Activism Discussion: Ron Paul Is Best Positioned To Win The GOP Nomination

Ron Paul Is Best Positioned To Win The GOP Nomination
Posts: 9

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

John
2007-12-24 01:00:24 EST
Ron Paul will win by a landslide Larry Fester
Published 12/22/2007 - 9:51 p.m.

Analysis/Opinion-Republican presidential candidate and Texas Congressman,
Ron Paul, can win the presidency. Contrary to the pundits and media
propaganda, Ron Paul is best positioned to win the GOP nomination.

Ron Paul has more money than his opponents and is just starting to gain
momentum. As a result of massive popular support Paul's donor base is huge
and donors are not close to reaching contribution limits. Paul's opponents
are going broke and their donors are maxed out. Ron Paul may raise 20
million this quarter and chances are he'll raise more the next quarter.

To get an idea of how strong Paul's support is consider this. Ron Paul
received donations from over 123,000 people this quarter. If one out of 100
voters donate to a presidential candidate that means Paul has the support of
over 12 million primary voters. My guess is that less than 1 out of 100
voters donate in a primary.

Of Paul's opponents, John McCain and Mike Huckabee are broke and don't have
the funds to compete on Super Tuesday. Both candidates appear to be media
creations in this election and don't have that much popular support. If it
weren't for undeserved free media they wouldn't be on the radar screens.

Giuliani was forced to go with his big state strategy because he ran the
risk of getting creamed in early primaries. He appears to be a led balloon
and runs the risk of losing some of those big states to Paul. Thompson just
hasn't taken off. There is a chance he could get revived in South Carolina
but he may not make it that far.

Romney is self financing his campaign and can go the distance, but how much
of his personal wealth is he willing to squander?

Recent commentaries and political talk have mentioned the possibility of a
brokered convention. This is an early admission by pundits that Ron Paul
can't
be stopped, and a hope that he won't have 50% of the delegates allowing his
opponents to broker a deal to deny him the nomination.

Paul is unique among GOP candidates because his support is national. He can
compete in every state.

The primary calendar has been frontloaded which was deliberate to keep
second tier candidates (candidates not bought and paid for) from having a
shot at winning the nomination. It is doubtful that when planning the
schedules anybody had a clue that Ron Paul would be one of the only
candidate that could be competitive on February 5th

Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, Florida,
Maine are all up for grabs prior to Super Tuesday which is on February 5th.
Given the low expectations Paul only needs to win one of these to show that
he can win prior to Super Tuesday.

The Iowa caucus on January 3rd will be a tough start for Paul. He hasn't
spent that much time in Iowa and may not have the organization that Romney
does to win the caucus. Placing in the top five is all that is needed there.
A third place would be huge.

Two days later on February 5th is the Wyoming Caucus. This state is a
neighbor of Utah and Romney may have a strong organization here as well.
Paul may do well here though.

January 8th in New Hampshire is where the campaign really starts for Ron
Paul. He doesn't need to win it but he probably will. Buchanan won this
state in 1996 running on similar campaign themes with 27% of the vote.
Paul's
support is much broader.

Paul's odds look good for Michigan on January 15th. The state is a
foreclosure war zone and Paul's blaming of the Federal Reserve for creating
a housing crash may resonate well.

January 19th Nevada and South Carolina are up for elections. Paul should win
Nevada and has an outside shot at South Carolina.

On January 29th Florida is up. This is the state where Giuliani has circled
his wagons. If he's still in the race it will be an uphill battle for him
especially if Paul has momentum generated by a couple victories. There is
evidence of Paul support in Florida on the ground just by observing bumper
stickers and yard signs on residences but Giuliani also has some visible
support.

Of course, if Paul wins New Hampshire the momentum generated from that
victory is likely to steam roll his campaign through all of the above
mentioned states setting him up for the knock out punch on Super Tuesday.

If Ron Paul doesn't have the nomination sewed up on Super Tuesday, Paul's
delegate rich home state of Texas will be the final nail in the coffin come
March.

The point is it is already too late to stop Paul. He's going to win the
Republican nomination.

As a general election candidate Ron Paul will win a 50 state landslide
against any Democratic nominee.

Ron Paul's opposition to the war in Iraq, and defense of the Bill of Rights,
and Civil Liberties, may actually dig deeply into the Democratic vote and
overwhelmingly attract independents to his campaign.

His support for secure borders as an integral part of national defense is
also a very popular issue that transcends parties.

If Ron Paul is the GOP nominee it won't matter if Bloomberg or anybody else
runs as a third party candidate. Once people go to Paul's website and review
his issues and record they either reject Paul's ideas or they are sold. Paul
will not lose any supporters to another candidate once they are in his camp.

