Ron Paul is doing better than Ronald Reagan.

[Barrex]

Last night I heard something interesting:


Early on in the 1976 Republican Presidential contest Reagan ran behind incumbent Gerald Ford, the champion of liberal "moderate" Republicans, who among other things appointed Mr. Liberal Republican, Nelson Rockefeller, as his Vice-President.
But then came North Carolina. To the surprise of the White House and most of the media, Reagan won the North Carolina primary and revived his campaign. That was his first win. He went on to sweep several primaries, including big ones in Texas and California. Reagan broke through and won the primary with 52 percent of the vote. This began a string of Reagan victories that brought him to within a hundred delegates of victory at the GOP convention. Ford got political bosses in Mississippi and Pennsylvania to twist the arms needed for victory. But Reagan encouraged his supporters with a great concession speech and stole the heart of that convention.

Reagan said the North Carolina victory gave him hope to carry on. And carry on he did sweeping to an early victory in the 1980 primaries and the White House.
One of the few who endorsed Reagan was Ron Paul.


LOL Does anyone else sees similarities????

[video=youtube;Z79T2veZy0Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Z79T2veZy0Q#![/video]

Ron Paul is in same exact situation. He is behind and he runs against "moderate" who is twisting arms to get votes and delegates.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Um, there were only two in the race, and Reagan was not nearly as anti-establishment, never mind the fact that he was quite hawkish which if you haven't noticed is the one litmus test of the Party, as well as he only lost the first 6 states. We are WAY past 6 states.

 

[asurfaholic]

Too bad north carolina is full of idiots these days.

 

[neverseen]

Too bad america is full of idiots these days.

fixed

 

[Origanalist]

Too bad north carolina is full of idiots these days.

Seems to be a national epidemic.

 

[olehounddog]

Too bad north carolina is full of idiots these days.

yep

 

[bbartlog]

Yes, if Paul were only as old as Reagan was in 1976, this would make me really optimistic about his chances in 2016.

 

[Liberty74]

Like I have said for weeks, Mitt will have this race locked up very soon. He only needs to win 45% of the delegates left. It won't be hard for him to that. The establishment is getting their man whether we like it or not.

I called running Independent before Ron decided to run Republican. It's still a good option to consider especially considering Europe could go any day now which will cause a world wide ecomonic collapse. The people of this country deserves a choice. We should not be forced to vote between the two evils. If not Ron, I'd be happy with Judge NAP.

 

[mosquitobite]

Bound delegates can abstain...

 

[tbone717]

Bound delegates can abstain...

As I understand it, they cannot individually or they will be replaced by an alternate. Most delegates are required by their states to sign a pledge that they will carry out their duties. They can vote to unbind themselves, but that would need to be brought to the floor by one state, seconded by another and then voted on by he convention delegates.

This safeguard is in the rules, so that in the instance that the presumptive nominee is found to be unfit for the office between the election and the convention, he can be replaced. Let's say for example Romney between now and then commits a serious crime and is arrested and charged. Obviously, the RNC would not want to run him for the general, so they at that point would have the option to choose another nominee.

But, please don't think this is something that a couple hundred Paul supporters will be able to pull off on their own. The procedure is in the rules for an emergency circumstance, not so a bunch of supporters of a candidate can pull some parliamentary trickery to overturn the will of the voters.

 

[Morerockin]

Last night I heard something interesting:


Early on in the 1976 Republican Presidential contest Reagan ran behind incumbent Gerald Ford, the champion of liberal "moderate" Republicans, who among other things appointed Mr. Liberal Republican, Nelson Rockefeller, as his Vice-President.
But then came North Carolina. To the surprise of the White House and most of the media, Reagan won the North Carolina primary and revived his campaign. That was his first win. He went on to sweep several primaries, including big ones in Texas and California. Reagan broke through and won the primary with 52 percent of the vote. This began a string of Reagan victories that brought him to within a hundred delegates of victory at the GOP convention. Ford got political bosses in Mississippi and Pennsylvania to twist the arms needed for victory. But Reagan encouraged his supporters with a great concession speech and stole the heart of that convention.

Reagan said the North Carolina victory gave him hope to carry on. And carry on he did sweeping to an early victory in the 1980 primaries and the White House.
One of the few who endorsed Reagan was Ron Paul.


LOL Does anyone else sees similarities????

[video=youtube;Z79T2veZy0Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Z79T2veZy0Q#![/video]

Ron Paul is in same exact situation. He is behind and he runs against "moderate" who is twisting arms to get votes and delegates.

Jesus Christ ... Why don't people research stuff before they post stuff like this? Hell no we're not doing better than Reagan!!! North Carolina was the 14th primary/caucus contest in 1976, in 2012 it is the 44th (including US territories). After 44 primary contests in 1976, Reagan was well on his way to the brokered convention by this time.

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2009/02/1976-presidential-primary-calendar.html?m=1

 

[Tudo]

reagan was a sell out who talked a good game and then started the spending that has bankrupted this place.

Ron Paul would never sell out and does what he says he would do. Therefore no comparison.

 

[csu1987]

As I understand it, they cannot individually or they will be replaced by an alternate. .

Where is your evidence? We need to exaust all measures.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

reagan was a sell out who talked a good game and then started the spending that has bankrupted this place.

Ron Paul would never sell out and does what he says he would do. Therefore no comparison.

I don't necessarily think so; it was just that Reagan wasn't as knowledgeable, neither about foreign policy nor economics, to really have the guts to push for the changes that he had ran on, & as it happens, if you don't know a great deal about thing then you tend to rely on "experts", your colleagues & "intellectuals & such, which is what happened with Reagan

BUT let's say someone with enough knowledge does get to presidency, like Ron Paul, if you expect him to deliver each & every promise of his then you're dreaming, because there are fundamental limits to how much one guy can change & ultimately if people themselves don't understand & support the changes then they will NOT go through

Where is your evidence? We need to exaust all measures.

Yes, I think abstaining on the first ballot might just save the day, I think we definitely need to consider all options; this is about our liberties!

 

[specsaregood]

I always wonder why nobody seems to mention 1968 at all. Reagan took 3 tries.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

Too bad north carolina is full of idiots these days.

Too fucking true.

 

[tfurrh]

I always wonder why nobody seems to mention 1968 at all. Reagan took 3 tries.

I'm down with Ron Paul 2016 - If he's down.

 

[drummergirl]

Let's say for example Romney between now and then commits a serious crime and is arrested and charged.

Like massive election fraud?

 

[angelatc]

Reagan lost to Ford, who lost to Carter. Ron Paul is retiring after this year, so no, I do not see any similarities.