You believe that Ron Paul can defeat Hillary Rotten Clinton?

Question

He has enormous support from internet people. I believe he
can whip her 10-1.

Answer 1

Try he must. His followers have to ensure that all his fan following is transformed in to votes. Of course Hillary is a mighty big opponent.

Answer 2

i think of the unfavorable guy have been given a foul deal on the communicate. He has made it sparkling that he does not help the conflict, and all human beings assumes which ability he's not a real conservative. I additionally think of he does not stand a wager against any front runner in the two occasion. like it or no longer, photograph is a huge area of what human beings vote for. he's in simple terms too mousey-looking. i could incredibly like for him to be a vice chairman together with his smaller government stance. that must be a great senate tie-breaker, as a results of fact i understand i ought to anticipate him.

Answer 3

And "Internet people" is what percent of the population again? Hillary will get the support of the 40% of the population who can only figure out how to vote a straight Democratic ticket.

Answer 4

I think with the same name exposure she gets hes got a lock on it. The only real antiwar candidate out there. Anti illegal. IF you take the most important issues to most people in this country hes got it in all the right places.

Answer 5

Ron Paul has no chance of winning the Republican nomination so it's useless to compare him to Hilary. Hopefully one of the Republican front-runners will be able to defeat her.

Answer 6

Yes, but we need to get the MESSAGE out.

Forget about the man, the message is what real, everyday people who don't follow politics want to hear

Answer 7

It's possible, Paul still needs more exposure.. But I think he has the best shot at defeating the democratic nominee out of the rest of the GOP candidates, why? The determining factor in this election is the Iraq war. Over 70% of Americans, disaprove of this war and Paul is the only one that hasn't taken a stance against it. The republican party is kidding itself if they think a pro-war candidate will win this election..

"Fact one: Hillary Clinton will win the 2008 Democratic nomination. She is an experienced, cut-throat politician with deep ties in the party, and can take Barack Obama down pretty much any time she wants to. And John Edwards is not serious about pursuing the nomination. He is just positioning himself to be the VP nominee again, because in the wake of the 2006 Congressional elections he believes that Hillary will win the Presidency by taking a few key states where John Kerry fell short. Long story short: forget the others - Hillary is the woman to beat in 2008.
Fact two: The 2008 election will be won by the candidate who most credibly addresses the growing anti-war sentiment that has been embraced by the majority of the country's voters. (Google "2006 mid-term elections.) 70% or more of Americans want out of Iraq, and for many of them, it is the defining issue of the campaign. You may agree or disagree, but it's a fact and it's going to decide the 2008 Presidential election.
If it comes down to Hillary Clinton vs. any of the "establishment" Republican candidates, she wins by default. She may have voted for the war originally, but she will continue to claim that she was misled by the Republican administration, and that we should trust her to make things right. (Of course she won't really get us out of the Middle East mess, but Joe Six-Pack won't figure that out until after she wins the election.)
If any of the supposed "front runner" Republican candidates (Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Fred Thompson) wins the GOP nomination, Hillary Clinton is essentially a lock. Not only will she win over a sizable portion of the independent vote with her (perceived) status as "the anti-war candidate," but - simply put - the GOP will not turn out its base in sufficient numbers to win.
Nominate Rudy Giuliani? Conservative, red-state voters are not going to turn out to support a gun-grabbing Northern liberal faux Republican who dresses in drag and is a charter member of the Wife-Of-The-Month Club. The social conservatives, along with the fiscal conservatives and the key swing voters (libertarians and constitutionalists) will either stay home on Election Day or vote third party. Rudy won't even carry his home state, and ask Al Gore how that usually works out. Slam dunk, Hillary wins.
Nominate Mitt Romney? You get basically the same result as Giuliani without the (bogus) "America's Mayor" 9/11 cachet. Conservatives in the South and West won't turn out for the former governor of "Taxachusetts" who has flip-flopped on virtually every issue they hold dear. The fact that Romney is a Mormon won't help him with the mainstream Christian base, either. He probably can't win the GOP nomination, but even if he does, Romney is toast in the general election.
Nominate John McCain? Not gonna happen. His campaign has taken a nose dive from which it will be virtually impossible to recover. As of the end of the second quarter, even (supposed) long-shot Ron Paul had more cash on hand - and, when the third quarter numbers come in, McCain will be even further behind in the money game. He probably won't even be in the top five on the GOP side. Stick a fork in him, he's done. And even if he could pull off the apparently impossible and come back to win the Republican nomination, he loses to Hillary on the war and many domestic issues as well.
Fred Thompson? He's the last hope of those Republicans who are looking for a "mainstream" candidate to save them from looming, seemingly inevitable defeat in 2008. On the surface, he appears to have more of a chance than the previously mentioned "big three." After all, he has the "actor factor." It worked for Reagan and, more recently, Arnold Schwarzenegger in California - couldn't it work for Fred, too? Well, no, not this time around.
When you look at it objectively, there isn't a single one of the "Big Four" GOP candidates who can beat Hillary Clinton head-to-head. And none of the "second tier" candidates (Huckabee, Brownback, Hunter,
Tancredo, et al) have stepped up to the challenge. Really, there is only one remaining viable Republican candidate: You guessed it, Ron Paul.
Only Ron Paul can take advantage of the Internet the way Howard Dean did before he imploded four years ago. Indeed, he has already captured the Internet ... the Ron Paul Revolution is already in full swing online. It sure was nice of Al Gore to invent the Net for Ron Paul supporters to take over, wasn't it?
Only Ron Paul can outflank Hillary Clinton both to the left on the war, and to the right on everything else ... which is the only winning strategy the Republicans can plausibly employ in 2008.
Only Ron Paul, who is truly pro-family (married to the same woman for over 50 years, with five children and 18 grandchildren - no "trophy wives" here) can motivate the socially conservative base to actually turn out and vote.
Only Ron Paul, who wants to eliminate the IRS (and a host of other federal agencies) and stop the Federal Reserve from devaluing our money through runaway, printing-press inflation, can motivate the fiscally conservative base to cast a GOP ballot in 2008.
Only Ron Paul can keep the Libertarians and Constitution Party members from splintering off to support their own third-party nominees rather than another neo-con, Bush clone Republican. (In fact, the 2004 nominees of the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party, Michael Peroutka and Michael Badnarik, have both already endorsed Ron Paul's candidacy.) While the LP and CP may command only a small fraction of the overall vote, that may well be enough to turn the tide in a crucial state or two."

soucre: http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/art...

Answer 8

Yes, he can, but he must pull some upsets in states like
Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Oregon.

Answer 9

im so glad you wrote hilary rotten clinton
atleast i know one person like you has common sense

Answer 10

yes he can if all his supporters get out and recruit more and we all vote when its time