Ron Paul can win.

[freshjiva]

Ron Paul can indeed win the GOP nomination.
However, the way I see it, we must have the "Big 4" all running:

1) Mike Huckabee
2) Mitt Romney
3) Newt Gingrich
4) Sarah Palin

These four have relatively good support by Fox News and are generally well-liked by the standard GOP voting base, which is exactly why all four must run.

All the polling indicates the winner, in a field of candidates that includes these four, only needs roughly 20% of the vote.

As it stands right now, without announcing and with virtually no campaigning started yet, Ron Paul is polling consistently between 7-9% nationwide. With the GOP base split four ways, and perhaps some outsiders like Pawlenty and Cain chipping away from them as well, the GOP nomination is certainly up for grabs.

With a couple record breaking moneybombs and heavy grassroots campaigning, we can win the Iowa caucuses. This would bump Ron's popularity and polling numbers to within striking distance to win. The rest of the pieces will then fall into place.

No, I'm not drinking the kool aide. I fully recognize that we'd essentially need to double our numbers. It's clearly an uphill battle, but certainly not impossible. The win is within grasp. We all need to be united, behind one man, and we can win.

The only potential wrench that could be thrown into this whole picture is if Gary Johnson jumps in the race and take 2-3% away from Ron. I understand the whole "He'd bring more credibility to Liberty principles to the debates" argument, but we simply cannot afford to give up 2-3%. No other candidate needs someone else to bring them credibility. That would be votes lost for nothing, which would be devastating. I really hope Gary Johnson does not throw his hat in. He'd have far more impact running for NM Senate.

[Doug8796]

The nomination may be within his grasp. However, some neocons would pick obama over ron paul and how many democrats/independents would vote for ron paul?

[AuH20]

Ron Paul can indeed win the GOP nomination.
However, the way I see it, we must have the "Big 4" all running:

1) Mike Huckabee
2) Mitt Romney
3) Newt Gingrich
4) Sarah Palin

These four have relatively good support by Fox News and are generally well-liked by the standard GOP voting base, which is exactly why all four must run.

All the polling indicates the winner, in a field of candidates that includes these four, only needs roughly 20% of the vote.

As it stands right now, without announcing and with virtually no campaigning started yet, Ron Paul is polling consistently between 7-9% nationwide. With the GOP base split four ways, and perhaps some outsiders like Pawlenty and Cain chipping away from them as well, the GOP nomination is certainly up for grabs.

With a couple record breaking moneybombs and heavy grassroots campaigning, we can win the Iowa caucuses. This would bump Ron's popularity and polling numbers to within striking distance to win. The rest of the pieces will then fall into place.

No, I'm not drinking the kool aide. I fully recognize that we'd essentially need to double our numbers. It's clearly an uphill battle, but certainly not impossible. The win is within grasp. We all need to be united, behind one man, and we can win.

The only potential wrench that could be thrown into this whole picture is if Gary Johnson jumps in the race and take 2-3% away from Ron. I understand the whole "He'd bring more credibility to Liberty principles to the debates" argument, but we simply cannot afford to give up 2-3%. No other candidate needs someone else to bring them credibility. That would be votes lost for nothing, which would be devastating. I really hope Gary Johnson does not throw his hat in. He'd have far more impact running for NM Senate.

Palin has to endorse Paul for him to have any type of shot. And it's not out of the realm of possibility. She has the character traits to spit in the eye of the GOP establishment for something as silly as perceived slights. Palin is a very strange bird, in that she's rebellious and reactionary to the core. The woman doesn't like criticism.

[freshjiva]

Palin has to endorse Paul for him to have any type of shot. And it's not out of the realm of possibility. She has the character traits to spit in the eye of the GOP establishment for something as silly as perceived slights. Palin is a very strange bird, in that she's rebellious and reactionary to the core. The woman doesn't like criticism.

What about if Glenn Beck came out an endorsed Paul? I know his ratings are dwindling but still, that's a pretty strong endorsement.

[AuH20]

What about if Glenn Beck came out an endorsed Paul? I know his ratings are dwindling but still, that's a pretty strong endorsement.

That would help as well. But of the major candidates, I don't see Palin really getting along with any of them, other than perhaps Pawlenty. She doesn't play well with Newt and Christie for sure. I don't think she's thrilled with Huckabee.

[trey4sports]

What about if Glenn Beck came out an endorsed Paul? I know his ratings are dwindling but still, that's a pretty strong endorsement.

