The end run around MItt Romney--Ron Paul--that could very well backfire on the RNC

[oreo]

While we have seen candidates rise and fall--there is one certainly that is still left unchanged. Mitt Romney's poll numbers never seem to be able to get over 24-25%. Just like this night on election eve of the Iowa caucas--he's still at 24-25%--but now considered in 1st place with Ron Paul a close second. There is still just no enthusiasm for jumping on the Mitt Romney bus yet.

So the Mitt Romney campaign has set out to beat down other rising candidates by spending millions of dollars in negative--often nasty campaign ads on about anyone who closes in on 1st place. Look at it. Michelle Bachmann--then Rick Perry--then Herman Cain--then Newt Gingrich who recently was ahead in Iowa by double digits and because of the millions in negative campaign ads in Iowa is now polling in 4th place in Iowa--with 41% of the electorate there still undecided as to whom they're going to vote for tomorrow.

While the Romney campaign has so seriously focused on Newt Gingrich over the last couple of weeks--it appears that Ron Paul has done an end around run and is moving quickly into the in zone--untouched by any of the negative campaign ads coming from Romney pac money.

Now the problem for the Romney camp--is that Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that has refused to answer this critical question? If you lose the nomination will you form a 3rd party and do an independent run for the Presidency--which of course--would insure another term for Barack Obama. All other GOP candidates have stated they have no intention of forming a 3rd party to run as an independent. With the exception of Ron Paul--they have all stated that they will support the eventual GOP nominee.

So while the Mitt Romney camp has been so focused on Newt Gingrich--they may have not realized that all these negative ads going against Gingrich--really didn't help Romney rise up--but beat Gingrich down enough to where Ron Paul--Romney's potential greatest threat is now in 2nd place--and could very well win Iowa. Iowa would be a huge win for Ron Paul--and even though he probably won't win the nomination--it could very well be the catapult that encourages him to do a 3rd party independent run for the Presidency.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

While we have seen candidates rise and fall--there is one certainly that is still left unchanged. Mitt Romney's poll numbers never seem to be able to get over 24-25%. Just like this night on election eve of the Iowa caucas--he's still at 24-25%--but now considered in 1st place with Ron Paul a close second. There is still just no enthusiasm for jumping on the Mitt Romney bus yet.

So the Mitt Romney campaign has set out to beat down other rising candidates by spending millions of dollars in negative--often nasty campaign ads on about anyone who closes in on 1st place. Look at it. Michelle Bachmann--then Rick Perry--then Herman Cain--then Newt Gingrich who recently was ahead in Iowa by double digits and because of the millions in negative campaign ads in Iowa is now polling in 4th place in Iowa--with 41% of the electorate there still undecided as to whom they're going to vote for tomorrow.

While the Romney campaign has so seriously focused on Newt Gingrich over the last couple of weeks--it appears that Ron Paul has done an end around run and is moving quickly into the in zone--untouched by any of the negative campaign ads coming from Romney pac money.

Now the problem for the Romney camp--is that Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that has refused to answer this critical question? If you lose the nomination will you form a 3rd party and do an independent run for the Presidency--which of course--would insure another term for Barack Obama. All other GOP candidates have stated they have no intention of forming a 3rd party to run as an independent.

So while the Mitt Romney camp has been so focused on Newt Gingrich--they may have not realized that all these negative ads going against Gingrich--really didn't help Romney rise up--but beat Gingrich down enough to where Ron Paul--Romney's potential greatest threat is now in 2nd place--and could very well win Iowa. Iowa would be a huge win for Ron Paul--and even though he probably won't win the nomination--it could very well be the catapult that encourages him to do a 3rd party independent run for the Presidency.

Let's get this out in the open. if Romney wins you will still get have the same shit as if obama was still president. Nothing will change Romney may be a republican but he does not represent me he only represents the D.C political elite. You will still have four more years of obamush policy in effect. So if you don't mind getting fucked by the GOP and the democratic elite vote for Romney Newt Perry or any of the hacks the GOP will force upon you to vote for.

 

[ShackledNation]

All other GOP candidates have stated they have no intention of forming a 3rd party to run as an independent.

Funny, Ron Paul has said that a million times.

With the exception of Ron Paul--they have all stated that they will support the eventual GOP nominee.

Why would Ron Paul support candidates that he sees as wrong? Answer: Ron Paul is the only candidate who is not an establishment puppet.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So while the Mitt Romney camp has been so focused on Newt Gingrich…

And for good reason – there’s no way GOP party bosses will allow Paul the nomination.

In the CNN Iowa GOP insiders survey, a solid majority of the 64 Republican political pros thought Romney would finish first over Paul.

