How does RP beat Hillary-Obama?

[drsubrotoroy]

In a different thread I have asked the constitutional question "Is Hillary's candidacy legal?" This has to do with the possible interpretation of the word "person" in the 22nd Amendment by a federal judge, a Circuit Court of Appeals, and possibly the Supreme Court. Perhaps the question will never reach them. Perhaps even if it does, it will go in Mrs Clinton's favor. It is not impossible she is the Democratic nominee. It is not impossible her main rival, Sen Obama, concedes to her, and she then invites him as her Veep candidate.

On the Republican side, it is quite possible Dr Ron Paul wins through to be the candidate. If he then makes a mistake by choosing someone for Veep from his own ideology, he has probably had it -- instead he would be wise to engage in standard "ticket-balancing", and choose someone to enhance the appeal of his candidacy across the largest cross-section of the population. If it happened to be another anti-war person, Hillary-Obama would be the war party and it could become a straight fight over the war-issue.

There is something called the "Bellman Optimality Principle" in "backward dynamic programming".
Here is a quote from http://sipi.usc.edu/~ortega/RD_Examples/boxDP.html

"The idea of dynamic programming, or Bellman's optimality principle of dynamic programming, can be captured very easily with a very simple example which illustrates the basic idea. Suppose we are interested in finding the shortest auto route between Los Angeles and New York City as illustrated in the figure below. Further suppose that you know that the shortest route between LA and New York goes through Chicago. Then Bellman's optimality principle states the obvious fact that in this case, the Chicago to New York leg of the shortest journey from LA to New York will be identical to the shortest auto route between Chicago and New York, i.e. to the shortest route on a trip that starts at Chicago and ends in New York. Why is this obvious observation useful? Because it can result in a lot of computational savings in finding the best path from LA to New York: if we find the best path from LA to Chicago, then we only need to add on the shortest auto distance between Chicago and New York, if we we already know the answer to that."

Applying that here: ask the question, what steps do RP and his Veep need to take to beat Hillary-Obama? Then ask, what steps does RP need to take after the nomination to get to those steps (i.e. the steps that RP and his Veep need to take to beat Hilary-Obama). Then ask. what steps does RP need to take before the nomination to get to those steps (i.e. the steps he needs to take after the nomination)... etc. That may help chalk out an "optimal path".

drsubrotoroyAThotmail.com

[BLS]

I'm gonna get grilled for saying this.....but I'm a rather frank person.

1 is a black muslim
the other is a power mongering white chic.

It's no problem. Getting RP the nomination is 90% of the battle to the White House.

[FreedomLover]

I'm gonna get grilled for saying this.....but I'm a rather frank person.

1 is a black muslim
the other is a power mongering white chic.

It's no problem. Getting RP the nomination is 90% of the battle to the White House.

Agreed for the most part.

[Texan4Life]

Getting RP the nomination is 90% of the battle to the White House.

I agree.

[MikeStanart]

I"m not going to agree fully with the previous statements; however....


I do agree that getting the republican nomination is 90% of the battle.

Ron Paul's message spans across party lines. Democrats, Independants, Libertarians, and Republicans all want RP for President. They only need to hear RP speak to be won over.


That being said: The only way a Republican will get elected in 08...is if Ron Paul is nominated.

[risiusj]

Once he gets the nomination, people will know who he is. And they will love him.

[jblosser]

He definitely doesn't want to pick a compromised VP candidate. His entire appeal is based on his sincerity and honesty. He loses all the high ground if he bends.

A lot of conventional political wisdom doesn't seem to apply here. It's like they say about the laws of physics during the moment before the big bang... the anti-Bush backlash is strong enough to throw everything into question.

The others are right. His hardest competition is going to be inside the GOP, especially Fred as he spins Paul's truths into mass appeal and pretends he invented them.

[j650]

If Ron Paul gets the nomination, and that's a big if, he should win the general election once independents realize that even though he's Republican, he's nothing like George Bush. I don't think it matters who his VP is if he's up against Hillary because she's not well liked. That said, I don't think any other Republican in the field will win against Hillary or Obama except Ron Paul in the general election. The others are too similar to Bush and that's the last thing people will want 4 more years of.

[Oddball]

He beats the hell out of both of them by his sincerity.

[jorlowitz]

The insinuation that Americans will never vote for an African American, a non-Christian (even though Obama is one) or a woman (however overtly ambitious) doesn't say a whole lot about Americans. If Ron Paul will rise to power based on petty prejudice and sexism, well... that pretty much goes against everything RP stands for anyway (not to mention myself and plenty of other people)

How about their policies??

*stupid being the comment, not you of course

[FreedomLover]

I think we should only be talking about the primary, since that will be the real struggle for Dr. Paul.

As a reminder, I encourage everyone who reads this post to vote for Ron Paul in the PRIMARIES. Register republican to be safe and vote for him this winter/spring. There won't be a Ron Paul to vote for in the general election if he doesn't get through this most important hurdle.