Yeah i don't see that though. I think Palin would endorse Ron simply because she is a loose cannon and Ron Paul is the only real anti-establishment fellow in the race

[dbill27]

Palin has to endorse Paul for him to have any type of shot. And it's not out of the realm of possibility. She has the character traits to spit in the eye of the GOP establishment for simply over something as silly as perceived slights. Palin is a very strange bird, in that she's rebellious and reactionary to the core.

This is so true. Palin has fans that are hardcore palin fans, in some ways like paul fans in that their candidate is constantly mocked or put down by the establishments of both parties and the media. If we got a strong endorsement from palin saying something like "the only person i would consider voting for is Ron Paul" we would at least double our votes in the primary. Not saying that she will ever give this endorsement but you are right about her being rebellious.

There would be some negative blowback to a palin endorsement though for sure, wouldn't help with progressives or lefties, so in terms of general election it wont help. If their was to be some sort of outreach to palin though asking for en endorsment the message to her would be clear, Tell her the same people in the GOP who laugh at her laugh at Ron Paul.

[Paul4Prez]

I'm not sure that Gingrich has much support, but there will undoubtedly be some other media favorite who will take his place. As long as there are 4 or 5 "mainstream" candidates splitting the vote, Ron Paul can do well enough early on to establish his credibility. Iowa is the key to the whole thing, since it's a caucus, meaning that superior organization and enthusiasm can turn out a higher percentage of the vote than a standard poll (or primary) would.

If Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses, it will be impossible for the media to keep calling him a long-shot candidate. If he has the most money going into the primary season, and runs effective national television ads this time, the media gatekeepers will have lost their control over how he is portrayed. If he wins Iowa and makes a strong showing in New Hampshire, everyone who likes his message but doesn't think he has a chance to win will reconsider, and vote for him in later primaries.

[TheTyke]

No, I'm not drinking the kool aide. I fully recognize that we'd essentially need to double our numbers. It's clearly an uphill battle, but certainly not impossible. The win is within grasp. We all need to be united, behind one man, and we can win.

It's not impossible... poll numbers can shift a LOT. Giuliani was over 20% as I recall, yet finished far behind Dr. Paul. We need to focus every possible resource on winning the Ames Straw Poll, be organized to contact every Republican voter (not shotgunning like last time) slick ads, and hopefully we can raise even more money this time. It's gotta be all or nothing, riding on the early states. We can win, but it'll take everything we've got! Let's do it!

[madfoot]

I think a Palin or Beck endorsement would hurt us more than it'd help. :/

[Inkblots]

I think a Palin or Beck endorsement would hurt us more than it'd help. :/

Maybe in the General, but for it would definitely be a net plus in the Primary - and we need to win that first!

[Peace&Freedom]

Paul should not try to depend on a "tortoise wins the race" tactic, where his rivals all knock each other out, allowing him to slip past them to the nomination. Although that concept showed partial success in early 2008, it relies on too many different things going right to work. Paul needs to win several early primaries, so the media won't christen somebody else as the prospective nominee, then pressure all the other candidates with questions about when they are going to quit the race. Paul should deal from strength and win key early primaries outright, after which the rest will sort itself out rather quickly.

[Dave Aiello]

Palin has to endorse Paul for him to have any type of shot. And it's not out of the realm of possibility. She has the character traits to spit in the eye of the GOP establishment for something as silly as perceived slights. Palin is a very strange bird, in that she's rebellious and reactionary to the core. The woman doesn't like criticism.

If Palin doesn't like criticism, why would she.... support Ron Paul?

[Inkblots]

Palin has to endorse Paul for him to have any type of shot. And it's not out of the realm of possibility. She has the character traits to spit in the eye of the GOP establishment for something as silly as perceived slights. Palin is a very strange bird, in that she's rebellious and reactionary to the core. The woman doesn't like criticism.

I disagree that Dr. Paul can't win without a Palin endorsement - and it's a good thing too, because there is absolutely no way it will happen. Even if she chooses not to run, such an endorsement might alienate some of her fanbase, and she would never voluntarily compromise her lucrative role as a cultural figure among "national greatness" and social conservatives by doing so.

I agree with the OP - Sarah Palin would help Dr. Paul's campaign the most by running. A crowded field in which no "mainline" candidate can get an early, knock-out victory will hold the greatest chance of success for the Liberty movement. If the big government conservative vote is split up enough ways and sufficiently evenly, and the small-government and anti-war vote holds together behind Paul, there's a slim chance we can lead in delegates going into the convention.

