What percentage of the popular vote would Ron Paul get?

[JohnRM]

Ron Paul is popular among both conservatives, liberals, and libertarians. He has broad support among libertarians and members of the Constitution Party, as well. It may be possible that if Ron Paul would run as an Independent, forming the "Ron Paul for America Party", he might get be able to unite Libertarians, Constitution Party members, and millions of disaffected Republicans and Democrats. He still probably wouldn't win, but he might be able to get a decent enough percentage of the popular vote and get the party to be treated fairly in the next election instead of being snuffed out by the big two.

 

[Fifty]

He'd get 110% of the popular vote. His entire support base is a few random people on the internet who never leave home (since I've never met a Ron Paul supporter outside the internets), some of whom undoubtedly could figure out a way to haxor the voting machines and make him win 110% of the vote.

 

[Bill3000]

Ron Paul is popular among both conservatives, liberals, and libertarians.

Paleo-Conservatives and libertarians I can understand, but not liberals outside of the fact that he's fresh blood. He is completely antithetical to the progressive movement.

 

[wicshade]

iv never heard of Ron Paul, unfortunately i don't realy care about the presidential race all that much, i Like Jullioni, i don't know why i just like itallian names i think.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I support him, and the rest of the white power movement likes him to.

 

[Godwynn]

I support him, and the rest of the white power movement likes him to.

My question is, why?

 

[Bill3000]

My question is, why?

Shouldn't it be rather obvious? His hard-line anti-immigration stance; white nationalists are all about racial purity, after all. He even defeats his alleged constitutionalist stance by calling for an amendment to remove birthright citizenship.

 

[puglover]

It may be possible that if Ron Paul would run as an Independent, forming the "Ron Paul for America Party",

I thought he made clear that he wouldn't run Independent if he failed to get the nomination.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

My question is, why?

The WN movement is not only about immigration. Most people support his politics execpt for two things, immigration we want to kick them all out and the death penalty, we suport it.

 

[Halcyon]

He's popular among internet libertarians, who constitute about 60% of internet discussion boards and about .03% of the general population. Sure, he comes across as intelligent, reasonable and likeable in the TV debates, but that's only because he's sitting next to the likes of Rudy "Freedom is obedience" Giuliani, Tom "Nuke everyone" Tancredo and so on and so forth. He's still crazy - it's just that having a different kind of crazy is a sadly refreshing in the modern Republican party.

Sure, many of his policies are sensible. Unfortunately, all and any positive points can be refuted by the same phrase - The Gold Standard. Why he and the rest of the Libertarian wing have a strange fetish for regressing currency into shares of a nation's finite stock of shiny things is incomprehensible. It's not as though it makes a currency more stable, or valuable. Gold prices fluctuate like crazy, and any new sources of gold crash the economy - consider what happened to Spain after the looting of the New World, for instance.

Currency is basically credit for work done - the more work people do, the more currency there is. Under a gold standard, economic growth can only translate into an increase in the price of gold, so now your one-troy note is worth twice as much. Fiat currency results in inflation, as work done ten years ago is worth less today than work done yesterday. "Hard" currency results in massive deflation, so long as the economy grows, as the work you do is worth work/total work * total gold. The only way to avoid it is to artifically control the price of gold, and hope that noone digs any more up - by which point you've negated the few advantages the system has. Basically, both have to be responsibly controlled, but only one can be. Which is why every country in the world has already abandoned resource-backed currency as a failed system.


It's just a shame that he's the best that the party of Ike and Teddy can produce these days. Once great, but now ruled by violent, reactionary, smarmy, scheming, corrupt, rich fundamentalists. It's like seeing that awesome old guy you used to know completely lose his marbles, except instead of being carted off into care, he gets promoted.

 

[Elrohir]

Ron Paul is popular among both conservatives, liberals, and libertarians. He has broad support among libertarians and members of the Constitution Party, as well. It may be possible that if Ron Paul would run as an Independent, forming the "Ron Paul for America Party", he might get be able to unite Libertarians, Constitution Party members, and millions of disaffected Republicans and Democrats. He still probably wouldn't win, but he might be able to get a decent enough percentage of the popular vote and get the party to be treated fairly in the next election instead of being snuffed out by the big two.

