FROM A RECENT EMAIL
>I did just read an article on that asked- Can Ron Paul Really get the Republican Nomination? Interesting article and an interesting guy.
I say “yes”. For those not educated in gooferment skool, the Republican Party up to Bush41 was the party of “settling wars started by the D’s”. The Taft (after Ohio-ian Robert Taft) Wing of the Republic Party was the fiscally-sound morally-pure non-interventionist part of the Party. As opposed to the Rockefeller Wing (Nelson Rockefeller), that was the fiscal-looser socially-liberal interventionist foreign policy side. When Goldwater was badly beaten by LBJ, on the war issue, where that “nuclear commercial” misrepresenting where he stood on the war, (despite the fact that the D’s expanded the Vietnam disaster), the Taft wing was pretty badly beaten up. Ron Paul is from that Taft tradition.
Can he win?
The nomination, quite possibly. He energizes the Taft wing. He’s alone as being solidly against the war, unlike all the R’s and D’s.
He wins the nomination if the people really support him. The power brokers in the Republican party are, at their heart, greedy men. Is it better to be on the winning side of a potentially small government guy who will need you to get anything done. OR, on the losing side, waiting for your turn at the trough in 4, 8, or 12 years? I think if he looks like a winner, they’ll take the Ron Paul side that bet.
The Presidency is a better possibility. Assuming he gets the Republican nomination.
The war may split the D’s vote.
The fiscal discipline of Ross Perot brought out 30% of the vote (20M votes) which represented a substantial part of those who never vote. About 10% R’s, 10% D’s, and 10% of the never voting.
If you you look at the eligible to vote as the whole population (i.e., 100%), about half don’t vote. The D’s get about 50% of the 50% that do vote so they have 25%. The R’s get about 40% of the 50% that do vote so they have 20%. If the D’s split on the war, they could give RP 12.5% and say Hillary 12.5%. If the R’s split, it will be into into the Tafts and the Rockafellers. The Taft R’s should give Ron Paul their whole 10%. The Rockefeller R’s should split 5% to RP and 5% for Hillary. The unwashed 50% are awakened to come out and vote in the same proportion as Perot that give RP say 16%. That gives him 12.5+10+5+16 = 43.5% versus Hillary 17.5% on the high side. If the D’s don’t split it’s RP 10+5+16=31% to Hillary 25%. That doesn’t take into account that Hillary has the highest negatives ever seen (i.e., will people come out just to vote against her?).
> I’m still not sure why he doesn’t just run as an independent and forgo the Republican Party altogether.
As a Republican candidate, unlike when he ran as a libertarian, there’s no “wasted vote” argument. The “wasted vote” argument is a Democratic Party tactic. In a three way race, Ron Paul elects Hillary. Just as Perot elected Clinton. Perot was a democrat before he ran as an independent. The fix was in.
You can see the same scenario setting up now with Bloomberg. He’s a RINO like Perot. He is in title a Republican mayor of a very liberal NYC. He would have ran as a democrat but was block by the Democratic Party Bosses. Since he was the only chance that the Republic Party had at the mayorship, they rolled over an gave it to him. Now, with the Presidential election coming, the Democratic Party can use this “useful idiot” (who is a very smart fellow; little nuts; but a determined veteran of Wall Street. Who I met on two occasions.) to “Perot” the Presidential election.
In a McCRomneyGulliani – Hillary race, Hillary’s high negative might elect a “hold your nose” Republican. Throw a RINO Bloomberg in like a Perot and she wins in a heartbeat! It’s not even close.
But, if the Republicans nominate Ron Paul, that RINO Bloomberg strategy does nothing for the Democrats. As a matter of fact, Ron Paul is “deal breaker”. Take all the common wisdom and toss it out the window. He’s a straight shooter with a bullet proof voting record. And, if he energizes just three components to vote for him — the disaffected non-voters, the anti war Democrats, and the fiscally conservative Republicans — then hello, it’s a landslide that will eclipse the all past ones. It could easily be a popular sweep that would unify the country. In 2000 was Bush 271 electors with 50M votes versus Gore 266 electors with 51M votes. I’d predict Ron Paul runs the table with 450 electors leaving Hillary CA=54 + NY=33 for 87 electors. The popular vote would be even worse imho, when the silent majority comes out. Ron Paul 75M, Hillary 25M.
It’s possible. It’s about a candidate who breaks all the molds, rules of thumbs, and past precedents. If he can energizes the anti-war D’s, the fiscal conservative R’s, and get the disaffected to come vote, then he’s the President.
Now watch for the dirty tricks, because neither side — D’s or R’s — wants this racket to end. It will end. The only question is if it can be a “soft landing” with a Ron Paul Presidency, or a “harder landing” when all these “problem” chickens come home to roost.
# # # # #