Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TexasTowelie

(112,189 posts)
Mon Mar 19, 2012, 02:03 AM Mar 2012

Paul nomination unlikely; now what?

WASHINGTON — Halfway through the 2012 presidential nominating process, Texas Congressman Ron Paul still hasn’t won a single state and his campaign has been marginalized by political professionals and pundits alike.

“The chances of Paul winning the nomination are clearly all but zero,” said University of Texas pollster Jim Henson, “and his accumulation of delegates is also much less impressive than the expectations.”

Such gloomy talk has done little to slow the Houston-area congressman and his devoted followers, who continue to fight for their cause and, perhaps, a modicum of influence in an unsettled GOP presidential race.

But as Paul’s mathematical chances of victory have dwindled, speculation has grown about his political endgame. Among the possibilities: building a nationwide libertarian political movement that could vie for clout within the Republican Party, influencing the party’s 2012 platform or cementing a strategic alliance to tip the balance of power at the Republican National Convention in August.

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/03/paul-nomination-unlikely-now-what/

17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

napoleon_in_rags

(3,991 posts)
3. The Republican mainstream really pissed on him and his base.
Mon Mar 19, 2012, 02:36 AM
Mar 2012

And they lost a really vital political current in the process: The idea of a gentle, anti-war right was the concept that could withstand a pro-woman pro-mother onslaught, that could survive the simple fact that Obama got Osama. But they insisted on playing the pro-war tough guys, and as such put themselves in a really compromised position of being substanceless fanboys to the man who took out OBL when their president couldn't. You even have have confused wingers standing up for the guy who did the shooting in Afghanistan while Obama (who took out Osama) frowns on the whole scene, espousing justice and self control. The whole thing is a huge fail for the right: They couldn't advocate peace and nurturing, even when they were totally beat at the war game by a Democratic president. This has left them in the position of being the biggest fans of their opposition.

My feelings on it are mixed: From the aspect of social programs and whatnot, its great news that things went this way. But another part of me would be pleased to see a Republican party that can change and evolve in its ideas, and that's what we're not seeing here.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
4. He'll trade off his handful of delegates at the convention
Mon Mar 19, 2012, 07:16 AM
Mar 2012

to either Mittens or Ricky, if they'll put Rand on the ticket. That's the only exit strategy he's got left.

 

Dokkie

(1,688 posts)
5. I will bet you a $1000 to $100
Mon Mar 19, 2012, 07:44 AM
Mar 2012

that he doesn't do such a thing and I mean I give you 1000USD if he trades his delegates for a VP chance for him or his son and you give me a 100USD if he doesn't. What good is trading the delegates and pissing off your hardcore supporters if those supporters ending not voting for the nominee in the GE.

I think the was a tactic by the media and Santorum people to kill off Paul's soft supporters and its working very well. I used to be a libertarian (mostly because I was a hardcore pacifist) and I can tell you that these people will not go for it and I have a feeling Paul also knows this. It will be the end of the movement he has worked 30yrs + to build f he successfully trades off his delegates and for what? a big loss in the November? dont think so.

If betting is illegal on this site then disregard the bet, if not, I am game for it and I will pay you in full if I lose (as long as you promise to pay when you lose). I will bookmark this page while we wait

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
8. I agree, Ron Paul really has nothing to lose but little to gain
Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:08 AM
Mar 2012

from horse trading his delegates. His son could run in 2016, but might have to give up his Senate seat to do so (depends on the state law). Ron Paul would be better to just walk away at some point then to deal with anyone in "his party" (I use that term carefully). If Rand ran, his father would be out there campaigning for him and supposing he didn't make a deal would hold on to his creditably with his followers.

 

think

(11,641 posts)
9. His campaign is focused on reforming the Republican party and its platform.
Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:30 AM
Mar 2012

No real surprise there.

 

think

(11,641 posts)
6. We get to hear more about bombing Iran & outlawing bith control instead of
Mon Mar 19, 2012, 07:51 AM
Mar 2012

repealing the Patriot Act, auditing the fed, reducing our military and security spending, and ending the war on drugs.

Yay

Broderick

(4,578 posts)
7. Gee
Mon Mar 19, 2012, 07:51 AM
Mar 2012

Listen to the knuckleheads in the Paul camp and you would think he's gonna be brokered in if not outright win.

agentS

(1,325 posts)
10. He had his chance
Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:34 AM
Mar 2012

This field was weaksauce, just like it was in 08. He could have really made headway after placing third in Iowa but he didn't.

The whole campaign reeks of scam to me. He is just a vote-sink for people who don't like Rmoney and the other assholes. He could have won it if he ran a better campaign- pure and simple.

vaberella

(24,634 posts)
11. Ron Paul is one of the most terrifying Libertarians out there.
Mon Mar 19, 2012, 08:40 AM
Mar 2012

And normally I can agree with Libertarians. Ron Paul I cannot on any level.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
13. I heard on a weekend talk show, in passing, that Paul was not wanting a Cabinet position, but the
Mon Mar 19, 2012, 09:43 AM
Mar 2012

VP slot. What a joke!

It said he wanted more than a speaking role at the convention for his delegates, and wasn't interested in a Cabinet post. He wants the number 2 spot. His delegate load is miniscule and he doesn't take much from any other candidate. He carries his own small base of loons. There is no reason for any nominee to take him and his baggage on to their ticket.

FSogol

(45,485 posts)
14. Paul is just fundraising from his gullible supporters.
Mon Mar 19, 2012, 10:22 AM
Mar 2012

He doesn't care about winning, he only cares about the cash.

 
15. Cash Cash
Sat Mar 24, 2012, 03:14 AM
Mar 2012

Sarah Palin only wanted cash.

If she became the VP. Win.

If she became the Prez. Win. She would be a figurehead like Bush II (Prez Cheney) and Reagan (Prez Nancy) were.

If she lost and went on the lecture circuit. Win.

Money Money Money.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
16. America saw the real Ron/Rand Paul as ultra extremists, and fled as quick as they could
Sat Mar 24, 2012, 05:15 AM
Mar 2012

sometimes evil looks like a meek old man

what a sell-out Ronnie turned out to be, who would have thunk. Sells everything he believes in (what day of the week is it???) in hopes his more evil son will come to power.

My mother, who was forced out of Austria as a child when the Nazi's stormed in, saw a great connection. That person ran as an extremist and actually won power in Austria, his name was Jorg Haider. (google him to read up).

It is scary in looks/and beliefs and all.

Ron Paul proved he could not withstand his first nationwide vetting, and came out looking like
the John Birch type of the 1950s and all was. That he never repudiated any of his old friends
and all, well, America did not kindly take to him.

And how has this person kept winning and winning over the years? By bringing home the bacon.
So his local town people keep him in office.

Yet he is a multi-millionaire, stealthly amassing great wealth while attempting to keep his image as a regular Joe.

Yeah, party like its 1859 again.

Thanks, but no thanks.

IMHO how was any democrat taken in by this family? They are not us. They do not want what we want, and they do not like what makes up 80% of the democratic party.

(Thankfully the US Demographics is changing, and changing quicker than planned).

No, we don't want to bring back the wild, wild west of the 1850s, where only one segment had any voting rights at all (and not one woman, which is why I think the republicans all went anti-woman this year.)(let alone anti-every other minority group and religion.)

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Paul nomination unlikely;...