Yours is a theory. Unless you plan on proving it definitively, it is still a theory.
You said people will always choose free handouts. Yet Republicans are elected across the country despite their rhetoric. Now you're saying "congressional elections are different! There are reasons, but I'm not going to name any!"
And yet Reagan was elected in 1980.
First of all, I said "almost" every time. Don't put words into my mouth in an attempt to win a debate.
Secondly, congressional elections are different because they are more personal than a national election. It is harder to lie and demagogue your opponent (Rand vs Conway) because the candidates meet more with the people of the district. Also, to prove my point with HISTORY once again, look at Ron. Ron has won his district, what, 11-12 times? They know where he stands on the issues, yet he would never get elected President. Districts are much smaller than a whole nation. You can win in a district that is extremely conservative, but the country as a whole is not. Also, Americans typically vote for balance in Washington. Rarely do you see a Republican White House and house. The 2010 election was a unique one and a referendum on Obamacare.
Thirdly, Reagan won because he wanted to lower taxes, there was massive inflation, and massive unemployment. But, the MAJOR reason Reagan did so well was because of the Iran Hostage Crisis. The crisis summed up the Carter Administration in the view of the American public. Plus, the American people overwhelming feared the USSR, so they believed in beefing up the Armed Forces, something Reagan promised to do. Reagan did talk about balancing the budget in three years (much like Paul), but nothing to the extent of 1 trillion dollars in cuts. Moreover, when a candidate says that social security, medicare, and medicaid are "unconstitutional" programs, they will
almost never win. Even though Dr. Paul has stated he will not cut those programs, with his language of gradually reducing the dependency of the people on these programs will scare the shit out of the voters.
You and I view these programs, along with other entitlements, as "handouts." Whereas the voters view them "a politician understanding me and my situation."
Furthermore, Americans (on a whole) are more dependent on welfare and entitlements than at any time in our history. DEFINITELY more so than in 1979-80.
Also, a lot of Americans view Obama's foreign policy as good. We are getting out of Iraq, closing shop up in Afghanistan, and we got Osama Bin Laden. The American public overwhelming fear Iran, as well. Now, you and I obviously disagree with almost all of that. But, the American people see it differently, and that is the point. What does Ron Paul say? "Iran is not as big of a threat as we think." This scares the shit out of people.
Stop viewing things through your mind. Stop putting emotion into your argument and look at it through the eyes of the average voter.
Hell, I could even work for Obama's campaign and completely misrepresent Paul's position with ease.
"Paul wants to end unemployment checks."
"Paul wants to get rid of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid."
"Paul wants to legalize all drugs and prostitution."
"Paul wrote racist newsletters."
"Paul doesn't think Iran is a threat to the world. He is an isolationist."
"Paul thinks that poor Americans should just die in the streets and not receive medical care."
"Paul wants to deregulate the banks so that they can take advantage of the little guy."
....Do I really need to keep going...?
One last thing...
Name me a few elections in the 20th century where the people voted for BIG cuts while reducing dependency on welfare over handouts.
??
