Could Ron Paul win in a 5 way race in 2008?

[woowoowoo22]

A theoretical look at what may happen in 2008 should Nader and Bloomberg run:

http://www.freecentury.com/2007/06/21/ron-paul-winning-a-5-way-race-in-2008/

[DjLoTi]

Bloomberg straight up said he is absolutely not going to run.

[angrydragon]

Plus Ron isn't going to run as an Independent or Lib.

[Original_Intent]

Ralph Nader 20% someone needs to put down the crack pipe.
Also, Jerome Corsi from the Constitution party is going to take some of the
"Constitution according to original intent" vote (The Constitution Party is the 3rd largest political party in the US based on voter registration)

Not that I disagree with the main point, that RP (or anyone else) could win with a LOT less than a majority. By far the best bet is to keep striving for the nomination, and at least wake people up to how the Party Bosses really run things. If people wake up to that fact, Ron Paul is going to get a lot of attention.

[hambone1982]

I know that Bloomberg said he won't run and Paul said he won't run as and independent, but I would LOVE to see a general election where 5 major candidates get large percentages of the vote.

Screw that, "but you won't get a President that was elected by the majority of the people" line that the 2 major parties use to stay in power.

Lincoln wasn't elected by a majority of the people. He had the plurality (40%) and won the electoral college (59%).

[mdh]

(The Constitution Party is the 3rd largest political party in the US based on voter registration)

Impartial sauce please? CP is relatively new, I doubt they've hooked up that much support so quickly. I've always read and heard that the LP was #3.

[woowoowoo22]

Impartial sauce please? CP is relatively new, I doubt they've hooked up that much support so quickly. I've always read and heard that the LP was #3.

The LP is #3. They have party organization in all 50 states down to the county and municipal level in many of them.

the CP is only present in a couple of states.

[Seer]

The CP has inflated numbers because of confusion on California or somesuch.

[mport1]

Bloomberg straight up said he is absolutely not going to run.

Yet for some reason the media is covering him like crazy? There is something wrong when the media drools over people like Bloomberg and Thompson who are not even running yet (and not going to run in Bloomberg's case).

[Acebass]

Ralph Nader 20% someone needs to put down the crack pipe.
Also, Jerome Corsi from the Constitution party is going to take some of the
"Constitution according to original intent" vote (The Constitution Party is the 3rd largest political party in the US based on voter registration)

Not that I disagree with the main point, that RP (or anyone else) could win with a LOT less than a majority. By far the best bet is to keep striving for the nomination, and at least wake people up to how the Party Bosses really run things. If people wake up to that fact, Ron Paul is going to get a lot of attention.

Jerome Corsi is nothing but a Swiftboat liar. I am ashamed to even call that sellout a Vietnam Veteran...

[literatim]

Even the Green party is larger than the Libertarian party.

http://ballot-access.org/2007/010107.html#11

Democrat 41.64%
Republican 32.39%
Independent, misc 24.18%
Constitution .39%
Green .31%
Libertarian.25%
Reform .04%
Natural Law .03%
Other .77%

[Original_Intent]

Impartial sauce please? CP is relatively new, I doubt they've hooked up that much support so quickly. I've always read and heard that the LP was #3.

Hmm they make the claim on their website (again based on voter registration and they had an official looking link to back up the claim).

Also the CP is not all that new. They used to be the U.S Taxpayer party or something like that.

Also I know nothing about Jerome Corsi, all I am saying is that he is going to take "some" of the "support the constitution" vote.

[MsDoodahs]

I think maybe the reason Bloomberg has not announced yet is because as soon as he does, there are all kinds of regulations that he has to abide by.

[LibertyCzar]

With 20% each for the popular vote is nice. I actually envisioned something similar. But here's the problem. Presidents are not elected by the popular vote. It's with the Electoral College. If no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives will decide. Since the Democrats have a majority, I'm guessing that Hillary Clinton would then be declared our next president.

[Duckman]

With 20% each for the popular vote is nice. I actually envisioned something similar. But here's the problem. Presidents are not elected by the popular vote. It's with the Electoral College. If no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives will decide. Since the Democrats have a majority, I'm guessing that Hillary Clinton would then be declared our next president.

...but aren't a number of states planning to subvert the electoral college by passing rules that their delegates must vote for the winner of the popular vote?

Not that I support such subversion....

[LibertyCzar]

...but aren't a number of states planning to subvert the electoral college by passing rules that their delegates must vote for the winner of the popular vote?

Not that I support such subversion....

This is why I support the Instant Runoff. Then we wouldn't have to worry about such things. And candidates like Ralph Nader wouldn't be attacked as being a "Spoiler". As if there can only ever be two choices: Dumb and Dumber.

[RJB]

FORGET IT

We must concentrate on WINNING the primaries. If Ron Paul looses the primaries his chance of becoming POTUS drops exponentially. If you haven't yet volunteered to call or mail people in Iowa. Do it! That's where the true fight is--

IOWA IOWA IOWA

[KingTheoden]

With 20% each for the popular vote is nice. I actually envisioned something similar. But here's the problem. Presidents are not elected by the popular vote. It's with the Electoral College. If no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives will decide. Since the Democrats have a majority, I'm guessing that Hillary Clinton would then be declared our next president.

Perhaps- perhaps not. Each state would get a single vote in such a case. So even though it is probable that the Democratic Party will control the House in January 2009, we do not know how the states will be controlled.

The tricky part is if no candidate gets a majority in the House- in that case, whomever the Senate selects as vice-President would be President until the House chose a President.

I would offer two corrections on previous posts. First. Bloomberg has not taken an outright pledge against running; he made a quip implying it would be very hard, but never ruled it out. Second, Ron Paul could very well run as an fusion candidate on the LP, Constitutional, and Reform Party lines if the Republican regulars steal the show. If they seize control, their candidate would max out at 30-35%; the Bush platform is simply an instant loser. Ron Paul cannot say he would run as an independent, for now that is, because that will marginalize him. But if the support continues to build, he will be able to give it a shop.

Another point: Nader is not an outsider and frankly if you ask me, is rolled out as a cartoon figure. Were he to run, it would be to prevent the left from uniting with Ron Paul.

[LibertyCzar]

Success at the primaries is different. Delegates are awarded per Congressional Districts in some States. California has 53 districts, and I'm certain Ron Paul can win at least a few of them. Each district won is a guaranteed 3 Delegates at the Republican Convention. The same goes for Texas. I'm unsure of other states.

This is also why National Polls are useless. 10% of a Los Angeles District might vote for Ron Paul. But 50% of another District might vote for Ron Paul. This averages out to 30%, but Ron Paul would still get half of the available Congressional district Delegates.

[KingTheoden]

Success at the primaries is different. Delegates are awarded per Congressional Districts in some States. California has 53 districts, and I'm certain Ron Paul can win at least a few of them. Each district won is a guaranteed 3 Delegates at the Republican Convention. The same goes for Texas. I'm unsure of other states.

This is also why National Polls are useless. 10% of a Los Angeles District might vote for Ron Paul. But 50% of another District might vote for Ron Paul. This averages out to 30%, but Ron Paul would still get half of the available Congressional district Delegates.

Good point, but we have to do as well as possible because there is something called 'super delegates' who are literally party hacks who get free votes. So it still is vital we give all we got in order to secure as strong of victories as possible.