AHC: Republicans Nominate Ron Paul
- Thread starter Statesman
- Start date
He loses. Period. There's no crossover appeal, and a Paul nomination would be like handing over the keys to the White House to whoever the Democratic nominee is. (Think Goldwater in '64.....)
Not a WI
This was meant as an AHC. Not a What If. I mean, obviously I welcome discussion about the ramifications, but the intent is to figure out HOW it could happen that he gets nominated.
This was meant as an AHC. Not a What If. I mean, obviously I welcome discussion about the ramifications, but the intent is to figure out HOW it could happen that he gets nominated.
First of all, Paul's appeal is far far too narrow to make it past a Republican primary through any conventional means.
Realistically speaking, the only route for Paul to make it past the convention involves a delegate-heavy focus where he wins the caucus states and succeeds in stuffing delegate slots even in primary states with his supporters, though they may be bound to other candidates, forcing a deadlocked convention with a few other candidates, and then being anointed after delegates are unbound.
This is the strategy Paul and his supporters employed in 2012 to some small success. But the key thing is that if Paul wins, he won't be doing it with the support of a majority or even a small plurality of Republican voters. He'll have achieved it through mastery of rules lawyering, stacking the deck in contests thought inconsequential with little turnout, etc. Establishment Republicans, social conservatives, almost everyone except his supporters would feel utterly cheated and robbed (remember how Obama's supporters warned in 2008 against having the super-delegates anoint Hillary? Think that times 100), would feel like the party had been hijacked, and there would be a lot of evidence to back it up. I'd expect a third party candidacy in that case, an utterly split Republican party, and consequentially a Democratic presidential landslide.
The other avenue which I'm not completely sure I believe involves having a very different 2000 such that Democrats enter many wars and Paul's anti-war platform gains more traction among Republicans. This is the avenue SLCer partly uses in the (excellent) TL Bridge to the 21st Century (Paul doesn't actually get the nomination there, but he comes very close.) It's still very hard for me to see Republicans nominating an anti-war candidate in that case, however.
Realistically speaking, the only route for Paul to make it past the convention involves a delegate-heavy focus where he wins the caucus states and succeeds in stuffing delegate slots even in primary states with his supporters, though they may be bound to other candidates, forcing a deadlocked convention with a few other candidates, and then being anointed after delegates are unbound.
This is the strategy Paul and his supporters employed in 2012 to some small success. But the key thing is that if Paul wins, he won't be doing it with the support of a majority or even a small plurality of Republican voters. He'll have achieved it through mastery of rules lawyering, stacking the deck in contests thought inconsequential with little turnout, etc. Establishment Republicans, social conservatives, almost everyone except his supporters would feel utterly cheated and robbed (remember how Obama's supporters warned in 2008 against having the super-delegates anoint Hillary? Think that times 100), would feel like the party had been hijacked, and there would be a lot of evidence to back it up. I'd expect a third party candidacy in that case, an utterly split Republican party, and consequentially a Democratic presidential landslide.
The other avenue which I'm not completely sure I believe involves having a very different 2000 such that Democrats enter many wars and Paul's anti-war platform gains more traction among Republicans. This is the avenue SLCer partly uses in the (excellent) TL Bridge to the 21st Century (Paul doesn't actually get the nomination there, but he comes very close.) It's still very hard for me to see Republicans nominating an anti-war candidate in that case, however.
On the other hand with Paul regarded as a weak candidate might the democrats not get too complacent too and, if so, could some parties to the left of the Democrats gain at least some good publicity out of this?
Honestly, with both main parties being right of centre the gaping hole to be filled in American politics ought to lie on the left anyway.
Honestly, with both main parties being right of centre the gaping hole to be filled in American politics ought to lie on the left anyway.
To get Paul nominated, you need to get American conservatism to swing towards the ideals of libertarianism. Also, there needs to be a general feeling of "never again" that is similar to the levels of isolationist sentiments in the inter-war period of the Great Wars.
