Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs The Free Market

The Next President Will be Either Ron Paul or Barack Obama

Advertisement

Barack Obama will obviously be running as the Democratic candidate. He won in 2008 and while his popularity has waned, he still polls closely or slightly ahead against any of the potential GOP candidates. If Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination then it will be either him or Obama that wins the election.

However if Paul does not win the GOP nomination, then Barack Obama will definitely win. Here's why: Paul will run as a third party/independent candidate and take votes primarily away from the GOP candidate. Paul is retiring from Congress, is 76 and has nothing to lose. This is his last attempt to influence American politics as a candidate and he doesn't have to worry about earning his party's scorn by costing them an election. In addition, there is a chance that he could win significant votes if the economy takes a sharp turn for the worse.

Paul's rise to prominence came about largely because of his accurate positions on the economy like predicting the housing boom and bust years in advance. When mainstream economists failed to explain what happened and Ron Paul and the Austrian economists successfully did, it created a wave of support for Dr. Paul, particularly among young voters who are concerned about the long-term future of this country. Another blow to the economy in 2012 would further prove that Ron Paul was right about the failure of Obama's Keynesian economic policies and swell his support even further.

Lastly Ron Paul's supporters are die-hards who will not hold their noses and vote for a Gingrich, Romney or Perry just to get Obama out. To us those candidates are just as bad, if not worse, than Obama, and voting for any of them makes no sense. So if any other Republican candidate is nominated, Paul will siphon enough votes away to ensure an Obama victory, hence it will be either Ron Paul or Barack Obama taking the oath in 2013.

Comments

Liberty_One 2 years, 8 months ago

Undoubtedly voevoda or someone else will post something on here trying to claim Dr. Paul made some racist comments or something decades ago. The truth is that Dr. Paul did not write those things, as can be shown using literary analysis, an example of which is done here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrM6R5... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWxJdV...

0

Flap Doodle 2 years, 8 months ago

Ron Paul made a lot of money from the newsletter printing the racist tripe. If he was unaware of what was going out for months under his name, he is the stupidist animal ever to breath air.

0

tolawdjk 2 years, 8 months ago

If it was a non-story, you wouldn't have been bringing it up premptively. A nonstory is addressed when raised.

Caine hade several non-stories. Some he could recall, some he couldn't, some he recalled better as time wore on. They were such non-stories he didn't even bother to tell his wife about them.

Even non-stories can disrupt a campaign.

0

Flap Doodle 2 years, 8 months ago

You're grasping at straws, liberty. The mad devotion of the Paulastians will not be enough to even get him the nomination.

0

pizzapete 2 years, 8 months ago

He sure makes a lot of sense.

0

Fossick 2 years, 8 months ago

If that's the choice, it will be Obama. Americans simply will not stand for serious budget cuts.

0

grammaddy 2 years, 8 months ago

Ron Paul- Libertarian Sarah Palin, Donald Trump- Independent Gingrich, Romney, Perry- Insane Clown Posse-oops, Republican Looks like an easy win for Obama any way you cut it. Hawaiian Ninja 2012!!

0

Armstrong 2 years, 8 months ago

Obama's biggest opponent - his record / policies / agenda. Other than those hurdles he has it wrapped up

0

meggers 2 years, 8 months ago

Do you have a source for that quote? From what I recall, Obama said that he would end the war in Iraq and intensify efforts in Afghanistan.

0

Kirk Larson 2 years, 8 months ago

At least he DID get us out. Better still. at least he didn't get us IN.

0

jafs 2 years, 8 months ago

Actually, he'll run against the Republican candidate.

All he has to do is be a bit better than whoever that turns out to be, in the estimation of a majority of those who vote.

0

Kirk Larson 2 years, 8 months ago

You're being sarcastic, right?

0

wtchdr46 2 years, 8 months ago

grammaddy, That is exactly the way it looks to me also, including the oops

0

motercyclejim 2 years, 8 months ago

Yay for Ron Paul in 2012!!!! Hes going to win! If Obama could of done anything for the economy he would of all ready done it, so hes just killing the countries jobs!!! Also he hates marrage and is destroying it like all democrats.

