If Ron Paul runs as an Independent...?

We will see a Republican in the White House once again. Why? Because it is the "independent" voters that are presently giving the Democratic Party whatever majority it might presently enjoy.

Also, Republicans traditionally do better than Democrats in the presidential race. Independent voters are rather fickle. At the present time, they do not love the Democrats so much as they hate what George Bush has done to our country.

If Ron Paul were to run as an "Independent", he would take the independent vote away from the Democratic candidate, and would likely put a Republican in the White House once again. Without the "independents", the Democrats are not the majority Party that some may think it is.

It is the "Independents" that might determine who the next President will be. If Ron Paul runs as Third Party, he would take the Independent votes away from the Democrat faster than butter melts in a hot pan.

Ron Paul cannot win the Presidency but he can put a Republican back in the White House and make a loser out of the Democratic candidate. There is danger lurking in the shadows...

are the sort of troglodytes who populate right-wing lunatic fringe groups like the Constitution Party. If Paul really runs as an independent, all of his positions will get more publicity, and voters will learn that along with his opposition to the Iraq war he's a racist, anti-government, anti-choice wacko. He won't take any voters away from the Democrats once they know who he really is.

and they think, gee, what a swell fellah!!

And the One Issue Voter who THINKS that's the ONLY issue that matters won't bother looking at his vicious plans for children and the elderly. To say nothing of how he thinks ANY environmental law is bullshit.

You quite generously give people credit for studying the issues--some of them are real Jay Leno Jaywalkers, though--thick as bricks and twice as hard.

I have a sneaking suspicion that those particular supporters will be gone after Jan. of 08. As a matter of fact, I think that a LOT of vocal, vociferous posters will meekly leave after the Presidential election is over and done with.

A lot of trolls have been coming out of the woodwork recently...

Paul would siphon mostly Republican votes - Republicans tend to be rather ignorant, and if there is a king of the catchphrase in this race, it's probably Paul.

"Undecideds" are the people you're thinking about. And these people don't swing votes nearly as much as the media would have you believe.

than he would get Democratic votes. He would get the "independent" vote. That is a large percentage of the voters of this country - about one/third. He would hurt the Democratic Party.

First off. if Ron Paul runs as an independent candidate, he falls off the GOP gravy train. And make no mistake, this man is through and through Republican. He's Pat Buchanan with less of a whine. He talks a good fight but isn't going to threaten his position and paycheck. Thus we're purely hypothetical here.

Now despite the libertarian mainstay philosophy that Americans are stupid beyond all belief, I don't believe this is so. People who register themselves as independent almost always either a) don't vote anyway, or b) vote Democratic. Group A isn't going to get off their asses one way or another, and group B knows better than to sell themselves to the Republican Party's take on Lieberman.

What people forget is that Ron Paul's supporters are almost entirely from group a. They're lazy - they want free pot and cheap prostitution, they want no taxes but all the benefits of taxation, they want lots and lots of money but don't want to earn it, instead imagining that if only we went back to gold, they would become millionaires. These people aren't the type to put down their hot pockets and turn off WWE to go vote! That's why there's such a big internet campaign. Ron Paul supporters are relying on Democrats and Republicans to go do the voting for them. They're trying real hard to sell their candidate to us so they won't have to stop making the pages of Atlas Shrugged sticky. "Oooooooh Ayn, you hot little piece of objectivist man-woman!"

Ron Paul will get some votes if he runs as an independant. But it will be from Republicans, especially if Rudy gets their party's nod. That'd be the best thing we could hope for. Independent Paul, and GOP Giuliani would split the Republican vote between die-hard GOPpers and the people who think they have principles (in other words, Rudy gets the 23 percenters, while Paul gets the main body of bigots and free marketeers).

Independent voters do not necessarily vote for an independent candidate. If they are independent because they consider themselves centrist and waver between Republicans and Democrats, I can't see too many of them voting for such an ideologue as Ron Paul.

And I'd like to say that he could split the Republican vote, but there are so many people on the left who would take the weird position of voting for him if the DU poll is any indication. Personally, I think the Ron Paul leftists are just acting like attention whores at this stage and probably won't follow through, but I don't know.

There are "independent" Republicans and "independent" Democrats that tend to call themselves "independent" but usually vote with their Party. It is that small fringe group that Ron Paul appeals to that are presently supporting Democrats over Republicans, primarily because of George W Bush. Once they have a kook like Ron Paul running, they will leave their temporary Democratic home behind to join the kook parade. It is that small fringe right now that is making so much trouble for the Republicans. It puts them at a disadvantage. Ron Paul would remove that disadvantage.

Even stupid democrats learn that soon enough.

sore loser laws in most states to prevent him from getting on the ballot. Worry about Bloomberg instead.

Repugs will have to think of a new southern strategy. White sheets and pointy hats for their nominees?

