Thread: New polls show Ron Paul more electable than Romney vs. Obama

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Right, he doesn't do as well with old Republicans and that makes up the biggest voting block of the Republican party. He beats every other candidate Republican among independents and Democrats. Basically, the rest of the candidates can do really well in the Republican primaries but that's not going to keep them from losing in the general election.

He doesn't do well with Americans....Period.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

How about this... The mass Majority see Paul as a fucking lunatic and wont vote for him.......That specific enough??????

fish,
Relax for a moment; this is yet another one of the funniest postings ever!
Straight, to the point, most probably right on target and damn belly laughing inducing.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

How about this... The mass Majority see Paul as a fucking lunatic and wont vote for him.......That specific enough??????Can we dispense with the ambiguous vagueness and elite mindset?

So you think he wouldn't do well in a general election. I disagree for multiple reasons:

1. He polls well nationally.

2. He has done better than any of the other candidates, in the primaries, among open states that have allowed independents or Democrats to vote (and by that I mean the % of independents, not the overall primary votes).

3. He has done better than any of the other candidates, in the primaries, among those who are younger than 40 years old (same here).

This means that he doesn't do as well among old Republican voters (the majority block of Republican voters) but exceeds among young voters, independents, and can even pull in Democrats. If he were, by some freak chance, to win the primaries then the 40+ Republican voters would vote for him because they are either just "pull the R lever" sheeple or they hate Obama more. That would make Ron Paul the strongest general election candidate the Republicans could produce.

Some more things to think about:

1. Santorum wouldn't have a chance in hell of winning the general election (he's not going to win the primaries anyways so it's moot).

2. Newt wouldn't have a chance in hell of winning the general election (he's not going to win the primaries either so it's moot).

3. Romney has a chance of winning the general election and he's going to take the primaries. But, at the point, you're getting another Obama or an Obama light so it really doesn't matter one damn bit now does it?

In other words, I hope you're happy with 4 more years of Obama and liberal policies because that's what you're going to get regardless if Romney wins. Congrats, tough guy, you're a liberal!

Originally Posted by fishjoel

So you think he wouldn't do well in a general election. I disagree for multiple reasons:

1. He polls well nationally.

2. He has done better than any of the other candidates, in the primaries, among open states that have allowed independents or Democrats to vote (and by that I mean the % of independents, not the overall primary votes).

3. He has done better than any of the other candidates, in the primaries, among those who are younger than 40 years old (same here).

This means that he doesn't do as well among old Republican voters (the majority block of Republican voters) but exceeds among young voters, independents, and can even pull in Democrats. If he were, by some freak chance, to win the primaries then the 40+ Republican voters would vote for him because they are either just "pull the R lever" sheeple or they hate Obama more. That would make Ron Paul the strongest general election candidate the Republicans could produce.

Some more things to think about:

1. Santorum wouldn't have a chance in hell of winning the general election (he's not going to win the primaries anyways so it's moot).

2. Newt wouldn't have a chance in hell of winning the general election (he's not going to win the primaries either so it's moot).

3. Romney has a chance of winning the general election and he's going to take the primaries. But, at the point, you're getting another Obama or an Obama light so it really doesn't matter one damn bit now does it?

In other words, I hope you're happy with 4 more years of Obama and liberal policies because that's what you're going to get regardless if Romney wins. Congrats, tough guy, you're a liberal!

The only way Ron Paul gets into the general election is as a third party candidate. Which I think he should have been from the go.
Which is pissing in Rand Paul's cheerios, because Rand could be the second generation that goes beyond the father, like Mitt Romney or George W. Bush, but if Ron Paul does run on a third party ticket, he'll be the guy that cost the GOP the election, and Rand will be the son of the traitor.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

How about this... The mass Majority see Paul as a fucking lunatic and wont vote for him.......That specific enough??????Can we dispense with the ambiguous vagueness and elite mindset?

I would just love one person who keeps calling Paul a lunatic and "crazy" to explain, logically and coherently, with an actual argument why he is in fact a lunatic or "crazy". Maybe an argument coherently put together that actually refutes his main positions and ideology with actual numbers and real world data, maybe a research study or two. Because I know I can build a coherent argument for why he isn't crazy and I can build a case, logically, with sources (data, evidence, and even a research study or two) to back up his positions and why they would work better than what we currently have.

I'll be waiting for all the folks who call him crazy to show me, with a convincing argument, devoid of name calling and logical fallacies, backed with evidence of some kind (historical, economic, anything) that he is in fact crazy.

