The Possibility of Ron Paul winning as an independent

What if Guilianni won the Republican Primary and Clinton wins the Democratic Primary? That would split the nation down the middle 50-50 – like it has done the past two elections.

But the Ron Paul decides to run as an independent.

Since he is the only candidate who is against abortion – he gets the Christian right votes

He gets the libertarian and people who are most concerned about civil liberties votes.

He gets the anti-status quo votes – the people who want a change in government

and he gets the peacenik votes because of limited government means we get out of Iraq faster than Clinton would.

If there is a 50-50 split between Republicans and Democrats – Ron only needs 34% of the electoral votes to win (34% for Ron, 33% for Hillary, 33% for Guilianni.)

Advertisements

4 Comments

Filed under Guilianni, politics, Ron Paul

4 responses to “The Possibility of Ron Paul winning as an independent

  1. David McLeod

    You are making some very serious assumptions that have already proven to be false.

    One is that Ron Paul will get the pro-life vote. Many Christian activists hate Hillary so much that they will take someone like Rudy at their word just so they can vote for someone they feel is electable. Pat Robertson just endorsed Rudy in fact.

    Democrats are not going to abandon Hillary, Barack, or any other Democrat en mass over the war. Some may leave, but once again they hate the idea of a Republican getting into office and will go with who they see as electable.

    The truth is that most Americans have a very loose definition of what their values are. They identify themselves with a party and then vote for that party no matter what. If that party makes mistakes they will attempt to justify those mistakes. If Al Gore had been elected and gone into Iraq the Republicans would be totally opposed to it, for no other reason than that a Democrat made the decision.

  2. I think Ron Paul can win the Repub nomination, and that is what he should shoot for.

  3. David,

    The funny thing about pro-lifers hating Hillary is that her pro-child policies might actually reduce the total numbers of abortions. A lot of poor women abort their babies because they see no other way – if they knew that their children were entitled to a good education, decent health care, and a place to live, they would be less likely to have an abortion. The abortion rate would actually decrease.

    Pat Robertson is not being entirely logical to the Christian Right position. He is caring more about being a Republican than being pro-life! Even the media is confused about the craziness of this position he is taken. I think he is taking it because he is a personal friend of Rudy.

    My personal view is that one should be consistently pro-life and that is from conception, birth, childhood, adulthood and until death in old age.

    My theory is that once people see that Ron Paul is in the lead and has a serious chance of winning they will jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon because of the Ross Perot factor. I am not saying Ron Paul is the best candidate – only that he is the only candidate that does not represent the status quo, with the possible other exception of Dennis Kucinich.

    The newly converted anti-status quo libertarians would not need to reach a majority opinion precisely because of the entrenched Republican and Democrat bases will cancel themselves out.

  4. Name the last third party that won the White House.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s