Who would win in 2012? Obama (D) vs. Ron Paul (R)

Who would win the 2012 election?

  • Obama/Biden (D)

    Votes: 121 89.0%
  • Paul/Johnson (R)

    Votes: 15 11.0%

  • Total voters
    136
Still, Romney was the GOP’s best chance at stealing the White House back. Romney’s competition was a whack job like Paul, a worse whack job like Santorum (day what you will about America being pissed off at capitalism; they would have swallowed a hardcore capitalist before choking down a fundie) and a blowhard like Gingrich. Everyone else in the field was a complete long shot and had no real chance, and the other three (Gingrich, Santorum, Paul) would have all been destroyed by Obama, far worse than Mr. 47% did.

The GOP’s only hope was to run someone who wasn’t a front-runner. All four of the leaders, and just about everyone else in the field, was a guaranteed loser.

Their best candidate would have been Tim Pawlenty, probably with Mike Huckabee or something as his running mate to get the clerico-fascist right out to vote. It would have been a tighter race, although Obama would have likely won reelection anyway.
 
Their best candidate would have been Tim Pawlenty, probably with Mike Huckabee or something as his running mate to get the clerico-fascist right out to vote. It would have been a tighter race, although Obama would have likely won reelection anyway.

I don’t know much about Pawlenty, but he didn’t seem to have much of a chance in that election - more of a chance than any other outsider but a tough sell anyway. And yes, a strong Christian as VP who isn’t a blatant fascist or blithering fuckstick like Palin was probably the best choice for VP in that case.
 
Let's look at Ron Paul's showing in the primaries in what would be the four decisive states four years later:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries

(1) Florida

Romney 46%
Gingrich 32%
Santorum 13%
Paul 7%

(2) Michigan

Romney 41%
Santorum 38%
Paul 12%
Gingrich 7%

(3) Wisconsin

Romney 43%
Santorum 38%
Paul 12%
Gingrich 6%

(4) Pennsylvania

Romney 58%
Santorum 19%
Paul 13%
Gingrich 10%

I'm sorry, that doesn't look like a strong candidate to me...
 
I pretty much agree with everything that's been written here, but just to play Devil's Advocate, would it be possible for the GOP to re-brand Paul as a traditional conservative? I'm thinking of how Trump(and again, no current politics, but he's the closest parallel) came out as "very neutral" in regards to the status of Jerusalem(making him to the left of "Barack Hussein Obama" on that issue), declared gay marriage a closed debate, said that Caitlin Jenner could use whatever washroom she wanted at Trump Towers, yet still managed to win enough conservative votes(ESPECIALLY from the religious-right types) that, combined with the economic desperados in the Rust Belt, he pulled off his EC majority.

And when you think about it, all Paul really has to do is drop the drug-legaiization thing, and not be so hard on Israel and the War On Terror. I think the rest of his hyperlibertarian agenda would fit well with traditional GOP voters, even if they wouldn't, in practice, support eliminating all those social programs. A lot of them can probably be convinced that he only means "get black people off welfare" or "no social-security for Mexicans". Push comes to shove, he can just say "My views have evolved, and I won't make a move on the safety-net unless I have support from You The People."
 
Last edited:
; they would have swallowed a hardcore capitalist before choking down a fundie

Not to go too deep into this, but these things are not even approaching exclusive to each other. The evangelical church in the United States is as capitalist as anything else. The prosperity gospel is practically window dressing for institutional poverty and wage slavery.
 
I pretty much agree with everything that's been written here, but just to play Devil's Advocate, would it be possible for the GOP to re-brand Paul as a traditional conservative? I'm thinking of how Trump(and again, no current politics, but he's the closest parallel) came out as "very neutral" in regards to the status of Jerusalem(making him to the left of "Barack Hussein Obama" on that issue), declared gay marriage a closed debate, said that Caitlin Jenner could use whatever washroom she wanted at Trump Towers, yet still managed to win enough conservative votes(ESPECIALLY from the religious-right types) that, combined with the economic desperados in the Rust Belt, he pulled off his EC majority.

And when you think about it, all Paul really has to do is drop the drug-legaiization thing, and not be so hard on Israel and the War On Terror. I think the rest of his hyperlibertarian agenda would fit well with traditional GOP voters, even if they wouldn't, in practice, support eliminating all those social programs. A lot of them can probably be convinced that he only means "get black people off welfare" or "no social-security for Mexicans". Push comes to shove, he can just say "My views have evolved, and I won't make a move on the safety-net unless I have support from You The People."

I think abortion would be a potential sticking point. He's against it, but also against the federal government weighing in on the matter, and supports contraception. He could easily face attacks for not being assertive enough in protecting right to life.
 
I think the events that could lead to Ron Paul winning the primaries (improbable) would lead to Ron Paul winning the General election. A war in Iran I feel, would be the only way for Ron Paul to win the Primary and General.
 
I think abortion would be a potential sticking point. He's against it, but also against the federal government weighing in on the matter, and supports contraception. He could easily face attacks for not being assertive enough in protecting right to life.

But I think he could just say that he favours leaving it up to the states, and would nominate SCOTUS justices who agree with that, IOW his judges would overturn Roe v. Wade. And that would be good enough for about 90% of the anti-abortion crowd.

I know there's something somewhere about the GOP actually supporting a pro-life amendment to the US constitution at the federal level, but I've never had the impression that that's a sine qua non for most pro-life voters, and it seems to be something that most of their presidential candidates just ignore, focusing instead on the aforementioned All Power To The States position.
 
If Paul wins, there is no bailout of Wall Street at all which causes a low level global depression
2008 was far from a Depression, and lack of tossing free money at the Banksters would not cause a Recession to get anywhere near what 1929
was.

Would Corporations crash?
yes.
They would go bankrupt, and then would get bought up at their true value- what other investors were willing to pay for the bones.

Banks Crash, yes, the 1% would tak a bath, but most of the 99% would be covered by FDIC insurance

When the 99% still have money, they will want to buy things, and businesses will supply that demand.
 
Not to go too deep into this, but these things are not even approaching exclusive to each other. The evangelical church in the United States is as capitalist as anything else. The prosperity gospel is practically window dressing for institutional poverty and wage slavery.

True, and true, but my point is this - Romney was a capitalist first to most people. Santorum was a fundie first to most people. Romney has a better chance because of it.

Also, while Romney could possibly have won if he played his cards better and rolled sixes a few times when he didn’t OTL, he became the first casualty of the 21st century notion of “you’re always talking to the world.” He thought he was talking just to wealthy backers - then someone recorded the 47% speech, and it was a significant factor in his defeat being as pronounced as it was.
 
Top