A Serious Ron Paul VP Poll

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Why are you arguing for a Ron/Rand ticket? They have both said that wont happen.

Please post video or something where either one of them have dismissively said that a Paul/Paul ticket is an impossibility.

Here are a couple of videos where Ron clearly is NOT dismissive about it, he just says "Rand & I haven't talked about it yet" so they seem pretty open about the possibility.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGZj-LlP40I#t=46m5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QSQBBJwenI#t=37m45

besides....this would give name recognition to Rand for 2016

Very true that. Rand will be the obvious choice in 2016 considering he's popular among mainsteam voters, he talks smooth but at the same time, he's principled libertarian-leaning small-government candidate. Having him as VP would really set him up for 2016.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Considering that he is always found in other polls asking the same question, and he always wins them, yes, I do.

Judge Andrew is more ferocious on the Constitution than Dr Paul is, if that's possible. He would be the perfect insurance. Take out our Dr Paul, and who do you then have as President, Ron Paul's Pit Bull. NOT what they would want. Better to have Dr Paul.

I like Judge but what elected office has he held? What is his stature in the realm of politics? Why does it matter for a VP you ask? Well, one of the biggest issues people bring against Ron other than him being "isolationist", "fringe/unelectable" is that he's "too old" so that makes the selection of VP even more crucial as he'll be Ron's "back-up" & it becomes even more important that the VP Ron selects must be presidential too & should be someone who's held & run an elected office & thereby seen by mainstream voters as someone capable of handling the presidency in case Ron dies or something.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

Again, those people who gravitate towards Rand do so because of HIS POSITIONS (especially his "centrism" on wars & imperialism as opposed to Ron's "isolationism" which is the deal-breaker for many mainstream GOP voters) & him campaigning for Ron as his son does NOT indicate to these GOP voters that Ron will adhere to Rand's positions BUT if Rand is on the ticket then they know that he'll've more to say on how Ron's administration works & that Rand's "centrist" approach on wars & imperialism will be covered; that's where the difference lies.

The differences between Ron and Rand are mostly comprised of Rand's posturing and dressing. You probably know that, and are just referring to the public's different perceptions of them. All you are saying is that Rand is more marketable to typical conservatives than Ron, thus he can bring in more votes. Any other tea party like candidate can accomplish this as well though. And Rand would just the same / or nearly the same sell votes as someone who was just campaigning for Ron.

As for others, sure there are plenty of people to choose from BUT how many of them will follow Ron's libertarian-leaning path in case Ron dies, naturally or "otherwise", & be a good president & carry the torch of liberty? Further, do people nationally even know who Haley is? Rand was even polled as potential presidential runner & polled decently, that shows his stature within the party, nationally. Does Haley have the power of persuasion like Rand with an ability to evoke positive responses not just from GOP voters but Democrats too? (please watch the video to see)

Most people not knowing who a candidate is before they enter in to the race is not a uncommon or deal-breaking thing, and its not like being governor of a state makes someone an unknown or nobody in politics. It would be a miracle just to get Ron elected, focus on making that happen first, then worry about whether he is going to die.

 

[Michael Landon]

I like Goldwater Jr. I also like Judge or Ventura but they weren't in the poll.

Paul/Goldwater has a good sound to it.

- ML

 

[Esoteric]

Daniels would give us the best shot, and is more libertarian than you'd think. His favorite books are all libertarian .. ayn rand, hayek, von mises, etc.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

The differences between Ron and Rand are mostly comprised of Rand's posturing and dressing. You probably know that, and are just referring to the public's different perceptions of them. All you are saying is that Rand is more marketable to typical conservatives than Ron, thus he can bring in more votes. Any other tea party like candidate can accomplish this as well though.