Originally Posted by goober

The only way Ron Paul gets into the general election is as a third party candidate. Which I think he should have been from the go.
Which is pissing in Rand Paul's cheerios, because Rand could be the second generation that goes beyond the father, like Mitt Romney or George W. Bush, but if Ron Paul does run on a third party ticket, he'll be the guy that cost the GOP the election, and Rand will be the son of the traitor.

Eh, the support he gets isn't relegated to only Republicans. In the end, it doesn't matter, does it? Ron Paul has brought more young people, and has done more to grow the aging Republican party than any other candidate in a long time. If Ron Paul goes so goes that growth and the Republican party will continue to shrink and become irrelevant.

Paul's initial success was due to the fact that he spoke what we all thought...politics is all corruption.
He was, and is, capable of looking anyone in the eye and claiming no undue influence on him throughout his career.
The media was forced to grant him time because they were probably getting calls and e-mails.

Then came the primaries and the lost votes and caucases.

Paul enabled the public to let off some steam.
He is no longer interviewed by FN or CTR.
They air snippets of him, not espousing the problems with the current system, but that he's going all the way.

He has been diffused by a lot of clever people in the media.

Would he be a good president?
Not if he wouldn't level the playing field; and he wouldn't.
Everybody gets to keep their current spoils or ruin and the fed fades away.

Would that be better than the current "bread and circuses"?
Perhaps; but he would lose the next election anyway.

Originally Posted by ericams2786

I would just love one person who keeps calling Paul a lunatic and "crazy" to explain, logically and coherently, with an actual argument why he is in fact a lunatic or "crazy". Maybe an argument coherently put together that actually refutes his main positions and ideology with actual numbers and real world data, maybe a research study or two. Because I know I can build a coherent argument for why he isn't crazy and I can build a case, logically, with sources (data, evidence, and even a research study or two) to back up his positions and why they would work better than what we currently have.

I'll be waiting for all the folks who call him crazy to show me, with a convincing argument, devoid of name calling and logical fallacies, backed with evidence of some kind (historical, economic, anything) that he is in fact crazy.

I have ....Continually. You and those like you refuse to see it. It matters little anyway cause Paul already sold you all down river to get Romney nominated. Yes there is evidence for that as well for those who would actually look like how he defends Romney at every turn by attacking only those who threaten Mitt...

Originally Posted by thanatos144

I have ....Continually. You and those like you refuse to see it. It matters little anyway cause Paul already sold you all down river to get Romney nominated. Yes there is evidence for that as well for those who would actually look like how he defends Romney at every turn by attacking only those who threaten Mitt...

Yeah...I listened to that unsubstantiated and debunked Mark Levin theory. It holds about as much water as a tea cup.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Yeah...I listened to that unsubstantiated and debunked Mark Levin theory. It holds about as much water as a tea cup.

You debunked it with what????A very old Paul add attacking Romney?????? The one made far before he sold out? Thank you for proving my point.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

You debunked it with what????A very old Paul add attacking Romney?????? The one made far before he sold out? Thank you for proving my point.

Debunked as in there is no proof just some far-flung assumptions. Crack-pot theory debunks itself. That aside, Paul spoke out about this ridiculous theory and he actually did run some attack adds, in Washington state, on Romney after it came out.

His actions are the evidence. Because you refuse to see it matters little.

Originally Posted by thanatos144

I have ....Continually. You and those like you refuse to see it. It matters little anyway cause Paul already sold you all down river to get Romney nominated. Yes there is evidence for that as well for those who would actually look like how he defends Romney at every turn by attacking only those who threaten Mitt...

You have done no such thing. Not one time have you logically laid down the reason for why he is "crazy" and then actually backing that argument up with anything. Everytime we get in a debate about anything, foreign policy or anything else, I continuously link evidence to back up my opinions, offer reading material, etc. You do no such thing, ever. All you do is call the man crazy, which is perfectly in your right to do so, but it is simply an opinion and often you just throw up all kinds of logical fallacies along the way. An opinion is not a logical argument, especially if you can't build a case for what you are saying with outside sources backing your position up, something tangible. You have never done that and still are not doing that.

As for your absurd idea that Paul "sold us out to get Romney nominated", how about you actually back this up with all this "evidence" you supposedly have, show me.

How about this: the Republican establishment and the electorate sold themselves out by not sticking to the principles they supposedly believe in, the same ones which are part of the GOP platform. A guy comes along who is the epitome of that platform and you ignore/ridicule him while bitching that there is no one worth voting for. You and the GOP sold yourselves out along time ago. Paul and Romney have no official alliance between their campaigns, but I invite you to prove your thesis on here with actual documentation stating they have one.