One way to do this is to have the U.S involved in a much larger War on Terror that sees horrendous casualties and fails to achieve its strategic goals. The Republican Party will try to distance itself from the neocons as it turns towards alternative candidates, one of whom will be a certain Ron Paul, who was an outspoken anti-WoT Congressman and notable as the only Republican Congressman to vote against the Iraq War. His popularity in the result of the immediate aftermath of the war skyrockets, and the youth and soldiers start taking a liking to him. Given enough time, he then becomes the top choice for the Republican Party and is nominated narrowly.
There's no accounting for whether he'll win, though.
One way to do this is to have the U.S involved in a much larger War on Terror that sees horrendous casualties and fails to achieve its strategic goals. The Republican Party will try to distance itself from the neocons as it turns towards alternative candidates, one of whom will be a certain Ron Paul, who was an outspoken anti-WoT Congressman and notable as the only Republican Congressman to vote against the Iraq War. His popularity in the result of the immediate aftermath of the war skyrockets, and the youth and soldiers start taking a liking to him. Given enough time, he then becomes the top choice for the Republican Party and is nominated narrowly.
There's no accounting for whether he'll win, though.
"If the other 9 candidates plus Fred Thompson died in a horrific baking accident, the GOP would draft Lyndon Larouche before nominating this guy [Ron Paul]--David Weigel, 2007 http://reason.com/blog/2007/05/15/tom-tancredo-defeats-charles-l
MalcontentRex
Banned
Not at all ASB. Ron Paul is a few years ahead of his time, but not by much. His son Rand shares most of his views, but presents them in a more tidied-up, socially palatable package. Rand is a very credible candidate with a real shot of winning the 2016 Nomination and in some polls Ron was actually leading for a while at the end of 2011/beginning of 2012.
There are a few ways to do it.
1: Make the GOP War on Terror go much worse than it has historically AND embroil Obama in a severe overseas scandal, something like a Benghazi on steroids.
2 (in my opinion the best way): Speed up the secularization of America by five to ten years. In 2008 and to a lesser extent 2012, pro-Israel, anti-abortion evangelical social conservatives were still the core base of the GOP. They will be less so in 2016 and by 2020 their influence may be quite minor. Ron Paul carried secular young GOP voters by a landslide. One PoD for this might be to have Al Gore elected in 2000.
3: This technically goes outside of the AHC, but if the nominee is either a radical social conservative or a very moderate establishment figure (i.e. a Colin Powell, Chris Christie, John Chafee-type) I see some chance of a big backlash at the grass-roots level by which rank-and-fine Republicans begin a write-in campaign for him similar to Lisa Murkowski's in AK after Joe Miller won the primary. It is highly unlikely he would win the presidency but I can see him perhaps coming in above the actual GOP nominee.
4: By some act of handwavium make Ron about 15 years younger. There can be no denying that his age has worked against him.
There are a few ways to do it.
1: Make the GOP War on Terror go much worse than it has historically AND embroil Obama in a severe overseas scandal, something like a Benghazi on steroids.
2 (in my opinion the best way): Speed up the secularization of America by five to ten years. In 2008 and to a lesser extent 2012, pro-Israel, anti-abortion evangelical social conservatives were still the core base of the GOP. They will be less so in 2016 and by 2020 their influence may be quite minor. Ron Paul carried secular young GOP voters by a landslide. One PoD for this might be to have Al Gore elected in 2000.
3: This technically goes outside of the AHC, but if the nominee is either a radical social conservative or a very moderate establishment figure (i.e. a Colin Powell, Chris Christie, John Chafee-type) I see some chance of a big backlash at the grass-roots level by which rank-and-fine Republicans begin a write-in campaign for him similar to Lisa Murkowski's in AK after Joe Miller won the primary. It is highly unlikely he would win the presidency but I can see him perhaps coming in above the actual GOP nominee.
4: By some act of handwavium make Ron about 15 years younger. There can be no denying that his age has worked against him.
Orville_third
Banned
Have Iraq go worse. Have people cover the Hussein Kamil revelations, as well as others. Have the Democrats nominate a war supporter like Biden, Clinton, Kerry or Lieberman.