I don't think so, it's not so easy, it takes tact & someone who understands Ron's philosophy closely will be in the best position to do what Rand does. Rand slowly & surreptitiously pushes people towards libertarianism without them even realizing & he's the only one of strongly libertarian-leaning candidate with such skill & has a big national GOP following; "anyone else" will neither be as libertarian, principled & Constitutionalist as he is nor will s/he have Rand's tact, not both at the same time anyway.

Most people not knowing who a candidate is before they enter in to the race is not a uncommon or deal-breaking thing, and its not like being governor of a state makes someone and unknown or nobody in politics. It would be a miracle just to get Ron elected, focus on making that happen first, then worry about whether he is going to die.

Do you really think it's that easy when you're running against mainstream parties, MSM & big money corporatism? It's taken us 4 years to go from 2-3% to 8-10%, do you think we'll have any REALISTIC chance in the remaining FEW MONTHS if we just "play normally"?Yes, it'd be miracle to even get Ron elected & for the many reasons I've already given, declaring Rand before the primaries would get us CLOSER in making it possible. Further, anyone who's learned American history should know what happens to presidents who go against the powers-that-be, so death isn't as remote a possibility for Ron as it may be for some of the other status quo candidates, not to mention he really is getting up there in terms of age.

Again, the bottomline is that Rand's inclusion will only help in expanding Ron's currently stagnant, slow-moving base & give him a better chance during the primaries by getting more mainstream GOP voters to rally behind him - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...te-in-2007-8&p=3365860&viewfull=1#post3365860

 

[Pro-Life Libertarian]

Daniels would give us the best shot, and is more libertarian than you'd think. His favorite books are all libertarian .. ayn rand, hayek, von mises, etc.

I like Daniels

 

[Fermli]

Do you actually consider him a realistic option?

Ron mentioned him in a recent interview. How can you dismiss Judge Nap?

 

[Pro-Life Libertarian]

Ron mentioned him in a recent interview. How can you dismiss Judge Nap?

I am not really dismissing him, I just don't think he would appeal to the average voter.

 

[R3volutionJedi]

this poll is made to have legitimate possibilities not to be a forming of the libertarian conservative dream team.

Who do you think with ron paul makes the strongest general election ticket, honestly

hey!!! Where's andrew napolitano??!?!?!

 

[R3volutionJedi]

I am not really dismissing him, I just don't think he would appeal to the average voter.

I think he would. He will be a good speaker and bring balance to Ron. He will also dominate Joe Biden in the VP debates.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

I don't think so, it's not so easy, it takes tact & someone who understands Ron's philosophy closely will be in the best position to do what Rand does. Rand slowly & surreptitiously pushes people towards libertarianism without them even realizing & he's the only one of strongly libertarian-leaning candidate with such skill & has a big national GOP following; "anyone else" will neither be as libertarian, principled & Constitutionalist as he is nor will s/he have Rand's tact, not both at the same time anyway.

Perhaps you have a point there I concede. I was mostly thinking about which candidate would be the best strategic option, not the one I'd like to see personally. Rand would be my choice if I were only considering my preferences in who would be the better VP.

Do you really think it's that easy when you're running against mainstream parties, MSM & big money stands for? It's taken us 4 years to go from 2-3% to 8-10%, do you think we'll have any REALISTIC chance in the remaining FEW MONTHS if we just "play normally"? Yes, it'd be miracle to even get Ron elected & for the many reasons I've already given, declaring Rand before the primaries would get us CLOSER in making it possible. Further, anyone who's learned American history should know what happens to presidents who go against the powers-that-be, so death isn't as remote a possibility for Ron as it may be for some of the other status quo candidates, not to mention he really is getting up there in terms of age.

The only reason its been so hard for us, for Ron, is because he is a thoroughly anti-establishment libertarian. Its different for other candidates, people who are relative unknowns can rise on the national stage quickly enough in the right circumstances. For instance I didn't know who Palin was before 2008, most everyone else didn't either. Rising that quickly wasn't possible for Ron because of who he is and what he stands for.

