Why Ron Paul can beat Obama: He converts Democrats on war & civil liberty

[rambone]

The question remains to be seen is if there are enough disenfranchised Democrat voters to put it over the edge. Like stated in the OP he appeals to a certain amount of Dems just with his stance on war alone. That might make the difference.

Almost every democrat I've talked to feels duped by Obama and many of them said they would probably vote for RP if he was in the election. RP definitely has the most independent/democrat appeal of any of the candidates.

I spent all day today working at a Ron Paul booth at a gun show. Several Democrats approached me and told me that they'd be switching over to Republican - this time only - in order to support Ron Paul. The head of our Ron Paul activist group is a former liberal Democrat who woke up to Ron Paul in 2008.

Ron Paul converts people like no other. But they aren't going to jump parties to support another neoconservative Republican like Bush or McCain.

 

[KG1]

I spent all day today working at a Ron Paul booth at a gun show. Several Democrats approached me and told me that they'd be switching over to Republican - this time only - in order to support Ron Paul. The head of our Ron Paul activist group is a former liberal Democrat who woke up to Ron Paul in 2008.

Ron Paul converts people like no other. But they aren't going to jump parties to support another neoconservative Republican like Bush or McCain.

Well you could very well be right. I don't believe that even the most disenfranchised Dem voters would vote for Gingrich over Obama no matter how disappointed they are in his performance.

As far as Romney is concerned I don't think he could pull it all together across the board with Republicans, Libertarians, Independents and Democrats the way that Ron Paul could if given the opportunity.

 

[88GT]

Well you could very well be right. I don't believe that even the most disenfranchised Dem voters would vote for Gingrich over Obama no matter how disappointed they are in his performance.

If they identify themselves as Democrats at all, they are more likely to stay home than cast a vote for the other side. But it would have to take a serious breach of their personal moral code by the candidate for that to happen.

 

[KG1]

If they identify themselves as Democrats at all, they are more likely to stay home than cast a vote for the other side. But it would have to take a serious breach of their personal moral code by the candidate for that to happen.

True. Democrats are a whole different animal and I don't believe they have as much hatred for Obama to sit it out the way that Libertarians and some Republicans do for certain candidates on the other side. It seems to me though that a candidate such as Gingrich would actually motivate the Dems even more so to get out the vote for Obama while providing the impetus for Libertarian and disgruntled Republican voters to grab the bench.

 

[rambone]

Anti-war Ron Paul attracting support from local left

Paul is the only one who can tap into this resource -- pulling Obama's supporters from directly underneath him.


Have Liberals Given Ron Paul A Boost?

"He is the only one saying no more war," Chong said. She spent two days in Washington with the "Occupy DC" movement, where she said that she was encouraged to see so many young people holding signs supporting Paul.

"I would definitely call myself a progressive," said Will Hopkins of Belmont, who returned from a tour as infantryman in Iraq to become executive director of New Hampshire Peace Action, a group seeking to end foreign wars and cut defense budgets. "I supported Obama in 2008, but I'm supporting Ron Paul. That's where I'm putting my eggs this year," he said. "A lot of folks in the peace movement are taking a close look at Paul."

 

[Zoub]

How long after Iowa will he go before he drops out? Or will he ride it out to the end?

I am fine either way, just curious if he has made any statement on this topic.

I see no love for him among Liberals
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pf5eJlDupo[/ame]

 

[88GT]

I see no love for him among Liberals

Yeah, I don't know how you call yourself a progressive and embrace Paul. I'm betting they don't. I'd like to be a fly on the wall when confronted with the reality that most of Paul's positions run counter to theirs.

Interesting question: since Paul won't get the nomination, will they return to Obama?

 

[steveh_131]

Yeah, I don't know how you call yourself a progressive and embrace Paul. I'm betting they don't. I'd like to be a fly on the wall when confronted with the reality that most of Paul's positions run counter to theirs.

It really depends on the issues that they feel the most strongly about. His policies on bailouts, crony capitalism, war, military spending, and many social issues could be appealing to many progressives. Especially when you consider how Obama abandoned pretty much all of his campaign promises on these issues.

 

[Zoub]

It really depends on the issues that they feel the most strongly about. His policies on bailouts, crony capitalism, war, military spending, and many social issues could be appealing to many progressives. Especially when you consider how Obama abandoned pretty much all of his campaign promises on these issues.

If you were a Black, Gay, UAW worker, Military Vet, Clinton screwed you 4 times in his first year and they all voted him right back in to office in 96.

I never voted for Clinton, but I NEVER thought he would sign NAFTA.

I can find 10 reasons to love a candate and just one to hate him. So can left leaning Independent minded females. Love Obama? Love Paul?

Soccer Moms would destroy Paul. I see nothing that shows me he attracts that segment of voters. His son might. I loook for RP to cut a deal that benefits his Son's career.

 

[ViperJock]

Yeah, I don't know how you call yourself a progressive and embrace Paul. I'm betting they don't. I'd like to be a fly on the wall when confronted with the reality that most of Paul's positions run counter to theirs.

Interesting question: since Paul won't get the nomination, will they return to Obama?

This is quite true. The only reason I could see for it is if they were a dem because of civil liberties issues. ie they felt gay rights or something of that nature was more important than the other issues. They might vote Left despite having more in common with the Right on other issues? Ron Paul, to me, represents a mix of what is best from both parties: Leave everybody else alone. I think this may appeal to some Dems who actually take the time to look at him.