Unlike media propaganda, the ideals of peace, freedom, and prosperity, are
very mainstream. To the aging baby boomer population now on fixed incomes,
Ron Paul's challenging of the Federal Reserve's 'Inflation Tax' is most
welcomed. To the rest of America feeling the double whammy of an 'Inflation
Tax' and progressive federal income taxes, Paul's calls to end the income
tax are a cause for celebration.

In fact, Paul's calls for reforming the monetary system, the income tax,
foreign policy, and protecting the Constitution, are a lot more mainstream
than pre-emptive nuclear war, no borders, and a police state are.

Those media generated polls are as valuable as the media propaganda that
pushed the nation to war in Iraq. People should have as much faith in polls
as they do the Easter Bunny and computerized voting. Ron Paul is going to
win by a landslide.

http://www.usadaily.com/printFriendly.cfm?articleID=207908




What Me Worry?
2007-12-24 05:11:50 EST
The GOP will nominate Ron Paul only if they are seroius about slowing down
the Obama/Clinton juggernaut. A Paul/Kucinich ticket would take some wind
out of Obama's sails.

IMO: This election has "dark horse" written all over it.

"John" <JohnDsena@nmail.comx> wrote in message
news:YVHbj.1205$OH6.708@trndny03...
> Ron Paul will win by a landslide Larry Fester
> Published 12/22/2007 - 9:51 p.m.
>
> Analysis/Opinion-Republican presidential candidate and Texas Congressman,
> Ron Paul, can win the presidency. Contrary to the pundits and media
> propaganda, Ron Paul is best positioned to win the GOP nomination.
>
> Ron Paul has more money than his opponents and is just starting to gain
> momentum. As a result of massive popular support Paul's donor base is huge
> and donors are not close to reaching contribution limits. Paul's opponents
> are going broke and their donors are maxed out. Ron Paul may raise 20
> million this quarter and chances are he'll raise more the next quarter.
>
> To get an idea of how strong Paul's support is consider this. Ron Paul
> received donations from over 123,000 people this quarter. If one out of
> 100
> voters donate to a presidential candidate that means Paul has the support
> of
> over 12 million primary voters. My guess is that less than 1 out of 100
> voters donate in a primary.
>
> Of Paul's opponents, John McCain and Mike Huckabee are broke and don't
> have
> the funds to compete on Super Tuesday. Both candidates appear to be media
> creations in this election and don't have that much popular support. If it
> weren't for undeserved free media they wouldn't be on the radar screens.
>
> Giuliani was forced to go with his big state strategy because he ran the
> risk of getting creamed in early primaries. He appears to be a led balloon
> and runs the risk of losing some of those big states to Paul. Thompson
> just
> hasn't taken off. There is a chance he could get revived in South Carolina
> but he may not make it that far.
>
> Romney is self financing his campaign and can go the distance, but how
> much
> of his personal wealth is he willing to squander?
>
> Recent commentaries and political talk have mentioned the possibility of a
> brokered convention. This is an early admission by pundits that Ron Paul
> can't
> be stopped, and a hope that he won't have 50% of the delegates allowing
> his
> opponents to broker a deal to deny him the nomination.
>
> Paul is unique among GOP candidates because his support is national. He
> can
> compete in every state.
>
> The primary calendar has been frontloaded which was deliberate to keep
> second tier candidates (candidates not bought and paid for) from having a
> shot at winning the nomination. It is doubtful that when planning the
> schedules anybody had a clue that Ron Paul would be one of the only
> candidate that could be competitive on February 5th
>
> Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, Florida,
> Maine are all up for grabs prior to Super Tuesday which is on February
> 5th.
> Given the low expectations Paul only needs to win one of these to show
> that
> he can win prior to Super Tuesday.
>
> The Iowa caucus on January 3rd will be a tough start for Paul. He hasn't
> spent that much time in Iowa and may not have the organization that Romney
> does to win the caucus. Placing in the top five is all that is needed
> there.
> A third place would be huge.
>
> Two days later on February 5th is the Wyoming Caucus. This state is a
> neighbor of Utah and Romney may have a strong organization here as well.
> Paul may do well here though.
>
> January 8th in New Hampshire is where the campaign really starts for Ron
> Paul. He doesn't need to win it but he probably will. Buchanan won this
> state in 1996 running on similar campaign themes with 27% of the vote.
> Paul's
> support is much broader.
>
> Paul's odds look good for Michigan on January 15th. The state is a
> foreclosure war zone and Paul's blaming of the Federal Reserve for
> creating
> a housing crash may resonate well.
>
> January 19th Nevada and South Carolina are up for elections. Paul should
> win
> Nevada and has an outside shot at South Carolina.
>
> On January 29th Florida is up. This is the state where Giuliani has
> circled
> his wagons. If he's still in the race it will be an uphill battle for him
> especially if Paul has momentum generated by a couple victories. There is
> evidence of Paul support in Florida on the ground just by observing bumper
> stickers and yard signs on residences but Giuliani also has some visible
> support.
>
> Of course, if Paul wins New Hampshire the momentum generated from that
> victory is likely to steam roll his campaign through all of the above
> mentioned states setting him up for the knock out punch on Super Tuesday.
>
> If Ron Paul doesn't have the nomination sewed up on Super Tuesday, Paul's
> delegate rich home state of Texas will be the final nail in the coffin
> come
> March.
>
> The point is it is already too late to stop Paul. He's going to win the
> Republican nomination.
>
> As a general election candidate Ron Paul will win a 50 state landslide
> against any Democratic nominee.
>
> Ron Paul's opposition to the war in Iraq, and defense of the Bill of
> Rights,
> and Civil Liberties, may actually dig deeply into the Democratic vote and
> overwhelmingly attract independents to his campaign.
>
> His support for secure borders as an integral part of national defense is
> also a very popular issue that transcends parties.
>
> If Ron Paul is the GOP nominee it won't matter if Bloomberg or anybody
> else
> runs as a third party candidate. Once people go to Paul's website and
> review
> his issues and record they either reject Paul's ideas or they are sold.
> Paul
> will not lose any supporters to another candidate once they are in his
> camp.
>
> Unlike media propaganda, the ideals of peace, freedom, and prosperity, are
> very mainstream. To the aging baby boomer population now on fixed incomes,
> Ron Paul's challenging of the Federal Reserve's 'Inflation Tax' is most
> welcomed. To the rest of America feeling the double whammy of an
> 'Inflation
> Tax' and progressive federal income taxes, Paul's calls to end the income
> tax are a cause for celebration.
>
> In fact, Paul's calls for reforming the monetary system, the income tax,
> foreign policy, and protecting the Constitution, are a lot more mainstream
> than pre-emptive nuclear war, no borders, and a police state are.
>
> Those media generated polls are as valuable as the media propaganda that
> pushed the nation to war in Iraq. People should have as much faith in
> polls
> as they do the Easter Bunny and computerized voting. Ron Paul is going to
> win by a landslide.
>
> http://www.usadaily.com/printFriendly.cfm?articleID=207908
>
>
>



