Could Ron Paul have won?

[Napoleon]

He would have been crushed Goldwater-style.

[Lief 🗽]

People who say he would have done better than Romney did in Nevada don't really understand Nevada at all.

[izixs]

Short answer no.

Longer answer...

The scenario under which Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination starts with a surprise Iowa win that catapults him to validity. This prompts a fast reaction from the establishment and social conservative's of the tea type to paint Paul as a pot smoking weirdo that secretly wants you to get gay married (aka, they'll use tactics they normally use against generic dems). Because this is the Republican primaries it works for a bit and his momentum is curbed. Once the heat is off, the other candidates, trying to gain traction, pile on Mittens and keep him from doing much as far as winning. Then they turn on each other. All the while Paul grabs the occasional state win to rack up the delegates. Come March he's managed to sneak by with a plurality. With most the nation finally getting turned off by the Santroum-Gingrich nuclear armagedon on air, they revisit Paul and he pulls big win. The party, torn between avoiding a split convention and having Paul as their nominee convinces the field to narrow. Paul rallies the anti-establishment types by pointing out that the powers that be want to crush him by making it a two person race. This in the end manages to get him over the threshold with a minimal number of delegates needed to for the nomination, with likely the margin being made up of faithless ninja delegates.

The net result is a very unhappy party establishment that as far as party organization goes understands that come convention, they're probably not going to be running the show at the RNC. So efforts to support Paul are tepid at best. Fundraisers don't materialize for that reason and because Paul would kind of destroy most of the modern economic system (so the people with money are spooked by him (most) or are alternatively as crazy as he is and give about as they did with Romney (Koch brothers)). So funds reduced compared to OTL Romney, Paul has to turn to his loyal grassroots army of people from the internet... oh wait...

But more seriously, during the spring and summer, once it becomes obvious who the Republican nominee will be, Obama does as he did OTL and defines his opponent in a highly negative light. He makes special effort to point out the issues most likely to turn the young folk away from him (like the already mentioned pro-life thing). The Republicans in the primary didn't just that as they don't consider the youth vote in their primaries as being relevant or as something you can win with (being the grand Old party after all).

So Paul is poorer than Romney, and his advantages are easy prey to a well organized OBA add campaign. Then things get real bad. Either via Obama campaign efforts or the press just looking for gossip, the old racist newsletters become a meme that basically makes you look like a racist if you support Paul by October. That might not do much in some areas, but most folks in the nation, even if they are racist, don't like considering themselves such. Add in the high likelyhood of saying some really out there stuff and the 10% of Pauls ideas that make sense will be ignored by all but the most die hard supporters.

Even without a start 3rd party 'establishment republican' bid, we're talking Goldwater levels here. Those that love Paul for what ever reason will never say die, but America isn't interested in taking him seriously. It wouldn't be close. Paul would not of done better than Romney in ANY state except maybe Vermont... which he'd still lose.

I could easily see Obama friendly commercials that go: "Ron Paul wants to audit the fed to create jobs. The question is, how does that work? Because FREEDOM! CAPITALISM! INVISIBLE HANDS! FAIRY DUST! Come on, Ron, get real. Obama's been fighting for real jobs. America has no time for ideological flights of fantasy."

(Full disclosure, I can respect some libertarian ideas... but think most of what they're selling is not well thought out excuses to slip into market fascism.)

[they don't love you like i love you]

LOL. No.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Iowa and Colorado (and Florida, if he doesn't pick Paul Ryan, which would be a bizarre choice anyway) are the only states that I think Dr Paul would have a decent chance at flipping. Maybe New Hampshire as well.
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia would have a decent chance at flipping the other way.

So, all in all, about as well as Romney.

[Sopranos Republican]

Even if you think he's a better candidate than Mitt (which I don't at all) he would have probably been crushed. It would have been very ugly in my opinion.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

He would have been crushed Goldwater-style.

I agree

[bore]

The obvious answer is yes, thanks to the trade marked Ron Paul Ninja Electors scheme. Paul would lose by 20 points, everyone would forget about him for 4 weeks and then americans would wake up on December the 18th to find the RELOVEUTION had begun.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Seeing as how he always did significantly better with independents than anyone else in the primaries, he'd do better with independents vs Obama too (not to mention he generally beat out Obama with independents in polls even compared to Romney). He'd probably lose out on some Republicans in secure Republican states, but most of them would vote for a plastic bag were it running against Obama. Certainly he'd put up a better performance if not win outright.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

[AndrewTX]

I think this is a close map. Although I think he would have still lost nevada, and alaska.

[ingemann]

Of course he would have won, and with 100% of the vote, I mean he could just use the same mind control beam which he would have had to use in the Republican primaries.

