# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  Who Will Win the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

## rsvforronpaul

I havent gone through the explanation for the algorithm and I dont believe it,but I found it interesting and thought that ppl be interested...

http://members.verizon.net/~vze3fs8i/air/pres2012.html

I found this one line about ron paul:




> Ronald E. Paul would win if he received the Republican nomination for president in 2012 and he chose Newon L. Gingrich or Marshall C. Sanford as his vice presidential running mate.

----------


## AdamT

This is _extremely_ interesting.




> Our 2003 algorithm for determining the winners of United States presidential elections correctly ascertained the winner of each of the 56 U.S. presidential elections between 1789 and 2000 and correctly predicted the winners of the 2004 and 2008 U.S. presidential elections. In this paper we apply the algorithm to 18 potential Republican candidates for the 2012 U.S. presidential election and find that seven have presidential electabilities greater than the Obama/Biden ticket will have in 2012: Michael D. Huckabee, Timothy J. Pawlenty, David H. Petraeus, Marshall C. Sanford, Haley R. Barbour, Sarah L. H. Palin, and Pyush Jindal. If the Republican Party nominates any of these candiates then they will win the 2012 U.S. Presidential election. An additional two potential Republican candidates (Ronald E. Paul and Paul D. Ryan Jr.) could have electabilities greater than the Obama/Biden ticket if they choose the appropriate vice predidential candidate. Barack H. Obama II and Joseph R. Biden Jr. will be re-elected in 2012 if the Republican party instead nominates a ticket with an electability of 35 or less.

----------


## AJ Antimony

Interesting, yes, but to me it just looks like a fancy way to say that people like to vote for long time ("experienced") politicians for president. An example against the algorithm: Ross Perot. He was electable in 1992 and wasn't ever a political incumbent, so how would you calculate electability for him? Also, this algorithm only takes into account Ds and Rs. Jesse Ventura served as a Governor for four years but is he as "electable" as Sarah Palin simply because he's an independent? Obviously a nominated Palin has better odds of winning than Ventura simply because of the R next to her name.

If I were to too predict right now the outcome of 2012, I'd base it solely on the economy. If the economy is much worse, then Obama has no shot at re-election. If somehow the elite manage to prolong the depression from emerging in 2012 and times seem good, then Obama will breeze to re-election. No fancy numbers, just common sense.

----------


## Conza88

Ron Paul would win if there was a real, uncontrolled, fair, objective, truthful mainstream media that did not make moves to silence, minimize, marginalize and condemn him.

The way to win is to increase the movement. Get people to run locally, win, get them into a position of power where they can't be ignored. Spread the message on the way. Get people to see the State for what it really is. Taxation is theft. The State is an anti-social immoral institution etc.

Bring people to the real cause of Liberty. Reject the status quo. It can be done.  Now is the time... we've predicited the crises, LET PEOPLE KNOW. Tell them about the NEXT steps - a MOVE towards WORLD government. Don't outline that it is a conspiracy, or that there are individuals behind it.

I have given my family the predictions for the next few years. Another terrorist attack worse than 911, world war 3, the establishment of a world central bank. etc. When you're right, like I've been consistently with the financial crisis etc.. they get to respect your opinion. You know whats happening with a record of being right..

If anything its a start for the platform of convincing them on other stuff.

----------


## nodope0695

Far too soon to say.  Dude isn't even innagurated yet.

----------


## reduen

Interresting, according to this it appears that Huckleberries best chance is to have Dr. Paul as his V.P! It is a shame that Huckabee would be too dumb to see this...

----------


## nate895

> Yeah I'm pretty sure being Jewish isnt a negative, Last I heard 90%+ would vote for a Jewish Man. Maybe being a Mormon/Muslim/ something else is a draw back, but not that great of one seeing as how well Romney did. But being an Atheist I'm sure is the campaign killer.


Being a Jew is no longer a drawback for VP. Besides, it doesn't matter what people _say_, it is what they _do_ that matters.

----------


## nate895

> Interesting, yes, but to me it just looks like a fancy way to say that people like to vote for long time ("experienced") politicians for president. An example against the algorithm: Ross Perot. He was electable in 1992 and wasn't ever a political incumbent, so how would you calculate electability for him? Also, this algorithm only takes into account Ds and Rs. Jesse Ventura served as a Governor for four years but is he as "electable" as Sarah Palin simply because he's an independent? Obviously a nominated Palin has better odds of winning than Ventura simply because of the R next to her name.
> 
> If I were to too predict right now the outcome of 2012, I'd base it solely on the economy. If the economy is much worse, then Obama has no shot at re-election. If somehow the elite manage to prolong the depression from emerging in 2012 and times seem good, then Obama will breeze to re-election. No fancy numbers, just common sense.


