Would Ron Paul expand the electoral map for Republicans?

[redcommander]

No one outside his hardcore supporters actually understands what Ron Paul stands for. Once the DNC drops $500 million explaining that he wants to get rid of Medicare, Social Security and the Voting Rights Act his numbers will sink like a lead balloon.

And what again is the Democrats' solution to Social Security going bankrupt again? Oh wait they don't have one besides fear mongering.

Hey you started a thread about Ron Paul if you love him so much don't shift the subject to avoid facing reality.

And dear lord can we just start one RON PAuL FOreVER!11!11!! thread and contain all Ron Paul related junk within it?

I like him because it would be hilarious if he became the nominee just to see the RNC have to deal with him. I'm still very much a Romney supporter too.

[Meeker]

No one outside his hardcore supporters actually understands what Ron Paul stands for. Once the DNC drops $500 million explaining that he wants to get rid of Medicare, Social Security and the Voting Rights Act his numbers will sink like a lead balloon.

And what again is the Democrats' solution to Social Security going bankrupt again? Oh wait they don't have one besides fear mongering.

This has nothing to do with Ron Paul's viability as a candidate (the subject of this thread).

Many Democratic members of Congress have offered workable plans to reform social security though. Go start another thread about it if you're curious.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Ron Paul is proof that you should not believe everything you read on the Internet.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Polls say GOP still shows up... just minus you and Phil.

I don't know if Zarn is more worshipping Chairman Paul or polls.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Umm, no. Maybe if he was lucky he'd win NH while losing.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

He'd probably just win the standard Republican strongholds and possibly New Hampshire. All the swing states go to Obama.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Dr Paul would carry California.

No.

[nhmagic]

Paul wont win a landslide, but he can beat Obama. He would win NH, though he cant take Oregon, he easilly could make Maine a tossup, he will win Texas, he probaly could keep Florida with the right running mate as well. And how can one not say he is a Conservative? He is the most far right member of Congress in history. For some reason, people think Neoconservatism is conservative. Its not!! It means bomb the Arabs and ignore social issues.

Thank you for saying this because its absolutely true.  Neoconservatives are not conservative in any sense.  Neoconservatives are simply lighter leftists.  They create and spend money on entitlement programs.  They manufacture wars and never follow through on fake promises regarding social issues.  Actually, they fill in as proxy leftists until real ones come along - like Obama.  Paul very well could win a landslide - though he comes from a different viewpoint on say foreign policy matters, those views aren't anathema to anti-war citizens whose primary issue for voting is war.  The economy is terrible enough that people may seek the real change that Paul offers in monetary and foreign policy. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

"In your guts, you know he's nuts"

No one outside his hardcore supporters actually understands what Ron Paul stands for. Once the DNC drops $500 million explaining that he wants to get rid of Medicare, Social Security and the Voting Rights Act his numbers will sink like a lead balloon.

Then there's that whole business with links to people with views that are not exactly... ah... er... um...

[TheGlobalizer]

Could?  Yes.  Would?  TBD.

I don't think he's as far out of the mainstream as the commenters here seem to think.  I think the core GOP voter is somewhere between traditional conservative and economic libertarian, sort of a Tea Party-lite.  He's pretty close to the sweet spot for that.  That said, most influential Republicans would hate him, so they'd be fighting him through the base.

For centrists, his appeal is obvious.  Many independents are forced to choose between bigotry and profligacy, and often choose against the one most recent (in 2012, profligacy).

For Democrats, he's a tough pill to swallow, but could draw some Blue Dog and ardent anti-war voters.

I think Paul would expand the map but also soften the solid GOP states.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Could?  Yes.  Would?  TBD.

I don't think he's as far out of the mainstream as the commenters here seem to think.  I think the core GOP voter is somewhere between traditional conservative and economic libertarian, sort of a Tea Party-lite.  He's pretty close to the sweet spot for that.  That said, most influential Republicans would hate him, so they'd be fighting him through the base.

For centrists, his appeal is obvious.  Many independents are forced to choose between bigotry and profligacy, and often choose against the one most recent (in 2012, profligacy).

For Democrats, he's a tough pill to swallow, but could draw some Blue Dog and ardent anti-war voters.

I think Paul would expand the map but also soften the solid GOP states.

I think you just put it in a way that almost exactly covers how I consider it.

It depends on the atmosphere, the importance and focus of issues, etc.

For example, he could get a lot of crossover votes if foreign policy became big, but if the economy is the main issue than it would basically be a straight up R v D vote with the independents going with whoever articulates better (Paul would probably be better than most Republicans in this regard at least). If something currently unimportant, like drug policy, became important, than enough exposure of the issues could result in the maps looking wonky and strange (Who knows, maybe Paul COULD win California).

Probably, though, it will just make some strong D states becoming narrowly D, some tossups going slightly in one way or the other, and some R states becoming softer. It would, however, be one of the most entertaining and fun elections of the past fifty years ago. Think Barry Goldwater running in '76 against LBJ or Carter.

[Salaz]

Yeah, there are loads of libertarian leaning swing states like New Hampshire, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona ect.

[ag]

According to the polls, he will run close to Obama in the general.

The Obama will win by a landslide against Paul argument is just silly.

I guess some people don't like the idea that an honest candidate might do pretty well in a general election.

No, some people just have faith in the United States of America

[SteveRogers]

No one outside his hardcore supporters actually understands what Ron Paul stands for. Once the DNC drops $500 million explaining that he wants to get rid of Medicare, Social Security and the Voting Rights Act his numbers will sink like a lead balloon.

This. A waste of perfectly good money though since Paul would probably already be saying all that in HIS ads.

[King]

I think so yes.

Naso's ridiculous Pat Caddell thread had me thinking.  I think Caddell is off base with the Obama-Carter comparison because Reagan-(most of the Republicans) are not comparable.  In fact, they are mostly comparable to the stale candidates like John Anderson and Bush Sr. in 1980.  However, Ron Paul does compare to Reagan in the sense that all of his positions are "something new."  Carter represented New Deal politics and the rest of the 1980 Republican field was Rockefeller Republicanism. Reagan Conservatism was something new that hadn't been tried before, or in a very long time.

Obama represents some New Deal and some Clintonian "New Democrat" centrist politics and the non-Paul crowd is Reaganomics.  While they both have strong supporters, the public for the most part is tired of both.  Paul, however, is something completely different and might expand the electoral map simply for that reason.

[Nichlemn]

The harsh reality is that a majority of Tea Party Republicans do not support cuts of any size to Social Security, let alone abolish it. The reality is, for all the claims about how Obama is a socialist or the Tea Party are extremists, mainstream political debates over the size of goverment is over a couple of percent of GDP, if that. Paul wouldn't win New Hampshire despite its ostensibly "libertarian" tendencies because it is only modestly libertarian relative to the rest of the country. When Democrats claim Republicans "want to abolish the social safety net", it's usually just rhethoric, but it's actually true in the case of Paul.