Einstein
2007-12-24 09:47:26 EST
The Republican Party would rather vote Obama in that Ron Paul, Go away!

Gooserider
2007-12-24 16:49:11 EST

"What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
news:0cadnWihSPR7GPLanZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@insightbb.com...
> The GOP will nominate Ron Paul only if they are seroius about slowing down
> the Obama/Clinton juggernaut. A Paul/Kucinich ticket would take some wind
> out of Obama's sails.
>
> IMO: This election has "dark horse" written all over it.
>

I don't think the Democrats are going to nominate Obama. He's a tough sell
in the South. Hillary is going to have a tough time, too. I wouldn't be
suprised one bit to see Edwards get the nomination. He's a charming guy and
his rags-to-riches story will sell.

New Hampshire will tell loads about the Paul campaign. I would imagine the
Paul voters(and I am one) will get out to vote, no matter what the weather
brings. Will bad weather keep the Giuliani and Romney voters?



Mimus
2007-12-24 22:04:50 EST
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:49:11 -0500, Gooserider wrote:

> I wouldn't be
> suprised one bit to see Edwards get the nomination. He's a charming guy and
> his rags-to-riches story will sell.

I hope to God you're right, because otherwise this might be the first
Presidential election I haven't voted in since I started, in 1976 . . . .

Paul's dead on his "unlimited immigration" policy alone.

And Huckabee's most sleazily pandering to Christian Theocrats who apply a
"religious test" to their votes, hardly consonant with the Constitutional
proscription of "religious tests" to hold office (although of course that
is probably to be considered to apply only to formal requirements, not
voters wiser and more pious than the Founding Fathers taking it upon
themselves to impose such test through their votes), which Constitution
Huckabee's running (and has no doubt taken previous oaths) to uphold.

So let's not hear anything about _his_ integrity or reverence for the
Constitution.

I noticed Romney in his "I'm a Mormon but I'm OK" speech didn't mention
that, either, presumably to avoid offending such "religious testers" at
the cost of offending Constitutionalists.

