Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
 

Wouldn't Hillary back-track pretty quick if she was actually against an anti-war Republican? I think she'd make a "pledge" to get the troops out by 2010 pretty quick if Paul won the Republican nomination, regardless of whether or not she planned to honor it.

Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You probably would see a third-party pro-war Republican candidate. Hillary might get less than 50% of the vote in this circumstance, but she would win a majority of the electoral college in a landslide, something like 45-30-25 at worst.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most Americans want the US out of Iraq. How does that resonate with what you are suggesting? Why should a pro-war candidate have an advantage over an anti-war candidate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because its not the only issue. Most democrats seem to want out of the war + some kind of universal health coverage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm not following this thread closely enough (probably, in fact), but I meant why should a pro-war Rerpublican have an advantage over an anti-war Republican?

edit: and doesn't it hurt Hillary to be pro-war, considering most Americans want us OUT of Iraq?

edit: I actually suspect the Iraq issue (and desire to leave) is pretty big on the minds of most voters; I think I read some poll showing that somewhere. It may even turn out to be more pivotal than suspected at this point.

Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
 

What would happen is this: Ron Paul would get slaughtered because his platform explicitly includes not giving away the store to corporations and other special interests. Hillary will do the usual thing and raise taxes in order to give the money to the rich. She'll get all the support of the rich and of the dupes who think raising taxes makes things "fair".

natedogg

Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the xtian right back Paul

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about that. I suspect the Christian Right just wouldn't show up.

[/ QUOTE ]

They're much likely to show up for Paul than for Giuliani...

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, the xtian right seems to have this serious obsession with the abortion issue to the point that a candidate could do or say virtually anything but as long as they're pro-life and the opponent is pro-choice, they'll back the pro-lifer.

[/ QUOTE ]

There you go. My mom is one of these voters. She's not really interested in politics, so it will be interesting to see her thoughts on it. If I told her Ron Paul was against killin babies and Guiliani isn't, he'd have her vote just for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then [censored] tell her dude!

Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You probably would see a third-party pro-war Republican candidate. Hillary might get less than 50% of the vote in this circumstance, but she would win a majority of the electoral college in a landslide, something like 45-30-25 at worst.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most Americans want the US out of Iraq. How does that resonate with what you are suggesting? Why should a pro-war candidate have an advantage over an anti-war candidate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the overwhelming majority of Democrats will vote for the Democrat even if the the Republican agree with them slightly more on the war issue.

Remember that most Democrats are both (a) anti-war and (b) currently supporting Hillary in the Democratic primary, where they have a number of more anti-war choices who also basically agree with them on the other fundamental issues. If Hillary was in any danger of losing support on the left for being too hawkish, should wouldn't have such a commanding lead among primary candidates.

Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You probably would see a third-party pro-war Republican candidate. Hillary might get less than 50% of the vote in this circumstance, but she would win a majority of the electoral college in a landslide, something like 45-30-25 at worst.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most Americans want the US out of Iraq. How does that resonate with what you are suggesting? Why should a pro-war candidate have an advantage over an anti-war candidate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the overwhelming majority of Democrats will vote for the Democrat even if the the Republican agree with them slightly more on the war issue.

Remember that most Democrats are both (a) anti-war and (b) currently supporting Hillary in the Democratic primary, where they have a number of more anti-war choices who also basically agree with them on the other fundamental issues. If Hillary was in any danger of losing support on the left for being too hawkish, should wouldn't have such a commanding lead among primary candidates.

[/ QUOTE ]

She can get away with being a war-monger for the same reason that Giuliani can get away with being "socially liberal". Both sides are terrified of the other side getting into power so they'll put up with the problems of their candidate. When faced with RP vs Hill, the dems (hopefully) will realize that he beats the balls off her on the war, the patriot act (and many other issues).

Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
 

[ QUOTE ]

You probably would see a third-party pro-war Republican candidate.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no way in hell this would happen. If it did it would cause the Republican Party to implode. The Republican Party might not be too thrilled with their more libertarian elements, but they are as dependant on them for success as they are on the Religious Right, and they know it. A move like this would drive out a third or more of the Republicans' base and the Dems would win everything for decades.

Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
 

[ QUOTE ]
What would happen is this: Ron Paul would get slaughtered because his platform explicitly includes not giving away the store to corporations and other special interests. Hillary will do the usual thing and raise taxes in order to give the money to the rich. She'll get all the support of the rich and of the dupes who think raising taxes makes things "fair".

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

This logic kind of fails if he's already won the primary since by the same logic it should have been impossible for him to win the primary.

Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What would happen is this: Ron Paul would get slaughtered because his platform explicitly includes not giving away the store to corporations and other special interests. Hillary will do the usual thing and raise taxes in order to give the money to the rich. She'll get all the support of the rich and of the dupes who think raising taxes makes things "fair".

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

This logic kind of fails if he's already won the primary since by the same logic it should have been impossible for him to win the primary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice catch.

Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
 

Outside of Hillary losing the nomination (I think she will lose, but fingers crossed), Ron Paul would be the greatest thing to ever happen to the Democrats. Ever.

Right now the public thinks the Republicans are corrupt and mean. Wait till they think they corrupt, mean and crazy. I can only wish for this scenario.