Ron Paul will win because Newt Gingrich is stuppid and Mit Romney is a godless mormen and NOT a cristian.

RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!!!!

0

jonas_opines 2 years, 8 months ago

I had to read all the way back to your first post to figure you out for sure.

lol

0

tolawdjk 2 years, 8 months ago

Yes, it is sirtainly gud that Ron has the cristian motercycle vote.

It is strong voices like this that will make sure we don't have stuppid or godless mormens in the White House.

0

ridikkulus 2 years, 8 months ago

At least he got the "-cycle" part right...

0

meggers 2 years, 8 months ago

"Ron Paul will win because Newt Gingrich is stuppid"

Oh, the irony.

0

Fossick 2 years, 8 months ago

It's not really ironic when a troll does it. It's just troll.

0

meggers 2 years, 8 months ago

Looking at that poster's history, I get the impression he means what he says. That makes him something other than a troll. Something I probably shouldn't say.

0

Fossick 2 years, 8 months ago

All one week of his history (the first post of which was deleted by mods), in which he misspells Christian in two different ways and places the rare word "strait" for the more common "straight"?

My suspicion is that his creative spelling confirms your impressions about the intelligence of anyone who would hold his opinions. In that case, you'll have to overcome your own blind spots to see what is obvious to everyone else.

A troll, that would be. A good one, apparently, but a troll.

0

meggers 2 years, 8 months ago

Notwithstanding your unsolicited and incorrect assessment of my motivations, you may be right about him being a troll poster. I doubt "everyone" has reached the same conclusion, but it's certainly a possibility.

Then again, there are idiots across the political spectrum and a number of those idiots post on message boards.

0

jonas_opines 2 years, 8 months ago

For me the giveaway was about the first or second one where he said he should be getting paid for being so great.

0

Kendall Simmons 2 years, 8 months ago

If US Presidents alone could fix the US economy, then we wouldn't keep having long term economic problems...certainly not those that last long after a previous president is gone.

Like it or not, Ron Paul can't fix the economy by himself either.

As far as marriage is concerned? Uh...how do you blame the fact that 50% of all first marriages in the US end in divorce on Obama? Or on any President? I thought Republicans/conservatives were about "personal responsibility"???

Like it or not, Ron Paul can't force people to stay married, either. (And Obama is still married to his first wife, so it's hard for me to understand why you would think Obama "hates marriage". Because he wants to expand the right to get married to include gays? Yeah, sure. Gays getting married is going to force straight Americans to...well, exactly how do you think gay marriage would affect straight marriages? I mean, if my marriage doesn't affect you, then how do you think my gay friends' marriage is going to affect you?)

0

littlexav 2 years, 8 months ago

Well Rick Santorum thinks that if gay marriage is legal, then health classes in high school are going to have to cover... well... you know. At least according to a charged conversation he had on a campaign trip in Iowa earlier this month. I'd say that's pretty horrifying.

0

somedude20 2 years, 8 months ago

"Ron Paul supporters think everyone who doesn’t support him fears him like they fear getting abducted by aliens, again." "Ron Paul supporters not only appear when his name is invoked 3 times, it drives them crazy, an admittedly short trip." Ron has no, I mean NO chance in spell to become President or even dog catcher for that matter. Sorry folks but if you believe RP is electable than I am sure you will also be waiting up for Santa on Christmas

0

Fossick 2 years, 8 months ago

"even dog catcher for that matter"

Funny statement about a guy who's been elected to Congress more than 10 times and has a son in the Senate.

0

somedude20 2 years, 8 months ago

Cookies are in the mail for son of Paul but as for old Ronnie, hard to not get elected when no one runs against you (2008)and he has run and come in dead last for how many presidential elections now 3, no 4 now. So yes, "even dog catcher for that matter"

0

Fossick 2 years, 8 months ago

Yup, 3. Once as the Libertarian (1988) and now twice as a Republican. Plus he has won more than 10 contested Congressional races in two different districts.

But I guess that just means running for dog catcher is tougher than running for congress. Though I suspect it's not as lucrative.

0

ferrislives 2 years, 8 months ago

Ron Paul will end up being the modern-day H. Ross Perot, which is exactly Liberty_One's point. Do I think he will win? Probably not. But it is refreshing hearing a candidate talk about us simplifying our lives by getting out of everyone's business. You know, what Republicans used to be about.