I don't have any illusions - the chances of victory will be remote even under ideal circumstances. But I'm ready to bend brawn to this campaign effort like never before, simply because I think this Presidential election cycle may well be the last before our nation's inbuilt systemic problems reach a state of insolubility. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure things haven't already reached that stage - but I feel certain four more years of 'business as usual' in Washington will make it so. Chaos is coming to America, and I think Ron Paul may be the only one in a position to stop it.

[Doug8796]

The thing is.. how many will accept Ron Paul as their nominee. The GOP wont be too happy and i imagine they wouldn't want to show up to vote for him on election day. We all have to be activists of this movement to keep Ron Paul's name in good standing.

[Inkblots]

^
Don't discount Dr. Paul's crossover appeal to independents and disaffected Democrats. Honestly, winning the nomination will be harder than winning in the General, imo.

[iamse7en]

Look, I love Ron Paul like none other, and would give anything to have him win, but let's be realistic. Put your money where your mouth is. There's a big difference b/w "can" win and "will" win. He's got like a 2% chance of winning the nomination according to intrade. If you think that's too low, then you got a real profit opportunity.

[Jeremy]

What about if Glenn Beck came out an endorsed Paul? I know his ratings are dwindling but still, that's a pretty strong endorsement.
Um he would have to quit Fox News because they can't make endorsements.

[Eric21ND]

I'm not sure that Gingrich has much support, but there will undoubtedly be some other media favorite who will take his place. As long as there are 4 or 5 "mainstream" candidates splitting the vote, Ron Paul can do well enough early on to establish his credibility. Iowa is the key to the whole thing, since it's a caucus, meaning that superior organization and enthusiasm can turn out a higher percentage of the vote than a standard poll (or primary) would.

If Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses, it will be impossible for the media to keep calling him a long-shot candidate. If he has the most money going into the primary season, and runs effective national television ads this time, the media gatekeepers will have lost their control over how he is portrayed. If he wins Iowa and makes a strong showing in New Hampshire, everyone who likes his message but doesn't think he has a chance to win will reconsider, and vote for him in later primaries.
This is how we win. If we can make the Ames Straw Poll a huge mega event like the Rally For The Republic was, and have out of state supporters travel to Iowa to help volunteer and be the boots on the ground, we could win the Straw Poll and build off that success and noteriety to win the entire state.

[Eric21ND]

Look, I love Ron Paul like none other, and would give anything to have him win, but let's be realistic. Put your money where your mouth is. There's a big difference b/w "can" win and "will" win. He's got like a 2% chance of winning the nomination according to intrade. If you think that's too low, then you got a real profit opportunity.
There's only going to be about 5 or so serious contenders and Ron is right in the mix with them.

Huckabee, Romney, Palin, Newt, Ron, ???

That's the serious power players. Ron will dwarf everyone in fund raising, only Romney will be able to compete from his own pocket, but I'm willing to bet the purse strings will be tighter this time for Romney. With the right strategy, $50+ million war chest, and a massive grassroots army willing to be the boots on the ground in every early primary state, I think we got as good of a shot as anybody. By no means easy, but it is feasible to do.

[erowe1]

I think a Palin or Beck endorsement would hurt us more than it'd help. :/

How?

[erowe1]

Look, I love Ron Paul like none other, and would give anything to have him win, but let's be realistic. Put your money where your mouth is. There's a big difference b/w "can" win and "will" win. He's got like a 2% chance of winning the nomination according to intrade. If you think that's too low, then you got a real profit opportunity.

2% isn't too low. That sounds pretty good to me.

[Eric21ND]

I think a Palin or Beck endorsement would hurt us more than it'd help. :/
Not in the primary. Don't put the cart before the horse. Let's win the primary first, everything else is mote.

[Original_Intent]

The great thing that promises a lot more success than I think the establishment is willing to give us is people have activated their BS detectors. Bob Bennett expoected an easy win in Utah. The electorate of 2012 is not the electorate of 2008. People realize that our system is seriously broken and that they are suffering serious consequences as a result. They are not in the mood to be sweet talked.

No one has anywhere near the credibility of Ron Paul. No one compares to him in just good old down to earth straight talk. He isn't promising easy answers, people realize there are no painless remedies and I think will largely reject anyone that promises such.

