Comments on: Rash Predictions

By: Daniel McCarthy

Daniel McCarthy — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 05:03:11 +0000

Kevin: Paul could then do his best William Tecumseh Sherman impression by saying “if nominated, I will not accept, if elected, I will not serve,” but I like to think that Paul wouldn’t want to emulate bloody Willy T. in any respect. The Constitution Party is apparently very eager to have a high-profile candidate, so anything could happen.

The sore loser laws are an issue but, as Jesse’s link above indicates, most states don’t have ‘em, and if Paul were on the Libertarian or Constitution ticket, even if his name couldn’t appear on the ballot he could still campaign urging Texans (for example) to vote for the LP or CP. “Sore loser laws” can’t bind an electoral college elector, after all.

But it’s all pretty far-fetched, I have to admit.

By: kevinjdeanna

kevinjdeanna — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:44:25 +0000

Dan,

What if the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party give Dr. Paul their endorsements, even if he doesn’t want them? I know the Constitution Party is toying with this idea.

By: Jesse Walker

Jesse Walker — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 01:03:35 +0000

“Sore loser” laws prevent Paul from running third party after participating in the GOP primaries.

In most states they don’t, actually.

Anyway, I doubt Paul will run as a third-party candidate, though I wish he would — though not until he goes as far as he can in the primaries, of course. His chances of winning the Republican nomination are extremely low (and I say this as someone who expects him to do well in New Hampshire and quite possibly elsewhere). His chances of winning the general election are even lower. If he were on the November ballot, I’d rather he play Perot/Wallace than play Goldwater/McGovern — i.e., I’d rather he be the wild card who pulls the debate his way by doing much better than most independent candidates do, and not the insurgent who manages to take the nomination but gets slaughtered in the general election after his own party establishment endorses Hillary and the media line up behind her. In the long run, Perot’s 17% was a lot more powerful than McGovern’s 38%.

By: mp

mp — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:26:52 +0000

I think there are too many party hacks voting in the primaries for Paul to make a difference. There is little difference between Clinton and Giuliani, notwithstanding their rhetoric to the contrary. So pretty much the ‘08 election is already done for.

By: scott

scott — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:26:51 +0000

“Sore loser” laws prevent Paul from running third party after participating in the GOP primaries.

By: Joe Populist

Joe Populist — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 04:26:49 +0000

Thompson is a phony…his record will come out, and ruin him. Ron Paul is running 4% in the Iowa poll, I don’t see how you can even claim that he’s more then a lunatic fringe candidate, the Dennis Kuchinch or Ralph Nader of the Republican lineup.

The problem with you guys is you actually BELIEVE the “freedom and limited government” stuff. It’s all nonsense. The Republican Party represents Wall Street Bankers and the CEO classes…and leverage the resentment of white working class against racial preferences, social liberalism and the arrogance of the urban cosmopolitans who form the leadership of the Democrat Party with barely disquised appeals to racism and jingoism.

You remind of the movie, The Wonderful Life, where you’re waking up in Pottersville, and can’t believe how different the reality is from what you thought would happen.

By: Daniel McCarthy

Daniel McCarthy — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 01:38:44 +0000

John: good point. I’d meant to say that I think Paul will finish ahead of *at least* two of the big four in New Hampshire. He has a shot at winning it outright, and in Iowa I think he’ll do very well. I’m seeing increasingly favorable signs that fiscal conservatives and social conservatives who don’t want the fiscal liberalism of Mike Huckabee are joining the Paul movement. Some of these people are not strongly antiwar, in some cases not at all antiwar, but they see Paul, rightly, as the only traditional small-government conservative in the race.

By: Eunomia · More Reckless Predictions

Eunomia · More Reckless Predictions — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:40:24 +0000

[...] Dan McCarthy is making his “rash” predictions, so I thought it would be time to update my own. Of course, once upon a time I made some really ridiculous predictions that were based more in contempt for the media-anointed candidates than in careful analysis. The top six (or, now, seven) all seemed so preposterous and undesirable–how could any of them win? But, of course, two of them are likely to emerge as the nominees. More on that in a moment. [...]

By: John W. Payne

John W. Payne — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:11:41 +0000

Purely hypothetical, but what if Ron Paul wins Iowa and places well in New Hampshire? I don’t find it that unlikely. Iowa Republicans are pretty antiwar, and Paul supporters have the fervor necessary for the tedium of caucuses. How dramtically could that scenario change things?