Originally Posted by Braineack
Or an idea I came up with in my own head, as a fan, when I watch Ron PAul speak to the masses and want to strangle him because he says so many things that pisses people off because they don't understand and don't know any better?
Ever since I discovered him in the early 2000s, I've said the same thing. I said it again in 2008 when he talked about 9/11, and again in 2012 when he said it again. Then as I watch the crowd cheer the other candiates that disagree with pauls position, even when it's correct.
Props to you for realizing the nuance to that.
There is nothing wrong with a polarizing candidate - if you look at some of the candidates we've had in the past, we've had some extraordinarily
polarizing candidates who have cleaned house.
There's a problem with this, however. There are also polarizing candidates that have gotten absolutely slaughtered.
To say a candidate is polarizing is not in and of itself bad - it's when your polarization alienates the voting block that you need where it becomes a problem. I.e., President Obama alienates the hell out of the extremist right, he's a very polarizing figure in that regard. But President Obama doesn't care about the extremist right, he won't have their votes in the first place. Paul's polarization however would hurt him with the centrists.
Unfortunately, Romney's choice of Ryan potentially gives him all of the negatives of a Paul candidacy (including polarization!) with very few of the positives. I have a fair bit of money down on Romney losing at this point, and it's not because of Romney. It's because of Ryan. Ryan, based on what I think is going to happen, was an even worse choice than Palin was for McCain. As far as I can figure out, his entire reason for choosing Ryan over, say, Portman, McDonnel, or Sandoval (All of which increased Romney's chance of winning by about 2% in most electoral models, and had substantial benefits that anyone who can do a basic google can figure out as to why. The only pick worse than Ryan from that perspective was Santorum.) was simply because he wanted to please the heads of the GOP.
Pleasing the GOP heads and campaign donors in trade for a base he badly needed if he seriously wanted to win. So far, Romney appears to be taking orders from the wrong people entirely. Paul wouldn't. He'd tell them to **** off.
This is why I say Paul would have a better chance to win compared to Romney. The same people that are giving Romney orders alienated the hell out of Paul voters (as well as several other specific GOP groups, plus the centrists). I'm seeing hardcore Paulites transition to support Obama locally not because of any reason other than to not let Romney win due to the crap that was pulled at the GOP convention. This may only be (arbitrary value) of the voting population, but it's an (arbitrary value) Romney desperately needs since they are extremely active, vocal, and tend to contribute in any way they can to campaigns they back.
So, I guess what I'm getting at is if you just look at just Romney vs. Obama, yeah. I wouldn't want to lay any wagers as to who would win. But it's not Romney vs. Obama. Romney's hanging major albatrosses on his neck that I think will hurt him severely for reasons I am having difficulty comprehending - albatrosses that Paul wouldn't take on. I've had this suspicion from very early on about Romney, although it could be merely a case of self-fulfilling prophecy (Read: I want to believe it, so I assume causation when there is only correlation). However, so far this GOP convention is the ONLY party convention in history that has given a polling bounce...to the other candidate
(Obama has gained between 2 to 4 points in all of the poll aggregators and electoral prediction sites I visit between Aug 24th and now. Historically, it has always
generated a 2 to 4 bounce for the GOP, not the Democrats! This may change with new polls released over the next week, but it's not looking very good right now for Romney.).