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.

 

Why Romney will have a higher chance of beating Obama than Ron Paul

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2012 @ 01:34 AM
link   
I keep on hearing Paul supporters on this forum claim that Ron Paul is the only viable candidate in the field of GOP candidates (some claim he has a better chance). Ron Paul himself has stated that in his opinion any of the GOP candidates could beat Obama this November (it is possible), however Paul and his supporters insist that he has a higher chance among the rest. This doesn't appear to be true however as there are a number of facts, advantages that Romney will have against Obama than Ron Paul would these elections. Facts that Paul supporters refuse to acknowledge. Let's go down them:

Winning the popular vote

Romney has won the vast majority of States in the Republican primaries by popular vote.

Ron Paul in his history of running for president, hasn't won one state by popular vote.

www.realclearpolitics.com...
www.realclearpolitics.com...

Winning States

Romney was former governor of Massasschusetts, he has strong connections and has built up a reputation around his own home states and neighbouring states. This will be key to the coming November elections. Let's not forget that Romney has also won the vast majority of States in the GOP primaries thus far, he has won them by popular vote.

Ron Paul? Considering that he hasn't even won his own district in the previous two presidential campaigns he ran, he doesn't have the same kind of support among voters out there, just a fanatical minority. Minnesota and Maine are currently under Paul's name in the race, however this is attributed mostly to Paul supporters strong arming delegates to turn on the votes of their constituents.

Money

Romney has lots of it. He has enough to take on Obama.

While Paul has the ability to raise a significant amount of money over a period of time, it is not close to the level of that of Romney. There is even speculation that his campaign may be low on cash:
digitaljournal.com...

Endorsements

Romney has received endorsements from political figures in Florida, Ohio, and other key battle ground states where this kind of support will be crucial.

Paul seems to be low on support from higher ups. Apart from a minority of state senators and represenetitives there aren't any popular figures in key states backing Paul.\


So does this mean that Paul can't win the nomination and eventually the presidency?

No, it is still possible to do both those things at this point, but given the facts above and the current hard delegate count, it is very unlikely. To claim that Paul is the only viable candidate in the GOP race is delusional to say the very least.




posted on May, 20 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Romney's hostory and track record is too decrepid to beat anyone without a corporate media bias in a fair election with fair reporting. He's a lying untrustworthy snake!



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Every national poll taken says otherwise.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   
No way!! Ron Paul all the way!!

He's gonna win and save this country and then the world.
If you love your country, then vote for Ronnie!!

Spread the word people we NEED him!!!

Ron Paul 2012!!!



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Romney is failing to take state conventions where he is throwing millions against Ron Paul supporters that work for free.

You can't throw money at a problem.

If he can't beat Ron Paul on the ground (where it counts) how can he beat Obama, whom has a better ground game?


Who here honestly thinks more voters will choose Romney over Obama? where is the distinction that separates them? That Romney has experience in the private sector but takes advantage of the public sector for subsidies to save his private sector?



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   
The real argument is not whether RP can win the election, it is what disasters await the USA and the rest of the world if RP is not elected.

It doesn't matter if Obama or Romney win in my opinion, both will be a curse on the rest of the world, with more wars and devastation. The only person I can see in American politics that would change the current imperialism happening with the US right now is Mr Paul. Any other candidate will just be a continuation of the same destructive American policies.

Ron Paul for true change in the world, and that is coming from a Brit, and not because of political ideology, but because he is the last hope.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 04:34 AM
link   
When standard of living continues to plummet after 4 years of Romney leadership and one possibly 2 more wars/invasions have started, come back to this forum and see if you're still so happy. I couldn't give a # if Romney has more money, why does that make him a better candidate? And Ron Paul has won states.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Winning the popular vote
Romney has won the vast majority of States in the Republican primaries by popular vote.
Ron Paul in his history of running for president, hasn't won one state by popular vote.
www.realclearpolitics.com...
www.realclearpolitics.com...


Nice to see you SG, but I am afraid I have to take you to task on this one. For starters, I have to attack your source. Real Clear Politics has proven itself to be inaccurate. We know Ron Paul took the majority of delegates in Nevada, Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado and Maine. According to RCP he has 1 delegate in Iowa (wrong), 5 delegates from Nevada (wrong), 20 in Minnesota (close to right but they gave him the majority), 3 in Colorado (wrong), 21 in Maine (right). So in a nutshell we can prove they are 2 out of 5 correct in reporting numbers from States where we know Ron Paul took a majority of delegates, and this is just one Candidate. I am not going to say they specifically have an agenda against Ron Paul, they may have gotten the numbers wrong for all of the Candidates.

So for me RCP has lost all credibility. However, when they say Ron Paul has not won the popular vote in any State, they are technically correct. Ron Paul won the popular vote in the US Virgin Islands and they are not technically a "State" they are an "unincorporated territory".

That being said, is this a popularity contest? Are we picking a Presidential Candidate or a Prom Queen? I would suggest that if people stopped being concerned with who is more popular and started really listening to what is being said, and comprehending it, this Country would be in much better shape.

