Rpruett said:
Why couldn't anyone beat Obama? Terrible economy with rising inflation and losing credit score. Check. Not keeping promises? Check. Not doing literally one thing he said he was going to? Check. Obama is easily a one term candidate assuming America has the right choice from the Republican party. Which Ron Paul would be. |
I call it the "John Kerry" effect. Most of the candidates are far to bland, unitneresting and generally undefined policy wise, that you may as well go with the demon you know then the demon you don't.
The problem with Ron Paul is that his isolationism would actually probably lose him a lot more votes then he'd gain.
Libretarians already tend to vote Republican, because they are (sometimes) economically liberal, while both Democrats and republicans want to increase federal power, but in different areas.
Liberals, COULD switch over, but likely won't due to Paul not supporting a federal stance on marriage and such, and most damaging of all, the Flat tax.
Furhermore, conservatives could sit home... or actually vote for Obama. A lot of Republicans are "Security first" and Pau's isolatonism would make Obama look all the more attractive.
Libretarinism doesn't really have a chance to take over unless more people become invested in government policy and in general read research and studies... and understand how to read them. There is a reason why Libretarinism is fairly small yet it's way overrepresented in things like MENSA.
Or heck, best example is these guys
http://www.triplenine.org/poll/index.html
I mean dang... hard to get more libretarian.








