo!" :rolleyes:

You win or you lose. Either Ron Paul is the GOP nominee, or Romney/Huckabee/Palin/Gingrich is.

Please see the above for the unintended consequences of an "all or nothing" attitude. Instead of solutions, what we got were people falling away and vanishing when the going started to look a little tougher than people imagined. By the time Super Tuesday actually arrived, it was like pulling teeth to get *elected delegates* to give a damn and go vote, even though a larger (but losing) delegate presence meant we would be able to be knocked out in the first round and have some bargaining power. Even at the Convention, some folks *left* because Dr. Paul did not win the nomination at the state GOP convention. They simply walked away before bargaining with Huckabee's people for national delegates. That's beyond stupid.

By all means, I hope it's entirely different this time, but somehow I doubt it.

[trey4sports]

Good grief. That's some low standards. "We lost by less than in 2008, woo-hoo!" :rolleyes:

You win or you lose. Either Ron Paul is the GOP nominee, or Romney/Huckabee/Palin/Gingrich is.

Completely disagree. This is a revolution of ideas, and shifting the paradigm takes a lot of time. How long did it take for the far left ideas of today to become as accepted as they are today? It certainly didn't happen overnight. this idea that its asl or nothing in 2012 is crazy. Its about a revolution not one election