Can Ron Paul win the nomination?

[Thatguyuknow]

Has there been an instance of a heavy underdog candidate such as Ron Paul winning the nomination of their party since 1960?

[angrydragon]

Ronald Reagan?

[RP08]

My biggest concern is that RP won't gain enough traction in time to win the nomination.

We have to keep working hard spreading the word. RP will sell himself, all he needs is to be heard with open ears and open mind.

[angrydragon]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=4770

Reasons why he can win.

[jd603]

It's too early to guess. He has been doing a ton of interviews.. if it continues he's got a good shot.

[LibertyEagle]

YES!!!! But, very soon, we're going to need to get better coordinated to go after this thing, strategically. Way too much time is spent right now reinventing the wheel, IMO.

[Silverback]

Yes he can win.

So long as we keep growing from now until Oct. and as has been said building the organization.

Come Oct. we need to be ready, to be credible, and to really start showing up as a factor in the polls. So long as we're a solid fourth by then we're fine, I think Giuliani and McCain have both peaked already.

Paul can win because while we're fighting tooth and nail to get the message out the voters are slowly, independently coming around to our positions on their own, particularly on foreign policy which is what's holding us back with the base.

We've got a lot of work to do but it can be done.

[hambone1982]

John Kerry was an underdog in '04.

[pennycat]

But the vice president of our local Republican party said that the last time that the Republican National Convention deadlocked was when Dwight Eisenhower didn't seek reelection AND his vice-president Nixon didn't run either. I could be totally off on this in which case 'my bad' but this is a old and knowledgable dude. Wish I'd written down what he said. But he did add 'that today with Bush and Chenney both not running we could have the same result.' Hmm

[kylejack]

Bill Clinton wasn't the favorite.

[MozoVote]

There are several things at play which will make the nominating process much more interesting than past years. In times of peace and good economies, the GOP establishment gives a strong guiding hand to safe, well-worn candidates. (Think 1996 for example, with old hat Bob Dole at the top of the ticket.)

Voters are feeling very angry and betrayed this year. And Ron Paul may pull in far more independents than say, John McCain did in 2000. I think the establishment is riding a tiger in 2008.

[BillyBeer]

Barry Goldwater?

[BillyBeer]

Also McGovern in 72 and Carter in 76

[wecandoit]

There are two names that make this election process WAY more different than any election in a very long time. Anyone care to guess what those two names are?

Dick

Cheney

The lack of a credible VP of a two term president in the running has created a vaccum that I can't ever remember seeing before.

[BillyBeer]

There are two names that make this election process WAY more different than any election in a very long time. Anyone care to guess what those two names are?

Dick

Cheney

The lack of a credible VP of a two term president in the running has created a vaccum that I can't ever remember seeing before.

The last time it happened was 1952

And Fred Thompson is no Ike

[Original_Intent]

Right now, 95%+ people don't want to even here about anything to do with the election. They are content to ignore it and watch American Idol until Socialist A and Socialist B are presented to them next year.

Of the people who state a preference, right now we have about 2% for RP - BUT

only about 6% of those with a preference are "very committed" to their preference.

How many "uncommitted" RP supporters have you seen? They are either endangered species or a mythical creature. So that means as many of 1/3 of firmly decided voters are supporting RP!

I really believe that Ron Paul's support is rock solid, and most everyone else's is very soft. I think that is pretty objective and I am not just projecting my wishes on the data. Tell me if I am wrong.

Many of the respondents are going just on name recognition and maybe know a couple issues that they agree with the candidate. This is the ONLY explanation I can think for Rudy Giuliani leading the polls. Everyone knows he is "America's Mayor" and he is well known for his pro-choice views. Of the well known front runners, he has been able to take stands that separate him from the pack. This is similar to Dr. Paul separating himself from the pack on the war issue. The difference being is that Paul has not registered on the general consciousness yet.

McCain is toast.

Romney is a big concern because he so slick, and he is getting huge financial support from my fellow Mormons, as well as he is donating huge amounts to his own campaign to make sure his numbers look good for Q2.

The great news is this coming Saturday - even Ron Paul feels the events in Iowa are going to be a major impact on this campaign. If we can do well in Iowa and NH, the American Idol public is going to start paying at least a little attention.

You all know what a drug the good doctor is. You hear a little bit and need more and more - all we need to do is keep working and donating and we will reach critical mass on this. The defeat of the Shamnesty bill shows that the American public can be awakened and can put its foot down. That is going to happen in this campaign, I firmly believe it, and when that happens we win, and in a landslide.