--

Conservatism = plutocracy + theocracy + hypocrisy
Liberalism = plutocracy + psychosociocracy + hypocrisy



BOB
2007-12-24 22:16:39 EST
mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:AM2dnel9TYDX7u3anZ2dnUVZ_t6onZ2d@giganews.com:

> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:49:11 -0500, Gooserider wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't be
>> suprised one bit to see Edwards get the nomination. He's a charming
>> guy and his rags-to-riches story will sell.
>
> I hope to God you're right, because otherwise this might be the first
> Presidential election I haven't voted in since I started, in 1976 . .
> . .
>
> Paul's dead on his "unlimited immigration" policy alone.
>
> And Huckabee's most sleazily pandering to Christian Theocrats who
> apply a "religious test" to their votes, hardly consonant with the
> Constitutional proscription of "religious tests" to hold office
> (although of course that is probably to be considered to apply only to
> formal requirements, not voters wiser and more pious than the Founding
> Fathers taking it upon themselves to impose such test through their
> votes), which Constitution Huckabee's running (and has no doubt taken
> previous oaths) to uphold.
>
> So let's not hear anything about _his_ integrity or reverence for the
> Constitution.
>
> I noticed Romney in his "I'm a Mormon but I'm OK" speech didn't
> mention that, either, presumably to avoid offending such "religious
> testers" at the cost of offending Constitutionalists.
>

Anyone with an ounce of common sense would realize what a terrible thing
it is to mix religion and politics just from seeing how theocratic
countries like those currently in the middle east are managed. Can you
imagine one of those religious republiKKKan nutcases becoming president
of the U.S. and having their finger on the nuclear trigger? A nightmare
for sure.


Mimus
2007-12-25 00:59:13 EST
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 03:16:39 +0000, BOB wrote:

> mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:AM2dnel9TYDX7u3anZ2dnUVZ_t6onZ2d@giganews.com:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:49:11 -0500, Gooserider wrote:
>>
>>> I wouldn't be
>>> suprised one bit to see Edwards get the nomination. He's a charming
>>> guy and his rags-to-riches story will sell.
>>
>> I hope to God you're right, because otherwise this might be the first
>> Presidential election I haven't voted in since I started, in 1976 . .
>> . .
>>
>> Paul's dead on his "unlimited immigration" policy alone.
>>
>> And Huckabee's most sleazily pandering to Christian Theocrats who
>> apply a "religious test" to their votes, hardly consonant with the
>> Constitutional proscription of "religious tests" to hold office
>> (although of course that is probably to be considered to apply only to
>> formal requirements, not voters wiser and more pious than the Founding
>> Fathers taking it upon themselves to impose such test through their
>> votes), which Constitution Huckabee's running (and has no doubt taken
>> previous oaths) to uphold.
>>
>> So let's not hear anything about _his_ integrity or reverence for the
>> Constitution.
>>
>> I noticed Romney in his "I'm a Mormon but I'm OK" speech didn't
>> mention that, either, presumably to avoid offending such "religious
>> testers" at the cost of offending Constitutionalists.
>
> Anyone with an ounce of common sense would realize what a terrible thing
> it is to mix religion and politics just from seeing how theocratic
> countries like those currently in the middle east are managed. Can you
> imagine one of those religious republiKKKan nutcases becoming president
> of the U.S. and having their finger on the nuclear trigger? A nightmare
> for sure.

There was a great and hilarious Wayne Crawford action-movie about that,
released on VHS but never yet on DVD, _Rising Storm_, in which the
Reverend Billy Bob the Second was the current dictator, and . . . .

--

And now the saints began their reign,
For which th' had yearned so long in vain,
And felt such bowel-hankerings,
To see an empire, all of kings,
Delivered from th' Egyptian awe
Of justice, government and law.

< _Hudibras_



BOB
2007-12-25 10:42:21 EST
mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:GsCdnSTnif-1Ae3anZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@giganews.com:

> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 03:16:39 +0000, BOB wrote:
>
>> mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:AM2dnel9TYDX7u3anZ2dnUVZ_t6onZ2d@giganews.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:49:11 -0500, Gooserider wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wouldn't be
>>>> suprised one bit to see Edwards get the nomination. He's a charming
>>>> guy and his rags-to-riches story will sell.
>>>
>>> I hope to God you're right, because otherwise this might be the
>>> first Presidential election I haven't voted in since I started, in
>>> 1976 . . . .
>>>
>>> Paul's dead on his "unlimited immigration" policy alone.
>>>
>>> And Huckabee's most sleazily pandering to Christian Theocrats who
>>> apply a "religious test" to their votes, hardly consonant with the
>>> Constitutional proscription of "religious tests" to hold office
>>> (although of course that is probably to be considered to apply only
>>> to formal requirements, not voters wiser and more pious than the
>>> Founding Fathers taking it upon themselves to impose such test
>>> through their votes), which Constitution Huckabee's running (and has
>>> no doubt taken previous oaths) to uphold.
>>>
>>> So let's not hear anything about _his_ integrity or reverence for
>>> the Constitution.
>>>
>>> I noticed Romney in his "I'm a Mormon but I'm OK" speech didn't
>>> mention that, either, presumably to avoid offending such "religious
>>> testers" at the cost of offending Constitutionalists.
>>
>> Anyone with an ounce of common sense would realize what a terrible
>> thing it is to mix religion and politics just from seeing how
>> theocratic countries like those currently in the middle east are
>> managed. Can you imagine one of those religious republiKKKan
>> nutcases becoming president of the U.S. and having their finger on
>> the nuclear trigger? A nightmare for sure.
>
> There was a great and hilarious Wayne Crawford action-movie about
> that, released on VHS but never yet on DVD, _Rising Storm_, in which
> the Reverend Billy Bob the Second was the current dictator, and . . .
> .
Thanks, I'll look for that one.

Hmmm, I can relate Billy Bob the second to Bush the second, who has been
a complete disaster for this country.


>


Mimus
2007-12-25 14:54:09 EST
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 15:42:21 +0000, BOB wrote:

> mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:GsCdnSTnif-1Ae3anZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@giganews.com:
>
>> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 03:16:39 +0000, BOB wrote:
>>
>>> mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:AM2dnel9TYDX7u3anZ2dnUVZ_t6onZ2d@giganews.com:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 16:49:11 -0500, Gooserider wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't be
>>>>> suprised one bit to see Edwards get the nomination. He's a charming
>>>>> guy and his rags-to-riches story will sell.
>>>>
>>>> I hope to God you're right, because otherwise this might be the
>>>> first Presidential election I haven't voted in since I started, in
>>>> 1976 . . . .
>>>>
>>>> Paul's dead on his "unlimited immigration" policy alone.
>>>>
>>>> And Huckabee's most sleazily pandering to Christian Theocrats who
>>>> apply a "religious test" to their votes, hardly consonant with the
>>>> Constitutional proscription of "religious tests" to hold office
>>>> (although of course that is probably to be considered to apply only
>>>> to formal requirements, not voters wiser and more pious than the
>>>> Founding Fathers taking it upon themselves to impose such test
>>>> through their votes), which Constitution Huckabee's running (and has
>>>> no doubt taken previous oaths) to uphold.
>>>>
>>>> So let's not hear anything about _his_ integrity or reverence for
>>>> the Constitution.
>>>>
>>>> I noticed Romney in his "I'm a Mormon but I'm OK" speech didn't
>>>> mention that, either, presumably to avoid offending such "religious
>>>> testers" at the cost of offending Constitutionalists.
>>>
>>> Anyone with an ounce of common sense would realize what a terrible
>>> thing it is to mix religion and politics just from seeing how
>>> theocratic countries like those currently in the middle east are
>>> managed. Can you imagine one of those religious republiKKKan
>>> nutcases becoming president of the U.S. and having their finger on
>>> the nuclear trigger? A nightmare for sure.
>>
>> There was a great and hilarious Wayne Crawford action-movie about
>> that, released on VHS but never yet on DVD, _Rising Storm_, in which
>> the Reverend Billy Bob the Second was the current dictator, and . . .
>
> Thanks, I'll look for that one.

Tell _me_ when ya find it . . . .

His _Jake Speed_, which would be at least not so specifically offensive to
American Protestant Christian Theocrats, has long been out on DVD, but for
some reason . . . .

I rank that up there with The Strange Case of the Vanishing _Icebreaker_
Translation as examples of how present-day American censorship works.

Although both pale next to the classic total thirty-year-long blackout
concerning Winter-Berger's thirty-year-old classic _The Washington
Pay-Off_, a classic expose of classic DC corruption--

(And by the way, whatever _did_ happen to Abramoff? did he get
"disappeared"?--)

Which also clearly if implicitly raises the possibility that JFK was
assassinated by individuals ultimately in the pay of one or more of LBJ's
Texas "money-men", with or without LBJ's knowledge-- although it's
fascinating that neither possibility was even _mentioned_ by the Warren
Commission, which LBJ, _the classic qui bono in the case_, _sat on_.

--

When was the last time you heard an American politician
use the word "plutocracy"?

Page: 1   (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron