Ron Paul is Unelectable

[TaxProtester]

"He makes sense but he is unelectable, I don't want to waste my vote on a candidate that can't win".

I get this from so many people over and over and over. The only rebuttal that I have seen work (somewhat) is if the person is a die hard republican and would be disgusted if a democrat got the white house. The rebuttal to them is this:

"How is a republican, who is for the war, going to compete with a democrat who against the war, when the majority of America is also against the war?"

But, for people who are not die hard republicans, this simply doesn't work with them. Any suggestions as to what would?

[allyinoh]

I hate when people say, "I don't want to waste my vote on Ron Paul if he doesn't win... "

So, what happens if they vote for McCain and he doesn't win, wasn't their vote a waste since he didn't win?

People like that do not deserve to vote.

[jake]

this is why NH is so critical.

[jd603]

voting for a jerk who is going to continue to ruin our country is a "waste of a vote".




"He makes sense but he is unelectable, I don't want to waste my vote on a candidate that can't win".

I get this from so many people over and over and over. The only rebuttal that I have seen work (somewhat) is if the person is a die hard republican and would be disgusted if a democrat got the white house. The rebuttal to them is this:

"How is a republican, who is for the war, going to compete with a democrat who against the war, when the majority of America is also against the war?"

But, for people who are not die hard republicans, this simply doesn't work with them. Any suggestions as to what would?

[Driftar]

I find it deplorable that people would talk about it as they would sports teams. "I'm voting for this canidate cause they can WIN!" This isn't fantasy football, jackass, it's the future of your country- electing the leader of the free world, who will lay the foundation of your children's future.

[TheConstitutionLives]

"He makes sense but he is unelectable, I don't want to waste my vote on a candidate that can't win".

I get this from so many people over and over and over. The only rebuttal that I have seen work (somewhat) is if the person is a die hard republican and would be disgusted if a democrat got the white house. The rebuttal to them is this:

"How is a republican, who is for the war, going to compete with a democrat who against the war, when the majority of America is also against the war?"

But, for people who are not die hard republicans, this simply doesn't work with them. Any suggestions as to what would?

Tell them not to bitch in the future if they're not willing to vote for what's in their own best interests.

[chiplitfam]

People do this because they are ignorant of the real issues at stake. They are selfish not wanting their vote wasted. It is sad. We just simply need to better inform the people about what Ron Paul stands for.

[pinkmandy]

It's a stupid argument imo. Wasting a vote is not voting for the person you think is the best candidate. Anything else is not a real vote anyway as you are not exercising the right to choose your elected officials.

[allyinoh]

To reiterate, the argument I have been using against people that say that is what I said earlier, and it does work. =)

When they say, "I don't know if I want to vote for Ron Paul. What if he loses, then I will have wasted my vote."

I say to them, "I understand. However, what if you vote for McCain or Guiliani and then they do not get elected. Doesn't that mean that your vote is wasted?"

They usually do a lot of bumbling and can't really answer because they are caught. ;)

[Goldwater Conservative]

No candidate for any public office has ever lost because they were "unelectable." They have all lost because they didn't get enough votes.

Or to put it another way, there is no "electability" requirement when running for office. However, there is a vote requirement to win.

[proximity]

The "wasting a vote line" was made up by misguided people that think politics is a sport.

Even if your candidate doesn't win, you want them to get as many votes as possible to help mold the political climate. Voting for someone that wins and doesn't match your views is the biggest waste of a vote ever.

[mavtek]

Just tell them that Ron Paul can win, he has more money than any other Republican, and he has by far the most grassroots support. You are in good shape though, you are in Florida, just tell them to keep him in mind. If he does well in New Hampshire and other states to keep him on their radar.

[skeryl]

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

John Quincy Adams quotes (American 6th US President (1825-29), eldest son of John Adams, 2nd US president. 1767-1848)

I would say to vote for the policies in what they believe in and leave it at that.

[Ron2Win]

Tell them that they are not picking horses, they are picking a President.

This isn't about picking a winner, it's about picking the best person for the job.

[JAALIUS]

Very Simple it's in Ron Paul's platform:

"let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeoprady"

Congressman Ron Paul

[OReich]

I'm not supporting a candidate who I don't personally think has a great chance at winning this election. I'm not a former LPer (no disrespect to those who are) who voted for Libertarians to make a point, or didn't vote at all to make a point, and disappointly, I remember some initial meetup group meetings months ago where some people there did think Ron Paul wouldn't win this thing, but thought the better he does the better for libertarianism.