Winning States
Romney was former governor of Massasschusetts, he has strong connections and has built up a reputation around his own home states and neighbouring states. This will be key to the coming November elections. Let's not forget that Romney has also won the vast majority of States in the GOP primaries thus far, he has won them by popular vote.

We do not know who has a clear majority in the Neighboring States of Massachusetts. Of the 6 States around Massachusetts, Romney has won 3. New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Connecticut. Ron Paul won one State, Maine. There is still New York, Vermont and Massachusetts itself that have yet to determine the delegates and will not until their State Conventions. To give Romney the nod now is premature.

Ron Paul? Considering that he hasn't even won his own district in the previous two presidential campaigns he ran, he doesn't have the same kind of support among voters out there, just a fanatical minority.

I am not so sure we can compare his previous runs to this year. His popularity, crowds, and most importantly votes have all increased dramatically from his previous runs. Calling his base a minority in his previous two runs is fair, but they are no longer a minority today. They are not a majority, but they are large enough to sway and win an election. In this case, it is fair to say they can win this election for the GOP, or they can cost the GOP this election. When you have that type of power, calling them a minority is simply not accurate.

Minnesota and Maine are currently under Paul's name in the race, however this is attributed mostly to Paul supporters strong arming delegates to turn on the votes of their constituents.

Strong arming? When the "Regan Revolution" began in 1976 and the Regan campaign used this same strategy and almost won the Nomination from Gerald Ford, was it "strong arming" then too?

Money

If the richest Corporations on the Globe are funding your campaign, I am not so sure this is a good selling point. Today we know that the richest Companies in the world have been funding Presidential Campaigns, and all the while the little people get screwed. Isn't now a good time to stop the insanity?

Endorsements
Romney has received endorsements from political figures in Florida, Ohio, and other key battle ground states where this kind of support will be crucial.
Paul seems to be low on support from higher ups. Apart from a minority of state senators and represenetitives there aren't any popular figures in key states backing Paul.

The only "higher ups" Ron Paul is not getting endorsements from is within the Federal Government. When you look at the State level, endorsements rise dramatically. You can find a complete list here.
2012 Ron Paul Endorsements
I cant see this as a negative. We already know the Feds are way out of touch with the people. His endorsements, in my mind, add more to fuel to that position. If you want to end the Status Quo- start by not listening to the Status Quo



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SilentKoala
Every national poll taken says otherwise.


All of those polls are jacked with fake numbers. A special group of us have also caught the media red-handed jacking up their hacked polls with fake repeat votes to promote their agenda. If Ron Paul wins the poll even from real voters vs their fake numbers they leave his name out of the reporting. you sir are a sucker of the corporate media that promotes an agenda that feeds the rich and manipulates the working class to surrender the fruits of their labour for "An important nation threatening issue" or other. You and all the Romney supporters are either fools or part of the corruption which u enjoy the fruits of other's labour. there is no 3rd possibility!

But a Nations choice of elected officials is a representation of what is at the core of that nations culture. That which is in their hearts. And if they choose a lying, cheating, heartless politician it is because they themselves are liers and cheaters who will (make no mistake about it). be smacked down hard by the power of the almighty father.

Based on the pain you have caused others. so will be your pain 10 fold!

The Book of Micah. Chapter 2 Verses 1:4
1 Disaster for those who plot evil, who lie in bed planning mischief! No sooner is it dawn than they do it, since they have the power to do so.
2 Seizing the fields that they covet, they take over houses as well, owner and house they seize alike, the man himself as well as his inheritance.
3 So Yahweh says this: Look, I am now plotting a disaster for this breed from which you will not extricate your necks; you will not hold your heads up then, for the times will be disastrous indeed.
4 That day they will make a satire on you, they will strike up a dirge and say, 'We have been stripped of everything; my people's land has been divided up, no one else can restore it to them, our fields have been awarded to our despoiler.'
edit on 20-5-2012 by 0mage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


The only reason I feel you are wrong comes down to lazy/vindictive voters versus voters who actually want to change things.

Much of the potential 2012 republican voters are Ron Paul or former Obama supporters. If Ron Paul does not win the nomination, neither camp will vote for Romney. The republican Ron Paul supporters will still vote for Ron Paul and the democrat Ron Paul supporters will just vote for Obama again.

How many Romney "supporters" would still vote for Romney if he wasn't nominated and, 'gasp', risk having Obama in for another four years?

I just can't see Romney ever winning the election.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by 0mage
 


I think you misunderstood who I was responding to. I was responding to the OP.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   
What don't people like the OP understand about it's either Ron Paul or nobody? The entire Paul base will not change their mind and vote Romney. We will never vote for scum again. We will vote for freedom and liberty or nothing at all. The Republicans lose this stupid little mind game because they think they will talk Paul supporters into voting for their puppet. It will never happen. Paul wins or Obama has a second term. End.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jagermeister
The entire Paul base will not change their mind and vote Romney. Paul wins or Obama has a second term.


It is very likely we have the numbers to cause that outcome. That is what is most disconcerting to the new old-party Republicans.


edit on 21-5-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join