[Simfan34]

Barack Obama/Joe Biden vs. 60.7% - 490 EV

Ron Paul/Jim DeMint 38.4% - 48 EV

[Simfan34]

Barack Obama/Dennis Kuninich vs. 51.2% - 268 EV

Ron Paul/Chuck Hagel 48.3% - 270 EV

Now let's have the loon win. Joe Biden falls down the stairs and dies, and is replaced by Dennis Kuninich. Everyone is scared of the crazy new vice president. Chuck Hagel puts a reasonable face on the Paul bid. Paul collapses amongst Rust Belt values voters/Reagan Republicans, and this shows in the polls. The racist... erm Southern vote rallies around the flag of the Ron Paul Report. Semi-anarchists in the Pacific Northwest endorse his hands-off social policy, and they do in New England too because Ron Paul. This would have given you a 269-269 tie. However, splitting electoral college votes is found to be inconsistent with the CONSTITUTION and is banned, giving, Maine's 1st CD vote to Ron Paul. Paul still manages to lose the PV, but the CONSTITUTION doesn't give a rat's ass about the popular vote, so who cares?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No, in a landslide (normal)

[bedstuy]

Seeing as how he always did significantly better with independents than anyone else in the primaries, he'd do better with independents vs Obama too (not to mention he generally beat out Obama with independents in polls even compared to Romney). He'd probably lose out on some Republicans in secure Republican states, but most of them would vote for a plastic bag were it running against Obama. Certainly he'd put up a better performance if not win outright.

A percentage of indie vote in a primary doesn't translate to a general election.  Paul benefited a lot from Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters voting in Republican primaries when they otherwise would not have.  Enthusiasm among that group has much less marginal effect in a much larger general election voting population.

I think what you're also missing is that voting for Ron Paul as a quixotic, ideologically pure protest vote is different from actually deciding you want him to be President.  The media would also actually look at Ron Paul's positions and history closely if he was the nominee.  Mainstream economists and financial people would definitely go nuts at the prospect of his policies at the national level.  Once people confront that reality, they wouldn't go for such a radical change.

[defe07]

I do agree the odds are against Ron Paul beating Obama. A good mix of circumstances would've had to happen (for example, the US gets into a Great Depression and/or a possible WW3) in order for Ron to be able to win. Rand Paul would have a much better chance of getting elected President.

I find it ridiculous how many think that just because Ron is "unelectable", they think Rand would be the same.

[AndrewTX]

Sen. Nutjob is unelectable to the presidency.

[NVGonzalez]

People who say he would have done better than Romney did in Nevada don't really understand Nevada at all.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

NOT... A.. CHANCE... IN... HELL...

[stegosaurus]

I'm hard-pressed to find a single voting block, even among Republican strong holds, that wouldn't have a serious problem with voting for Ron Paul.

A) Seniors are out because they don't take kindly to "your retirement/health care should be your responsibility" rhetoric.

B) Veterans and national security voters are out for obvious reasons.

C) Social conservatives are out because of virtually every position Paul holds outside of abortion, and even on this issue he may be too weak for the So-Con wing of the GOP.

D) Most self-described fiscal conservatives are out because, above abstract ideas like "liberty" and "personal responsibility" is the rational desire for a functional government and a stable, growing economy. Paul's platform, and ideology for that matter, recklessly emphasizes the former while assuming that the innate superiority of these immeasurable ideas will care for the latter.  It's a conflict that couldn't be ignored, and would probably sink him with most moderate voters as well.

Throw the major organizational and financial disadvantages that above outline puts Paul at and you have an electoral massacre in the making. One might argue that the college age, pro-drug legalization, anti-war demographic could keep Paul competitive...but one might ask George McGovern how dependable that is.

[Napoleon]

I can't believe a map was posted showing Paul winning Vermont against Obama.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Anyone who really thinks Ron Paul could win the Presidency or even come close is either a hack or an ignorant.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Something like this though may be underestimating the depth of anti-Obama feeling in TN, KY and WV. Those three states would certainly have very lowe turnouts. I may also overestimating the depth of racial voting in the south - which would have favoured Paul.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Paul's son underran Romney by about 5 points in Kentucky (in 2010 nonetheless), so a general 5 point swing away from Romney gives Obama North Carolina, Arizona, Georgia and Missouri. Indiana and South Carolina would be close. Of course the swing would probably be more than 5 points in many states (remember Rand's run was in 2010), while it would be lesser in some southern states, South Carolina probably wouldn't be close. My guess would be Obama would pick up NC, AZ, GA, MO and IN (and NE-02).