Regarding Ron's death or assassination, yes there is a good chance of that happening. If we were to assume that it is going to happen and fashion our choice of VP based on that, then yes we'd want to choose someone who is pretty damn good on things. But its more of a fact that Ron's winning the election is a long shot, so selecting a VP based on that fact might take priority over the possibility of him being assassinated.

I'm partially arguing just for the purposes of discussion and analysis, I can tell I don't feel as strongly on the matter as you. So whatever.

 

[The Binghamton Patriot]

Where is Pat Buchanan on this list?

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Perhaps you have a point there I concede. I was mostly thinking about which candidate would be the best strategic option, not the one I'd like to see personally. Rand would be my choice if I were only considering my preferences in who would be the better VP.

Well, I've been speaking of Rand as STRATEGIC option all this while because of the appeal that he has within the mainstream GOP as well as his persuasive & engaging demeanor.

The only reason its been so hard for us, for Ron, is because he is a thoroughly anti-establishment libertarian. Its different for other candidates, people who are relative unknowns can rise on the national stage quickly enough in the right circumstances. For instance I didn't know who Palin was before 2008, most everyone else didn't either. Rising that quickly wasn't possible for Ron because of who he is and what he stands for.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHY we can't just sit & run a "normal" campaign & hope that by some miracle, Ron gets the nomination, it's just not realistic; we NEED to do something different & THAT'S WHY we need someone like Rand who has mainstream GOP appeal as well as the tact & ability to persuade to get the mainstream to rally behind us otherwise Ron has almost no chance considering that establishment, MSM & powers-that-be are going to do everything in their power to prevent Ron from making any headway; that's why we can't just "play normal".

Regarding Ron's death or assassination, yes there is a good chance of that happening. If we were to assume that it is going to happen and fashion our choice of VP based on that, then yes we'd want to choose someone who is pretty damn good on things. But its more of a fact that Ron's winning the election is a long shot, so selecting a VP based on that fact might take priority over the possibility of him being assassinated.

Again, you're not getting the point I'm trying to make. YES, Ron is a long-shot & THAT'S WHY we should be getting someone like Rand who has mainstream GOP appeal to propel the campaign forward & give Ron a BETTER chance than he would otherwise have; otherwise REALISTICALLY speaking, I don't see Ron getting anywhere in the primaries, so we need Rand to be the bridge between Ron & the GOP mainstream voters.

I'm partially arguing just for the purposes of discussion and analysis, I can tell I don't feel as strongly on the matter as you. So whatever.

It's alright, nothing wrong with having different opinions.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Where is Pat Buchanan on this list?

Are we talking about a grandpa's army or what! Seriously, two septuagenarians as P/VP? Same for Barry Goldwater Jr.

 

[realtonygoodwin]

I say a governor is the way to go. I would love to see Rand on the ticket, but the perceived nepotism is a no-go for many. I am not looking at who should replace Ron, but who would expand Ron's appeal to voters.

 

[The Binghamton Patriot]

Are we talking about a grandpa's army or what! Seriously, two septuagenarians as P/VP? Same for Barry Goldwater Jr.

Pat's views are the closest to Ron's of ANY candidate up there. He is a principled statesman that will bring us the social conservative vote in MASSES.

 

[YumYum]

What color curtains and carpet should we put in the Oval Office?

 

[erowe1]

Pat's views are the closest to Ron's of ANY candidate up there. He is a principled statesman that will bring us the social conservative vote in MASSES.

I don't think he's closer than Johnson, Rand, Amash, and Medina. But he's definitely closer than most of them. And he definitely belongs on the list.

Another paleo-con who's not as well-known as Buchanan, but who would line up about the same on positions is John Hostetter.

I also think Walter Jones and Dick Armey should be considered.

 

[Pro-Life Libertarian]

Pat's views are the closest to Ron's of ANY candidate up there. He is a principled statesman that will bring us the social conservative vote in MASSES.

Good thought