The thought of RP winning the Republican ticket is honestly inconceivable for me (call me a pessimist). That said, it must be admitted he is doing well in the polls inspite of the black out and lack of billionaire backings.
Would the main line Republicans form a third party ticket to face Ron Paul if he won the GOP canidacy? I would not be surprised if they would. Going even further with empty speculation, I think it would be kind of funny, that everything they would say negative about RP running on a third party "magically" wouldn't apply if they chose to do it - and no one would notice (like the double standards when the left got pissed at Nader and not at Perot) because that is the nature of the culture.
Speculative pondering #2:
There seems to be something that inherently will break up right wingers, conservatives, and libertarian political blocks in the current system. I don't think the left wing movements are so willing to fragment and splinter in such a profound way (at least in the USA). I would bet a nickle the system / culture is in general more taylored for left wing types - and appeals to more left wing sensibilities and "social signaling".
Now, point 2 may be stating the very obvious. But the fact that it is obvious, and it is an irrelevant point to the culture at large - is the main point to take home
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
The question is a good one. I think they probably wouldn't because they should have the sense to know it will just make an embarrassment out of themselves and that they have more to gain if they throw their support to Obama.
I mean, I can't imagine Sean Hannity/Limbaugh supporting Ron Paul, but Dr. Paul's nomination will force them to recognize that they're not that different from Obama (even if they never admit it) and that will really be one of the best things that will come of Ron Paul's nomination IMO.
We need to keep in mind the Wilsonian roots of neoconservatism. Everyone running for the GOP nom (except Dr. Paul) is a Wilsonian as well as the incumbent Democrat.
Nah, no third party. The very thought would boggle their brains. Heck, if that happened that I suppose the libertarian party would become the mainstream rightist group and Reps would be quickly marginalized.
They've already war-gamed this. What do you think all this hubbub about Donald Trump is really about? Worst-case scenario, if RP get the Republican nomination, they're going to run the Hairpiece - oops, I mean the Donald - as a spoiler.
Actually, my sad prediction is that RP support will drop maybe 3% after this debate.
Hope you're joking Wheylous:
I think this may have helped
(perfect timing, no?)
Whoa! He's a tad bit ahead!
Can't forget PPP...and Intrade (which I think you linked the latter in the low content thread, right?)
Movin on up elsewhere too...
I'm still trying to figure out where all this "unelectable" "no chance" stuff is coming from.
If only Paul could get at least half of Huntsman's supporters.
Do you support Paul?
Also, I am not sure about comparing RP to a confederate war general :P
I love the conservative line about how, "reality will force its hand" when it comes to foreign policy. If only those peace candidates had the information that the public service angel Barack Obama does, he would figure it all out that we really do need to do all of the nasty things we've done in the past. The funny thing about this hypothesis is that it is completely unfalsifiable. Because it's "in the interest of our national security," we could never have the access to the facts that they supposedly do. So technically they could do anything they wanted to if the people didn't analyze the specific instance of behavior for criticism. I think it's safer to ask questions about our "national security" than it is to assume they are angelic disinterested figures merely looking out for us.
Paul has been important, imho, to beginning to audit the Fed. Plus, remember that the House doesn't have filibuster or he might be using it all the time.
You think Gingrich would limit the size of govt? Nah. Perhaps on the surface, but all the juices would remain there. Bush was supposedly conservative but allowed the bailouts through. Plus, Medicare, wars, etc. You know, you've gotta keep your old people happy. They do, after all, vote for you.
Paul will gain support when Huntsman and Johnson drop out (or move parties) maybe 3 or 4%
Johnson I think has already switched to Libertarian. Huntsman won't drop out, imho.
Wheylous:Johnson I think has already switched to Libertarian.
Do you have any proof of this?
You can't just say "oup...nevermind. I'm Libertarian Party now." There's kind of this matter of paperwork, and FEC filings. I'm not so sure how easy it is to just switch parties...although it could be much easier than I think.
I see no mention of this on his website or his campaign page on Wikipedia. The closest I found is this mention that he'd consider it.
If you do a search for "Johnson libertarian switch" you can find some articles, though it appears that he might be slightly reconsidering the decision to switch.
Well if you notice, I originally linked to one. You could have just said "no."
There are more recent articles about it...
"I have to tell you that the Libertarian convention is kind of awesome to watch on CSPAN. It is this amazing mix of Wall Street types, bikers, potheads, professional gamblers, militia types, professors, cowboys- a real freakshow in a lot of ways."
JJ, where does that quote come from?
More Johnson evidence:
In the comments of the previous link you posted, hence "favorite comment", immediately following your post.