I don't think many progressives will vote for Ron Paul

[cthulu2016]

You know why that is???

Because he will not be on the ballot.

These fantasies about how the progressives and hippies have hot pants for Ron Paul and may defect from Obama are not grounded in reality. First, progressives are deeply opossed to the man's ideology.

But also... let's say it together:

Because he will not be on the ballot against President Obama. He is not going to be the Republican nominee. Tim Pawlenty might be the Republican nominee. It could happen. Ron Paul? Not gonna' happen.

(Granted, Paul could run as a third party candidate, and if so could possibly cause an Obama landslide.)

Is the concern that some hippies will vote for Paul in open Republican primaries? Ummm... and what is the harm in that exactly? I hope Paul wins the nomination. He would lose 40 states. He would set the RW back a decade (at which time our demographic advantages will have become decisive)

Paul is the ultimate distraction. His bizarre policy mix sows discord. But no matter what, he hurts them (republicans) a lot more than he hurts us, or ever could hurt us.

He is their problem. Rejoice in their misery and enjoy the show.

[jpgray]

1. I think the "m" in your title is unnecessary.

[cthulu2016]

3. Zing! (You had me looking for a typo until I got it)

[Odin2005]

5. DUzy!!!

[Ecumenist]

2. People aren't crazy and they've learned from the bush years.

At least I hope they have learned from the past

[Scootaloo]

4. I dunno...

They might write him in just to "punish Obama" for not being perfect on every score.

[Odin2005]

7. LOL, whatever you say!

[Scootaloo]

8. Sorry, I've lost any hope of "our team" having any common sense

it happened in 2010 when a bunch of "progressives" decided "Hey, let's shame the Democrats by making sure they lose! That will get us some real progressive legislation!"

Just 'cause people have the correct political views doesn't necessarily mean they are intelligent people, you know?

[MilesColtrane]

19. ...or, to "push him to the left". (as if Paul's agenda is "from the left")

[Odin2005]

6. Great post. I think a Paul nomination would be a GODSEND for the Dems.

His crazy economic positions would scare away moderates, plus his stances on drugs and the war will force Obama to the left on those 2 issues.

[RZM]

9. Agree for the most part

Except he wouldn't set them back for a decade. He'd set them back for 2-4 years. There would be a massive purge of Paulites and a serious ideological retrenchment with a lot of lessons learned for them.

[cthulu2016]

10. I take your point

It would, however, be a tricky purge. Their (the republican party) ability to evolve is limited by their backers -- they can't give up a fairly hardline libertarian view of capitalism.

I guess they could become the full-on authoritarian party... get uniforms and such.

[RZM]

11. One thing to keep in mind

Is that after this cycle, Paul is done as a national candidate. He's in his mid-70s. I get the feeling the 'movement' is done without him as well. His supporters will disperse. Some will go to the left (where some were to begin with). Others will go full libertarian/3rd party. Some will join the paleocons. And some will stay with a 'rump' Paul - meaning somebody younger who can't retain nearly as much support.

The ideas will stay salient, but they won't be behind a single person.

[cthulu2016]

14. Not Rand?

[RZM]

15. Actually not

Rand is more of a mainstream Tea Party guy. I don't think most Ron supporters will like him. Besides, right now he's the junior senator from Kentucky. If he chooses to go national then maybe he'd get some Ron Paul people. But that's not in the cards right now.

[cthulu2016]

16. Well, Rand wanted to get elected.

Winning state-wide office is different from winning Ron Paul's district.

I don't feel like I know what Rand Paul thinks about anything. I assume that what he does or says is mindful of the need for election/reelection.

If there was a crown worth the trouble of taking up maybe he would take it up, though he wouldn't be able to stay in the Senate at the end of his term.

[cthulu2016]

13. No thank you. Enjoy your short visit here.

[fishwax]

17. right on pretty much all counts

[joshcryer]

18. I hadn't been encountering this argument much, it's more that Ron Paul...

...lends a voice to the debate that needs to be heard, etc.

Of course, you're right, and I'm sure I'm spending far too much time on this than I should, but Ron Paul will be toast soon enough.