Paul has inroads with some social conservatives (conservative is putting it mildly, think Gary North). Guy's a shrewder coalition-builder and more opportunistic than he's given credit for.
Thing is most of Paul's foreign policy and half of his economic policy ideas are toxic to the business establishment. Barring some major POD that basically collapses the GOP as we know it he is *not* getting the nomination.
Thing is most of Paul's foreign policy and half of his economic policy ideas are toxic to the business establishment. Barring some major POD that basically collapses the GOP as we know it he is *not* getting the nomination.
Make Iraq MAGNITUDES worse in every possible way - an indefensible, unspinnable, complete failure. Tens of thousands of soldiers dead. Overstretch to a truly absurd degree w/ the GWOT - large commitment of ground troops to fighting in the Congo for example. Bleed the military white and push them to the breaking point until there's open insubordination, mass resignations in the top brass, outright mutiny, quiet "purely hypothetical" conversations about a coup etc.
For good measure: Patriot Act much scarier and used to imprison prominent right wing administration critics....and don't revise those sections of the law that made the NRA worry IOTL. Have this directly lead to a series of Ruby Ridges.
For good measure: Patriot Act much scarier and used to imprison prominent right wing administration critics....and don't revise those sections of the law that made the NRA worry IOTL. Have this directly lead to a series of Ruby Ridges.
If the Iraq war is that much worse, most of the other candidates would just swing anti-war themselves. And then we get back to the point of Paul's other policies making him completely unacceptable to the GOP.
It's a lot easier to get Paul nominated than to get him elected.
His supporters start taking over state parties during the George W. Bush presidency and deploy the "delegate strategy" for the first time in 2008 rather than 2012. Thanks to grass-roots organizing and parliamentary hijinx at local and state conventions, hundreds of Paul supporters are elected as delegates to the 2008 convention in which Paul finishes second to John McCain. Paul stumps the country in support of the McCain-Palin ticket, which doesn't help the doomed McCain but does earn him some political IOUs which he'll cash in four years later. The rise of the Tea Party in 2009-10 helps immensely.
In 2012, Paul wins the nomination after toning down his more provocative views and focusing on the economy, the deficit and national debt, scaling back the federal government, and lowering the nation's profile overseas.
However, he still loses to Obama, probably by a margin in the high single digits. It wouldn't be a Goldwater-sized electoral rout because Obama had zero chance of carrying a number of states in the South and West.
His supporters start taking over state parties during the George W. Bush presidency and deploy the "delegate strategy" for the first time in 2008 rather than 2012. Thanks to grass-roots organizing and parliamentary hijinx at local and state conventions, hundreds of Paul supporters are elected as delegates to the 2008 convention in which Paul finishes second to John McCain. Paul stumps the country in support of the McCain-Palin ticket, which doesn't help the doomed McCain but does earn him some political IOUs which he'll cash in four years later. The rise of the Tea Party in 2009-10 helps immensely.
In 2012, Paul wins the nomination after toning down his more provocative views and focusing on the economy, the deficit and national debt, scaling back the federal government, and lowering the nation's profile overseas.
However, he still loses to Obama, probably by a margin in the high single digits. It wouldn't be a Goldwater-sized electoral rout because Obama had zero chance of carrying a number of states in the South and West.
I think we need a situation where there is no strong Republican candidate. Like 2012, but without Romney, or even Perry or Pawlenty. The race needs to be dominated by complete B-listers. The only way I can see this happening is that the incumbent President (a Democrat) has sky-high approval ratings before election year - like Obama having Bush in late 2001 levels of approval in the Spring of 2011. Even then, a few big scandals are going to need to go down to stop the A-listers who would run regardless. If the field is dominated by B-listers who all are normal conservatives, without any one managing to dominate, they could divide the field enough for Paul to win a bunch of the early primaries, and gain enough momentum to either win the nomination, or steal it like his backers stole a bunch of state delegations in OTL.
