Allegation: Ron Paul Is Not Electable - Please Help Me Respond

[libertygrl]

Here's the deal. I'm having a discussion with another conservative and while he likes Ron Paul - (here again) - I run up against the same position with Republicans that Ron Paul can't win an election. How do we respond to this? Here's what the guy wrote in response to a post I had written:

Straw Polls are useless as they tend to go in favor of the candidate with the most hard core followers. I know Ron Paul leads in that area. Most CFL folks I've met would rather stand on principle & go down with the ship than to compromise on anything. But that's not where elections are decided.

There's always 30-40% of folks that will automatically vote D & another 30-40% that will always vote R, no matter who the candidate is or the issues are. It's the average folks in the middle, who pay more attention to Dancing With The Stars than the direction of the country, that decide everything. Talk to any of them at a street fair, beach, park or concert & ask them about Ron Paul, Ending the Fed, the Council of Foreign Relations, etc., and they look at you like you're some kind of fringe nut case. Although RP has more support than ever as people on the right come to value their liberty, in my opinion, those who actually decide elections will never vote for him. Of course my experience is anecdotal, but it's based on personally talking to thousands of people over several years, not polls or pundits.

To your last point, in no way would I suggest you give up your noble fight to convince people about RP. I admire your passion & would be happy if he did succeed. I just don't think he will & choose to put my energies towards someone, (and I'm not saying Michelle Bachmann is the one), with whom I disagree sometimes but in my opinion has a realistic chance of winning & slashing this run away government. As much as we're blowing through trillions on these senseless wars, they're dwarfed by the entitlement spending & if we don't get that under control, we're doomed.

I just hope that if RP doesn't get the nomination, in November 2012, when faced with a choice between Obama & hopefully at least a fiscal Conservative, you'll choose the latter.

 

[mpdsapuser]

It's an irritating comment to always hear. Yet people will say Romney or Huntsman is electable. Are we going to just admit that the Presidency is about who is the better looking guy? Yes, I admire Romney's hairspray look but what about his policies and does he have a solid voting record to stand on?

To me, that is your best bet. Whatever issue your friend is passionate about, compare the front runner's stance on past positions on it and compare to Ron Paul's and his consistent voting record.

 

[specsaregood]

actually that is an argument in favor of dr. paul.
It is that independent middle voter that he does better with than any other republican, there are a few polls that show this.

 

[acptulsa]

What the %$#& choice is there? Vote for Bushbama? What good will that do? What good will it do to vote for a G.O.P. alleged 'alternative'?

Hungry people tend to pay more attention to their world than fat and apathetic people. And the former are getting to be a majority, while the latter are getting to be a minority. This sends the 'conventional wisdom' to the back bench. Jump in or miss the boat.

Damn this stuff! I thought we lived in a republic. I thought WE decided who was 'electable'.

Besides, if the G.O.P. wants to win, this is their single best candidate against Obama by far.

 

[BUSHLIED]

Yes, this statement articulates fairly well the reasoning of so many mainstream republicans that are following politics. It is the age old, vote for the lessor evil and vote for who can win because at least they will do 20% better than the current President. I call them Political Pragmatists, they are willing to compromise on many issues, to get the one or two that is important to them. The one issues that all candidates appear to agree on is "cutting spending" and addressing the "national deficit." This is my sense of what most GOP voters are going to go for. So if Romney can make a pledge to cut spending, that is enough for many gop voters...

It also reflects that many voters, generally like Ron Paul but just think someone else is more electable...at least they don't hate him, like the small percentage of "neo-conservatives" and extreme religious "zealots"...you are simply not going to convert them over to Ron's side.

 

[LatinsforPaul]

The “can’t win” attack:

Many are critical of Paul because they feel he is “damaged goods” and doesn’t have a chance at winning should he be the Republican Party’s nominee. Many of these same people donated and cheered another “can’t win” candidate to victory in Massachusetts earlier this year.

It is unlikely that Ron Paul would win, but that doesn’t mean he can’t win. If enough people soul-search toward being free from government rather than being creatures of government, Ron Paul could be the next President of the United States.

I doubt that support could ever come from the ever-dwindling group of neo-conservative Republicans, but that support could certainly come from those on the Left who are now realizing that Obama is potentially worse than Bush on foreign policy.

