Perot was the opposite of Paul. Perot was a pro- military hero who had great appeal for patriotic Republicans, not in any way comparable to paul, except “third party”. That’s exactly why I say that Paul will be Hillary’s “Perot”, if he runs.
You do make an interesting point, and this is an interesting conversation. One reason I would not think that this is the case is the way Democrats do not split from the party easily. Most Democrats are Democrats because that what they are. Its almost like rooting for your favorite NFL team, they are the loyal ones. My grandparents were Democrats. If you discussed issues with them, they would agree with every single point of view a conservative has, but always voted Democrat (I know that is not the majority of them though). Most Democrats need only one issue to be a Democrat. Many are Democrat based on one or two issues. It maight be AFL-CIO Unions, Abortion, Gay Rights, the Media "Common Man's Party" etc. Republicans are the ones that demand 100% agreement with their candidate or they threaten to run off to a third party. I see that all the time on FR. I see them say "If ______ wins the RNC Nomination, I am voting 3rd party". Never mind it would result in putting in someone they would disagree 100% into office. I just see republicans more willing to leave the party if they are not 100% happy with their party candidate. About an hour ago I saw a FReeper say if his man doesn't win the nomination, he would write in Buchanan on election day. Its insanity.
Well if Paul goes 3rd party, I hope your right and I hope Im wrong, I just dont have that confidence you do on that issue.
Whether Paul goes 3rd party or not is irrelevant. The GOP in its current makeup does not have the votes to defeat Hillary in the general. That is a fact.
With Paul, all of the factions are united. There won't be any libertarians voting LP or constitutionalists voting for the CP in the general. Many independents and both the populist left and right would vote for Paul because of the war. And even the remaining portion of the GOP base (religious and pro-war conservatives) would still vote for Paul, because there's no way in Hell they're going to vote for Hillary.
So to say that Paul would hurt the Democrat more than the Republican in a three-way race is ludicrous. It's quite possible that Paul could win a three-way race as the sheer volume of voters will vote for him and negate both the remnants of the current base of the GOP and the hardcore left who'll vote for Hillary.
Nonsense, most leftist hate Paul besides his Iraq stance more than mainstream RINOs. He’s a socialist’ kryptonite.