Lets say only 33% of the prior registered republicans vote and 75% of them are “pro-war” (24-25% of prior registered). Now with at least four pro-war candidates getting this vote it may be hard to get more than 40% of this vote or essentially about 10% of the prior registered republicans or about 30% of the total vote. Now Ron Paul gets nearly 100% of the “anti-war” republican voters that vote, which correlates to about 8% of the prior registered republicans who vote or about 25% of the total vote. On top of that he will have all the new people coming in to just vote for him. In a republican primary since so few vote that really isn’t such a high number that he needs to get to win the nomination if the “pro-war” vote gets splintered between three or four candidates.

I will agree that if someone from the “pro-war” group breaks away and the other candidates drop out, then Ron Paul doesn’t have much of a chance, but his veiwpoint will still be large enough to have to be heard. But if it stays splintered like it is now and at least three or four “pro-war” candidates who all poll similarly stay in the race till the end, Ron Paul has about as much of a chance as any of the top-tier candidates. The problem will be the deals in the end to get one or two of the pro-war candidates to drop out so that another one of the pro-war candidates can get his delegates.

Sorry, I didn’t see your other comment was for me.

There is a misguided belief that just because conservatives don’t like the way the war is being handled, they are anti-war. I just don’t see that belief. COnservatives are mad we didn’t implement total war from the beginning and make sure the bad guys were destroyed. (Arguing that we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq since al-Qaida wasn’t in Iraq won’t work because conservatives see al-Qaida gloating about killing our troops in Iraq. Either that means al-Qaida was already there or they came in after the war started, in which case Bush did what he said and is fighting them over there and not here.) Conservatives would rather us blow up a mosque with a terrorist in it than let him live and respect the mosque. Like everything else, know the audience and the audience is voters in the Republican primary, a good majority will be pro-war fought in a more total war manner.

There is nothing wrong with backing Ron Paul; I just don’t think his anti-war views will really resonate with the Republican base. Now, his other views might and as someone mentioned in a comment on another post, perhaps he could pick up anti-war Democrats. He just needs to work on getting his beliefs about economic freedom out to Republicans instead of harping about being anti-war since he does have that to separate him from the other guys, even if it isn’t as cut and dry. And, by talking economics, he illustrates his ideas to conservatives without becoming a Romney-type that changes his beliefs every five seconds.

Sorry for the tangent, but this is part of Thompson’s conservative appeal. Regarding Scooter Libby, what conspiracy are you talking about? The part where Plame suggested her husband be on a fact-finding mission? Being part of Washington and saying Saddam had WMDs? What part did he play? When someone comes out and says John Kerry, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and every other Democrat in the lat 90s were lying about Saddam building WMDs, then maybe I will listen. But just because someone will only look at statements about Saddam after 2001 does not make the Democrats who said stuff in the 90s innocent.

Now, I have never heard of Libby’s book so I looked it up on Amazon.com. It is fiction, not based on reality. Now, applying a logical standard, how is Libby’s book worse than the book Sen. Webb (D-VA) wrote that was talked about during the 2006 election?

Yes, this was a witchhunt. Charging an aide with purgery because he couldn’t remember a conversation he had with a reporter two or three years prior when his whole job description was talking to reporters is bogus. Add to that the fact that Fitzgerald knew who broke the law he was investigating the day after being appointed and we come to a more reasonable similarity, the Duke lacrosse scandal. (By the way, Martha Stewart was lying to cover her tracks; Libby couldn’t remember the exact phrase his high inquistors wanted. There is a difference.) Being an advocate for Scooter Libby will only win Thompson votes, especially if he ties it into a platform of stopping runaway judges and prosecutors.

Here is an interactive audio archive of
Ron Paul speeches and interviews as a resource in chronological
order.

http://www.ronpaulaudio.com

I have no sympathy for Libby because he was part of a conspiracy to lie his country into war (which is probably death penalty worthy), he has no rightwing credentials beyond insider status, was a lawyer for Marc Rich and wrote that book, the Apprenctice, which features scenes of child rape, but I also agree with that of out of control prosecutors who pull the “lying to investigators” routine (Martha Stewart, obviously a more sympathetic player than Libby, should have been pardoned, but she wasn’t, so screw the GOP types) are not our friends.

RE: Paul

The winner of both parties nominations will be pro-war, but why not back the only dog the anti-ruling party has in this fight? Paul can compete for delegates and the Party may well be forced to let him into the convention and if not, we can destroy the GOP once and for all.

For the vast majority of voters who aren’t paying close attention yet, their only source of information to respond to polls is what they hear in the MSM — which means Giuliani, McCain, Romney, (Fred) Thompson, or Gingrich on the Republican side.

The polls for Thompson are quite revealing. From late 2005 to early 2007, he was polling 1%, just like the other 2nd tier candidates. Then suddenly, he’s polling 8-12% and trending up in early April. What happened between January and April? The MSM started running lots of stories about the possibility of a Thompson run.

Paul is finally starting to get some MSM coverage. If I right and he’s raising more money than the rest of the second tier, he should get even more. If he starts investing time, effort, and money in one or two early primary states (NH, AZ) his poll numbers should start to rise in those states.

Don’t get me wrong — he’s still a long shot for winning the nomination. But there’s a difference from being a long shot and having no chance at all. IMO, Paul has moved into the long shot category, and has a better shot than most of the other “second tier” candidates.

Steve Dasbach

If they don’t get the nominations of their parties I’d love to see Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich team up. I’d really work hard for those folks. Our nation might yet be restored for a sustainable future.

Steve

Okay, how is this a more accurate measure of Ron’s actual chances than Gallup, Zogby, or the other polls ?

Notwithstanding your point about fundraising, I think the goose is cooked. McCain, Guliani, and Romney (aka Emporer Palpatine, Darth Vader, and Grand Moff Tarkin) are far ahead of Paul in fundraising and Fred Thompson’s imminent entry into the race will eat up even more $$$.

I’d love to be more optimistic about this, but I’ can’t

Perhaps Reason shouldn’t write off Paul’s candidacy quite yet.

The 2nd quarter FEC reports should be interesting. My guess is that Paul will have significantly outraised all of the other “second tier” candidates, and will have held on to most of the money raised.

You are mistaken about “an ever smaller sliver.” The person who will win the Republican nominee will be pro-war. All this talk about anti-war conservatives assumes that an anti-war candidate could win the Republican nomination. If the voters were really anti-war, they would probably vote Democrat anyway.

Thompson, with the exception of Campaign Finance, appeals to conservatives. Many conservatives would rather have us just bomb anybody and everybody and clean it up after the bad guys are gone. (One reason conservatives are against the Iraq War as currently being fought.) The issue of Scooter Libby will only appeal to conservatives who felt he was part of a witchhunt by a rogue prosecuter.

By the way, why would libertarians agree with Fitzgerald’s indictment of Scooter Libby? Isn’t that the definition of over-reaching government power?

Thomspon is Council on Foreign Relations. Once folks get a whiff about who he really is, he’ll be just another Country Clubber.