I think he has a great chance of winning. People are sick and tired of the Republican Party turning it's back on the issues we care about, and the Democratic Party does not have a strong candidate in any of their people.... esp. Clinton.
2007-10-19 14:06:43 · 19 answers · asked by The Unconventional Desert Rat II 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
FYI everybody... I have no problem with a WOMAN president. My problem with Clinton are her views on the issues, esp. her view on illegal immigrants. I am zero-tolerant with someone who is here illegally. NO amnesty, NO guest worker program. And I don't view this as SPAM. It is an honest question that is brewing in my mind. Yes, I am a Paul supporter, and I think that this election will be somewhat unique. I hate spam, and would never post a question or answer that I considered spam.
2007-10-19 14:48:03 · update #1
It sure is going to be funny as hell when he wins! Then all you people that have you head stuck some where and don't want to be free, and don't want your children to have a free life, and want the government controlling your every little move, I will be rubbing your nose right in it! Then I will still love you because you are my brothers and sisters and maybe some day you will see the good he is going to do and has done all ready for our country! And maybe you will thank us Ron Paul supporters!!!
2007-10-19 19:26:07 · answer #1 · answered by It's Me 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I agree with you 100%. i think that Ron Paul, though still a long-shot, has an ever-increasing chance of winning the nomination. If you'd ask me this a month ago i would have said no way (& i'm a Paul supporter). His campaign is growing, he's rasing great money, and he's growing the Republican Party by leaps and bounds. He's the only GOP candidate with a message worth listening to. He has a chance because very few people even vote in these primaries (usually in the hundreds of thousands in each state). With all his volunteers across the country, if they all go to the polls and just bring 2 people with them, he'll win hands-down. Of course this is easier said than done. However, he has the most devoted following of all the GOP field and EVERY one of them will brave the cold Jan. and Feb. weather to go vote, that can't be said for the others whose bases are a lot less devoted.
2007-10-19 14:16:24 · answer #2 · answered by S. A. 2 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Well at least we will make a statement we DO NOT approve of the other candidates.
Can't believe everything we hear through the media either, with those who run them having definite political favorites(and Ron Paul would be last on their list).
If we listen to everyone who says he won't or can't win he will definitely lose. So it's better to vote for him anyway than anyone else they have chosen for us.
Notice how some folks really put him down, not just casually, but with a vengeance.
2007-10-19 14:41:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The USA as a whole knows very little about Ron Paul. If you asked most anyone who is running for the Republicans, you would get the standard answer of Rudy, Fred Thompson, Mit Romney, and the dude from Arizona--Mc Cain. If Ron Paul is to have ANY chance, he needs more ads on TV--more public exposure, and he needs to do something, anything the national press will pick up on to get his name before the voting public.
2007-10-19 14:13:16 · answer #4 · answered by Mike 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Unfortantely, his chances are as good as a snowball's in heck. But, that's because Libertarian values and philosphy aren't readily accepted by the generally ignorant voting population of our once great country.
Ron Paul is a Republican in Name Only, thank goodness.
He believes in limited government and embraces personal and property rights too much to be either Republican or Democrat.
Vote Ron Paul in 2008!
2007-10-19 14:13:02 · answer #5 · answered by shuttster2000 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The campaign only spent $2,824,785 of the $8,240,610 that he received in the first three quarters. That is only 34 percent.
During the third quarter, Paul received more itemized contributions (donations exceeding $200) than both Giuliani and Romney in 7 states: Washington, New Mexico, Kansas, North Dakota, Montana, Alaska, and Hawaii. [44] [45] [46] In Iowa he received only 2 percent less itemized contributions than Romney, the winner of the straw poll. Fourty-nine percent of Paul's total contributions was from donations not exceeding $200 and therefore was not included in the state totals for the quarter. [47] Eighteen percent of Romney's total contributions was not included. [48] Only eleven percent of Giuliani's total contributions was not included. [49] With donations of $200 or less included, it can be estimated that Paul received more contributions than both Giuliani and Romney in an additional 5 states: Iowa, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Nebraska. It also can be estimated that he only received one eighth (1/8) less than than Romney, the leader, in New Hampshire.
2007-10-19 19:17:58 · answer #6 · answered by Eric Inri 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the only unmarried maximum important element status contained in the way of Paul's nomination and election is that he's not element of the device that elects Presidents (of both activities); i imagine that is more suitable as if he's one of its direst enemies. with out that device, how does one get nominated, a lot less elected? i imagine that is naive to anticipate that federal elections contained in the US - and rather, social gathering nominations - are this a lot up for grabs, or rather contained in the fingers of a wise public opinion. If trouble-free human beings might want to, and did, vote in accordance to rational evaluation, of their very personal perfect pastime, Paul might want to have a probability, yet i trust that ain't the way it extremely works. that is a promotion interest, and Paul as a product is by no skill getting off the Republican social gathering drafting board... he in basic terms does no longer owe the right human beings something. regardless of if I disagree with a number of his positions and on some others i'm no longer as radical as he, that is rather clean to me to verify such an truthful, principled, freethinking individual operating for the place of work on the on the spot. His integrity is rock-sturdy and his values are, for the most section, all-American. I want i did not sense so cynical about the political procedure he (and everybody like him) might want to be up adversarial to... yet to be in the different case might want to look so naive.
2016-10-21 10:43:58 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ron Paul won't win.
The Republican Party has lost its balls, and the Democratic Party has lost its mind.
Sure, I consider myself a Libertarian. But we have to be honest with ourselves, Paul won't win. People are sick of Republicans and Democrats are the only major option. Obama is too young and unexperience, Clinton is just insane.
I would GLADLY take Ron Paul over anyone. But if by chance Obama or Hilary win, I'm moving to Canada.
2007-10-19 14:11:45 · answer #8 · answered by Hello Goodbye 3 · 3⤊ 4⤋
No chance for a third party candidate. In some states including NC, you cannot write in or vote for third parties in Presidential elections...
I'm sick of people saying that Clinton is not experienced or knowledgeable about our nations issues. I think it is ignorant and sexist. I would not vote for her unless she were the only choice against Thompson or Gulliani, but my issues with her as a politician more stem from her senate votes and a Bush/Clinton dynasty that could last 30+ years.
2007-10-19 14:24:16 · answer #9 · answered by chef.jnstwrt 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋
He has no chance, quit with this spam will ya! Why don't you ask this poll question?
If you write in Ron Paul, cause he will not be on a ticket... who would you have voted for the Republican candidate or the Democratic Candidate? That way we will know who he is hurting the most! LOL
2007-10-19 14:10:32 · answer #10 · answered by Krypto 2 · 1⤊ 6⤋