[Joe Knows]

But the vice president of our local Republican party said that the last time that the Republican National Convention deadlocked was when Dwight Eisenhower didn't seek reelection AND his vice-president Nixon didn't run either. I could be totally off on this in which case 'my bad' but this is a old and knowledgable dude. Wish I'd written down what he said. But he did add 'that today with Bush and Chenney both not running we could have the same result.' Hmm


Hi Nick.

Here is some information on the convention. Nixon received the nomination in 1960 but ultimately lost to JFK.

Here are some facts where the Republican convention has not nominated on the first ballot.

1916 Republican Convention
Chicago, IL
June 7 to 10, 1916

Nominated: Charles Evans Hughes of New York for President
Nominated: Charles W Fairbanks of Indiana for Vice President
Going into the convention Supreme Court Justice Charles Evan Hughes was the clear Republican front runner. Roosevelt supporters hoped that he could be nominated but after two ballots in which favorite sons blocked Hughes from getting the nomination, Roosevelt supporters gave their support to Hughes and he was nominated on the third ballot.

1920 Republican Convention
Chicago, IL
June 8 to 12, 1920

Nominated: Warren G Harding of Ohio for President
Nominated: Calvin Coolidge of Massachusetts for Vice President
The Republicans entered 1920 with no front runner for nomination for President. Four candidates competed for the nomination. General Leonard Wood, Governor Frank O Lowden, Sentaro Hiram Johnson and Senator Warren G Harding. In the first ballot Wood and Lowden deadlocked with 300 votes each with Harding trailing with only sixty. It took until the tenth ballot but Harding broke the deadlock and won the nomination.


1940 Republican Convention
Cleveland Ohio
June 24 to 28, 1940

Nominated: Wendell L Willkie for President
Nominated: Charles L McNary of Oregon for Vice President
The Republican convention of 1940 resulted in one of the largest upsets in convention history. In early 1940 the leading candidates for the nominations were Senator Robert Taft and Thomas E Dewey the New York District Attorney. As the international situation became worse with the fall of France- both Taft and Dewey were considered by many as too isolationist. Wendell Wilkie who was best known a utility executive who had opposed Roosevelt's TVA. Wilkie was an outspoken supporter of American support for the Allies. When the time came for the balloting- Dewey led on the first three ballots, but the galleries demanded Wilkie. On the fourth ballot Wilkie took the lead and clinched the nomination on the fourth ballot.

1948 Republican Convention
Municipal Auditorium Philadelphia, PA
June 21 to 25, 1948

Nominated: Thomas E Dewey for President
Nominated: Earl Warren of California for Vice President
In 1948 there were three serious candidates for the Republican nomination: Robert Taft, Harold Stassen, and Thomas Dewey. Stassen stumbled in a primary debate and when the convention opened only Taft and Dewey were serious contendors. Dewey won the nomination on the third ballot.

1952 Republican Convention
Municipal Auditorium Philadelphia, PA
July 7 to 11, 1952

Nominated: Dwight D Eisenhower for President
Nominated: Richard M Nixon of California for Vice President
General Eisenhower had entered the Presidential race late. By the time he had Robert Taft had won many of the early primaries. Eisenhower rapidly came close to reaching parity with Taft in delegates. Taft delegates however, still outnumbered Eisenhower delegates so Eisenshower's campaign resorted to challenging the credentials of some of the delegates. They ran a public relations campaign whose theme was old politicians who made backroom deals with the new statesmanship of Eisenhower. The challenges succeeded and Eisenhower was only nine delegates short on the first vote. On the second vote Eisenhower won the nominations.

1960 Republican Convention
Chicago, IL
July 25 to 28, 1960

Nominated: Richard M Nixon of California for President
Nominated: Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts for Vice President
By the time the Republican convention opened Richard Nixon had no opponents for the nomination. The highlight of the convention was the speech by Barry Goldwater removing himself from the race where he called on the Conservatives to take back the party.

As you can see you have to go back to 1952 where there was an actual fight for the nomination on the floor of the convention. Most states now have laws that say you are committed to vote for the candidate who wins the primary in your state. You have to vote for that candiate on the first ballot, then you can change if there is no winner. I was a delegate to the convention in Philadelphia that nominated Bush in 2000. There was never a vote of the delegates because by law we were committed to Bush. When Florida was called, Jeb announced that all Florida's votes went to his brother. This year might be different because there are so many candidates running. There could be no one that has enough votes to win on first ballot. If this happens you are going to see all kinds of lobbying and many deals cut. I am afraid that if this happens, you will get Rudy McRomney teaming up to win.

