Maybe Ron Paul will be the GOP nominee

[CJK]

What happens if Obama's approval ratings are sky-high and polls show him winning re-election in a landslide? What sane person would bother running for the GOP nomination even though they know they'd have no chance? For instance, I know Romney wants to be president. Why should we be so sure that he would want to run in a race he'd be sure to lose instead of waiting until 2016?

[State Comptroller Atkins]

Who's Ron Paul?

[CJK]

Who's Ron Paul?

You don't want to know.

[Scam of God]

I'd vote for him, even if I don't find him to be particularly libertarian (or a particularly good candidate whatsoever), for a protest vote.

[5280/East California]

Ron Paul > Obama

That's a no brainer.

[Padfoot]

Ron Paul actually represents a good long term direction for the GOP to take IMO.  Their current brand/coalition is collapsing and shrinking.  They need to pry their party out of the death grip Evangelicals have on it and a Ron Paul like candidate would be perfect for that.

[War on Want]

Ron Paul actually represents a good long term direction for the GOP to take IMO.  Their current brand/coalition is collapsing and shrinking.  They need to pry their party out of the death grip Evangelicals have on it and a Ron Paul like candidate would be perfect for that.

Seriously? Ron Paul might be a good candidate in 2012 if the economy is still in terrible shape but if he won, bad things would really start to happen for the Republicans...

[Rob]

Paul might carry Nebraska-3. Obama would take the other 534 electoral votes.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Paul might carry Nebraska-3. Obama would take the other 534 electoral votes.

Nah, Paul would definitely win Alaska, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming.

[Vepres]

Ron Paul actually represents a good long term direction for the GOP to take IMO.  Their current brand/coalition is collapsing and shrinking.  They need to pry their party out of the death grip Evangelicals have on it and a Ron Paul like candidate would be perfect for that.

Seriously? Paleo-conservativism is libertarianism's ugly cousin.  No, no, no. A moderate like Romney or Huntsman is needed.

[Rob]

Paul might carry Nebraska-3. Obama would take the other 534 electoral votes.

Nah, Paul would definitely win Alaska, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming.

I dunno, man, on the Internet he's almost mainstream but he is so extreme it's hard for me to see him winning anywhere, honestly. The guy does not support anything.

[Vepres]

Paul might carry Nebraska-3. Obama would take the other 534 electoral votes.

Nah, Paul would definitely win Alaska, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming.

I dunno, man, on the Internet he's almost mainstream but he is so extreme it's hard for me to see him winning anywhere, honestly. The guy does not support anything.

Get rid of everything... except raise tariffs, have an authoritarian immigration policy, and allowing states to ban abortion on a whim.

I saw The Onion summarize his economic policy well, he'd get rid of the economy.

[pogo stick]

Obama > Paul

[Mint]

Paul might carry Nebraska-3. Obama would take the other 534 electoral votes.

Nah, Paul would definitely win Alaska, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming.

I dunno, man, on the Internet he's almost mainstream but he is so extreme it's hard for me to see him winning anywhere, honestly. The guy does not support anything.

Get rid of everything... except raise tariffs, have an authoritarian immigration policy, and allowing states to ban abortion on a whim.

I saw The Onion summarize his economic policy well, he'd get rid of the economy.

Paul isn't pro tariffs, he's just against the bureaucracy behind WTO, NAFTA, etc. Which frankly, he has a point on. Free trade with several thousand pages and privileges isn't very free. Immigration? Well, I don't really see how enforcing the law is 'authoritarian.' There's a lot of fringe positions coming from birchers like him but that's not one of them.

[SPC]

So, the candidate that got the most votes from independents in many states is somehow unelectable?

[Scam of God]

Paul might carry Nebraska-3. Obama would take the other 534 electoral votes.

Nah, Paul would definitely win Alaska, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming.

I dunno, man, on the Internet he's almost mainstream but he is so extreme it's hard for me to see him winning anywhere, honestly. The guy does not support anything.

Get rid of everything... except raise tariffs, have an authoritarian immigration policy, and allowing states to ban abortion on a whim.

I saw The Onion summarize his economic policy well, he'd get rid of the economy.

Paul isn't pro tariffs, he's just against the bureaucracy behind WTO, NAFTA, etc. Which frankly, he has a point on.

No, he doesn't. Do you have any idea how many more Chávezes would pop up overnight if you cut them off completely from the jobs American companies offer?

Free trade with several thousand pages and privileges isn't very free. Immigration? Well, I don't really see how enforcing the law is 'authoritarian.' There's a lot of fringe positions coming from birchers like him but that's not one of them.

In other words: "Hey, wetbacks? Your country's been overrun by a socialist revolution? Well, f**k you jack; I've got mine!"

[Rob]

So, the candidate that got the most votes from independents in many states is somehow unelectable?