Ross Perot did not win election. According to the formula, here was the breakdown:

Clinton/Gore: 250
Bush/Quayle: 154
Perot/Stockdale: 0 (possibly 110)

----------


## Primbs

The Keys to the Presidency

http://www.amazon.com/Thirteen-Keys-...1304581&sr=8-1

This is a helpful theoretical framework as well. But politics is so complicated that you really can't reduce an election to such a simple framework.

----------


## Dan Chisholm

> Interresting, according to this it appears that Huckleberries best chance is to have Dr. Paul as his V.P! It is a shame that Huckabee would be too dumb to see this...


Huckabee is utterly unelectable for a myriad of reasons.  Right now, I see Obama winning again IF he can deliver on his campaign promises.  However, I find it extremely unlikely, if not impossible, that he will.  In that case, people will be ready for conservative change and I only see two contenders.  If Ron Paul and the rest of use get behind Mark Sanford, he has a real shot.  The only other Republican who has a shot is Mitt Romney because, besides Ron Paul, Mitt is the only person with enough economic expertise to be trusted with this massive overhaul and turnaround that our country needs to badly.

----------


## gaazn

> Being a Jew is no longer a drawback for VP. Besides, it doesn't matter what people _say_, it is what they _do_ that matters.


A Jew would never win in this economic climate.  Not after what their roles as heads of the large financial institutions.  And the Madoff Fraud.

----------


## revolutionist

This was amusing




> Years of service for offices were verified using the standard repository of all knowledge and wisdom (Wikipedia), which also provided the list of potential candidates as of November 20, 2008.

----------


## Imperial

> If I were to too predict right now the outcome of 2012, I'd base it solely on the economy. If the economy is much worse, then Obama has no shot at re-election. If somehow the elite manage to prolong the depression from emerging in 2012 and times seem good, then Obama will breeze to re-election. No fancy numbers, just common sense.


3 Letters: FDR.

Hoover continued to be a scapegoat, as Bush will be too. Even if the crisis was the fault of men just mentioned, successors like Obama and FDR can say their policies are helping stave off worst impact of the predescessors.

----------


## Lucille

> 3 Letters: FDR.
> 
> Hoover continued to be a scapegoat, as Bush will be too. Even if the crisis was the fault of men just mentioned, successors like Obama and FDR can say their policies are helping stave off worst impact of the predecessors.


Why Obama Will 'Own' the Recession

They can run but they can't hide.  Not with the new media around.

Gerald Celente Predicts Revolution 11/10/08

----------


## TheRevolutionBegins=Ethan

But if you look at the popular vote he had 19.8% of the vote so.




> Ross Perot did not win election. According to the formula, here was the breakdown:
> 
> Clinton/Gore: 250
> Bush/Quayle: 154
> Perot/Stockdale: 0 (possibly 110)

----------


## AJ Antimony

> But if you look at the popular vote he had 19.8% of the vote so.


Exactly. Clinton didn't win because he had the most points, he won because he had two opponents. Remember, Clinton won with only like 40~% of the vote.

----------


## satchelmcqueen

we have 4 years to push paul, IF he decides to run again. i sure hope he does.

----------


## Epic

Ron Paul better run...

----------


## Fox McCloud

> Ron Paul better run...


don't count on it guys; he'll be 76 during the primary season, and 77 by the time the Presidential battle begins.

Not that I think he'll die or anything, just...well, I doubt America would want someone that old, sadly. (not to mention his policies).

----------


## Nathan Hale

> don't count on it guys; he'll be 76 during the primary season, and 77 by the time the Presidential battle begins.
> 
> Not that I think he'll die or anything, just...well, I doubt America would want someone that old, sadly. (not to mention his policies).


Finally, a voice of reason.  Remember the mistakes made by the Reform Party in 1996 when Perot insisted on running again, instead of allowing the movement to evolve and grow into a sustainable movement.  Perot's insistence turned the party into a cult of personality.  We already see this happening here.  This movement is not about Ron Paul, it is about liberty.  But too many members of this movement seem to think that Ron Paul should remain in the throne at the head of us, when there are many capable politicians ready to step up.