 

[steveh_131]

If you were a Black, Gay, UAW worker, Military Vet, Clinton screwed you 4 times in his first year and they all voted him right back in to office in 96.

Of course they did. Their alternative was Bob Dole. This is a completely different situation.

 

[Zoub]

Of course they did. Their alternative was Bob Dole. This is a completely different situation.

RRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHTTTTTTTT...........

FYI Ron Paul was around back then too.

 

[steveh_131]

RRRRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHTTTTTTTT...........

FYI Ron Paul was around back then too.

You were trying to make the point that Clinton alienated democrats and they still voted for him.

My point is that they had no viable alternative that supported any of their beliefs. The republican candidate was Bob Dole at the time. He was against them on both economic and social issues.

If Ron Paul gets the nomination it is a different story. And there is no denying that he has convinced some democrats to vote for him, there are articles and editorials discussing it. The question is whether or not it would be enough.

 

[Zoub]

You were trying to make the point that Clinton alienated democrats and they still voted for him.

My point is that they had no viable alternative that supported any of their beliefs. The republican candidate was Bob Dole at the time. He was against them on both economic and social issues.

If Ron Paul gets the nomination it is a different story. And there is no denying that he has convinced some democrats to vote for him, there are articles and editorials discussing it. The question is whether or not it would be enough.

Ron Paul does not match up on some key issues for them. That will be enough. Talk is cheap and easy right up to voting day. Then they have to physically go got vote AND vote for someone.

Non issue as Paul won't be an option for them.

 

[steveh_131]

That will be enough.

Source?

 

[Zoub]

Do you really think Left of center Democrat voters will defect en masse just to vote in the Republican Primary to get Paul on the ticket in November? They will write in Hillary in the Dem primary first. Which I may do myself.

There is your proof right there.

 

[rambone]

Aside from those Democrats I spoke to over the weekend, I also talked to a Green Party voter who wanted to support Ron Paul. She likes Paul because he bucks back against the elites in his party, and because she opposes the Republicrat's interventionist foreign policy. She gave up voting for D's and R's a long time ago, but Ron Paul has earned her support, on a few issues she feels strongly about.

I also got her to admit that his ideas of getting the Feds out of our lives is a good one. As a teacher, she could not name one positive thing that comes from bureaucrats in Washington running the Federal Department of Education.

 

[steveh_131]

What were all these people doing in your mother's basement?

 

[mrjarrell]

Some people are just plain ignoring the fact that dems have nowhere to go this primary season. Obama is the incumbent and there will be no dem primary for president. That leaves them free to vote elsewhere and play around in the gop sandbox. There's no reason to believe that they won't go to the polls come their primary and vote for Paul (or they could cast their votes for one of the losers or maniacs running for the position, to make it easier for Obama to win). They could easily go to the polls and vote their conscience and put Paul in the race. To think otherwise is foolish.

 

[88GT]

It really depends on the issues that they feel the most strongly about. His policies on bailouts, crony capitalism, war, military spending, and many social issues could be appealing to many progressives. Especially when you consider how Obama abandoned pretty much all of his campaign promises on these issues.

Aside from those Democrats I spoke to over the weekend, I also talked to a Green Party voter who wanted to support Ron Paul. She likes Paul because he bucks back against the elites in his party, and because she opposes the Republicrat's interventionist foreign policy. She gave up voting for D's and R's a long time ago, but Ron Paul has earned her support, on a few issues she feels strongly about.

I also got her to admit that his ideas of getting the Feds out of our lives is a good one. As a teacher, she could not name one positive thing that comes from bureaucrats in Washington running the Federal Department of Education.

I said this way back in the beginning of this thread: leftists who support Paul do so coincidentally. It isn't enough to say "I'm for this" or "I'm against that." Who do you think these people are voting for in the other races? Hint: It ain't Libertarians.


To illustrate:

What I say: I want to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.
Leftie says: I want to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.
What I mean: Criminals duly convicted should be incarcerated or otherwise dealt with in a manner that prevents them from accessing firearms. (Or sarcastically: no guns in jail.)
What Lefite means: Firearms should be banned because if there weren't any firearms criminals couldn't commit crimes with them.


What I say: We need to cut spending in the defense budget.
What Leftie says: We need to cut spending in the defense budget
What I mean: There is way too much waste and pointless expenditures completely unrelated to the purpose of a military and only the those items directly contributory to military operations should be funded.
What Leftie means: I don't like the military and I think if it can be defunded it will cease to exist. Barring that, I support cutting the budget so severely that it makes it practically impossible to wage war when truly necessary.

What I say: We need to bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan.
What Leftie says: We need to bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan.
What I mean: Whether or not our justification for being there is righteous, we have cease prosecuting this as a military action. Our choices are bearing no fruit and achieving no long-term goals. We either need to be warriors or come home.
What Leftie means: All war is wrong and these are no different. If we just quit lobbing bombs at people, they would learn to like us and we wouldn't have to worry about any future attacks on our soil or sovereignty.

The list goes on: abortion, drugs, gay marriage. Paul doesn't support those things per se. Rather, Paul opposes the federal intrusion into issues that should be addressed by the states.

So what if Paul sends tingles down their legs? They aren't changing their stripes, just the watering hole. Given the first opportunity, they'll pounce on the next victim as quickly as they did under the other labels.