0

melott 2 years, 8 months ago

My first choice: Obama. My second choice: Paul.

0

Kirk Larson 2 years, 8 months ago

I disagree with a LOT of Ron Paul's ideas, but I will give him props for not flip-flopping like a fish on the dock like most of the republicans or being a complete idiot like Bachmann and Santorum.

0

jaywalker 2 years, 8 months ago

I can't debate the possibility. With the crop of contenders, Paul certainly has the chance at an upset. Beating the Prez is another thing.

0

ljwhirled 2 years, 8 months ago

So Ron Paul or Barack Obama? Since Ron Paul isn't a serious candidate, I guest it is Obama. Glad to hear the election has now been decided. I'll go back to sleep now.

0

beatrice 2 years, 8 months ago

So far, nobody has landed on the correct answer. The next president will actually be HIllary Clinton, and she will be the "next" president following Obama's second term.

Just fyi

0

rockchalker52 2 years, 8 months ago

How 'bout my man AC from the Empire State? an up & comer? channels Ed Schultz 'How do ya see it? Whaddya think?'

0

Steve Jacob 2 years, 8 months ago

Just because Paul might win Iowa does not make him a serious candidate. If he wins Iowa, it hurts Gingrich and clears the road for Romney. I feel bad for Romney, a safe candidate, a guy who has lived a more "Christian life" then any Christian in the field. Gingrich and Paul so sound good in small amounts, but take everything they say and you sake your head.

And we are slowly in recovery, but everyone is in denial about that. Market up big today because of hope with housing numbers, and with the unemployment rate drops, and those are the main two reasons we have been held down so long.

0

jonas_opines 2 years, 8 months ago

"take everything they say and you sake your head."

As long as it's cold sake. Hot might be a little painful.

;)

0

Kendall Simmons 2 years, 8 months ago

This makes no sense. You would have preferred that the banking and financial system collapsed...why??

In addition, $245 billion went out in TARP funds, and $255 billion in repayments, interest and warrants has come back, yielding a profit to taxpayers of $10 billion. This is bad...why???

Oh...might want to check your campaign contributor lists again. GoldmanSachs was not Obama's largest contributor. That would be the University of California. And GoldmanSachs was McCain's 5th largest contributor.

Plus GoldmanSachs wasn't the contributor anyway. The money came from their PAC, their individual employees and/or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. (Plus organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.) So...it's nowhere near a "GoldmanSachs got its TARP money because it donated to Obama's campaign" than you apparently have been fooled into believing.

Perhaps even more important, GoldmanSachs paid back their TARP money with interest in July 2009...paid back the money they received from TARP in the fall of 2008 under the Bush Administration. That's the President Bush who signed TARP into law on October 3, 2008 administration.

0

camper 2 years, 8 months ago

I'm just glad Lewt Gingcruch is falling off the radar. Get a load of this:

0

Amy Heeter 2 years, 8 months ago

Bobo the sperm donor is going to cry about this blog for sure.

0

tbaker 2 years, 8 months ago

Has Mr. Paul said he will run as a 3rd party candidate?

0

tbaker 2 years, 8 months ago

In that event, the President will be re-elected I agree. I'm done voting against candidates. I'm voting for one next time, come what may.

0

Steve Jacob 2 years, 8 months ago

He knows he will hand the election over to Obama if was the Libertarian candidate, so he must hate whomever the Republican would be.

0

JackMcKee 2 years, 8 months ago

Ron Paul, as odd and intriguing as he might be, will never be elected President.

0

camper 2 years, 8 months ago

President Obama and Ron Paul are the only two candidates I can tolerate. I cannot say that I agree with Paul's stances on some issues, but I appreciate that he speaks truthfully.

0

jayhawklawrence 2 years, 8 months ago

I believe a moderate Republican could win the White House in the next election but there are no such candidates emerging during this campaign.

This is another aspect of the damage done by the Tea Party movement. They have dumbed down the political dialogue to the point where most Americans will be calling themselves Independents by the time election day arrives.

