If it was Ron Paul vs. Hillary Clinton: who would win, and why?

Answer 1

Hillary Clinton because of rigged elections, when in reality Ron Paul would have 80%+ of the votes.

Answer 2

Despite the fervor of support Paul receives from his fans, the fact is Hillary Clinton, as the corporate-sponsored candidate, would have a remarkably high probability of winning. Never underestimate the power of advertising: if it didn't work in getting people to do things they otherwise wouldn't; to buy things they don't need or even particularly want; or to vote for people that perhaps they really shouldn't... then it (advertising) wouldn't be the multi-trillion dollar business that it is.

Manipulation works. Hillary would win because the corporations have poured so much money into her campaign that she can saturate any and every market her campaign wants with her ads.

Answer 3

It's not really a fair question because Paul doesn't have a chance. Not because he's not popular but because the Republicans don't really let the people choose their candidate. The party leaders don't like Paul and if he rises too high in the polls they'll 'slime' him as they did with John McCain in 2000.

Ron Paul is a 'maverick', an independent who is using a dedicated group of ideological followers to get his name out rather than sell out early to corporate special interests and win the support of party leadership. I greatly admire that; he really is the only Republican with an ounce of integrity.

But in recent history there have been two candidates who did manage to get their party's nomination this way, one from each party. One was Barry Goldwater and the other was George McGovern. Though they were both extremely popular with fans, both men of courage and integrity and totally consistent with their own beliefs, they both lost big-time in the general election. Americans don't WANT honest, consistent politicians.

So if it came down to Paul and Hillary, I'm glad you didn't ask which I'd vote for because it would be a difficult choice. But I can tell you who'd win. Hillary would win, by a mile!

Answer 4

Any Republican that runs against Hillary is going to win, including Ron Paul who has been a politician for far longer than Clinton.

Answer 5

Ron Paul is Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare.

His plane would end up crashing before we ever had a chance to vote.

Answer 6

Ron Paul but not for the reasons listed above:
he is a seasoned politician
he is more libertarian than republican
he is not as much of a lightening rod as hillary who, if she wins the Dem nomination would draw all of those conservatives who are considering staying home, out to vote

Answer 7

Ron Paul! Hillary is an evil woman who has lied and stolen.
Does anyone really want 30+ yrs of clintons and bushs?
Look closely into her election in NY then look at the counsel of foreign relations .

Answer 8

Hillary - the righties are too blind to see that Ron Paul is the only real Republican running so they'll stay home.

Answer 9

Hillary will win in a landslide against RP
The reason is obvious. People will realize that RP is the Ross Perot of this era. For those that don't know of Ross Perot, he was a dem who ran against Bill Clinton in the primaries, then as an independent. He had a huge following, till he got national exposure and people slowly understood he was a bit nutty.
He is now nothing more then a footnote in the annals of American politics.

========
here is something I wrote about Ron Paul in another thread, it is just as applicable here as it was there.
========

Here is the problems with RP.

The guy holds libertarian values.

Those values are all about me, me, me, me, screw everyone else, just make sure I have my version of the constitution.

What RP supporters fail to understand, is libertarian values are guilty of two things.

#1 having a one size fits all attitude. (personal responsibility cry is one aspect of that) Which is a basic tenet of communism.

#2 They ignore the basic tenet of the constitution which is in the preamble.

=========
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,

promote the general welfare,

and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
========

Promote the general welfare, which means to make sure everyone in the USA has at the very least, a roof over their heads, food on the table and health care.

RP, neocons, dems to a certain degree and libertarians to a massive degree ignore the basic premise of our constitution. Which is, for the people, not just the individual.

What is good for the people and the poor is good for the country as a whole and is a direct measurement of our commitment to end human suffering and uncontrolled capitalism which brings income disparity to such a degree, that the distance between the have and the have-nots is increasing. Which eventually, if it keeps going unchecked, will result in revolution. What will end up in its place is anyones guess.

Think Russia and Lenin
France and the guillotine
China and Mao
Cuba and Castro
All the result of uncontrolled capitalism.

I'm all for capitalism for unneeded services, and for socialism for needed services. We have socialism in our needed services now, what we lack is socialism in health care, except to the military and those that represent us in our federal legislative branches. The rest of us have to put up with the BS.

Peace

Jim

.

Answer 10

Hillary. I do concede, however that Ron Paul is MUCH better than Ralph Nader.