What if Ron Paul ran as a third party candidate?
Personally, I don't believe this will happen and I don't believe that the election would turn out this way if it did happen.
But the Pew Center's most recent poll included a question about the possibility that the November ballot included a choice between Dem nominee Obama, Repub nominee Romney and a third choice of Ron Paul, presumably running as a Libertarian. It came out this way:
- Obama: 44
- Romney: 32
- Paul: 18.
- Other/Don't know: 6.
The same sample of 1,207 registered voters was asked whom they would support if they had just Obama and Romney on the ballot and that one turned out:
- Obama: 50
- Romney 45.
In fact, I would bet against Paul running as a third-party candidate. And if he did, history suggests that he would fade in the stretch, as most third-party candidates do (but there are important exceptions, like Jesse Ventura in Minnesota in 1998). Still, it's interesting to see that, theoretically, Paul draws twice as much if his support from Romney as from Obama.
The rest of the poll shows Romney with a big lead for the nomination among the Repubs and Repub-leaners in the sample, with Paul, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum bunched up in the next three spots. By a huge margin (58 percent for Romney to 11 for Gingrich and even less for the others) Romney is rated to have the best chance of the Repub contenders to defeat Obama, even though Romney's favorability rating was below water in the full sample (38 percent view him favoably, compared with 45 unfavorably).
But, of course, Pres. Obama's approval rating was also upside down (44 percent approve; 48 percent disapprove of how he's handling his duties).
Belaboring the obvious: These are not easy times in which to be a popular politicians.
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
40 comments
-
24 comments
-
22 comments
-
19 comments
-
18 comments
Comments (14)
People should ignore general election polls until the general election is actually underway and specifically, the debates begin.
There are anti-Romney republicans and anti-Obama democrats who say now that there's no way they'd vote for the man yet when faced with a two-man choice they're going to pull the party lever.
Also, much of Ron Paul's support is from young liberals who won't likely vote republican if he's not on the ballot.
And by some accounts Gingrich surged 10 points in the polls after Monday's debate so the numbers mean nothing until the candidates go head-to-head.
For what very, very little it’s worth, I agree, Eric. I don’t expect Paul to run, nor would I expect him to pick up nearly 20 percent of the vote if he *did* run.
On the other hand, given the softness of Obama’s support (lots of people unhappy with him, but no alternative on the horizon), the prospect of Paul running in November does provide a certain schadenfreude at the prospect of Ron Paul playing an approximation of the Ralph Nader role in 2000. Paul as a 3rd party candidate would pretty much guarantee Obama another 4 years in the White House and right wingers another 4 years of gnashing their teeth.
That leads me to an offhand comment about your other piece about Catholic candidates and V.P. candidates. A couple of generations ago, there was plenty of discrimination against Catholics, based not so much on their theology – most people I know, religious and not-so-much, don’t have a clue about theology – but more on the fact that Catholics tended to be members of ethnic groups that the Protestant majority didn’t like and/or didn’t trust. In those days, religion, per se, seemed to me to be a second or even third-tier issue, with the economy, foreign policy and assorted world crises typically far more important to voters than which church a candidate attended. The question that the public wanted an answer to from John F. Kennedy during the campaign in 1960 was not “What’s your view of transubstantiation?” The question people wanted an answer to was “What will you do if the Pope says ‘.....x.....’?” The issue was national versus religious sovereignty.
The recent tent revival syndrome of the past couple decades has kind of turned that on its head. Evangelical fundamentalists have dragged the showy practice of religion into the foreground, and Catholic doctrine dovetails nicely with protestant fundamentalism in that they’re equally hostile to women and birth control. Actual practice in real life among Catholics is often rather different from the Pope’s latest proclamation, but when Rick Santorum blathers about “family values” he’s not talking about families having dinner together at night to talk about everybody’s day. The “family values” agenda, at least in public statements, provides a heavy emphasis on sexuality, the degree to which it needs to be controlled, and by whom (or what, if you’re thinking institutionally).
So, it’s not just the inclusion of Catholics that’s worth noting, it’s the fact that people who wear their religion on their sleeve are no longer covering that sleeve with a jacket (apologies for the metaphor), but waving it in our faces so that we can’t miss the fact that they *are* religious.
Ray--
One difference:
I don't believe that Catholics were ever a majority of the population, but by some polls Evangelicals are.
#3-Evangelicals are a majority of the population? Now that's scary!
Romney is backed by John Bolton and a bevy of neocons. I've always thought Ron Paul's support in 2008 and, to some extent in 2012 grew largely as a result of non-Democrats who were revolted by Bush 43's foreign policy. How Paul can end up supporting Romney is hard to fathom. Could we see the veep post dangled in front of Rand Paul?
And if not Ron Paul leading the libertarians, can Jesse V. be tempted, especially after his recent experience of being smeared in right-wing websites?
