Ron Paul might ensure victory for Hillary

[johngr]

By sucking away the anti-war democrats from closed-primary states (which New York conveniently switched to). The best he'll get from the primaries is a plurality. Then all they have to do is have the 2 runners-up cut a backroom deal and -- viola, instant President Hillary.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

I dont follow your logic

 

[CoreyBowen999]

i dont get it either..

 

[OptionsTrader]

Flawed logic. Nice try though.

 

[johngr]

I wasn't clear enough. Ron Paul's support comes in part from people who would otherwise vote in the Democratic primary and work to make sure that Hillary doesn't get nominated. Perhaps without their efforts (and in some cases votes) Hillary will get the nomination whereas it wouldn't have been possible without Dr. Paul running on the Republican side. One of the real anti-war Dems might have won.

Let me put it another way... how many Hillary-supporters will Dr. Paul draw from the Democratic side?

 

[MsDoodahs]

There are no anti war dems.

The neocons on several other boards have been doing this whole "a vote for Ron is a vote for Hillary" bullshit for a few days.

It's nonsense, just another neocon scare tactic.

 

[constituent]

who cares?

i can't think of a human soul less relevant to the campaign
than Hilary Clinton.

Also-ran.

Nothing more. Who is going to vote for the dynasty again?

nobody. Who are these 25% of people voting for Julie Annie?

No one. Romney? No one.

 

[johngr]

There are no anti war dems.

The neocons on several other boards have been doing this whole "a vote for Ron is a vote for Hillary" bullshit for a few days.

That's a straw man argument. Not do you misrepresent my argument, I happen to believe the opposite of your characterization. Let me make it clear: for anyone who would vote republican, A VOTE FOR [ANYONE OTHER THAN RON PAUL IS A VOTE FOR HILLARY. Got that?! Dr. Paul is the only candidate that can beat Hillary. My position is that the Democrats that Dr. Paul brings over to his side (a righteous side, I might add) will be ones who would have worked and/or voted to keep Hillary Clinton from getting the nomination. That plus the back-room deal between the two losers I anticipate will occur when Dr. Paul wins a plurality of the nomination might ensure Hillary winning. I don't want that but it looks like it could happen.

To reiterate NO ONE OTHER THAN DR. PAUL CAN BEAT HILLARY CLINTON.

 

[tfelice]

Hillary will get the nomination regardless of how many supporters Paul, or any GOP candidate, brings over to the GOP. None of the other Dems have a chance of defeating her.

Our focus now should be one one thing only, and that is winning the GOP nomination.

 

[kylejack]

By sucking away the anti-war democrats from closed-primary states (which New York conveniently switched to). The best he'll get from the primaries is a plurality. Then all they have to do is have the 2 runners-up cut a backroom deal and -- viola, instant President Hillary.

Which anti-war Democrats? Obama and Edwards also talk about the troops might not be home by 2013. Kucinich and Gravel are not viable.

 

[MsDoodahs]

Ron is the only GOP candidate that can win against Hillary, that I agree with completely.

 

[johngr]

Hillary will get the nomination regardless of how many supporters Paul, or any GOP candidate, brings over to the GOP. None of the other Dems have a chance of defeating her.

Our focus now should be one one thing only, and that is winning the GOP nomination.

We should be thinking about what we will do if he loses as well.

 

[alicegardener]

The top tier Democrats have overpowered the true anti-war Dems wheras the Republican voters are split and unenthusiastic (except you know who). Ergo, the best and first battle for peace will be to eliminate the worst threat (the Republican hawks) right off the bat. Any anti-war person would prefer the choice of any Democrat vs. Ron Paul over any other combination.

 

[KingTheoden]

We should be thinking about what we will do if he loses as well.

No we should be thinking about how best to implement tactics and strategies to get Ron Paul elected. If we operate with a defeatist mindset, then our fate is sealed by our own doing.

 

[DelandFreedomSeeker]

I have a feeling when he talks about anti war democrats, he's talking about the people not the candidates. He's saying that Ron Paul draws the anti war democratic voters away from the democrat side and over to the republican side to vote for Dr. Paul, leaving no one on the the Democratic side to vote for someone other than Hillary.

That's my take on what he is saying

 

[klamath]

We should be thinking about what we will do if he loses as well.

I thought I was following your logic but this last post has me puzzled. What are you suggesting? Are we susposed to turn anti Clinton Democrats away from RP?

 

[RP08]

Go Hillary! Buy back our freedom! ... 'r something like that

www.ClintonForums.com



.

 

[justinc.1089]

I wasn't clear enough. Ron Paul's support comes in part from people who would otherwise vote in the Democratic primary and work to make sure that Hillary doesn't get nominated. Perhaps without their efforts (and in some cases votes) Hillary will get the nomination whereas it wouldn't have been possible without Dr. Paul running on the Republican side. One of the real anti-war Dems might have won.

Let me put it another way... how many Hillary-supporters will Dr. Paul draw from the Democratic side?

Clinton is going to be the Democratic candidate anyway. There is very little chance of it being someone else, and if it is someone else the only other person with a chance is Obama.

And why would the democratic supporters of Paul be the ones working to prevent Clinton from being nominated on the democratic side? I saw a comment on a Paul video on youtube of a person who said they hope Paul is the Republican because they like him better than Clinton, but if he does not get the nomination they want Clinton next. I mean democratic Paul supporters don't like his conservative ideas, they like his ideas that aren't really conservative or liberal, such as leaving Iraq. The reason they support him is because they like his sincerity and honesty, and for various personal reasons that will be different from person to person.

Plus if Ron Paul gets the nomination that means the Republicans get the best shot at beating ANY democrat period because they will get some of the anti-war vote, where as with any other candidate they will not. And if the dem is Clinton, then its the same situation, except for the fact that Ron Paul has WAY more liberal support and democratic support than any other Republican has EVER had, or at least to my knowledge. I would be shocked to find out some other candidate has generated the number of dems and liberals saying they like them that Paul has.

 

[Wendi]

I've had the same concerns since the early days of this campaign. Prior to Dr. Paul's announcement that he was going to run, I had planned to vote *against* Hillary in the *democratic* primaries for precisely this reason. I didn't *care* who wins... they're all the same anyway. I just didn't want a *Clinton* on the ballot again. Not after what they did the last time they were in power...

But here's the deal. If Ron Paul gets *on* the ballot, HE CAN BEAT HILLARY. So it doesn't *matter.*

The neocons are desperately trying to *scare* some of those voters who have switched over... into going back... *before the primaries.*

Why?

BECAUSE IF THEY SUCCEED, RON PAUL WON'T *BE* ON THE BALLOT.

And then, the Democrats will win. And you know who their candidate is likely to be?

HILLARY.

So I see where you're coming from, but I think you've got it all backwards. You're suggesting that we give up on Ron Paul so that we can keep Hillary from winning... I'm saying that Ron Paul is our *only chance* to beat her *when* she gets the democratic nomination.

Not *if,* but *when.* Ron Paul vs. Hillary Clinton in '08. A line in the sand for our nation...

 

[Kregener]

You are funny Johngr.

Now post something meaningful.