Ron Paul is a nice ("appearing") old quack in love with his ideas that have some appeal but are not rooted in reality. If you actually tried to apply his philosophy in the real world, you would achieve only misery and heartache.

I think Ron Paul probably has a mental disorder and a "Messiah" complex. Unfortunately, these kinds of people generally collect disciples that keep encouraging them. The ideals are appealing, the reality is completely different.

0

rmushrush 2 years, 8 months ago

Ron Paul is a joke. He's the Dennis Kucinich of the republican party.

They will never take him seriously enough to nominate him.

Barack Chalk Jayhawk! Obama will be re-elected in a landslide no matter who the right wingers nominate.

0

jayhawklawrence 2 years, 8 months ago

As for me being childish, I believe Ron Paul and anyone who falls for his philosophy are the ones who are childish.

I too find his ideals appealing and his personality likeable.

I am sorry to say, they will not bring you happiness.

0

JackMcKee 2 years, 8 months ago

Which should be more concerned with? Chemtrails, HAARP, FEMA camps or the TSA?

0

beatrice 2 years, 8 months ago

I am sure America just isn't the same for Archie Bunker these days either. Too bad.

0

brujablanco 2 years, 8 months ago

at artichoke. There you go again imagining JG or anyone else is thinking about you.

0

Flap Doodle 2 years, 8 months ago

In other news that will vex the Ronulans: http://minx.cc/?post=324969 "...Oh. So, if I have this right, Ron Paul admits he lies about the newsletters in the midst of a campaign in which he cannot tell the truth for political reasons...." Comedy gold.

0

JackMcKee 2 years, 8 months ago

The ardent Ron Paul supporters I've met are catastrophizers, conspiracy theorists and seem to possibly be suffering from schizophrenia. To call them the fringe of society would be putting it mildly. Given the chance, they will corner you and then scream at you about all of the evil things that America is contemplating or currently doing. They believe that their low status in life (never met one that wasn't a few steps from declaring bankruptcy) is the result of a conspiracy to keep them down. You see, it is because they aren't wearing "blinders" like the rest of society. They are the only ones with the power to see through the smoke and mirrors and propaganda. Narcissistic personality disorder anyone?

These people seem like they could become unhinged at any moment. Ron Paul caters to these people by appearing on places like the Alex Jones show. Alex Jones is like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and snake charming preacher all rolled into one crazy package. Why does Ron Paul encourage these crazy people? Because he knows that where his base of support lies. He knows (I hope) that the things that Alex Jones espouses are crazy, yet he continues to appear on his show. When Ron Paul thought he could make a buck selling racist newsletters, he did exactly that. Now his supporters want us to believe the scrutiny over these newsletters is part of the anti Ron Paul conspiracy. Ron Paul is not some principled saint of a politician. He panders just like the rest of them.

Conspiracy theories are so convenient., They can be used to rationalize anything that fails to fit into your warped view of reality. Ron Paul is not that much different than any politician. He certainly has no qualms about catering to the ideological fringe, e.g., Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann. Let's talk about the man in the correct context from now on and drop the sainthood nonsense.

0

Flap Doodle 2 years, 8 months ago

Skippy, I suggest that you take off the tin foil hat & rejoin reality.

0

JackMcKee 2 years, 8 months ago

I don't watch televised news of any kind, but that's a common refrain from the delusional conspiracy types. Anyone that fails to see the world through their crazy perspective must just not be "aware"and must be brainwashed by Fox or CNN. You should get your news from somewhere other than infowars and prison planet. Do you realize that a lot of the material that Glen Beck used on Fox was lifted from Alex Jones? It's the people with weak minds are suckers for that kind of tripe.

0

Steve Jacob 2 years, 8 months ago

Those newsletters will haunt Paul forever. Every time some one takes the lead, their past catches up to them. Why your Haley Barbour's and Chris Christie's stayed out. Just go with Romney, Republicans.

0

JackMcKee 2 years, 8 months ago

Is that hard to believe that racists have embraced the libertarian movement? It might not be something you want to admit, but it's the fact. And owners of news organizations are held accountable for the opinions expressed by their publications. For example, Rupert Murdoch and News Corp are well known to have a conservative perspective, to the point of occasionally crossing the news/editorial boundary.

