poLOT From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 1864 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 961 times:
Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 4): It would be a disaster for the established Republicans because they are pushing for Romney. For me, I do not want to vote for him at all, and I will find myself voting for Paul over Romney.
Exactly. Thereby splitting the votes and ensuring that Obama wins again. That is really the only thing that the GOP doesn't want...most of them couldn't care less about the issues or properly running the government.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 6567 posts, RR: 51 Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 925 times:
He doesn't need to, I am gonna vote for him or Gary Johnson no matter what Paul does. The current president has policies that differ from mine, but I see past the propaganda that our country is going to fall and burn if he gets another 4 years. If I vote 3rd party and have the president reelected, I'll lose no sleep over it and our country won't fall apart. Hopefully it'll be a wake up to the GOP or even better, maybe we'll see the rise of a 3rd party!
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 17917 posts, RR: 57 Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 860 times:
Not so fast. Paul is likely to pull a lot of swing votes from both sides. He'd steal votes from both Romney and Obama. The big question is (and nobody knows the answer): who would he steal more from? I'm thinking it would be about even.
The far bigger disaster for the GOP will be if Newt goes independent. The Christian Fundamentalists will immediately vote for Newt because Romney is a Mormon. Newt would also take a good portion of the Tea Party base. That would leave Romney with moderate Republicans, who are becoming about as rare as green dogs. Now, would Newt get any electoral votes? Actually, he might carry SC (*might*) but otherwise, not a one. But what he would do is swing the popular vote around in important states so that Obama carries them.
For my part, I'm hoping (even praying) that Newt goes all Perot. That would be FANTASTIC.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 6567 posts, RR: 51 Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 839 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9): For my part, I'm hoping (even praying) that Newt goes all Perot. That would be FANTASTIC.
IMO, and I could be wrong, Newt is too politician-ish to do that. Going 3rd party would suggested he stands for a cause and is really dedicated to it. I don't get that vibe from him. He seems like the type that would lose the nomination to Romney and try and get some kind of job from Romney...
I think Santorum is more likely to go 3rd party based on principle, but probably wouldn't because he doesn't have really bad blood with Romney.
I'm not sure if Paul would go 3rd party. He has a strong cause, but really doesn't have a vendetta against anyone and wants more than anything, for his ideas to have a platform. If he can spread at least some of his ideas into the GOP's platform, I think he'd endorse (or unofficially endorse) the GOP
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11406 posts, RR: 24 Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 760 times:
I have to agree that Newt going 3rd party would be even worse, but I too think he's too close to the establishment to want to go out in the cold. His livelihood is being a GOP consultant, and going it alone would cut him off from his daily bread. He'll do the math in his head, and when push comes to shove, it's in his best interest to not piss off the GOP too much. I think he'll stay in till the convention just to raise his stature as much as he can, throw as many hand grenades as possible, claim some sort of moral victory, then hit the speaker's circuit and rake in what he can for himself.
Ron Paul is more idealistic than is Newt, and personally I see him more likely to not care if in the future he's a GOP outcast.
I personally see both men as taking away more GOP votes and dollars than Dem votes and dollars.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7849 posts, RR: 8 Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 750 times:
Quoting zippyjet (Reply 1): Reminds me of a wealthy younger insincere Ronald Reagan.
The is a pretty good description. The scary part is that I still consider him the best GOP option - especially if you want the GOP candidate to have a chance against Obama.
Santorum, IMO, has now started shifting to a position of becoming the VP candidate selected by Mitt at the convention. Maybe even before. Santorum would go through the first round then pledge his delegates to Mitt. Then Mitt names him the VP Candidate. That gives Santorum a dream for 8 years later.
Newt? It would be most interesting if he tried to go the 3rd party route. He could pull a lot of TP'ers and hard line conservatives. We might end up with a long term 3rd political party if Newt can pull enough of the Tea Party with him. That generates an interesting potential of parties for Conservatives, Moderates (Mid-America) and Democrats. The most interesting part of that 3 party balance is that it would put Moderates as the swing vote..
Paul? A political freak show with less chance than Perot had - fortunately.