A Serious Ron Paul VP Poll

[trey4sports]

Justin Amash and Glenn Bradley while adding nothing to the ticket (unless Amash is popular enough to turn michigan) although taking the VP slot would position either of these two for prime time giving them the ability to be bigger players than they are.

Although I think Justin Amash seems hard not to like to anyone on both sides with his transparency and youth which can balance out Ron pauls age complaints.

Amash is not old enough.

 

[AlexMerced]

I dont know where Fortuno stands on all the issues, but after hearing him @ CPAC he really impressed me. He seemed to stay on a fiscally conservative message. Never spoke of social issues or foreign policy so i can't attest to that.

Watch his interview with Reason.tv , Fortuno will be president someday, mark my words. Not only only is he great on economic, but he gets you real excited about and he's super nice about it.

 

[AlexMerced]

I voted for Johnson, but a part of me wanted to go with Dennis Kucinich just to throw a complete curveball into the whole system.

A Bipartisan ticket would totally change up the states... the Constitution party may win some southern states in that scenario.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Declaring VP too early is deadly, cause they'll destroy you VP candidate before the general election even begins, it's generally the last thing you do cause towards the end both candidates have slung so much mud they need to introduce a clean face to the voters

You're ASSUMING that Ron has any realistic chance of winning the GOP nomination WITHOUT the mainsteam GOP support; that's quite unrealistic considering most mainsteam GOP don't like Ron. Rand will act as a bridge between Ron & the mainstream GOP; if not then Ron has very little chance of getting the nomination. If we're daydreaming that Ron's poll-numbers will miraculously skyrocket, like people hoped for in 2008, then that's just that, daydreaming! At least read the link, man - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...te-in-2007-8&p=3365860&viewfull=1#post3365860

Rand will already campaign for him.

Rand campaigning for Ron as his son & Rand campaigning for Ron as his VP are two different things. Rand appeals to mainstream GOP voters because of his positions but they don't like Ron's positions so much & that's why most of the mainstream GOPers that like Rand WON'T vote for Ron unless Rand was on the ticket. They mostly dislike Ron on the wars & imperialism issues where Rand has taken a more "centrist" approach which appeals to mainstream GOP so unless Rand is on the ticket, they won't vote for Ron in the primaries which is going to be a much much harder battle for Ron than the General election, & considering that we've only grown from 2-3% to 8-10% over 4 freaking years, I don't think Ron has much of a chance of winning GOP nomination ON HIS OWN so he needs Rand

I look at it this way: If Dr. Paul was out of the picture, who would I want to replace him? I would not vote for anyone on that list that is not a vetted liberty candidate.

If Ron wasn't there then Rand with his national mainstream appeal & strong libertarian-leanings would be the best choice so I'm going with Rand as the VP; he has national mainstream GOP appeal (Ron being "fringe"), he's young (Ron being "too old"), he's "centrist" on wars & imperialism (Ron being "isolationist") & his libertarian leanings means he'd be the best back-up in case something happened to Ron.

 

[AlexMerced]

You're ASSUMING that Ron has any realistic chance of winning the GOP nomination WITHOUT the mainsteam GOP support; that's quite unrealistic considering most mainsteam GOP don't like Ron. Rand will act as a bridge between Ron & the mainstream GOP; if not then Ron has very little chance of getting the nomination. If we're daydreaming that Ron's poll-numbers will miraculously skyrocket, like people hoped for in 2008, then that's just that, daydreaming! At least read the link, man - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...te-in-2007-8&p=3365860&viewfull=1#post3365860






Rand campaigning for Ron as his son & Rand campaigning for Ron as his VP are two different things. Rand appeals to mainstream GOP voters because of his positions but they don't like Ron's positions so much & that's why most of the mainstream GOPers that like Rand WON'T vote for Ron unless Rand was on the ticket. They mostly dislike Ron on the wars & imperialism issues where Rand has taken a more "centrist" approach which appeals to mainstream GOP so unless Rand is on the ticket, they won't vote for Ron in the primaries which is going to be a much much harder battle for Ron than the General election, & considering that we've only grown from 2-3% to 8-10% over 4 freaking years, I don't think Ron has much of a chance of winning GOP nomination ON HIS OWN so he needs Rand



If Ron wasn't there then Rand with his national mainstream appeal & strong libertarian-leanings would be the best choice so I'm going with Rand as the VP; he national mainstream GOP appeal, he's young (Ron being "too old"), he's "centrist" on wars & imperialism (Ron being "isolationist") & his libertarian leaning means he'd be the best back-up in case something happend to Ron.

The problem still is if Rand where declared as VP candidat etoo early, MSNBC would have a whole year to demonize the hell out of Ron and Rand, and they will.

If I were Ron I would assemble a team of economists (Murphy, Salerno) and have them discuss the economy in a weekly video to educate voters.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

Rand campaigning for Ron as his son & Rand campaigning for Ron as his VP are two different things.

Two different things that have the same effect.

Rand appeals to mainstream GOP voters because of his positions but they don't like Ron's positions so much & that's why most of the mainstream GOPers that like Rand WON'T vote for Ron unless Rand was on the ticket. They mostly dislike Ron on the wars & imperialism issues where Rand has taken a more "centrist" approach which appeals to mainstream GOP so unless Rand is on the ticket, they won't vote for Ron in the primaries which is going to be a much much harder battle for Ron than the General election, & considering that we've only grown from 2-3% to 8-10% over 4 freaking years, I don't think Ron has much of a chance of winning GOP nomination ON HIS OWN so he needs Rand

If they like Rand so much, they'll take notice of Rand campaigning for Ron. If they hate Ron so much that they won't listen to Rand's campaigning for Ron (I don't think it is likely they are that irrational), then they wouldn't vote for Ron anyways even with Rand on the ticket. Haley is also a tea party person apparently, she would be an easier sell to your typical conservative voter than Ron, so she kinda achieves the same effect as Rand would, plus she is also latino and a chick so that would bring in more votes from those crowds.