0

JackMcKee 2 years, 8 months ago

One more thought. It doesn't much digging to uncover Ron Paul's racist opinions and wacky conspiracy theories. He repeatedly published them in his own newsletter.

0

kawrivercrow 2 years, 8 months ago

The Sock Puppet of the Year Award goes to motercyclejim

He's really good. It was pretty tough to find evidence that he is just jerking our chain, but here it is.

"Another time I had a cop take my gun from me just becuse I was in a bank and was loadding it but its my gun and I have a permit 4 it!!!"

Undoubtedly some of the best puppetry I have seen....ever.

0

Satirical 2 years, 8 months ago

I predict that Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination, and will not run as a third party candidate. Romney deserves the nomination, and whether he wins the Presidency depends primarily on how the country is doing in about 10 months.

I used to be libertarian. I also used to be a communist. Then I realized each would only work in a theoretical world. Now I am a pragmatist -- a fiscal conservative, and a social moderate.

0

Satirical 2 years, 8 months ago

"Actually libertarianism is the only stable system that has ever worked" - LO

Really? So which libertarian countries today have "worked?"


"Interventionism has proved to not work in reality--it always leads to more problems requiring further interventions to solve the problems created by the first interventions." - LO

Absolutism is naive. I agree that more often than not, even though the U.S. CAN, doesn't mean it SHOULD. However, imagine a world where the U.S. didn't send aid to the UK during (and eventually enter) WWII. Natural disasters occur, and weaker countries sometimes need our aid when being attacked. We should be prudent with our resources but realize a wealthy country like ours has a moral obligation to help in some instances. Not providing assistance in some cases could cause worldwide frustration and lead to more problems than intervention.

0

Satirical 2 years, 8 months ago

Everyone knows the puppies must burn.

0

Satirical 2 years, 8 months ago

Your assertion is was about a stable libertarian "system." However, you countered my argument by defending libertarian "policies." Libertarianism as a whole fails because it is not realistic on a wide scale, which is why Ron Paul will lose. I am a conservative so I like less government and agree with my liberatarian ideas. But as a whole, it fails.

"Imagine a world where the US didn't get involved in WWI and there wasn't a WWII." - LO

Do you really think the U.S. and the world would have been better off without having entered WWII?

"And the private citizens of the US are very generous. " - LO

Again, this is another area where we agree in principle, but not in the details. I agree the government should not have most of the burden when dealing with natural disasters, but the government is capable (especially when the military is involved) in mobilizing faster than the average citizen to respond with large scale aid in an efficient manner.

"Taking sides makes enemies." - LO

To borrow a line, "(i)t's the foe, not the friend, that taught cities to build high walls." We will always have enemies. There are times when a weaker nation is invaded when I believe it is worth making an enemy, especially to atrocities.

"Providing assistance is usually counterproductive" - LO

That is not always the case. And when it is the case, then either don't give aid, or find a way to ease suffering without propping up an insufferable regime.

"Giving out aid to some countries causes resentment among others--just look at the resentment the aide to Israel creates." - LO

Like I said, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. We will always have enemies. It is naive to think otherwise. That is why it is important to pick some friends.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

0

xtronics 2 years, 6 months ago

The Republicans have just committed suicide - the news is no longer controlled by three networks.

Reality Check: GOP Scrambles Under Allegations of Rampant Election Fraud In Maine Caucus

She wants to hurt the Republicans - her only motive - so she tries to pass off RP doing something crooked getting his own delegates - he points out that Obama did the same thing...

She is a biased reporter (and does not want Ron Paul to be the Republican candidate - his poll numbers show he would likely defeat Obama) - but the story is interesting and has been blacked out by the mainstream press. the Republicans can not win without Ron Paul supporters. They just disenfranchised the libertarian wing.

The bad news is, this means the continued march into further socialism.

Looks like both parties no longer support being a nation of laws - our children will pay the price.

He polls better than Romney - and MUCH better that Santorum and Gingrich. Like I said, the Republicans are going to lose - the price of becoming socialist-lite.

  • I think I might need to wash may hands after typing Republican... ( other than those 22 they are just as corrupt as the Democrats )
0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.