It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


How Ron Paul could be a spolier in a close election.

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 08:23 AM

Ron Paul Could Be a Spoiler in Montana

"Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) is on the ballot in Montana on the Constitution Party line and could play the role of a spoiler. Although Paul has not campaigned in the state, he is popular in this libertarian state and could draw votes away from John McCain here. Recent polls have shown Montana to be close, so Paul might tip the state's three electoral votes to Barack Obama."

If that cost McCain the election that would be the funniest thing ever. It's 44% to 44% tie right now.

Check out what the Gov. Of Montana had to say on CNN, interesting.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 11:31 AM
Another Article

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 11:32 AM
I support Mr. Paul.
I think his ideals are a must for D.C.

Perhaps this man will eventually want to run.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:39 PM
it would not be the first time the outcome of an election was affected by a third-party candiate. This year, I think it could make a huge impact because there are still many undecided voters.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 01:17 PM
Loyola Poll: McCain Barely Leads in Lousiana
A new WWL-TV poll in Lousiana shows Sen. John McCain just edging Sen. Barack Obama, 43% to 40%.

The survey, conducted by Loyola University, has a margin of error of 4.5 points.

Said pollster Ed Renwick: "It's closer than I thought it would be. That's because they'll probably be people who don't usually vote, who don't vote often, or weren't registered to vote until recently. Those people would not be heavy McCain voters. They would be Obama voters."

Since Ron Paul is on the ballot in Lousiana, could he make the difference up.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 01:56 PM
Ross Perot shook up the 1992 election with 19 million votes tallying 18% of the general population vote. But he was on the ballot, participated in debates, and campaigned heavily. With Ron Paul as a write-in and not on TV since the primaries I don't think he'll fair very well.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 02:23 PM
I dont suppot Ron Paul, I think his political ideology is extreme, this is why he lost however folks here choose to ignore so. I dont believe his right for country contrary to what many will say here, for the sake of looking good. I do admire him somewhat though, and Iv said it time and time again, because his intentions are real, he aint afraid to state the obvious.

As for the possibility of him tipping the elections in the northern western states, I wouldnt be surprised he tips the scales of Montana. That state and for some odd reason louisianna have always had significant support for him.

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 02:54 PM
Its possible, I suppose, but the problem as I see it is that I do not expect Obama to draw more than 45% of the vote in Montana. Ron Paul would need to be drawing 10% or more in the polls in order to really start posing a serious threat to McCain in that state. To this point, the polls really don't seem to indicate that this is the case. Not only that, but I would expect that up to half of his supporters actually will not vote for him when they walk into the polling booth and are forced to fully confront the fact that he is not a national candidate.

Possible? Yes, but highly unlikely, IMO.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by vor78]

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:14 PM
I think the people of Montana don't particularly care whether McCain or Obama wins. The state is very into minding their own business and you mind yours. Things like A NRA Ratings, truly less government, truly less or no taxes, things like this appeal to people in Montana.

I think McCain needs to go to Montana and try to shore up that renegade support, or he's going to lose it.

I do agree that I think a lot of people are going to end up voting for one of the two candidates, but if he got 2nd in Montana when Paul was already effectively out of the race, then I don't think those numbers are going to be high after all.

I am voting for Obama but who really knows until that day. If I can write in a candidate, I might just show my disobedient streak.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:29 AM
So I have a question about this. Say Ron Paul DOES win in Montana and takes the 3 electoral votes. That's not many votes, but if you take into account all the swing/toss-up states going to McCain, and I threw in Virginia into there just because.. it comes out to:

Obama 269 Votes, Ron Paul: 3, McCain 266

If you need 270 electoral votes to win, does it mean something else decides the election or in this case the majority (Obama) would win?

The electoral system is seriously flawed if you absolutely need 270 electoral votes to win. What if in the future you have a third candidate taking 15 votes away? Unless it's a landslide victory it would cause some problem I could imagine.

This also goes for third party candidates in future elections not just Ron Paul.

Also, here's a picture I made off the CNN electoral map calculator to show this.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:33 AM
reply to post by LOLZebra

If neither candidate recieves a majority of the electoral votes, it goes to the House of Representatives. Given that the Dems control the House, one can assume that Obama would be declared the winner.

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:36 AM

posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:43 AM
Ron Paul takes votes away from Obama. The only reason Paul got any type of following was because of his opposition to the Iraq war. These people, if given an ultimatum between Obama and McCain, would overwhelmingly go for Obama.

top topics


log in