Posted on 12/11/2011 11:05:29 AM PST by massmike
Small vote totals for independent candidacies can have huge potential consequences. Which brings us to Ron Paul.
He is now nationally known,has a large base of small donors, and his intense supporters probably could get his name on most states’ ballots. He is not seeking re-election to his House seat, so what has he got to lose?
Well, his candidacy might guarantee Barack Obama’s re-election, and this might hurt the career of his son Rand, the freshman senator from Kentucky. Other than that, however, Ron Paul may think what his ideology implies — that Obama is only marginally more mistaken than Paul’s Republican rivals, who do not wake up each day angry about the 1913 Federal Reserve Act.
Based on states’ results in 2000, 2004 and 2008, and on states’ previous votes for third-party candidates, and on current polling about the strength of potential Republican nominees in particular states, it is plausible to conclude that a Paul candidacy would have these consequences:
It would enable Obama to carry two states he lost in 2008: Missouri (10 electoral votes), which he lost by 0.13 points, and Arizona (11), which he lost by 8.52 points to native son John McCain.
It would enable Obama to again win four states he captured in 2008 and that the Republican nominee probably must win in 2012: Florida (29), Indiana (11), North Carolina (15) and Virginia (13).
It would secure Obama’s hold on the following states he won in 2008 but that Republicans hope to take back next year: New Mexico (5), Colorado (9), Nevada (6), Michigan (16), Ohio (18), Pennsylvania (20) and New Hampshire (4).
A Paul candidacy would make 2012 much easier for Obama than 2008 was.
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...
If Paul wants to screw the nation then he will run as an independent.
Its that simple.
Nader’s tiny percentage likely cost Gore the presidency.
Paul would do the same.
Maybe even more likely. Look at all the Paultards in OWS.
Worst case, it would be a wash.
This a.m. an ABC poll on the winner of last night’s debates showed Paul with 75% of the vote.
If Paulistas have been spamming every poll like this - his support level has to be questioned. In primaries and generals they can only vote once - which would give him an authentic high of about 10% (???).
Who knows - but skewing the data is a disservice.
He might get more than 1%. Might not.
Did he get 2 million votes in the ‘08 primaries?
That depends on who the Republicans run.
If they run Mitt Romneycare, there is every chance that Wrong Paul could get more votes than Mittens.
In that case, it would be more honest to sah that Mittens cost Paul the presidency.
In that scenario, you get a crap result no matter who wins
FWIW Paul’s campaign(s) are detailed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2008
(largest single donors were members of the military in 2007)
This article is full of crap and I’m busy preparing my research showing that they don’t have the data to back it up.
Here’s the links if you want to see yourself. These people are full of it.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/
Any candidate that runs third party - Paul, Trump, Hunstman or whoever - will be doing so in order to help re-elect Obama. If they believe otherwise, than they are too stupid to be President.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.