No, Ron Paul has a chance! Thanks to the internet and thanks to us, Ron Paul's name is getting out there, and motivating people to participate in politics for the first time. Iowa was enormously disappointing in light of this logic, but New Hampshire won't be. If we win the Republican nomination, and he gets one-on-one time with the Democratic candidate, he can't possibly lose. I've always said this, he can't lose. You can't put Paul in a one-on-one debate and mock him the way his fellow Republicans are. He'll destroy the Democrats on foreign policy, civil liberties, and monetary policy. Now I don't think he wins them over on other issues, but on those three monumentally important issues, can you imagine Paul losing a debate to Edwards, Clinton, or Obama?

This campaign isn't for a loud and influential 2nd or 3rd Place. I'll celebrate that victory of influence if and when it happens, but this campaign has a chance for victory.

[stevedasbach]

"He makes sense but he is unelectable, I don't want to waste my vote on a candidate that can't win".

I get this from so many people over and over and over. The only rebuttal that I have seen work (somewhat) is if the person is a die hard republican and would be disgusted if a democrat got the white house. The rebuttal to them is this:

"How is a republican, who is for the war, going to compete with a democrat who against the war, when the majority of America is also against the war?"

But, for people who are not die hard republicans, this simply doesn't work with them. Any suggestions as to what would?

Explain why each of the others can't win. Level the playing field.

[slamhead]

Tell him to vote for Ron Paul in the primary and if he is right then he can vote for the "winner" in the general election.

[fedup100]

Explain to me why a new member who does support Ron Paul and is truly concerned with ability to be elected would use such a title for this thread........come on guys, can't you see what they are doing. Change the title.

[Delain]

con·di·tion·ing (kən-dĭsh'ə-nĭng) pronunciation
n. Psychology.

A form of associative learning.

----

- fringe
- long shot
- dark horse
- are you going to run as an independent if/when you dont get the nomination?
- third tier
- etc.

result: "Ron Paul is Unelectable"

[tfelice]

Tell him to vote for Ron Paul in the primary and if he is right then he can vote for the "winner" in the general election.


Some people though choose to vote for someone who is somewhat appealing to them in order to offset someone who they do not want to win. For example if it was to come down to Rudy & Fred, a lot of social conservatives will side with Fred, even if someone like Keyes (who is a far stronger social conservative) were still on the ballot.

It's the nature of the primary process. Expecting that to change in the next 30 days is delusional.

[Delain]

Explain to me why a new member who does support Ron Paul and is truly concerned with ability to be elected would use such a title for this thread........come on guys, can't you see what they are doing. Change the title.

Agree.

[TaxProtester]

Explain to me why a new member who does support Ron Paul and is truly concerned with ability to be elected would use such a title for this thread........come on guys, can't you see what they are doing. Change the title.


LOL, do you think I am one of "them"? Tin foil hats for everyone!

[dude58677]

"He makes sense but he is unelectable, I don't want to waste my vote on a candidate that can't win".

I get this from so many people over and over and over. The only rebuttal that I have seen work (somewhat) is if the person is a die hard republican and would be disgusted if a democrat got the white house. The rebuttal to them is this:

"How is a republican, who is for the war, going to compete with a democrat who against the war, when the majority of America is also against the war?"

But, for people who are not die hard republicans, this simply doesn't work with them. Any suggestions as to what would?

Tell them about Ron's magical 1996 congressional campaign.

[Keith]

Which is the bigger waste, to vote for the right guy and who looses anyway or to vote for the wrong guy and help him beat the right guy?

[perrydise]

I've been getting this a lot of this too. What usually works for me is reminding people that in every Presidential election since the beginning that around half of the voters (and more than half in primary elections) vote for the loser. Do half of all voters "waste" their vote then? Most people respond with "you have a point there".

The fallacy in their argument is that only voting for a winner is "not wasting" their vote. Well, it is much too early know who the winner will be, so they might as well vote their heart which is with Ron Paul. This has worked fairly well with folks who support Paul but dont think he can win that I have spoken with.

[cheese]

I find it deplorable that people would talk about it as they would sports teams. "I'm voting for this canidate cause they can WIN!" This isn't fantasy football, jackass, it's the future of your country- electing the leader of the free world, who will lay the foundation of your children's future.

+1
ROFL - i just spit coffee laughing :D

[fedup100]

LOL, do you think I am one of "them"? Tin foil hats for everyone!

"You shall know them by their fruits", your fruits seem to be rotten. Please take a tin Foil hat or just a piece of foil will do,and crisply fold it into a cone and then take the sharp pointy end and thrust it rapidly in your rotten fruit hole.