Who will finish first?
• Mitt Romney: .....40 (63%)
• Ron Paul: .....17 (27%)
• Michele Bachmann: .....1 (1%)
• Newt Gingrich: .....1 (1%)
• Rick Perry: .....1 (1%)
• Rick Santorum: .....0 (0%)
• Too close to call/dead heat: .....4 (6%)

CNN Iowa Insiders Survey: Two out of three think Romney will win - CNN.com

 

[oreo]

All other GOP candidates have stated they have no intention of forming a 3rd party to run as an independent.

Funny, Ron Paul has said that a million times.

With the exception of Ron Paul--they have all stated that they will support the eventual GOP nominee.

Why would Ron Paul support candidates that he sees as wrong? Answer: Ron Paul is the only candidate who is not an establishment puppet.

I watched a Ron Paul interview LAST week--he was asked that question--and his answer was--"we'll see." IOW--he has not in any way indicated that he would support the GOP nominee--should he lose the nomination.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

…should he lose the nomination.

He will and he’ll form no ‘third party.’

He will, however, work behind the scenes to get his issues on the GOP platform.

Then go and campaign for Romney.

 

[oreo]

…should he lose the nomination.

He will and he’ll form no ‘third party.’

He will, however, work behind the scenes to get his issues on the GOP platform.

Then go and campaign for Romney.

I don't think so--Ron Paul has never once said one thing nice about ANY of the other candidates.

I think he is very capable of going 3rd party. This is Ron Paul's third attempt at the Presidency--he is 76 years old right now--and knows this is his last shot.

 

[JoeB131]

If Romney buys (not wins) the nomination and Ron Paul runs as a third party canidate, I'll vote for Ron as a protest vote. Wouldn't want him to be president any more than Obama or Romney, but it would send a clear message to the GOP that if they try to be like Democrats, they will lose conservatives.

Yeah, though, the OP is right, Romney dealt this hand from the bottom of the deck. If he thinks he can beat Obama the way he beat Gingrich, he's going to be in for a very rude awakening in November.

 

[Jackson]

There are so many undeclared caucus voters out there, I can't help but think there may be a surprise and the surpirsie will be that Iowa won't matter. Romney's negative approach just may bite him in the butt. I compare it to Obama's divisiveneness.

 

[LoneLaugher]

That is because you are delusional.

 

[JoeB131]

…should he lose the nomination.

He will and he’ll form no ‘third party.’

He will, however, work behind the scenes to get his issues on the GOP platform.

Then go and campaign for Romney.

I don't think so--Ron Paul has never once said one thing nice about ANY of the other candidates.

I think he is very capable of going 3rd party. This is Ron Paul's third attempt at the Presidency--he is 76 years old right now--and knows this is his last shot.

I think the one thing that might stop Ron Paul is that his son Rand is a Senator, and someone who will take up the LIbertarian banner in the Party.

But who knows. The GOP is about to nominate a clown who 70% of the party really doesn't want.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If Romney buys (not wins) the nomination and Ron Paul runs as a third party canidate, I'll vote for Ron as a protest vote. Wouldn't want him to be president any more than Obama or Romney, but it would send a clear message to the GOP that if they try to be like Democrats, they will lose conservatives.

Yeah, though, the OP is right, Romney dealt this hand from the bottom of the deck. If he thinks he can beat Obama the way he beat Gingrich, he's going to be in for a very rude awakening in November.

So who is the Conservative candidate in your opinion?

 

[uptownlivin90]

He will and he’ll form no ‘third party.’

He will, however, work behind the scenes to get his issues on the GOP platform.

Then go and campaign for Romney.

I don't think so--Ron Paul has never once said one thing nice about ANY of the other candidates.

I think he is very capable of going 3rd party. This is Ron Paul's third attempt at the Presidency--he is 76 years old right now--and knows this is his last shot.

I think the one thing that might stop Ron Paul is that his son Rand is a Senator, and someone who will take up the LIbertarian banner in the Party.

But who knows. The GOP is about to nominate a clown who 70% of the party really doesn't want.

If Romney wins, I'll still vote GOP, regardless if Dr. Paul runs third party, and I'm a Paul supporter. It sucks, but the democratic process has sucked the past three elections. If Romney wins, we're just back were we started in 2000. He'll be the in between between Bush and Obama.

Dr. Paul, in my view, won't run third party. We keep forgetting that he's pretty old. That's a stressful campaign to run indeed.

By the way I just saw an interesting poll on CNN, Paul (according to them) is running second place in the polls among evangelical voters. Interesting.

 

[JoeB131]

If Romney buys (not wins) the nomination and Ron Paul runs as a third party canidate, I'll vote for Ron as a protest vote. Wouldn't want him to be president any more than Obama or Romney, but it would send a clear message to the GOP that if they try to be like Democrats, they will lose conservatives.

Yeah, though, the OP is right, Romney dealt this hand from the bottom of the deck. If he thinks he can beat Obama the way he beat Gingrich, he's going to be in for a very rude awakening in November.