[BenIsForRon]

The primary is where the battle is at. Do you think a corporate candidate like obama or hillary would stand a chance in a one on one debate against Dr. Paul?

[drsubrotoroy]

I think we should only be talking about the primary, .... There won't be a Ron Paul to vote for in the general election if he doesn't get through this most important hurdle.

But is it not possible the best way for RP to win the primaries (and the nomination) may be to chalk out how he may win the contest against Hillary-Obama and from those steps work backwards to the present?

(That is "Bellman optimality" as I recall it, though I would be happy to yield to a superior application of the idea to this case.)

[Cindy]

I agree. The greatest question to put attention and energy into is, what will it take for Paul to get the GOP nomination.

I think the only way, will be if the majority of them get hit with a dose of some conscious by then and see undeniable majority support for him above all others by the time to decide.

They'll have to become brave enough to express desenting opinions like Lugar recently did and become greater inspired by Pauls ability to do it.

I have noticed that the stats showing the U.S. military throwing the most money behind Paul, cripples the resistance in the moment. It means something to most people who respect, appreciate and admire those in the service.

What will the Republican party do for power mongering if they do not have the support of the military, because they do not support the leader the military wants?

The U.S. Military is probably the most powerful voice/force on the planet.

Who doesn't want to have them behind them, including the delegates?

I think we need to keep showing them our support by tying Pauls name and his supporters to the phrase "bring the troops home NOW!

[drsubrotoroy]

The greatest question to put attention and energy into is, what will it take for Paul to get the GOP nomination.

Yes of course, though is it not possible that the best way to win the nomination is to show how good/effective he would be as President?

[rpf2008]

How does RP beat Hillary-Obama?

With the truth.

[Cindy]

Yes of course, though is it not possible that the best way to win the nomination is to show how good/effective he would be as President?


The GOP nominated George Bush in the last two elections. I don't think their criteria for being "effective" as the President of the United States of America is the same as ours.

It's about keeping power, and being put under pressure for people like them.

Like Paul said, "To win over your enemy, you have to know how they think"

There is an Agenda behind the GOP and the GOP is kept under pressure to fullfill it- gaining and keeping Power over people for those really running things-the Fed Res and Big Corps. Paul wants to throw that Agenda in the garbage. The only way enough of the GOP will sway, is if the pressure on them to nominate Paul grows even greater on them.

The pressure can be applied to their "do the right thing in your heart concious" and by, "overwhelming National and International support for Paul, enough to give them the confidence to discent because they know the back up will be there to support them in such a decision.

Thats how I see it, regarding getting them to nominate him.

The American public is different and I have confidence that the Paul supporters will continue to win their hearts and votes for Paul as they have been doing such a great job of it already.

[drsubrotoroy]

How best to get to goal 1 (the nomination) may depend on the path from there to goal 2 (being President). Here are two examples I have given separately elsewhere at this forum which may explain this:

I think Dr Paul should and can make two President-like announcements/commitments even now.

(A) One is to say that he believes the US monetary and fiscal system has grown into an awful mess which may threaten severe macroeconomic problems before long, and therefore, he would, as President, appoint a national commission of well-respected experts from all schools of thought to investigate and report on this to the President and Congress.

(B) Another is to say that he realises the 9/11 attacks have caused extremely deep rifts in the country and he would appoint the finest Special Prosecutor in the land (one possible name does come to mind but there will be many) with carte blanche to forensically investigate and prosecute the unsolved mass murder of thousands of people.

By making announcement (A), Dr Paul would have reminded everyone of his own deeply held and long-standing concerns about the state of the economy -- none of the other candidates of any party having thought anywhere as deeply as he has about these issues. He would also have deflected any inevitable criticism that his views are too idiosyncratic by stating he would listen with care to what the Commission came up with.

By making announcement (B), he would have caused the rift between "9/11 truthers" and their critics to heal, without granting an inch of substance to either side.

As soon as Dr Paul makes two announcements/commitments like this, he is seen to be a leader, even if the other candidates followed suit. Imitation is the highest form of flattery after all.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Let's concentrate on the primary, though, nothing wrong with the "what ifs" I think that an economist by the name of Walter Williams (http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/walter-williams.html) would be a great running mate. He is black, so that would make Obama irrelevant lol well, Mr. Williams is 100% black, Obama is mixed and hoping his black supporters won't notice

[drsubrotoroy]

Let's concentrate on the primary, though, nothing wrong with the "what ifs" I think that an economist by the name of Walter Williams (http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/walter-williams.html) would be a great running mate. He is black, so that would make Obama irrelevant lol well, Mr. Williams is 100% black, Obama is mixed and hoping his black supporters won't notice

Hasn't Walter Williams been an extreme neocon in regard to foreign wars?

[DeadheadForPaul]

I dont know where you guys are getting this "the american people will not vote for a black guy or a woman" thing

If anything, they will not vote for Hillary because she is a socialist and a...how do I put this? Bitch.