People worry about things like minor speech mannerisms, other presentation issues - I'll admit, I do as well. But the bottom line is, I believe 2012 will be the year that substance will matter more than style. Any contendor looks like a pathetic wannabe next to Paul when it gets to a serious discussion that goes beyond sound bites and talking points. That's why Ron Paul has a real shot this time around. Of course even with all of these positives it is going to be hard, almost impossible, due to the bias we can expect from the media. We have to hold the media's feet to the fire and expose any bias, just like was done against Fox and their coverage of the CPAC results. We have the tools to keep them honest.

We have the tools, the will, and the man to win in 2012!

[Eric21ND]

One other point, this is by far the weakest GOP field in recent memory. Everyone of the major players I listed has fundamental flaws, except Ron.

[erowe1]

One other point, this is by far the weakest GOP field in recent memory. Everyone of the major players I listed has fundamental flaws, except Ron.

That could have been said in 2008 too. And those of us who don't think RP has fundamental flaws are in a small minority.

Also, for the GOP primaries, Pawlenty, Daniels, and Barbour might all be less flawed than anyone who was in the 2008 field, depending how well they campaign. I expect to see one of them emerge as the odds on favorite at some point.

[Eric21ND]

That could have been said in 2008 too. And those of us who don't think RP has fundamental flaws are in a small minority.

Also, for the GOP primaries, Pawlenty, Daniels, and Barbour might all be less flawed than anyone who was in the 2008 field, depending how well they campaign. I expect to see one of them emerge as the odds on favorite at some point.
Not really, you had some well known names in the field...McCain, Thompson, Ghoul. Romney's stock was much higher in 2008 than now. Every candidate will have fund raising problems this go around, except Romney and Ron. Palin, Newt, and Romney have severe fundamentals problems to surmount. Huckster does well in religious social conservative settings, but outside that sphere he's not well liked by fiscal conservatives at all.

[Maximus]

Huckabee is the one that scares me the most. We can beat Romney.

[Epic]

Having Huntsman running is important because that will take away from Romney. And we already dodged the Pence 'true conservative' bullet.

Gingrich running will only help Ron. Palin and Huckabee running will likely have a neutral effect.

Daniels not running would likely help Ron Paul, from a 'fiscally conservative' standpoint.

[erowe1]

Having Huntsman running is important because that will take away from Romney. And we already dodged the Pence 'true conservative' bullet.

Gingrich running will only help Ron. Palin and Huckabee running will likely have a neutral effect.

Daniels not running would likely help Ron Paul, from a 'fiscally conservative' standpoint.

IIRC Palin is the only one whose supporters choose RP as their second choice frequently enough in polls that he would clearly benefit if she didn't run. With the exception of Palin, I think the rule seems to be, the more candidates splitting up the vote, the better.

[Johnnybags]

Its all Mitt Romney, all others are cover for debates unless Christie runs. We are not even on the Neocons list of worries.

[itshappening]

No one will endorse Ron Paul, I wish people would stop "wishing" that

The Establishment will close ranks when campaign season gets underway (the debates), Paul will be blackballed and the radio talkers will ignore him as will the MSM.

But yes, we can win. How? it's all on Iowa, that should be our principal focus. Getting the caucus organized is #1

[enoch150]

I don't think Palin will endorse Paul. I don't think Beck will either, but Beck will speak well enough of him that a lot of his viewers will support Paul. Same with Pat Buchanan. There is one major conservative figure that might endorse Paul outright. Ann Coulter. Coulter has already said she agrees with Paul on everything except foreign policy, and by 2012 she doesn't think foreign policy will be an issue.

There's always the wild card: OBL's death or capture. Support for the war on terror will evaporate if that ever happens.

[amonasro]

It's important to step back and look at how the MSM treated him during the 2008 elections. When they weren't outright ignoring us, they were calling us racists, anti-semites and radicals. If Ron runs it will be worse, especially if he wins Iowa. Think about how much power and influence they have and what they did to Perot, who was an actual threat. They were probably only flexing their pinky to marginalize Ron then--wait until they bring out the big guns.

Then remember what the Nevada GOP did to him when it was clear he had the delegates to win. They broke their own rules and walked out of the state convention. How can he possibly win the nomination of a party that pulls these types of shenanigans?

I'm as excited as anyone else for a 2012 Paul bid, but it's going to be an uphill battle even if we are better organized/funded this time around. We can analyze the politics to death, but we can't forget that we have the entire banking/corporate/media establishment against us that will likely do most anything, ANYTHING to keep Ron out of the White House. Things might get a bit messy.