An interesting observation about the nomination process. The Republican Party usually picks a seasoned war horse with an establishment resume. If you stop and think the last open convention was in 1952. Since that time in every single Presidential election but one, there has been a Nixon, Dole, or a Bush on the ticket as either President or Vice President. The only election where that was not true was in 1964 when Barry Goldwater won the nomination. He controlled the party apparatus from a very early stage and won handily. Even Nelson Rockefeller could not add any planks to the platform.

When you look at the few hands that have controlled the Republican Party from the 1950's to the present, you begin to realize that a man like Ron Paul comes along just once in a lifetime. In my life (54) I have never had an opportunity to work and support a candidate I truly believe in. Ron Paul is such a candidate.

[MozoVote]

Worst case for the party would be for Paul to come close and lose. All of the new members he brought in will drift elsewhere... to the Dems or to a 3rd party. The loss would deflate the GOP to a shadow of itself for a decade or more. (Parallels of Teddy Roosevelt.)

[RonPaulGetsIt]

Right now, 95%+ people don't want to even here about anything to do with the election. They are content to ignore it and watch American Idol until Socialist A and Socialist B are presented to them next year.

Of the people who state a preference, right now we have about 2% for RP - BUT

only about 6% of those with a preference are "very committed" to their preference.

How many "uncommitted" RP supporters have you seen? They are either endangered species or a mythical creature. So that means as many of 1/3 of firmly decided voters are supporting RP!

I really believe that Ron Paul's support is rock solid, and most everyone else's is very soft. I think that is pretty objective and I am not just projecting my wishes on the data. Tell me if I am wrong.

Many of the respondents are going just on name recognition and maybe know a couple issues that they agree with the candidate. This is the ONLY explanation I can think for Rudy Giuliani leading the polls. Everyone knows he is "America's Mayor" and he is well known for his pro-choice views. Of the well known front runners, he has been able to take stands that separate him from the pack. This is similar to Dr. Paul separating himself from the pack on the war issue. The difference being is that Paul has not registered on the general consciousness yet.

McCain is toast.

Romney is a big concern because he so slick, and he is getting huge financial support from my fellow Mormons, as well as he is donating huge amounts to his own campaign to make sure his numbers look good for Q2.

The great news is this coming Saturday - even Ron Paul feels the events in Iowa are going to be a major impact on this campaign. If we can do well in Iowa and NH, the American Idol public is going to start paying at least a little attention.

You all know what a drug the good doctor is. You hear a little bit and need more and more - all we need to do is keep working and donating and we will reach critical mass on this. The defeat of the Shamnesty bill shows that the American public can be awakened and can put its foot down. That is going to happen in this campaign, I firmly believe it, and when that happens we win, and in a landslide.

You are right on. I couldn't agree with you more. The difference between a Ron Paul supporter everyone else is monstrous. We have liberty and freedom on our side. These are not just talking points, but the ultimate motivator. The Ron Paul Revolution is real. It is a fervent desire to take our country back and awaken the masses to the dangers of total government - totalitarianism on the far right, and communism on the far left. A Ron Paul supporter knows what is at stake and will work harder to spread the message than a 1000 passive name recognition pollers.

[Aborell]

You are right on. I couldn't agree with you more. The difference between a Ron Paul supporter everyone else is monstrous. We have liberty and freedom on our side. These are not just talking points, but the ultimate motivator. The Ron Paul Revolution is real. It is a fervent desire to take our country back and awaken the masses to the dangers of total government - totalitarianism on the far right, and communism on the far left. A Ron Paul supporter knows what is at stake and will work harder to spread the message than a 1000 passive name recognition pollers.

You know, with any other candidate that would all be absurd 'talking points' sort of talk. But with Ron Paul, well, you've hit it right on the nail.

I've never before been excited about a candidate, in any election, on any level. Ron Paul is the first politician in a century who's not a politician; while that may be a weakness, it's also why he might win.

[LibertyEagle]

Worst case for the party would be for Paul to come close and lose. All of the new members he brought in will drift elsewhere... to the Dems or to a 3rd party. The loss would deflate the GOP to a shadow of itself for a decade or more. (Parallels of Teddy Roosevelt.)

Who cares about the "Party"? I don't even think the elite at the top of the Republican Party care. Republicans and Democrats are the same thing anymore. Just one big socialist hog swallow. Regardless of whether one picks from door A, or door B, you get the same exact agenda.

Ron Paul is the exception.