Yeah Ron can't win on his own, that does not necessarily mean that he can ONLY have Rand. Other Veeps would help as well and maybe even more so than Rand.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

The problem still is if Rand where declared as VP candidat etoo early, MSNBC would have a whole year to demonize the hell out of Ron and Rand, and they will.

If I were Ron I would assemble a team of economists (Murphy, Salerno) and have them discuss the economy in a weekly video to educate voters.

Again, you're ASSUMING that Ron would be any better off in the primariese without Rand, that's just not realistic considering that it took us 4 freaking years to go from 2-3% to 8-10%, do you think Ron's going to surge all of a sudden? This is exactly what people daydreamed about in 2008 & we went nowhere. If we want to have any realistic chance then we can't run a "conventional" campaign, we need to do something radical to get our numbers to surge & get the mainstream GOP voters to stand behind us or we're dead before the primaries like last time. And as I've said in that post, even if declaring Rand can get us 5-10% of the mainstream GOP voters to shift, GOP will be deadlocked & incapable of beating Obama without us & then they might start falling in line behind Paul/Paul ticket if only to beat Obama & to prevent fragmentation of the GOP vote, they also know that Ron has more traction among Indies & Dems than any other GOP candidate which'll come handy in the General.

You keep talking about media demonizing Ron, Rand, etc but you need to ask yourself what REALISTIC chance does Ron have WITHOUT Rand & mainstream GOP in the GOP primaries? How little progress we've made IN TERMS OF SHEER NUMBERS & how far are we likely to go in the remaining FEW MONTHS? Will a "conventional" campaign get us a victory in the primaries? And shouldn't we be more adventurous & aggressive to have any realistic chance?

 

[RonPaulVolunteer]

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

No poll that omits Judge Andrew is a "serious" poll. Sorry.

 

[puppetmaster]

Declaring VP too early is deadly, cause they'll destroy you VP candidate before the general election even begins, it's generally the last thing you do cause towards the end both candidates have slung so much mud they need to introduce a clean face to the voters

not so quick, what could they use.....that we could not turn around?

 

[Pro-Life Libertarian]

No poll that omits Judge Andrew is a "serious" poll. Sorry.

Do you actually consider him a realistic option?

 

[reduen]

None, I would pick Judge Andrew Napolitano. Ron likes him too...

 

[trey4sports]

Again, you're ASSUMING that Ron would be any better off in the primariese without Rand, that's just not realistic considering that it took us 4 freaking years to go from 2-3% to 8-10%, do you think Ron's going to surge all of a sudden? This is exactly what people daydreamed about in 2008 & we went nowhere. If we want to have any realistic chance then we can't run a "conventional" campaign, we need to do something radical to get our numbers to surge & get the mainstream GOP voters to stand behind us or we're dead before the primaries like last time. And as I've said in that post, even if declaring Rand can get us 5-10% of the mainstream GOP voters to shift, GOP will be deadlocked & incapable of beating Obama without us & then they might start falling in line behind Paul/Paul ticket if only to beat Obama & to prevent fragmentation of the GOP vote, they also know that Ron has more traction among Indies & Dems than any other GOP candidate which'll come handy in the General.

You keep talking about media demonizing Ron, Rand, etc but you need to ask yourself what REALISTIC chance does Ron have WITHOUT Rand & mainstream GOP in the GOP primaries? How little progress we've made IN TERMS OF SHEER NUMBERS & how far are we likely to go in the remaining FEW MONTHS? Will a "conventional" campaign get us a victory in the primaries? And shouldn't we be more adventurous & aggressive to have any realistic chance?

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

 

[puppetmaster]

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

 

[puppetmaster]

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

because it makes sense. why would it not?

 

[reduen]

Do you actually consider him a realistic option?

Off hand, I would say that he has great name recognition and respect within the neocon leaning Republicans that I know. He is not currently a "politician" which is a big plus with many and I can hardly think of anyone else that has the record of defending the constitution that he has. There are others I know but he is certainly one of them...

Just off hand mind you...

 

[reduen]

because it makes sense. why would it not?

I like the idea also puppet, I just don't think that the timing is right yet. Maybe by Nov 2012 though, who knows...

 

[RonPaulVolunteer]

Do you actually consider him a realistic option?

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.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Two different things that have the same effect.



If they like Rand so much, they'll take notice of Rand campaigning for Ron. If they hate Ron so much that they won't listen to Rand's campaigning for Ron (I don't think it is likely they are that irrational), then they wouldn't vote for Ron anyways even with Rand on the ticket. Haley is also a tea party person apparently, she would be an easier sell to your typical conservative voter than Ron, so she kinda achieves the same effect as Rand would, plus she is also latino and a chick so that would bring in more votes from those crowds.

Yeah Ron can't win on his own, that does not necessarily mean that he can ONLY have Rand. Other Veeps would help as well and maybe even more so than Rand.

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.

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)

 

[Working Poor]

I John or Glenn either of them would be really good I think.

 

[Alex540]

How about Ken Cuccinelli? I'm pretty sure Ron/Rand have a favorable view for him, and if I'm not mistaking I think Ron might have made a campaign appearance for him.