|
Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
I know the odds of this happening are way out there, but what the hell, humor me...
So, the planets align, money keeps pooring in, blah blah blah, Ron Paul gets nominated for the repubs. On the other side, everything goes as expected and Hillary gets the nomination. What does this do to their respective bases? Suddenly, the repubs are running an anti-war candidate and Hillary is the hawk? Does the dems anti war base vote repub? Does the current anyone but clinton camp, switch their entire tune? I just think it would be an interesting, although highly improbable scenario... |
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
Wouldnt be the first time in history though, would it? George Will said that conservatives are actually SUPPOSED to be anti-war.
Pages: 1 canis582 Carpal \'Tunnel Reged: 01/13/05 Posts: 3216 Loc: 1c-2c PLO8 whole roll on table UB @ 9am #12830399 - 11/06/07 08:41 AM Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply Screen name canis582. Post Extras: |
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
The Neocons revert to their liberal democrat socialist roots and back Hillary but don't admit to it.
Conservatives, libertarians, and the xtian right back Paul. |
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
It would be a strange race. You'd see more people cross aisles than any race in the past century and the percentage of people actually bothering to vote would likely jump 10-15% or more even.
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
Canis busted his $3.86 roll. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
I had that thing forever too. It was even at 13 recently.
As a liberal, it is hard for me to care about money enough to pay attention to something as boring as nlhe. Oh yeah, I am gonna switch to republican to vote for Ron Paul, just to mess with the media. |
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
the xtian right back Paul [/ QUOTE ] I don't know about that. I suspect the Christian Right just wouldn't show up. |
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
Hilary would run commercials of Paul's appearance on the Morton Downy Jr. show non stop and his support would die out faster than you can say massive government.
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
The republican establishment would back a third candidate in order to siphon votes away from Dr. Paul. There by ensuring neither candidate would get the needed 270 electoral votes giving the presidency to Hillary because of the Democratic control of Congress.
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ 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 ] I think RP is in a great position to win the xtian right vote. First, his abortion position is very helpful with them, especially when running against people like Romney and Guiliani. The "get the govt off my back" feeling are actually fairly strong in this group. The last issue is that Ron Paul seems to be the "most likely to be sitting next to me in church" of the bunch (besides Huckabee probably). |
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
The republican establishment would back a third candidate in order to siphon votes away from Dr. Paul. There by ensuring neither candidate would get the needed 270 electoral votes giving the presidency to Hillary because of the Democratic control of Congress. [/ QUOTE ] It's not quite this simple. Each state gets 1 vote. I'm not sure how the distribution pans out, especially since Republicans usually do well in a large number of small states, and the Democrats do well in a small number of large states. |
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ 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... |
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The republican establishment would back a third candidate in order to siphon votes away from Dr. Paul. There by ensuring neither candidate would get the needed 270 electoral votes giving the presidency to Hillary because of the Democratic control of Congress. [/ QUOTE ] It's not quite this simple. Each state gets 1 vote. I'm not sure how the distribution pans out, especially since Republicans usually do well in a large number of small states, and the Democrats do well in a small number of large states. [/ QUOTE ] I guess civics class was a long time ago. Anyways here is how it would go. What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 electoral votes? If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each State delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House. |
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
wait what? did you take a writing class too?
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ 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. |
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
Hillary wins with 60% or more.
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ 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. |
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
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. |
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ 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? |
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 its not the only issue. Most democrats seem to want out of the war + some kind of universal health coverage. |
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. |
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
Wait till they think they corrupt, mean and crazy. [/ QUOTE ] You guys gotta admit - being pro-freedom really is kinda "out there." Sometimes I think I've got a screw loose! [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] |
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Wait till they think they corrupt, mean and crazy. [/ QUOTE ] You guys gotta admit - being pro-freedom really is kinda "out there." Sometimes I think I've got a screw loose! [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Obviously the "Founding Fathers" were complete nut jobs... Good thing we've made a clean break from their principles. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] |
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously the "Founding Fathers" were complete nut jobs... [/ QUOTE ] Should have been obvious from the crazy wigs they wore. And no income tax? No Department of Education? Are you kidding me? They should have all been in an asylum. |
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
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. [/ QUOTE ] So...do you happen to think the men who founded America were crazy, too? You know, guys like Madison, Jefferson, Adams? Crazy ideas, huh? |
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
I think the only one who can beat Hilary is Ron Paul. I do not think someone can win the White House who supports the Iraq war, just not going to fly. As far as running a Third party if Paul wins nomination, I doubt that. It would almost surely make Hilary president. As much as the Republicans hate Paul it is nothing compared to their distain for Hilary.
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
First, do the Republicans "stand by their man" if Paul wins? How would it effect the party?
|
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
Second, if Ron starts to win because of a base split with no single, clear, rival; do the big government Republicans pick a pony, rally around him and punish those off-message?
|
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 ] Fair enough. But it's an exercise in absurdism to imagine Ron Paul as the republican candidate, because of that fact. The same reasons apply to why he won't get the nomination. All the major candidates are mostly a collection of special interest give-aways. Whichever special interests you'd like to see take money from the poor, just pick the candidate who is in bed with them and you've got your man. Ron Paul represents the complete absence of special interest payoffs, and thus he cannot win. natedogg |
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
Ron Paul represents the complete absence of special interest payoffs, and thus he cannot win. Thus his appeal to the masses. |
Re: Longshot Theoretical Question: Paul v Hillary
[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul represents the complete absence of special interest payoffs, and thus he cannot win. [/ QUOTE ] "Taxpayers" is a pretty mighty special interest. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:41 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.