Paul "not electable"?

Paul is obviously as electable as anyone else on the field.

Great OP.

 

I assume you were referring to me. I'd be happy to discuss it. What about the gold standard would you like to discuss?

 

Actually, *I'd* like to discuss the highlighted part above; that's on-topic.
Sounds to me like an incredibly self-conflicted statement. If *polling* is not adequate to measure electability then what is? Surely not just your opinion, 'cuz that's all your argument is founded on.
How on Earth can you claim to have any idea what people like if you refuse to accept polling as valid?

 

I think it was on O'Reily last night, he posted a poll that had Paul at 13% and Bachmann at 10%. Romney and Perry were 2 and 1 respectively.

 

Hmmmm. I suppose when the commercial sector wants to determine a new products desireabilty they do focus groups where they tell people all about it, let them try it out, and see what they think.

I suppose if one were trying to evaluate RPs electability they could try a similar approach among groups of voters. Maybe get them to read/watch some of his stuff, walk them through his positions, and then have them watch some attack ads that might be representative of what they'd see. Like the one I described earlier. Then see how he fairs against Obama.

Again the issue is that RPs positions aren't known very well at all, and therefore polling may be wildly unrepresentative of his eventual popularity.

To avoid argument I didn't claim that his popularity would go down, though I suspect it would drop dramatically. But some democratic voters might swing his way since for some aspects of specific social issues he's far more socially liberal than Obama. Similarly he's bound to hit the right mark with some subset of single issue voters. Some might heed the libertarian call once they hear about it. But I suspect many more will just think he's nuts, too disruptive, too risky, and so on.

But that's speculation, the only thing I'm quite confident about is that his positions are not well known at all by the majority of Americans.

I suppose GoSlash is right about that being off topic. I think there have been gold related threads before. But there's probably plenty of demand for another.

 

the apologists are you.Moronic posts like this ignoring excellent points he made is what makes me sick.

 

very true.he doesnt have a chance in hell of being elected and this is why.

http://www.politicalforum.com/elections-campaigns/202619-reason-ron-paul-wont-get-elected.html

we get what we deserve.the american people let it happen and wont take their country back so we get what we lay around for which is Bushwacker,then Obozo,then probably the bilderbergers poster boy Rick Perry for the next president to take us down to hell.

 

yeah amazing how as evidence by these posters that have come on that they have been misinformed and dont understand that ron paul favors the gold standard.You hit the nail right on the head on everything you said.especially that last paragraph.well done.

 

The liberal establishment said Reagan would never win in '80 because he didn't have centrist support.

The liberal establishment says Paul will never win in '12 because he doesn't have centrist support.

 

I can't believe people forget Reagan's election so easily.

I can't believe forgot McCain's election already.

 

Historical information from a bigoted hate site 'good?'

 

Because he's an idiot. Fairly straightforward.

 

Rick Perry is in cahoots with them already, and worse than Ron Paul. He, and the MSM, have done a great job of keeping it covered up though.

 

And he has been wrong so far on what?

 

Um. I wasn't around for Reagan. But the "liberal establishment" seems, if anything, to have some affection for Ron Paul. Conservative news sources are more likely to be jerks towards him.

To get a little flavor of what I'm talking about poke around for a clip from the Daily Show with John Stewart for the day after the Straw poll where he's basically razzing a number of news sources, including FOX, for how they're treating Ron Paul.

On that note he gets some love from Colbert as well, I think you'd enjoy the clip on RPs debate on Gold from that show.

 

Hating hatred (the Koran) isn't a bad thing. It's kind of like hating cancer, tuberculososis or mosquitos. So what's so bigoted about it ? Can you show where anything they say is wrong ?

 

Too bad that the "voters" don't have much of a say as to who becomes President. The likely right wing candidate will be Romney, who is just another version of PrezBO.

The players change but the game remains the same.

 

*sigh* you know I see this a lot of the libertarians around here.

But it just isn't so. I mean yes, campaign funding and media time and all that.

But Paul isn't so bad on those counts this time around.

The fundamental issue is that, once you get down to it, most people think libertarians take some good ideas waaaaay to far. You need to work on selling the public on your ideas instead of assuming everybody is behind you.

Or, better yet, take the good ideas and filter them through some moderating sanity. Something I wish Paul would do.