richardhutnik said:
Where I am locally, I know an organizer on the progressive side, who is working on the Ron Paul campaign. Yes, someone on the left is doing this. As far as anything else, Ron Paul ends up appealing to some issues people really care and get excited about, but then (based on normal political views) has things that are seen as scary, and thus unelectable. Ron Paul is a bit of an inverse of Mitt Romney in this regard. No one is really that excited about Mitt Romney, but he feels like a safer pick, so he is grinding it out yo the nomination. Add the fire up the base by getting them to REALLY REALLY REALLY hate Obama, and then you run someone few care about but feel they have no choice in the matter. And that is how politics is run. How about "people died for your right to vote" and other things, like it is "cool" and you have no choice. On this, imagine you have a town which has two burger places. They both are poor and not really having anything on the menu you want. Would anyone expect it to be sane that you MUST eat at either place if you don't like them? But hey, it is a cool thing to eat at them, and besides people died so you could eat at them. Would it be sane to eat at them if you don't like the menu? Well, probably not. But if you replace the following with "voting" apparently it is sane and REQUIRE if you want to be a good citizen. If you don't, you are throwing away your food money, don't you know it? As far as the other post on "still win", I do believe they would still win, because it embodies the politics as usual that they use to get elected. Even if it were one party, it would still get elected. Also, on Ron Paul, I worked on his grassroots campaign locally in 2008, and donated to some moneybombs. Interesting as much disagreement I can have with people on here, I can end up liking a candidate they like. |
If votes counted by level of enthusiasm, Ron Paul would probably win in a landslide.
It's like how Ron Paul ALWAYS seems to win any poll or any event that involves effort to vote.