[ronpaulyourmom]

"He makes sense but he is unelectable, I don't want to waste my vote on a candidate that can't win".

I get this from so many people over and over and over. The only rebuttal that I have seen work (somewhat) is if the person is a die hard republican and would be disgusted if a democrat got the white house. The rebuttal to them is this:

"How is a republican, who is for the war, going to compete with a democrat who against the war, when the majority of America is also against the war?"

But, for people who are not die hard republicans, this simply doesn't work with them. Any suggestions as to what would?

Tell them this:

In Iowa, Barack Obama got more raw votes than Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Giuliani combined. The simple fact is that Barack Obama is drawing on a voting pool larger than the entire GOP, and the only way we can possibly beat him is to compete with him on that stage. You can elect a republican who is not Ron Paul for the nomination, but that person is destined to lose very badly.

Barack Obama brought out record numbers of young voters, independents, women, and first time voters, almost all of whom hated Bush and hated the War. Ron Paul, with only 10% of the Iowa votes, got more Independents than ANY other GOP candidate, and he also got most of his support from the young votes. If you throw Ron Paul into the general election with Obama, you become a player in the bigger race.

If Barack Obama, with only 38% of the vote, can out-pace the entire GOP base in Iowa just by himself, does your friend really honestly believe that anybody other than Ron Paul even has a chance? Republicans need to set the war issue aside and embrace a change candidate who is fiscally and socially conservative.

Ron Paul can out-flank Obama on every issue in a general election bid. He's better on the war, he's better on the economy (which is becoming a huge issue), he's got a better record, he has more experience, he is considered as authentic and honest as Obama is, and then to bring in the republicans and the Christian right he is also pro-life and fiscally conservative. He can win the independent votes that no other republican can touch. He is, quite simply, the only man who stands even a slight chance next November.

Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#val=IAREP
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#val=IADEM

[Created4]

"He makes sense but he is unelectable, I don't want to waste my vote on a candidate that can't win".

I get this from so many people over and over and over. The only rebuttal that I have seen work (somewhat) is if the person is a die hard republican and would be disgusted if a democrat got the white house. The rebuttal to them is this:

"How is a republican, who is for the war, going to compete with a democrat who against the war, when the majority of America is also against the war?"

But, for people who are not die hard republicans, this simply doesn't work with them. Any suggestions as to what would?

He IS electable. That is the only sensible answer to give. Would all this grassroot support, all these millions of dollars, be given to a candidate just to "prove a point?" Only the MSM is saying that he is "unelectable", but there are no clear front-runners at this point, so Ron Paul most certainly IS electable. It is a wide open race at this point, and for the next several weeks one only needs to average about 20 percent of the vote to be at the top. Once those with little money drop out or drop way behind, his message will get more exposure, and he will be seen as electable.

[LARRY08RP]

That shows how important a place under the top 3 in NH is.

I mean i can understand the people.

They hear day for day in the media that Paul has no chance to win the republican nomination. They see the polls where he is in single digits.

It is so important to set an example in NH.

We need a positiv signal to that people who are unsure about how strong Ron Paul and his support realy is.

[Grandson of Liberty]

My responses to that:

1. "so you're going to let other voters decide who your President will be? Why bother voting at all then? You have a vote for a reason- use it to vote for the best candidate!"

2. "If everyone who said that voted for Ron Paul, he'd win in a landslide!"

3. "Only voters decide who is 'electable.' You are a voter. Act like one."

[TaxProtester]

"You shall know them by their fruits", your fruits seem to be rotten. Please take a tin Foil hat or just a piece of foil will do,and crisply fold it into a cone and then take the sharp pointy end and thrust it rapidly in your rotten fruit hole.


I guess that you didn't notice I have already changed the title?

[lasenorita]

Wouldn't it be wasting their vote if they cast it for someone who everyone else is supposedly voting for? What's their one vote out of supposedly thousands for another candidate who does not represent their views or do not really have their interests at heart? Heck, why bother voting at all if the results are already pre-determined?

Ron Paul will win if the people take back their government and actually value their vote. The election isn't a popularity contest where the prize is a big white house and a very cool jet and the winner will leave them alone. Their vote will directly impact their lives and determine the direction our country is heading. Have it count for liberty and a more peaceful and prosperous future.

[adpierce]

I would just say that the majority of Americans aren't socialists. The majority of Americans believe in the free market system and yet don't believe in nation building or support this war in Iraq. They want it to end but they don't want our monetary system to slip ever leftward.

[llepard]

Well, no, he is not unelectable, he just needs the votes to win.

To say his is unelectable is a form of circular logic. I use this argument.