If anything, they will not vote for Obama because he is inexperienced

[beermotor]

I"m not going to agree fully with the previous statements; however....


I do agree that getting the republican nomination is 90% of the battle.

Ron Paul's message spans across party lines. Democrats, Independants, Libertarians, and Republicans all want RP for President. They only need to hear RP speak to be won over.


That being said: The only way a Republican will get elected in 08...is if Ron Paul is nominated.


This is wise. We must spread this message to the GOP. They are starting to realize their candidates have no shot, thus the grabbing at straws (FT / Newt) and the low donations.

[Broadlighter]

In a different thread I have asked the constitutional question "Is Hillary's candidacy legal?" This has to do with the possible interpretation of the word "person" in the 22nd Amendment by a federal judge, a Circuit Court of Appeals, and possibly the Supreme Court. Perhaps the question will never reach them. Perhaps even if it does, it will go in Mrs Clinton's favor. It is not impossible she is the Democratic nominee. It is not impossible her main rival, Sen Obama, concedes to her, and she then invites him as her Veep candidate.

On the Republican side, it is quite possible Dr Ron Paul wins through to be the candidate. If he then makes a mistake by choosing someone for Veep from his own ideology, he has probably had it -- instead he would be wise to engage in standard "ticket-balancing", and choose someone to enhance the appeal of his candidacy across the largest cross-section of the population. If it happened to be another anti-war person, Hillary-Obama would be the war party and it could become a straight fight over the war-issue.

There is something called the "Bellman Optimality Principle" in "backward dynamic programming".
Here is a quote from http://sipi.usc.edu/~ortega/RD_Examples/boxDP.html

"The idea of dynamic programming, or Bellman's optimality principle of dynamic programming, can be captured very easily with a very simple example which illustrates the basic idea. Suppose we are interested in finding the shortest auto route between Los Angeles and New York City as illustrated in the figure below. Further suppose that you know that the shortest route between LA and New York goes through Chicago. Then Bellman's optimality principle states the obvious fact that in this case, the Chicago to New York leg of the shortest journey from LA to New York will be identical to the shortest auto route between Chicago and New York, i.e. to the shortest route on a trip that starts at Chicago and ends in New York. Why is this obvious observation useful? Because it can result in a lot of computational savings in finding the best path from LA to New York: if we find the best path from LA to Chicago, then we only need to add on the shortest auto distance between Chicago and New York, if we we already know the answer to that."

Applying that here: ask the question, what steps do RP and his Veep need to take to beat Hillary-Obama? Then ask, what steps does RP need to take after the nomination to get to those steps (i.e. the steps that RP and his Veep need to take to beat Hilary-Obama). Then ask. what steps does RP need to take before the nomination to get to those steps (i.e. the steps he needs to take after the nomination)... etc. That may help chalk out an "optimal path".

drsubrotoroyAThotmail.com

The answer is simple - win the GOP nomination. What you are proposing here is political pragmatism. This is what sours a public on the person they elect every time.

What Ron Paul needs in a Veep is someone who ALREADY agrees with his foreign policy and stance on the Federal Reserve. Dr. Paul needs to show unity in his message, not a compromise VP for the sake of getting elected.

Hillary and Obama have already demonstrated that they are about the pragmatic politics the American voting public is sick of. With Ron Paul standing up against them, they would become dust in the wind - as long as the people he has around him, beginning with the VP have the same convictions.

We're not just trying to win an election, we're trying to overthrow the status quo. Snakes in the grass need not apply!

[mtmedlin]

He wins because you cant be an ass in a debate to grampa paul. Hillary cant do her normal Iam smarter then the world attitude with him. She doesnt have the grasp of History that he has. She doesnt have the sincerety. She doesnt have us!

[aravoth]

How does RP beat Hillary-Obama?

He wins the republican nomination. He gets nod, and I don't give a damn who you put him up against in the general election, he'll win.

[jblosser]

And he wins the nomination when:

1) enough people have heard of him
2) the ones that aren't GOP become GOP for the primaries
3) we get past the potential vote fraud
(if you honestly think they wouldn't do it given the chance, you aren't paying attention. whether they actually realize they have the means or not is less certain.)

[drsubrotoroy]

The stronger/more forceful/more widespread the argument that is made now on why RP beats Hillary (or whomever), the better the chance he may have of winning the GOP nomination. Step 1 may depend on Step 2.

At the same time, one should not underestimate the sheer power of the opposition (Big Labor, Big Business, Hollywood etc) nor overestimate the political weight of truth or rightness.

A great modern classical liberal/libertarian, the late Peter Tamas Bauer (Lord Bauer, friend of Murray Rothbard, FA Hayek et al) told me that to my face at a Liberty Fund conference about 1978/79: he said libertarians tend not to understand how political power is formed and wielded but socialists and fascists understand that if nothing else.