AdrianEverett74
Banned
Ron Paul in opinion
One man on a mission to free the nation from the control of the Government and Big Bankers in New York and Europe comes along 3 times running for President and his message is the same. Freedom Liberty and a little bit of gold in your pocket.
If this man really did win in an alternate time line somewhere and did what he said he was going to do at the time it would be like what I imagine it was like in the movie world of The Matrix Trilogy after Neo died killing Smith and the human batteries were awoken and freed from the system that they served for so long and did not know what to do next.
In this stinking reality we call Life I know the damn establishment Democrats and Republicans will reign supreme forever. They will forever elect their Insiders and not let an outsider using either of their parties become President. I admit I want an outsider for President I want someone who is against the grain of the establishment. I wanted Ron Paul as President just to see if he really could do what he said he was going to do. And if he failed I would have simply moved on to another dumbass establishment freak of the moment or I would have quit voting altogether and go down to the Registrars Office and remove my name from ever Voting ! And left with a "Fuck Politics !" to anyone within earshot.
One man on a mission to free the nation from the control of the Government and Big Bankers in New York and Europe comes along 3 times running for President and his message is the same. Freedom Liberty and a little bit of gold in your pocket.
If this man really did win in an alternate time line somewhere and did what he said he was going to do at the time it would be like what I imagine it was like in the movie world of The Matrix Trilogy after Neo died killing Smith and the human batteries were awoken and freed from the system that they served for so long and did not know what to do next.
In this stinking reality we call Life I know the damn establishment Democrats and Republicans will reign supreme forever. They will forever elect their Insiders and not let an outsider using either of their parties become President. I admit I want an outsider for President I want someone who is against the grain of the establishment. I wanted Ron Paul as President just to see if he really could do what he said he was going to do. And if he failed I would have simply moved on to another dumbass establishment freak of the moment or I would have quit voting altogether and go down to the Registrars Office and remove my name from ever Voting ! And left with a "Fuck Politics !" to anyone within earshot.
I was under the impression that the US president had to have the support of majorities in both houses to get much done. A president with no support in either, no matter what he tried to do, likely wouldn't achieve much.
Though I may be wrong in that assessment.
Seriously not as hard as people think. It could happen in 2012.
Butterfly away the racist newsletters. He was third in Iowa in 2012 by a very close margin. Second in New Hampshire.
Just make the guy not a closet racist, or just keep the opinions to himself and not publish them.
Then, let's say in 2012, it comes out 2 days before Iowa something different than the Santorum bump. SOmething like Santorum had a gay affair back in college.
Then, as bad luck may have it, it comes out that Romney, the "perfect Mormon" slept with a 17 year old back in 2006. Now, Paul sweeps Iowa. He also sweeps New Hampshire. Gingrich wins SC and Paul gets second. Then it comes out Gingrich had off the cuff racist remarks back in 2001.
Paul wins Republican nomination, gets killed in the general.
(If you notice, this ATL presumes tons of sexual and racist controversies kill certain candidates. Paul could be anybody, it's just that his numbers were strong enough where if personal things eviscerated the runs of other candidates, he could have won by default sans the racist newsletters.)
Butterfly away the racist newsletters. He was third in Iowa in 2012 by a very close margin. Second in New Hampshire.
Just make the guy not a closet racist, or just keep the opinions to himself and not publish them.
Then, let's say in 2012, it comes out 2 days before Iowa something different than the Santorum bump. SOmething like Santorum had a gay affair back in college.
Then, as bad luck may have it, it comes out that Romney, the "perfect Mormon" slept with a 17 year old back in 2006. Now, Paul sweeps Iowa. He also sweeps New Hampshire. Gingrich wins SC and Paul gets second. Then it comes out Gingrich had off the cuff racist remarks back in 2001.
Paul wins Republican nomination, gets killed in the general.
(If you notice, this ATL presumes tons of sexual and racist controversies kill certain candidates. Paul could be anybody, it's just that his numbers were strong enough where if personal things eviscerated the runs of other candidates, he could have won by default sans the racist newsletters.)