Paul #3 in Illinois

Final results of Thursday's Illinois straw poll:

1. Mitt Romney – 40.35%

2. Fred Thompson – 19.96%

3. Ron Paul – 18.87%

4. Rudy Giuliani – 11.61%

5. John McCain – 4.12%

6. Mike Huckabee – 3.04%

7. Sam Brownback – 1.08%

8. Duncan Hunter - .65%

9. Tom Tancrado - .33%

Paul just beat Guiliani and McCain, but loses to a candidate not officially running and Romney.

I'm not sure how much time Ron Paul has spent in Illinois, but this vote should at least show that he is a viable top-tier candidate. CNN seems to hesitate to even mention his name or the surprising results, instead pausing to worship the organization of the man who bought the victory at the first straw poll in Ames by bussing in and putting up all of his voters. I'm not saying that they didn't want to vote for Romney after he bought them a weekend getaway to Ames, it's just that election results of this type have little real meaning to me... I had also read in another article posted that claimed that Paul's supporters had all paid their own way. That's not exactly true, as many of the supporters (500) were offered a ride (by bus). But he received 1000 votes more than that, so enjoyed widespread support anyway.

The basic premise is this: Ron Paul is as electable as the numbers show: he has superman-strength on the internet, and is gaining with every poll done by phone. Paul is the alternative to Romney in a state where the frontrunners enjoying more national support than him had less votes than he did put together; the only other "candidate" is a man not even in the race, which shows that no one takes the other candidates besides Romney seriously. All of the second tier candidates had much stronger showings in Ames than in this one.

It may even be more telling that Julliani showed so low. His recent statements may have bitten him. VV

Paul would probably benefit if he were to become an independent (or Libertarian).....med, you are right that a lot of voters are not even going to consider a Republican.....too bad, because I think it is too late for him to switch.

You guys also have to consider why Ron Paul is running as a republican. Most of you, if you've read a little bit about him, know that he ran in '88 as a libertarian. The problem with running on a third party ticket? You don't get covered unless you can buy your own ad time on tv like Ross Perot was able to do.

It seems like a major understatement to say that he merely has conservative points. His popular messages that appeal with "liberals" like are, in fact, always justified through his libertarian philosophy, at a point far enough right to seem left. We have this idea because of Bush not listening to anyone for the last six years that resistance to repressive "conservativism" must come from the left, and that, in my opinion, is why Paul seems liberal.

Paul could not get any attention on the left as a candidate who was not proposing new major federal legislation; he would start "phasing out" federal influence.

Does anyone else wish he could just simply support nationalized health care (which musn't necessarily be centrally administrated.) to give Americans what they've already been paying for? People I talk to in Europe can't believe how badly we're getting screwed over here.

clekstro said:

You guys also have to consider why Ron Paul is running as a republican. Most of you, if you've read a little bit about him, know that he ran in '88 as a libertarian. The problem with running on a third party ticket? You don't get covered unless you can buy your own ad time on tv like Ross Perot was able to do.

It seems like a major understatement to say that he merely has conservative points. His popular messages that appeal with "liberals" like are, in fact, always justified through his libertarian philosophy, at a point far enough right to seem left. We have this idea because of Bush not listening to anyone for the last six years that resistance to repressive "conservativism" must come from the left, and that, in my opinion, is why Paul seems liberal.

Paul could not get any attention on the left as a candidate who was not proposing new major federal legislation; he would start "phasing out" federal influence.

Does anyone else wish he could just simply support nationalized health care (which musn't necessarily be centrally administrated.) to give Americans what they've already been paying for? People I talk to in Europe can't believe how badly we're getting screwed over here.

Click to expand...

If you can find the authorization in the Constitution for national health care, paid for through coersive taxation, then brokered through the federal government, and show it to Ron Paul, he'd support it. Otherwise, not.

Vi

Hahahaha, anything run by the government is strictly opposed by Ronnie baby. There is a YouTube clip where he insults a fat kid when he asks about universal health care. It's awesome. Anyone seen it?

ViRedd said:

If you can find the authorization in the Constitution for national health care, paid for through coersive taxation, then brokered through the federal government, and show it to Ron Paul, he'd support it. Otherwise, not.

Vi

Click to expand...

he supports social security... he says that he believes in the government keeping its word; we continue to pay out the ass with our tax dollars every year and get the least coverage. he could easily recognize the waste of billions of dollars giving money to health insurance companies without stopping it. He could recognize it as an investment in a program largely supported by the population, and save it. Reform it by paying on behalf of patients like in germany. the question is rather convincing him that it is a cheaper system that keeps more people healthy. The government made the corrupt decision to give money directly to insurance companies, and money simply went to the heads of companies.

i didnt know there was health care and corporations refusing to keep their word to their customers at the time the constitution was written. otherwise they might have mentioned it, especially if it was working so well other places. the only reason they can't afford it is because of the declining birth rate.

nothing wrong with change, right