So who is the Conservative candidate in your opinion?

I think Gingrich, Santorum, Perry or Bachmann are sufficiently conservative. I wouldn't vote for Bachmann because she's crazy. And stupid. And has a hard time telling the truth. But she's conservative enough.

Ron Paul is also nuts. So I wouldn't vote for him, either.

Huntsman and Romney are too liberal. And they're Mormons, which means I'd never trust either one of them as far as I could throw the imaginary Golden Plates.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If Romney buys (not wins) the nomination and Ron Paul runs as a third party canidate, I'll vote for Ron as a protest vote. Wouldn't want him to be president any more than Obama or Romney, but it would send a clear message to the GOP that if they try to be like Democrats, they will lose conservatives.

Yeah, though, the OP is right, Romney dealt this hand from the bottom of the deck. If he thinks he can beat Obama the way he beat Gingrich, he's going to be in for a very rude awakening in November.

So who is the Conservative candidate in your opinion?

I think Gingrich, Santorum, Perry or Bachmann are sufficiently conservative. I wouldn't vote for Bachmann because she's crazy. And stupid. And has a hard time telling the truth. But she's conservative enough.

Ron Paul is also nuts. So I wouldn't vote for him, either.

Huntsman and Romney are too liberal. And they're Mormons, which means I'd never trust either one of them as far as I could throw the imaginary Golden Plates.

If you think Gingrich is a conservative then you also think obama is one too. You haven't a clue do you?

 

[JoeB131]

So who is the Conservative candidate in your opinion?

I think Gingrich, Santorum, Perry or Bachmann are sufficiently conservative. I wouldn't vote for Bachmann because she's crazy. And stupid. And has a hard time telling the truth. But she's conservative enough.

Ron Paul is also nuts. So I wouldn't vote for him, either.

Huntsman and Romney are too liberal. And they're Mormons, which means I'd never trust either one of them as far as I could throw the imaginary Golden Plates.

If you think Gingrich is a conservative then you also think obama is one too. You haven't a clue do you?

NO, my definition of "conservative" doesn't mean "Whackadoodle".

I think the problem is that some people think government should not exist at all. WHich is silly. We need government. But we need government that is effective and cost-efficient, which the current one isn't.

Give Newt Credit, he forced Clinton into a balanced budget agreement AND reformed welfare. Things that Conservatives like Ronald Reagan never would have even dreamed of.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think Gingrich, Santorum, Perry or Bachmann are sufficiently conservative. I wouldn't vote for Bachmann because she's crazy. And stupid. And has a hard time telling the truth. But she's conservative enough.

Ron Paul is also nuts. So I wouldn't vote for him, either.

Huntsman and Romney are too liberal. And they're Mormons, which means I'd never trust either one of them as far as I could throw the imaginary Golden Plates.

If you think Gingrich is a conservative then you also think obama is one too. You haven't a clue do you?

NO, my definition of "conservative" doesn't mean "Whackadoodle".

I think the problem is that some people think government should not exist at all. WHich is silly. We need government. But we need government that is effective and cost-efficient, which the current one isn't.

Give Newt Credit, he forced Clinton into a balanced budget agreement AND reformed welfare. Things that Conservatives like Ronald Reagan never would have even dreamed of.

Newt is a big government republican he was for obamacare long before obama was for obamacare.

 

[JoeB131]

Newt is a big government republican he was for obamacare long before obama was for obamacare.

And so was the Heritage Foundation and most of the Republican Party.

What everyone forgets is that the idea of mandates and forcing everyone into private insurance was the alternative to what Hillary was proposing, a path to a Canadian-style single payer health system.

Which seemed like a reasonable way to handle the problem of the uninsured when you could get a health insurance policy for under $1000.00.

Today, that probably wouldn't work, because the cost of health care is spiralling out of control and getting more people to pull the wagon doesn't help if you keep adding rocks.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Newt is a big government republican he was for obamacare long before obama was for obamacare.

And so was the Heritage Foundation and most of the Republican Party.

What everyone forgets is that the idea of mandates and forcing everyone into private insurance was the alternative to what Hillary was proposing, a path to a Canadian-style single payer health system.

Which seemed like a reasonable way to handle the problem of the uninsured when you could get a health insurance policy for under $1000.00.

Today, that probably wouldn't work, because the cost of health care is spiralling out of control and getting more people to pull the wagon doesn't help if you keep adding rocks.

Enough is enough Newts is a lying POS newt romeny, perry and obama are of the same political brand vote for any of them and you will get the same old bullshit.

 

[Katzndogz]

Ron Paul has a loyal cult following attracted by his position on legalized drugs. They are his personal traveling political carnival. They can boost his numbers in any localized area. Nationally, Paul has still never gotten out of single digits.