"Belaboring the obvious: These are not easy times in which to be a popular politicians."
After being told for six months in negative campaign ads that someone is a treasonous, anti-American, freedom-hating, war-mongering, threat to you and your country, how can these people be popular?
When the government is run by people like that its no wonder a majority of the population distrust government.
I think the Republicans will come apart at the seams if they don't find a way to cut the Tea Party and the Libertarians lose. You have three parties running on the Republican dime here, taking up space on the Republican stage, and pushing the party into irrelevancy.
If the Tea Party wants to be a party, let them. If Libertarians want a presidential candidate, let them nominate one.
As for Paul, Libertarianism is essentially an incoherent ideology that rejects the concept of democracy when push comes to shove. He may seem appealing at first glance but you scratch the surface and you get some huge problems. He appeals to people on the right because he looks like a small government guy, but he's really an anti democracy guy. Libertarians ultimately reject the notion that an individual should ever submit to the will of the majority. Civil rights laws that gave black people the right to sit in any available seat on a public bus without being shot dead by bus drivers become "forced association" by this logic. this is a tortured logic for all but the most ideologically blinded conservatives.
People on the left like Paul's anti-interventionism but they fail to realize that this not the product of any pacifist or moral principle. It's that Paul objects to military intervention, or certain foreign policies. Paul doesn't believe in foreign policy... of any kind. There's simply no place in the libertarian mind for government activity beyond the nations borders. So the same rational that keeps us out of Iraq also keeps us out of Haiti after the earth quake and pulls us out of the United Nations. Even trade deals become a dodgy proposition according to Libertarian logic.
So the question is how does an independent libertarian candidate like Paul get attention WITHOUT a Republican stage to debate on? Where does he get his money without the legitimacy of a Republican contender? And what happens if or when his opponents nail him on the details of the libertarian agenda?
Paul U--
Right!
Libertarianism is basically anarchy tempered by selfishness.
In political terms, if I were George Soros I'd be funding Ron Paul.
If Ron Paul does run as a third party candidate, why do we doubt that he can capture 20% or more of the popular vote? Ross Perot -- who's no less nutty than Paul (though in different ways) -- got 19% nationally in 1992, running against a sitting president with foreign policy triumphs but in a poor economy.
And, according to Wikipedia, as late as June 1992 Perot led the polls with 39% versus 31% for G.H.W. Bush and 25% for Clinton. Remember, the right wing distrusted Bush and the left wing distrusted Clinton, not unlike the situation today with Romney and Obama.
Does anyone see evidence that the one-fifth of American voters who voted for Ross Perot is so much more enlightened today that it wouldn't vote for Ron Paul?
Of course, in 1996 when Perot ran again against a Democratic incumbant he got only 8%. But in 1996, the economy was in much better shape.
As a two-cheers-for-Obama supporter myself, I'd welcome Paul's running as a third party candidate because it would assure Obama's reelection. But as a citizen, it bums me out that anhyone is seriously contemplating that Ron Paul is being considered as a serious candidate.
It is interesting how the GOP has been transformed into God's Own Party and somehow managed to willingly drag history's most divisive issue into their tent and somehow believe that it will somehow work out just fine in the end.
Apparently bigger and bigger flashing lights and loud noises are required to distract from the fact that the goals of big money run counter to the day-to-day interests of virtually all voters.
Paul #9,
I don't see Paul getting 20% of the vote because this isn't 1992, Paul isn't Perot (i.e. he's not a billionaire), and American voters have become much more leery of third party candidates since 2001. Unlike Perot in 92 Paul has absolutely no economic plan beyond dismantling a bunch of government departments, a plan that will lock him into stalemate with congress and the courts, and do nothing to create jobs.
As long as we have a Congress that would block Ron Paul's economic ideas, I'd vote for him and hope he can implement at least 90 percent of his foreign policy agenda.
America needs a strong corrective to bring us out of the Empire business,
the Policeman of the World and Democratizer and Regime Change business,
the Richest Nation in the World That Can Tell the World's Banks When Not to Honor the Checks of Certain Countries business,
and the Greatest Nation in the World Never to be Surpassed by Any Lesser Financial or Military Power illusion.
#12 Bernice,
90% of the presidents job is domestic policy and implementation. Do you really trust a guy who thinks the right to shoot and kill someone for sitting in the wrong seat on a bus takes precedence over civil rights? A president like that can do a lot of damage with or without congressional approval. And I wouldn't so complacent about the congressional opposition, Obama just closed 250 USDA lab sites and had cut millions from food safety programs.
And remember, the flip side to Paul's foreign policy is no foreign aid, no earthquake assistance, and no UN.
Ron Paul's solid 25% of Republicans will translate to about 10% of the national vote when he runs as a Libertarian. I suspect he'll do that once he loses the nomination because it allows him to keep his national soapbox (and keep selling the same soap).