It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Romney/Paul ticket 2012 (Ron Paul as vice president)

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow
 


I support him, but you know that's what a lot of the GOP think. The government are kinda paranoid of people that stand up for themselves.
edit on 12-1-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
If in your case Ron Paul comes third or fourth, why would Romney even bother giving Ron Paul the VP slot?


Because, as I explained, the Gingrich, Santorum and Perry voters are all transferable to Romney. The vast majority of them will vote for whom ever ends up being the nominee in unity against Obama. The supporters of Perry, Gingrich, santorum, Romney, are mainstream GOP voters. So what exactly will Romney gain putting either of them as VPs? None. Infact it may cause more problems for Romneys presidential prospects than anything else. Having Gingrich as the VP for example will be problematic for a number of reasons, establishment GOP, polarization of independents and so forth. Huntsman as VP? That may cause more issues for the party internally than externally, many social and evangelical conservatives will bail if it ends up being a Romney Huntsman ticket. After looking and analyzing all the candidates, all we're left with is Ron Paul as a plausable VP, and the advantages for Romney outweight the disadvantages, as noted in the OP. Paul will bring in far more libertarians than any other candidate, he also has the money machine, and he will ensure a unified GOP come November 2012. This option is better than the other option of risking a third party run by Paul, that will cost the GOP equally as much.


And in also in your scenario, who the hell is getting second? Nobody else has a long term game.


At the moment Paul is doing good, he is second, he has 10 delegates, ahead of Santorums 8. However once we get to the Southern States, and some of the western states, the religious strongholds, the pro-Israeli strong holds, Paul will not perform as well. Even though Paul is by all definitions a social conservative through his policies, he hasn't convinced enough voters that his position is as valid as anybody elses in the party (a number of pro-life groups came out to question him and his positions, Israeli groups in American whom hold considerale influence in party are rallying against him). Once the Southern States are done with him, I believe that Paul will at best down to 3rd place. Either Santorum or Gingrich or both will overtake him in votes. Iowa and New Hampshire are northern moderate conservative states, their ilk only make up a small proportion of the GOP vote, and in the general elections they are not as realiable as the core Southern social conservative states in gaining delegates.

I could be wrong though, you betcha. I mean Paul did outperform expectations in New Hampshire, although I just think that given the circumstances, he'll be playing in totally different territory come South Carolina, and I don't think he'll last.
edit on 12-1-2012 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Paul would not accept any VP slot. He would be powerless as a VP, and he is too old to serve in hopes of getting the promotion, LOL! Paul will not accept any VP slot, and Romney won't ask.

Also, it is ludicrous to think that all those votes automatically roll over to Romney? Where the hell does that thinking stem from? The other 60-75% of voters have bounced from Cain, to Newt, to Santorum, and slowly built around Paul, but they have never belonged to Romney, and they never will. They are clearly voting for anybody that is NOT Romney.

Maybe Romney gets a piece of Perry's voters, and a piece of Newt's voters, but he doesn't get any of Bachmann, Huntsman, or Paul's voters. When those candidates drop out, those votes go directly to 3rd Parties and Independents, or to Ron Paul, and a Romney nomination ensures an Obama win.

If you don't believe me, I've posted the link to a well-done report, and the polling numbers to support it in two other threads already today. Not gonna post it again. Just look up my posts in the other threads, or google, Romney, Obama, 3 way race. It doesn't even require Paul to run on a 3rd party ticket. Paul could drop entirely out, and Romney still doesn't beat Obama according to most polls.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
See, this is why you don't really get it. How is it "smart" to accept an offer to be Vice-President? You don't really understand that Ron Paul is not willing to do whatever, sell out his principles, for whatever fame the office holds. As for reality, I really believe he is far more based in reality than your logic suggests YOU are.


I'm talking about this in terms of his prospects for the whitehouse. If he really wants to get into the whitehouse to atleast make significant change, a ticket with Romney will be his best shot if he doesn't reach nomination. I agree, if he goes with Romney, he will be standing against many of his principals, but in todays political environment, it's very hard especially for somebody of his positions not to compromise, not to negotiate a way through. Will Paul be a hypocrite if he chooses to run with Romney? In principal yes, but strategically it will be a smart move.