It depends on who the Republican candidate is. If it is Fredy Thompson, then I expect he would get around 3-4%. If it is Romney, probably about 5-6%. If it is Rudy Giuliani, then probably close to 8% or so.

Ron Paul's base is made up of the old school conservatives. The less appealing the Republican candidate is to those kinds of people, the larger percentage he would get if he ran as an independent.

To be fair, he has run for President before, as a Libertarian candidate, and he didn't do well. He would probably do better after having been in the spotlight, but short of the Democrats nominating Stalin and the Republicans Hitler, he couldn't win.

He'd get 110% of the popular vote. His entire support base is a few random people on the internet who never leave home (since I've never met a Ron Paul supporter outside the internets), some of whom undoubtedly could figure out a way to haxor the voting machines and make him win 110% of the vote.

I have a friend who kind of likes him (Although I think he's realistic enough that he doesn't think of himself as a supporter, since he knows he can't win) and one of his friends, who while travelling with my friend stayed with us, is a serious Ron Paul guy. He's just what you would expect, actually - nice enough, but rather naive about how things actually work, with a tendency to make smarmy remarks about the federal government at random times. Sort of elitist, actually, just in an odd way. "Ron Paul supports the Constitution, the Republicans and Democrats don't!" "Calvinists believe in the sovereignty of God, Arminians and Catholics don't!" (Oh yeah, he's Presbyterian )

I can't say how representative that is of the movement as a whole, but as far as I can tell, most people don't know who Ron Paul is, and most who do aren't don't love him. Seems to be either you dislike him or you want to bear his children (Even if you're a guy), with no in between.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

I support him, and the rest of the white power movement likes him to.

He doesn't kill people though like in the good old days with the Nazi's.

 

[Amin001]

"I support him, and the rest of the white power movement likes him to."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSh6kVT4UL0
Well this woman will be shocked to learn that, wont she?

 

[Bill3000]

"I support him, and the rest of the white power movement likes him to."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSh6kVT4UL0
Well this woman will be shocked to learn that, wont she?

Reading the comments, it seems Ron Paul seems to be loved by the anti-globalist nutjobs too. But I'm not really suprised that he's adored by anarchists...

 

[Mise]

1% is about 3 million people, or about 1.2 million of Nov 04's turnout. I sincerely doubt he'd get all that.

 

[downtown]

^^ He would easily get that if he got the GOP nomination. If he didnt, he'd be hard pressed to get a million votes.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I don't know how much Ron Paul will get, but I can tell you that, should he run, he'd get my vote. I'm quite worried right now about Giuliani's lead for the GOP nomination, and Ron Paul isn't even on the charts.

It's just a shame that he's the best that the party of Ike and Teddy can produce these days. Once great, but now ruled by violent, reactionary, smarmy, scheming, corrupt, rich fundamentalists. It's like seeing that awesome old guy you used to know completely lose his marbles, except instead of being carted off into care, he gets promoted.

Quoted For Excellence in the Department of Truthery.

We need another TR. Maybe I should run, come age thirty-five?

 

[JohnRM]

It's just a shame that he's the best that the party of Ike and Teddy can produce these days. Once great, but now ruled by violent, reactionary, smarmy, scheming, corrupt, rich fundamentalists. It's like seeing that awesome old guy you used to know completely lose his marbles, except instead of being carted off into care, he gets promoted.

That is one of the best estimations of the current situation that I've ever heard. Too bad it is too big for a signature quote.

 

[LucyDuke]

I support him, and the rest of the white power movement likes him to.

Ew.

Once great, but now ruled by violent, reactionary, smarmy, scheming, corrupt, rich fundamentalists.

America?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

He'd get 110% of the popular vote. His entire support base is a few random people on the internet who never leave home (since I've never met a Ron Paul supporter outside the internets), some of whom undoubtedly could figure out a way to haxor the voting machines and make him win 110% of the vote.

I hear Saigon is lovely this time of year.