[libertybrewcity]

I don't think numbers mean much at this point, except for a high fundraising amount of course.

[Romulus]

Ron Paul can indeed win the GOP nomination.
However, the way I see it, we must have the "Big 4" all running:

1) Mike Huckabee
2) Mitt Romney
3) Newt Gingrich
4) Sarah Palin

These four have relatively good support by Fox News and are generally well-liked by the standard GOP voting base, which is exactly why all four must run.

All the polling indicates the winner, in a field of candidates that includes these four, only needs roughly 20% of the vote.

As it stands right now, without announcing and with virtually no campaigning started yet, Ron Paul is polling consistently between 7-9% nationwide. With the GOP base split four ways, and perhaps some outsiders like Pawlenty and Cain chipping away from them as well, the GOP nomination is certainly up for grabs.

With a couple record breaking moneybombs and heavy grassroots campaigning, we can win the Iowa caucuses. This would bump Ron's popularity and polling numbers to within striking distance to win. The rest of the pieces will then fall into place.

No, I'm not drinking the kool aide. I fully recognize that we'd essentially need to double our numbers. It's clearly an uphill battle, but certainly not impossible. The win is within grasp. We all need to be united, behind one man, and we can win.

The only potential wrench that could be thrown into this whole picture is if Gary Johnson jumps in the race and take 2-3% away from Ron. I understand the whole "He'd bring more credibility to Liberty principles to the debates" argument, but we simply cannot afford to give up 2-3%. No other candidate needs someone else to bring them credibility. That would be votes lost for nothing, which would be devastating. I really hope Gary Johnson does not throw his hat in. He'd have far more impact running for NM Senate.

+rep

[PermanentSleep]

Ron Paul will WIN in 2012. Not just the primary, but the general as well.

[josiahkeller]

With our help, Ron Paul will win!

It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.

[Romulus]

With our help, Ron Paul will win!

Welcome to the forums.

[HarryBrowneLives]

IIRC Palin is the only one whose supporters choose RP as their second choice frequently enough in polls that he would clearly benefit if she didn't run. With the exception of Palin, I think the rule seems to be, the more candidates splitting up the vote, the better.

I tend to agree with that. Best horserace in my book is to have as many cardboard cut out candidates as possible vs. Ron. Newt, Romney, Pawlenty will draw from the same base. Palin/Huck will split the churchies (at least in IA I think) ... doubt she runs though. Chris Cristie seems to be the flavor of the week that would hurt the whole group that I really don't get, but doubt he'll run either. We need roughly 8 modest/same ole same ole/ yawner candidates. Romney will write checks to keep himself going. The rest will try and draw the water from the same fundraising well as well as GOP activists. The best things we have going for us in Ron is very "sticky" ... hard to peel off his base being an inch wide but a mile deep vs. a quarter mile wide and an inch deep for a good share of the rest. #2. We have experienced activists and a lot of them. #3 We are largely independent of the traditional GOP base and methods for funds and we can change that game literally overnight.

[itshappening]

I don't think Palin will endorse Paul. I don't think Beck will either, but Beck will speak well enough of him that a lot of his viewers will support Paul. Same with Pat Buchanan. There is one major conservative figure that might endorse Paul outright. Ann Coulter. Coulter has already said she agrees with Paul on everything except foreign policy, and by 2012 she doesn't think foreign policy will be an issue.

There's always the wild card: OBL's death or capture. Support for the war on terror will evaporate if that ever happens.


No one will endorse Paul. Repeat after me. Infact, the memo will be to ignore him. Seen it happen before.

Establishment will close ranks. 100% guarantee it.

Beck will trash him.

[Eric21ND]

People will jump on the bandwagon and claim to have been "Ron Paul fans all along" once we prove that Ron is a winner. Watch when we win the Ames Straw Poll, it will start....then when we finish 1-2 in every caucus and primary.

[Vergil]

People will jump on the bandwagon and claim to have been "Ron Paul fans all along" once we prove that Ron is a winner. Watch when we win the Ames Straw Poll, it will start....then when we finish 1-2 in every caucus and primary. Yes, I was thinking that when Ron looks like a frontrunner, its likely bandwagon fans will make Ron Paul supporters look bad in some way. I'll take it a step further, "supporters" would be planted into crowds of Paul fans to make a smear campaign against us and Ron. Lets be realistic folks, there are ALOT of people that want to see Ron fail.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” -Gandhi. We have already seen plenty of all that already. I expect the attacks to kick into overdrive if we are in this for the long run.