Ron Paul becomes Ralph Nader

Well, Ron Paul won't say he won't run for election if he doesn't get the nomination, and in that vein, some pollsters have been inquiring what would happen. Current polls are showing Ron Paul may get 20% of the vote, siphoned off from an unnamed Republican nominee, which means Obama would win by a double digit margin

I can't imagine the hate he would get if he pulled a Nader like that, especially if the election is close.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

wwestern

Yeah he should really do more to appease the GOP since they've been so fair with him.

Right now he's doing pretty well in a lot of polls so I think it's a bit premature for this rederick.

jlmarta

xmacro:
I can't imagine the hate he would get if he pulled a Nader like that, especially if the election is close.

Nader?? He wasn't the only one! What about Ross Perot? Or are you guys too young to remember him?

jj20030

jlmarta:
xmacro:
I can't imagine the hate he would get if he pulled a Nader like that, especially if the election is close.

Nader?? He wasn't the only one! What about Ross Perot? Or are you guys too young to remember him?

lol

wwestern

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
- John Adams

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

-George Washington

JDH

Personally, I can think of nothing that would serve our political system better than for one or two new parties to become viable, and to force the other two "establishment Parties" to relinquish their strangle hold on our government. Democratic government requires compromise, and I believe that if there were other viable parties, then coalitions on specific issues would have to be forged between the differing parties. I believe this would finally put an end to the "liberal/conservative" divide among our elected officials, and force more pragmatism among those we elect to "represent" us.

JDH

jlmarta:
xmacro:
I can't imagine the hate he would get if he pulled a Nader like that, especially if the election is close.

Nader?? He wasn't the only one! What about Ross Perot? Or are you guys too young to remember him?

...and John Anderson before Perot...and Huey Long...and the Bull Moose Party (T.R)...there have been many attempts, but none have been successful YET.

jlmarta

JDH:
jlmarta:
xmacro:
I can't imagine the hate he would get if he pulled a Nader like that, especially if the election is close.

Nader?? He wasn't the only one! What about Ross Perot? Or are you guys too young to remember him?
...and John Anderson before Perot...and Huey Long...and the Bull Moose Party (T.R)...there have been many attempts, but none have been successful YET.

Depends on your definition of success. If the intent was just to fvck up an otherwise straightforward election, then one has to wonder if, in fact, they were unsuccessful.

Vulchor

I am one of those who will be voting for Ron Paul if he is a 3rd party, and not because I am an Obama supporter---but because I like alot of what Paul says. I do not think that would be a travesty or cause any anger at all (at least not by those who truly enjoy freedom and can appreciate multiple viewpoints). Just as Perot is often blamed with costing an election, neither he or Paul should be blamed with anything other that breaking this two party bu!!**** we have in this country. Maybe if each side would stop catering to the big money with the fringe ideas, they should start TRULY caring what most people feel.

JDH

jlmarta:
JDH:
jlmarta:
xmacro:
I can't imagine the hate he would get if he pulled a Nader like that, especially if the election is close.

Nader?? He wasn't the only one! What about Ross Perot? Or are you guys too young to remember him?
...and John Anderson before Perot...and Huey Long...and the Bull Moose Party (T.R)...there have been many attempts, but none have been successful YET.

Depends on your definition of success. If the intent was just to fvck up an otherwise straightforward election, then one has to wonder if, in fact, they were unsuccessful.

I am speaking to the successful establishment of a third or even fourth party that can compete in future elections, not the deliberate sabotaging of an election by siphoning votes from one of the two "establishment" candidates.

phobicsquirrel

wwestern:
Yeah he should really do more to appease the GOP since they've been so fair with him.

Right now he's doing pretty well in a lot of polls so I think it's a bit premature for this rederick.

I'm not a huge fan of Paul, but he has a few stances that I do agree on. I do think he's been treated like crap from the GOP TV and the GOP talking heads and the party. some polls have him ahead of romney others a little behind. Either way I hope he keeps it up.

phobicsquirrel

JDH:
jlmarta:
JDH:
jlmarta:
xmacro:
I can't imagine the hate he would get if he pulled a Nader like that, especially if the election is close.

Nader?? He wasn't the only one! What about Ross Perot? Or are you guys too young to remember him?
...and John Anderson before Perot...and Huey Long...and the Bull Moose Party (T.R)...there have been many attempts, but none have been successful YET.

Depends on your definition of success. If the intent was just to fvck up an otherwise straightforward election, then one has to wonder if, in fact, they were unsuccessful.
I am speaking to the successful establishment of a third or even fourth party that can compete in future elections, not the deliberate sabotaging of an election by siphoning votes from one of the two "establishment" candidates.

Another reason why the two party system is broken. I really think we should do run off elections where parties are given a percentage of seats based on votes. Like in Sweden.

Amos_Umwhat

It's interesting to watch the reactions from the various quarters to the only candidate running who believes in the founders version of the Constitution.

Redtailhawkoz

Vulchor:
I am one of those who will be voting for Ron Paul if he is a 3rd party, and not because I am an Obama supporter---but because I like alot of what Paul says. I do not think that would be a travesty or cause any anger at all (at least not by those who truly enjoy freedom and can appreciate multiple viewpoints). Just as Perot is often blamed with costing an election, neither he or Paul should be blamed with anything other that breaking this two party bu!!**** we have in this country. Maybe if each side would stop catering to the big money with the fringe ideas, they should start TRULY caring what most people feel.

I Like your thinking..... what a bunch of yahoos to try and run for president, other countries are sitting back laughing saying look at those dumb ****!