Ron Paul is good at winning straw polls. But he’d probably register in single digits against Hillary.
You’re being overly optimistic — or just overly kind to an old loon.
Not true. A major pollster (it was discussed about a month ago on FR) found that he'd get over 30 percent against Hillary. Imagine what he would get if the media bothered to cover him. Actually, a Paul candidacy is Hillary's worst nightmare. He could constantly remind the public that she has a consistent record in disasterous world policing and voted to authorize this war.
That's what they said about the primaries and straw polls, but for the sake of discussion, let's agree to that assertion. We're back to the old argument of voting for principle or voting for another Rockefeller Republican, "compassionate" (read: Not) conservative that, in this election, will be the extinction level event for conservatism and, by extension, the Constitution.
You are just a fool.
Single digits, no way!
.25%, maybe even .75% at least!
Double digits every time!
You think so? Ron Paul voted against Iraq, Hillary didn’t. Most Dem voters would swing to the GOP for a fresh, outsider politician who is anti-tax and for smaller government (much like Reagan).
So let’s say Paul got the nomination. Would all of the FReepers who talk big about “sucking it up for the Party” against Hillary if someone else’s man didn’t get the nomination vote for Dr Paul? Or would the Constitution Party get their votes?
Remember that Dr. Paul is 90% of what most conservatives want. The first rule of campaign school is “All Or Nothing Always Gets You Nothing”. Which is what we’ll continue to get with more RINOS.