Is Ron Paul a threat to Obama?

[boston bean]

I certainly don't think so, but seems that many believe he is.

Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul. He is the least of the worries.

Ron Paul will never beat Obama in a GE, that is if Ron Paul makes it through the repub primary. Which is highly unlikely.


Start worrying about Mittens please. Anything else is a waste of time, imho.

[Sherman A1]

1. Ron Paul will not be the nominee, hence the point is moot

The GOP nominee will be Mitt, who will serve as the placeholder for 2012. The question is just who will be his VP choice as that is whom to concern oneself with for 2016.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. no.

if those dumbasses had brains enough to nominate Huntsman, I might be worried but, otherwise no.

[PeaceNikki]

3. He's not going to win, which will give what his blindered believers what they really want anyway;

the ability to declare that his defeat is because he's just too pure and good for our corrupt system. We don't *deserve* Ron Paul, in much the way we don't *deserve* a puppy!

[quinnox]

4. Nope

But it does seem that many of a certain group do feel he is one, for whatever reason. Ron Paul is not going to be the GOP nominee, barring some miracle. I also believe it will be Romney as the one to really be worried about.

[hedgehog]

5. What we really need to worry about is voter suppression and

tampering with the count!

[tooeyeten]

11. You betcha

GOP governors and state legislatures are our real threat!

[ProSense]

6. Does

" Is Ron Paul a threat to Obama?"

...a lunatic have to be "threat to Obama" to call him out?

Herman "Koch" Cain wasn't a treat either.

People called out George Allen. Why should Ron Paul, a lunatic, get special treatment?

[boston bean]

15. NonSense, your logic is twisted and I'm not sure that's all that twisted.

It's like the frickin twilight zone! Get a grip, really. Go bully and batter someone else around.

And for the jury, when this post gets alerted on:

Please take into consideration that the poster I am replying to here, is saying to me that my original post about Ron Paul never being elected and that we should start worrying about Mitt is giving Ron Paul special treatment....

The poster is indicating the my words about Ron Paul were in support of him. I think this might be some sort of stealth plan to try make it seem that people who are critical of Obama are Ron Paul supporters. And hopefully get them tombstoned.

I do not, and never have supported Ron Paul, he is a LOSER. I do NOT support him or give him special treatment.

[Solly Mack]

7. Not in the least.

[tooeyeten]

8. He's a threat to a Romney nomination

if he goes 3rd party.

[onehandle]

20. He doesn't have the guts. If he did, he wouldn't have been a Republican all these years.

Ron Paul is a fake.

So's his idiotic son.

[tooeyeten]

30. You may be correct

Ron Paul is in it for the money, why else take on the GOP mantle, and little to no gv't, and more bigger corporation/capitalism rules persona?

[ingac70]

29. Several states don't allow independent runs if you lost a party primary....

So if Paul wants to run as an independent he needs to do it NOW.

[BootinUp]

9. its important to speak out against the kind of hate

and greed represented by Ron Paul. Thats the main reason I do it. If I then see people talking about protest votes against Obama and its related to Ron Paul why not kill two birds with with one stone.

There is not much benefit for progressives in protesting the presumptive nominee at this point, not as far as I can tell.

[stockholmer]

10. beware of a surprise coming out of a GOP brokered convention

[bvar22]

12. A threat ONLY in the sense that he will force the Leadership of BOTH Parties...

... and to talk about some things they would rather NOT talk about.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[ProSense]

14. Yup

"A threat ONLY in the sense that he will force the Leadership of BOTH Parties...

... and to talk about some things they would rather NOT talk about."

...he's forcing a discussion about all his views.

Death Penalty For Gays: Ron Paul Courts The Religious Fringe In Iowa
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/ron-paul-hired-anti-gay-activist-to-run-iowa-campaign.php

"Ron Paul Claimed An AIDS Patient Is ‘A Victim Of His Own Lifestyle’ In 1987 Book "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100296072

[warrior1]

13. no

[Scuba]

16. What if the old models are no longer relevant? What if Paul uses his base....

... to energize a big chunk of the 50% of the electorate that never votes?

His advocacy for ending the wars and reducing military expenditures will resonate with some of them. Others will hear about ending the war on drugs and will be inspired to vote.

He has a more effective base than any of the others, one that may rival BHO's. He's got a slick PR machine. Some of the ads I've seen him running are eye-grabbing and attention-holding. Remember, you can't underestimate the electorate at large.


I'm not so sure the old rules apply any more. We certainly have no reason to be over-confident.

[customerserviceguy]

17. The question is

who would suffer the most from a Paul third party ticket?

There's arguments to be made that he would hurt both sides, but perhaps not equally. I do see him as a "none of the above" vote for people living in very red or very blue states who know that their votes won't mean squat in the Electoral College. It boosts up vote totals for the third party candidate, but it doesn't really affect the final outcome.

My prediction is that if he does run third party, and the Rethug candidate is Romney, then he siphons off more from the GOP in the purple states. If Santorum or some other Repuke is their nominee, he might siphon more off of Obama in those states, because of the belief that Santorum (or other) simply couldn't win, and that makes a vote for Paul more of a 'safe' vote, like the folks choosing "none of the above" in the states that tilt heavily red or blue.