Un-attacking Ron Paul

 

[dannno]

Ron Paul polls better in a head to head race against Obama than any other Republican candidate.

If Republicans won't elect him, they are dooming themselves to defeat.

 

[playboymommy]

Un-attacking Ron Paul

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to LatinsforPaul again.

 

[sailingaway]

See this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ner-amp-not-Mitt-Romney&p=3352558#post3352558

 

[tsai3904]

His argument is that Ron Paul can't win over the "average folks in the middle, who pay more attention to Dancing With The Stars than the direction of the country." He's right when he says the average folk wouldn't understand issues regarding the Fed, but one thing the average voter does understand is foreign policy and war. Everyone has an opinion on war and the mood of the country right now is to not spend hundreds of billions a year in military engagements when our own economy is struggling. If the average voter was given an option to send Egypt $1 billion or keep $1 billion in the US, there's no doubt the voter would support keeping that money here.

Ron Paul is the only candidate, Democrat or Republican, that will significantly scale back our foreign intervention and the average voter will respond to that.

 

[Exponent]

It sounds to me like the guy quoted in the OP is talking about independent/unaffiliated/moderate non-voters. As far as voters that don't pay attention very well and don't consider their votes very carefully, I would say that's the case for the bulk of the straight-ticket voters, those 30-40% on either side that he mentioned. As for the "middle"-ground non-straight-ticket voters, my impression is that they do pay attention and do consider their votes carefully. And that's where I, and obviously others here, think Ron Paul excels.

Then again, I'm no expert and probably have an overly rosy perspective on independent voters. Nonetheless, that is my perspective, and it is what I say to people in an attempt to get them to think he has a very very good shot in the general election. Not yet sure how successful that approach has been thus far, however.

 

[hillbilly123069]

Respond with: Why is RP not electable? Because the entities all saying this would loose special interests that would not normally been available in a fair and honorable gov.?
Or because he honors his constitutional oath as recorded in the archives of congress voting records?
Or is it because the he holds the US Constitution(the 1 real obstacle for a NWO) as the highest law of this republic.
They say that because the money-grubbin, power-lovin, corporate lapdogs getting their scooby snacks from the local lobbying firms will have to get real jobs rather than leach off our blood and sweat from a nice air conditioned office!

 

[hillbilly123069]

I want to know whats not electable. I been hearing his crap. Prove it.

 

[cameronb]

Obama wasn't considered to have much of a chance before he gained momentum... they are very different (thank goodness), but the point remains that Barack "Hussein" Obama wasn't given much chance of gaining the highest office in the land, but he did. There are other examples, but this is obviously the most contemporary.
I also agree with the other posters that
a) his logic is flawed insofar as RP polls WAY better with the independents than any other republican hopeful ... so the guy is saying that RP can get the 30-40% "R"s.... well that is who he has the biggest uphill battle with, so if he gets the nomination he is the MOST electable by that reasoning
b) I definitely stress that the electable thing is one element of willingly being the frog in the pot of boiling water or whatever... I bring up the disappointments with Bush and how likely Romney or Bachman or any of the others are to be that same type of disappointment and I find that resonates with all but the staunchest neocons.
You can always point out that if "we" bring about real change for limited government that is what matters, but if we elect another disappointment that will only lead to "another Obama"

 

[Xenophage]

He wants to be let down again? He wants to vote for another Bush? When all of the "fiscal conservatives" parrot Ron Paul's talking points, one constant remains: They have no principle and no consistent philosophy, and they will screw you over once they get elected, just as they have done for decades. Ron Paul will not screw you. Ron Paul is principled.

Compromising on matters of principle always leads to your own defeat. Choose another candidate, and lose.

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

Look the easy way to look at it is this,

Its sales really. If they don't think ron paul is viable then you didn't sell him correctly. I wouldn't focus on trying to convert anyone, it doesn't work well for bible thumpers trying to shove god down peoples throats either.