And people realize what a fucking nut this guy is.I mean it, this guy is nuts. Bananas. All kinds of goofy. Should I go on?

If he ran as an Independent he'd swipe a lot more votes from the Republican candidate than he would from the Democrat. His positions on several issues are way too extreme for an informed independent voter to go his way.

It would represent a total failure of our party to present itself as defenders of the constitution, and being willing to end the war - because nothing else Ron Paul says is moderate.

He's too "left" on Iraq for most Republican fundie primary voters and he's way, way too far right for most Democrats in a general election.

Perot, pathetic though he was, drew 19%. I seriously don't see Ron Paul with the same appeal. There's something insect-like about him. I think it's rooted in his combination of clarity on only one issue (Iraq) and the entire voting record, which is not very attractive to Democrats and many independents.

Ron Paul is the Kafka candidate, IMO -- the candidate for people who wake up one morning only to find that they've metamorphosed into cockroaches.

"I'm a out-size biped cockroach. Vote for me."

in contributions over the Net? Somebody, somewhere likes the guy...The only people that he appeals too are so-called "Independents" - who are presently supporting the Democratic Party. Democrats and Republicans will not support him in any major way. However, it is the Independent vote that will hurt the Democrats..

but I don't feel they constitute a significant-enough force to place him higher than third (at best) in Iowa; that would be his best-case scenario there.

Romney and Huckabee appear to be barreling down the stretch for first and second in Iowa. Giuliani (without half-trying) for third and Paul -- again, if it's the best-case for him -- might finish fourth or third just ahead of Rudy).

If Paul's showing is not headline-grabbing out of Iowa, I'm not seeing him with increased traction in New Hampshire (where advertising is more expensive -- often out of Boston, for example).

The longer Paul is in the race, the more his Iraq statements will alienate Republican primary voters. Yes, you're right on independents -- he will grab several of those, but IMO not enough to tilt a GOP primary significantly and definitely not enough to tilt a general election to the Republicans.

Independents may be as likely to eschew Romney as they might eschew HClinton, for example, but they may make their voices heard in the primaries and not the general. In a general election where Paul is on the ballot as a third-party choice, and Bloomberg is yet another third party choice, I don't see independents in large numbers choosing Paul over Bloomberg.

If the Democratic nominee is perceived as sufficiently representative of a change in U.S. foreign policy, Paul's one issue of clarity becomes moot. On the economy, which does not appear to be improving at all, I believe independents would likely trust the Democratic ticket over an independent liberatarian bid. Here again, Bloomberg would be the threat to us, not Paul.

The independent we need to be watchful of is Michael Bloomberg, literally an independent hybrid of both parties, and with a buck or two in the bank to bolster an independent campaign.

but the main point is that the "Independent" vote belongs to the Democrats at present and they would lose this vote if a Third Party candidate runs - whether Ron Paul or Mayor Bloomberg.

we nominate someone too 'centrist' for independents (though perceived as 'liberal' by GOP voters).

Perot drew many independents, of the sort who might be attracted to Paul, of the sort who cast a vote for Pat Buchanan in New Hampshire vs. Bob Dole. But 19%, while historically impressive for a third party candidate, actually helped elect Bill Clinton.

And he was about as 'centrist' as they come.

So I'm not sure Paul can put a dent in the Democratic ticket if the Pukes nominate a weak ticket, which they seem destined to do given that they have few good choices.

Not to say you are mistaken about Paul's appeal, just that I don't feel it is competitive to Perot's draw from independents.

We are in strong agreement on Bloomberg. He's the one who could shake-and-bake this election.

Bloomberg is a far superior manager than his predecessor in New York City and he's flush with cash as well.

He's term-limited as NYC mayor and has nothing else to do whatsoever. A presidential run might be how he decides to fill his calendar.

I think independent voters might be very drawn to a Bloomberg candidacy if for example the two major parties nominate HClinton and Romney.

Things could get interesting.

Also, he'll pull more republicans than anyone.

he's going to take some radical republicans away from other R's. His views are about as far from Progressive as one can get, and even moderate D's will have nothing to do with him.

Along the streets of my GOP geared city, I see Ron Paul signs out there, 10 of them adorn lawns, right there, in a neat little row with only one house, 3 down from the North, that is excluded. Let the GOP vote for RP, let their party split, drive that wedge into their flesh...he won't win a General Electon, he won't win the Primary, and he'll siphon off votes from the others.

Paul is a walking disaster...why even worry about him?

Unfortunately, I know of a couple Democrats who said they are going to support Paul, whether he's a Republican or an Independent. One is someone I've known for a long time, and both are convinced that Paul is going to win the Republican nod, the fools. I just shook my head in disbelief.

If Paul does run as an Independent, let's just hope there aren't too many other Democrats who feel the same way as the two people who I mentioned above.