----------


## SnappleLlama

I think Bunchies could win if people only looked past the color of his skin to the content of his character.

----------


## trey4sports

no and no!
the average joe is coming around to Ron Paul, not neccessarily the liberty movement. Dr. Paul has got a lot of media and now people understand who predicted the financial crisis and how to get out of it. Ron Paul has name recognition and i have personally struggled with the idea of running a 78 yr old man or a charismatic 60 year old gary johnson but i think Ron Pauls name recognition holds much more value than the tradeoff of his old age

----------


## RebelRoss0587

I truly believe Mitt Romney will win the 2012 election and I would be pretty happy to see that improvement compared to Obama.  If Mitt completely ignores Ron Paul and the CFL, then he probably won't win, but I have a feeling we'll start to agree on more things as we become united in our loyal resistance to Obama's socialist policies.  If Mitt doesn't accept more of our ideas, then Sanford will win.

----------


## rsvforronpaul

Even though I dont completely agree with the algorithm,it does give some indication of the political realities in America.That is why I am not pushing Gary Johnson.
I hope Sanford runs...he has the ability to win.I am getting more and more impressed with Sanford every day.

Sanford 2012!!!

----------


## itshappening

Johnson must surely have a high electability with his years as governor but he is out of the public eye

----------


## PaleoPaul

> Johnson must surely have a high electability with his years as governor but he is out of the public eye


He could be on the ticket with Sanford...and turn Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico red...let them slip out of Obama's fingers

----------


## rsvforronpaul

> He could be on the ticket with Sanford...and turn Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico red...let them slip out of Obama's fingers


+1

Sanford/Johnson

----------


## Matt Collins

If Rand Paul gets into the Senate in 2010, he could then run for President in 2012!

----------


## PaleoPaul

> If Rand Paul gets into the Senate in 2010, he could then run for President in 2012!


Do we REALLY want ANOTHER "Obama"candidate?  lol

----------


## SimpleName

> Yeah I'm pretty sure being Jewish isnt a negative, Last I heard 90%+ would vote for a Jewish Man. Maybe being a Mormon/Muslim/ something else is a draw back, but not that great of one seeing as how well Romney did. But being an Atheist I'm sure is the campaign killer.


No chance for me! lol. Why people rely on symbols as values is beyond me. People have a higher intelligence just so they can manipulate others it seems, not so they can make individual, logic-based decisions. With that said, atheist interest groups make it worse by insisting that God be banned from every sector of human life. Errr...they counteract their own cause.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Do we REALLY want ANOTHER "Obama"candidate?  lol


Are you saying that Rand doesn't have any ability to be the President?

----------


## PaleoPaul

> Are you saying that Rand doesn't have any ability to be the President?


*shrug* I don't know.

But, we've used the attack that "Barack only served a couple years in the Senate, then he started his Presidential Campaign.  How can he possibly know anything about something so serious?"

Well, if Dr. Paul's kid only does the same thing, the Democrats can do the same thing against US!

----------


## Matt Collins

> *shrug* I don't know.
> 
> But, we've used the attack that "Barack only served a couple years in the Senate, then he started his Presidential Campaign.  How can he possibly know anything about something so serious?"
> 
> Well, if Dr. Paul's kid only does the same thing, the Democrats can do the same thing against US!


I never used that argument against Obama. I don't think one has to be a Washington insider to be President.

----------


## Nathan Hale

> If Rand Paul gets into the Senate in 2010, he could then run for President in 2012!


There's no reason to rush a candidate into the white house.  Run for the Senate to serve a full term - don't be like Hillary and run just for the prestige so you can parlay it into a presidential run.

----------


## Truth Warrior

*The one that gets 270 electoral votes.*

----------


## Epic

Regarding Rand 2012 - unlikely

Even if he got into the senate in January 2011, then he could only serve for 3-6 months before declaring for President. That's really not enough.

----------


## PureCommonSense

> Regarding Rand 2012 - unlikely
> 
> Even if he got into the senate in January 2011, then he could only serve for 3-6 months before declaring for President. That's really not enough.


He also does not have the necessary name recognition yet.  He would have to wait until his political career is much farther along to run for the top spot.  Barack Obama had four years as a Senator but he was the media's adopted son so of course he's an exception.  Sarah Palin had more experience than him because she was a Governor, not a Senator.  But of course the media hated her guts.

----------