Anyone who tells me ron paul can't win I simply respond with the usual, "well good thing we aren't betting on a winning horse then". People need to realize that we are NOT trying to pick the most likeable candidate BUT the one who can actually DO what he/she says they will do and as president that should be NOT MUCH. They shouldn't be trying to solve all the worlds problems and inturn should try and minimize the feds hold over our liberties.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Here's the deal. I'm having a discussion with another conservative and while he likes Ron Paul - (here again) - I run up against the same position with Republicans that Ron Paul can't win an election. How do we respond to this? Here's what the guy wrote in response to a post I had written:

Straw Polls are useless as they tend to go in favor of the candidate with the most hard core followers. I know Ron Paul leads in that area. Most CFL folks I've met would rather stand on principle & go down with the ship than to compromise on anything. But that's not where elections are decided.

There's always 30-40% of folks that will automatically vote D & another 30-40% that will always vote R, no matter who the candidate is or the issues are. It's the average folks in the middle, who pay more attention to Dancing With The Stars than the direction of the country, that decide everything. Talk to any of them at a street fair, beach, park or concert & ask them about Ron Paul, Ending the Fed, the Council of Foreign Relations, etc., and they look at you like you're some kind of fringe nut case. Although RP has more support than ever as people on the right come to value their liberty, in my opinion, those who actually decide elections will never vote for him. Of course my experience is anecdotal, but it's based on personally talking to thousands of people over several years, not polls or pundits.

To your last point, in no way would I suggest you give up your noble fight to convince people about RP. I admire your passion & would be happy if he did succeed. I just don't think he will & choose to put my energies towards someone, (and I'm not saying Michelle Bachmann is the one), with whom I disagree sometimes but in my opinion has a realistic chance of winning & slashing this run away government. As much as we're blowing through trillions on these senseless wars, they're dwarfed by the entitlement spending & if we don't get that under control, we're doomed.

I just hope that if RP doesn't get the nomination, in November 2012, when faced with a choice between Obama & hopefully at least a fiscal Conservative, you'll choose the latter.

If he's hoping another candidate will slash runaway government, then he is going to be disappointed because they all represent the status quo.

My chief argument is that the chances are slim and none of anybody being the deciding factor in an election, so why not vote your conscience? If you let the media and popular opinion make your choice for you, then you don't really have free and fair elections, do you? If we vote according to who has the best chance, then the establishment can pick whatever candidate they want, portray them as the only legitimate one (or two, to give the illusion of choice) then nobody will have a choice because the establishment was able to decide which candidates were viable, therefore extremely limiting the field to choose from.

You might also mention that he's in 2nd place according to the latest Dick Morris poll, and that there were polls who showed him as having the best chance vs. Obama compared to the rest of the field (do a google search for that). This myth that he's unelectable should be pretty easy to dispel. Remember, it's always better to be part of a movement than to completely miss the train because you didn't think it was going anywhere.

 

[erowe1]

The response I use for that argument is to ask: If anything were to happen between now and the primary that made you believe Ron Paul could win, would you vote for him? Or do you still have other reasons?

If they say yes, then that's about all you can ask for right now. Different people are going to have different levels of support they expect to see a candidate have before they think that candidate is electable. Our job between now and January is to keep building up RP's support little by little until each of those thresholds for those voters gets crossed.

There are some people who will see him win at Ames and decide then that he really can pull it off. As a result, we'll see his polling go up. And then there are more people who will see his nationwide polling reach 20% and then decide he really can pull it off. So then his support will go up even more. And then there will start to be polls showing his as a serious contender to win the Iowa caucuses, and that will pull over more doubters. And then he'll win the Iowa caucuses. At that point, there won't be many more people saying they won't support him because he can't win, they'll support him or not based on the issues.

So if you can get people to a spot where they basically agree with Ron Paul and say that they would support him if they thought he could win, then at least for now, I'd call that a success.

 

[Acala]

I would say this:

"You are probably right. Most Americans are too stupid to know how serious our problems are, so they will vote for the person who looks best in a suit even though that person doesn't have a clue. Other Americans are happy with the special benefits they get from American socialism so they won't vote for him. Other Americans can't understand that our world empire is bankrupting us and it makes them feel good that we can go around the world bullying people so they won't vote for him. And then there are a whole bunch of Americans who somehow think that a Presidential election is like a horse race where the object is not to vote on principle for the best man but to vote for whoever is most likely to win. And the MSM has told them Ron Paul can't win so, in a self-fulfilling prophecy, they won't vote for him. Which category are you in?"

 

[Southron]

People that say that would be happy with another Bush. He needs to grow some principles.