If you think Paul is going to get through the presidency without having to haggle or negotiate his way, you've got another thing coming. If Paul refuses Romneys offer purely over principal, then I'd commend him for trying to be consistent, but it will be the end of any chance of him ever gaining the presidency, and ever gaining influence in the whitehouse. I will concede though to Paulers here that if Paul refuses, it would be a good mark on principal, but his principals were not what I was focusing on in the OP.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
SG, how many ATS members were you looking to drive away from Ron Paul with this thread?



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Paul would not accept any VP slot. He would be powerless as a VP, and he is too old to serve in hopes of getting the promotion, LOL! Paul will not accept any VP slot, and Romney won't ask.


I disagree, but fair enough, that's your view. I think that if Paul refuses a VP slot with Romney, it will not reflect good on him and his sons prospects for the party nomination in the future, there are a number of reasons.


Also, it is ludicrous to think that all those votes automatically roll over to Romney? Where the hell does that thinking stem from? The other 60-75% of voters have bounced from Cain, to Newt, to Santorum, and slowly built around Paul, but they have never belonged to Romney, and they never will. They are clearly voting for anybody that is NOT Romney.


This is just reactionary from GOPers in most elections. In 2008 McCain had the same problem, a significant number of GOPers questioned his conservativeness, many threatened to pull their votes out because they saw him as a liberal. Yet, with the help of some very high conservative advocates (Rush, Hannity), those voters eventually backed McCain. They also didn't want the Kenyan muslim born socialist to get into power either, so they united behind the nominee eventually. Many analysts predict a unification behind Romney or any other candidate once they get the nomination, mainstream GOP voters do not want Obama in, and they will eventually compromise or get behind the nominee come August. This excludes 15% of the GOP, the independents, libertarians, Paul supporters. There's uncertainty about this specific block and their loyalty to the GOP.


Maybe Romney gets a piece of Perry's voters, and a piece of Newt's voters, but he doesn't get any of Bachmann, Huntsman, or Paul's voters. When those candidates drop out, those votes go directly to 3rd Parties and Independents, or to Ron Paul, and a Romney nomination ensures an Obama win.


If McCain was good enough for those Bachmann and Cain voters, then Romney will surely be good enough for them come the nomination. Remember, Romney was considered the more conservative alternative to McCain back in 2008 (although the party has gone more right wing since then). Huntsman voters I think will mostly switch to Paul, or go independent. Which comes back to my scenario, where the GOP needs to compromise or consider a way to unify these voters with the rest of the GOP, hence Paul as VP.


If you don't believe me, I've posted the link to a well-done report, and the polling numbers to support it in two other threads already today. Not gonna post it again. Just look up my posts in the other threads, or google, Romney, Obama, 3 way race. It doesn't even require Paul to run on a 3rd party ticket. Paul could drop entirely out, and Romney still doesn't beat Obama according to most polls.


I think even if Romney manages to unify the GOP, Obama will still have the upper hand in money, etc. But Romney will have a far better chance to win the presidency by negotiating and bringing in the libertarian and moderate/independent voting bloc. We'll just have to see in the end I guess.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
SG, how many ATS members were you looking to drive away from Ron Paul with this thread?


Ah you caught me out!


But seriously, I do believe that Paul supporters will eventually get behind this ticket. I'd bet my bottom dollar on it.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Ron Paul as VP = Romney gets assassinated by a crazy Paul supporter = President Paul

Dr. No would become President No, and TPTB don't want that!



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


You and I and everybody else knows Romney will drive this country into the ground. More wars, more spending, more violation of civil liberties. Bigger government, more control and a consistent movement to a one world government. The guy doesn't even have a plan to cut spending...he doesn't have a plan to do anything! All he talks about is how he will beat Obama with his experience in the private sector.

So just for entertainment....IF Ron would even consider being his VP....you think he would do it?? No way in hell. Romney = Obama, it is a sinking ship. Being the lone voice of reason in congress won't change if all he is going to do is be the lone voice of reason as the president of the senate (other than his own son).
edit on 12-1-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
IF Ron would even consider being his VP....you think he would do it?


Yes. I believe he'd take the offer, given the circumstances and his chances. This is assuming that he doesn't end up in a dead heat with Romney for the nomination.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Actually, this would be a very strategic play by the GOP. Paul as vice pres would help balance out Romney's abundance of ignorance and retardation.

I doubt it will happen though because I doubt Paul would sell out like that; they also have extremely differing views. If they want Obama out of office bad enough, then this is an option.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join