Not true. First and foremost Paul did not run a failed campaign, he actually had a decent following. He came in 2nd and 3rd caucuses a lot and I believe even 1st once or twice.
Ron Paul managed to win one territory which can't even vote in a presidential election, and he managed to get second place in a couple of low turnout caucuses in small states. He never cracked 40% except in Virgina where everyone other than Romney and him got disqualified from the ballot, and only managed to crack 30% in one other state. He ended up with less than 11% of Republican primary voters backing him, even though he stayed in the race for every primary. That's not a good performance, and doesn't indicate strength in any fashion.
In addition, his campaign was corrupt as hell, up to and including bribing people for their endorsement.
His debates were very sound, beyond that, he murdered his opponents. He won countless debates according to popular viewing polls, which is what really matters in the end: popular vote.
Popular viewing polls matter jack shit. What matters in the end is how the debates affect the polls for the actual election, and in those polls, despite all of the "successes" Paul had in the debates, he never rose to the top of the GOP field, unlike other good debaters like Gingrich or Cain.
And can you source some of these popular viewing polls that were scientifically conducted polls by a reputable polling outfit, and not some shady online poll or a straw poll or some random far-right guy polling his own radio show's audience? You do know that online polls and straw polls (the only types of polls Ron Paul ever wins) are not accurate and statistically bogus?
And logical he annihilated some of his opponents, specifically Romeny, Cain and Santorrum.
A bunch of anti-government platitudes and free-market utopian thinking aren't logic.
And Paul has a much better chance with the youth then Obama as he is against the War on Drugs, against the Iraq War, and against the IRS and Income Tax.
Until Obama demonstrates the fact that Obama is a far-right reactionary on every social issue. Obama was against the Iraq war, which hadn't flared back up again by 2012, and the youth who voted based on opposition to the War on Drugs voted Libertarian or Green, and the ones who voted against the IRS and income tax voted Libertarian, Constitution, or Republican. None of the positions you listed would steal any votes from Obama.
He frequently stated that he did not believe the federal government should get involved in marriage at all, a viewpoint many could agree on because it allows Idaho to fights against it and California to legalize it, states rights.
That doesn't really matter when he says he believes marriage is between one man and one woman, is on the record supporting DOMA, and is on record trying to ban same-sex adoption via Federal Law. And he does not believe in evolution, and wants to ban abortion via constitutional amendment. "Honest Rape". He believes evolution and environmentalism in general are hoaxes, an all-out conspiracy theory. Paul's a reactionary misogynist homophobic bigot like the rest of the hardcore social conservatives. And most of the other social conservatives aren't conspiracy theorists.
And I don't know where you get this idea that Paul cannot win the minority vote. Paul's talk of ending the war on drugs and on racial inequality in the justice system is/can be/and was a rallying point for many minorities. Seems to me like the pieces are there
Ron Paul is on the record against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Ron Paul is on the record against the 1965 voting rights act. Ron Paul is on the record saying that Affirmative Action is racist. Ron Paul is on the record calling for increased border security. Ron Paul is on the record wanting to abolish Social Security and all other forms of welfare. Ron Paul is on the record wanting to abolish public schooling. Ron Paul is on the record wanting to end financial aid for poor people at colleges.
I don't know where you get the idea that Paul could win any minority voters when he stands for all of the positions above, positions opposed by almost all minority voters.
Not bad enough to sink them. They're men, so it is possible. All they need is an accusation from a schizo wacko and they suffer guilt from association. It is a plasuible POD that is not an ASB.
Yet, a blowing up sex scandal would flush billions down the drain during the middle of an election. It is sort of weird if you think about it, being that most people are closet perverts to begin with, but they don't want to vote for someone who has been outed.
Bill Clinton had a sex scandal and his approval rating went up. Unless Obama or Romney raped someone or abused a child, they aren't going to be hurt enough to lose to someone as unpopular as Ron Paul. And if you're going to call for something crazy like that, you might as well propose the POD being Obama and Romney both committing suicide in 2012, because that is about as, if not more, likely that a sex scandal large enough to sink them against Paul (and a standard cheating with another normal woman scandal would not be enough)