... from those "independents" who chose to participate in Republican primaries and caucuses. Maybe that's not such a good indicator of general-election appeal.

[Mint]

You can have trade with countries without having a rulebook longer than several phonebooks. I might not agree with the extent to which he's willing to go on this (almost any tariff reductions made are a victory), but I can see his reasoning. As for the rest, I'm not going to bother other than to point out I'm hispanic so your point is retarded.

[Scam of God]

You can have trade with countries without having a rulebook longer than several phonebooks.

Protip, 'friend': free trade as a diplomatic objective was first formulated by - you guessed it - Ronald Reagan, as a means to create a buffer against Communist influence in the Southern Hemisphere. And while the Soviet Union is dead, Marxism isn't. We in fact ought to loosen trade restrictions, as incentive both to keep the rest of South America from falling into Red hands and to give encouragement at home to create an economy that doesn't rely on mass-production in factories. In short: we ought to give South America our hand-me-downs, while we upgrade into our new skivvies.

As for the rest, I'm not going to bother other than to point out I'm hispanic so your point is retarded.

Being half-Hispanic keeps you from being anti-Hispanic how, exactly?

[So the Heroes Fall]

It's kind of funny that the Paulites basically control the GOP in my area. He won the State Senate district caucus (He got 99 votes. Conversely, Hillary got 1426 votes and she barely received over a quarter of what Obama got!) and the State House candidate was a Paulite. And I don't mean he simply supported Paul, he was one of those out and out koolaid drinking worshipers. His website was basically nothing but quotes from Paul about various things and how he would implement those policies. He was also a 27 year old grad student. Anyway it amuses me and watching the rest of the state GOP fight them (You know, the places where the GOP is actually relevant) is also amusing.

[Mint]

Protip, 'friend': free trade as a diplomatic objective was first formulated by - you guessed it - Ronald Reagan, as a means to create a buffer against Communist influence in the Southern Hemisphere. And while the Soviet Union is dead, Marxism isn't. We in fact ought to loosen trade restrictions, as incentive both to keep the rest of South America from falling into Red hands and to give encouragement at home to create an economy that doesn't rely on mass-production in factories. In short: we ought to give South America our hand-me-downs, while we upgrade into our new skivvies.

Right.. I'm not criticizing free trade. I'm criticizing having hundreds of page in regulations, tax breaks and other corporate welfare in 'free trade' agreements. I can accept them as a means to an end but I would prefer a more free market system (overall) than we have now. Why is this so hard to understand?

Being half-Hispanic keeps you from being anti-Hispanic how, exactly?

Please point out how I said anything against my own ethnicity.

[SPC]

You can have trade with countries without having a rulebook longer than several phonebooks.

Protip, 'friend': free trade as a diplomatic objective was first formulated by - you guessed it - Ronald Reagan, as a means to create a buffer against Communist influence in the Southern Hemisphere. And while the Soviet Union is dead, Marxism isn't. We in fact ought to loosen trade restrictions, as incentive both to keep the rest of South America from falling into Red hands and to give encouragement at home to create an economy that doesn't rely on mass-production in factories. In short: we ought to give South America our hand-me-downs, while we upgrade into our new skivvies.

Sorry, but what does this have to do with supporting NAFTA, WTO, etc.?

So, the candidate that got the most votes from independents in many states is somehow unelectable?

... from those "independents" who chose to participate in Republican primaries and caucuses. Maybe that's not such a good indicator of general-election appeal.

He also did well among those that identify as moderate-to-liberal and those that want the United States out of Iraq.

[Lunar]

What happens if Obama's approval ratings are sky-high and polls show him winning re-election in a landslide? What sane person would bother running for the GOP nomination even though they know they'd have no chance?

Everyone knows a lot can happen in a campaign.

What sane Republican would want to run in 2008 with an incredibly unpopular incumbent president leaving office during the middle of a Democratic Wave?  Well, sanity aside, a lot of people still ran.

[Daniel Z]

An extremely popular Obama would certainly cause some candidates to skip over 2012, but they would just be replaced by a number of lower tier Republicans who will see the weak field in 2012 as probably their only chance to win the nomination. While their candidacy may seem like a long shot there could always be an event that brings down Obama between wining the nomination and election day. As for Paul I don't think the Republican primary and caucus voters would swing towards him nor will they stay home allowing outsiders to deliver Paul the nomination.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

I'd vote for him, even if I don't find him to be particularly libertarian (or a particularly good candidate whatsoever), for a protest vote.

     I agree with this, & I must say that I am pleasantly surprised by your attitude lately. While Ron Paul is nowhere close to being socially liberal enough, Obama's economic policies are thoroughly abhorrent. Of course, the odds of either party putting up an actually good candidate are pretty miserable anyway.