This is where I think Paul is dangerous to us.

[MineralMan]

18. Of course he's not, which makes me wonder

why so many people appear to be promoting him, here on DU and nationally. Do you have any idea what that would be? Why would so many people be popping into DU and posting nonsense about Ron Paul's good qualities? That's what puzzles me. And, please note, I'm not saying that you're doing that in any way.

[boston bean]

19. Anyone who has done that has been tombstoned. you know that. nt

[MineralMan]

21. Yes, I know that. The question remains.

Why, if Paul is not a thread to President Obama's election, are people who have some political clout promoting portions of his positions, while neglecting to point out all the negatives about him? I'm not saying that you're doing that. I'm just curious if you have any idea why people might. It seems silly, if Paul is so inconsequential.

[boston bean]

23. i don't have a clue.

but he is inconsequential outside of Iowa. Even Ron Paul and Mittens are tied in Iowa. Mittens will win NH.

The party is starting to gel around mittens.

[cthulu2016]

26. It puzzles you?

"Why would so many people be popping into DU and posting nonsense about Ron Paul's good qualities?"

Because Ron Paul has a very large fanatical tech-savvy following. Everything Paul has always been way over-represented on the internet.

Paul is more "the internet candidate" than anyone. Comments sectaions and message boards have been awash in Paulism for quite some time.

Of course he is the biggest Troll candidate.

[razorman]

22. No, only to the rest of America.

[undeterred]

24. I think he is just running to stimulate conversation at holiday parties.

[cthulu2016]

25. The "centrist" war on Paul is a proxy war against the left.

It is a free shot to smear progressives as racists and homophobes by association for their "crime" of opposing global military hegemony.

Period.

It is not even subtle. There are hundreds of instances of "Why do you agree with a bigot?" here alone. God knows what the internet total is.

And it is precisely the same as attacking vegetarians with "Why do you agree with Hitler?"

The cheapest and most transparent sort of behavior.

The fact is that Paul doing well would harm the Republican party a great deal. I would love to see Paul win every primary so Obama could win 40+ states in the election.

"Why are you rooting for a bigot??!?"

Yes, my desire that Obama win 40+ states makes me a bigot. That is how the game is played.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Yep. +1

[Electric Monk]

37. That post deserves its own thread, imho

I totally agree with your assessment.

[Motown_Johnny]

28. Paul is a joke, he is not a threat

Mittens is the problem but I don't see him winning either. The numbers look bad for Pres. Obama right now because there have been 8 (R)s out there attacking him when he has not had a platform to hit back. That all changes once there is a nominee.

[deacon]

31. No. He IS a threat to the GOP though on many levels. n/t

[rucky]

32. He's flavor of the month.

and nothing to get one's knickers in a twist over.

[MH1]

33. Ron Paul's ideology and absurd attraction for some otherwise lefties, is a threat to all.

I doubt that he will be a direct threat to Obama's re-election.

Although, insofar as he or his minions convince people to defect from supporting Obama, he may yet help deliver a Republican presidency. Which is why, as awful as Romney is, I prefer for him to get the nomination than any of the others (except Huntsman, who has zero chance). It is VERY possible that the republican nominee wins in November, for a variety of reasons. I would prefer that Paul and his helpmates don't increase the probability of that occurrence.

Also, irrespective of the presidential election, Paul's ridiculous ideology of destroying the federal government is extremely harmful. To the extent that it helps move the Overton window it is very damaging to progressive ideals.

[BootinUp]

38. I wish to second that. nt

[think]

34. Ron Paul is only a threat to REPUBLICANS, their military philosophy, and their plans to bomb Iran

And no that's not an endorsement.

Ron Paul is completely screwing with their war mongering and slowing the drum beats of war. And I will enjoy every time Republicans need to use their time with the press to hammer on Ron Paul rather than Obama.

Like you say the only threat is Mitt and this is the candidate the Democrats should be concerned with. The more Ron Paul talks about cutting military spending, ending the war on drugs, and repealing the patriot act, the more heat he takes that would be aimed at Obama and progressives while making the Republican voters think about their very limited choices.

You don't even have to like Ron Paul or his views to appreciate what he is doing to the Republican message. Just a thought.

[Hawkowl]

35. +1

Yes, he is literally working to destroy the Rethuglican Party from within. Of course he would probably use the word "transform", but hey a fractured Rethuglican Party is a good thing. So, in that respect, I wish Ron Paul the best of luck in his goal of "transformation"

[xyzzy2736]

36. In a word ..No

[fishwax]

39. nope

he has next to no chance of beating Obama and his chances of beating Obama in the general would be slightly lower.

[Union Scribe]

40. Not at all.

But you wouldn't know it from GD. It's amazing the effort people are expending ranting about him and anyone who hasn't specifically denounced him as the antichrist. I'll be super happy when this goes back to being DU from RonPaulWatch.