Who will get knocked out by the Romney one-two punch?

Richard

Despite having raised almost 19 million dollars (from more than 100,000 individual donations) in the last three months (more than any candidate Republican or Democrat) I can see that Ron Paul is still considered as not having a "plausible path to the nomination". It is getting slightly ridiculous to keep ignoring him! His supporters have even independently organised and paid for an enormous blimp with his name on flying over the US.

TGF UKIP

Romney doesn't have a cat in hell's chance. His liberal record as Massachussetts Governor and his unedifying flip flopping in the campaign will prevent conservative Republicans in the south and west from having anything to do with him. New England Republicans are presidential no no's. At his nadir back in the Summer, I backed McCain at 33/1 to be the next President and I am increasingly confident that it will prove a bankable investment.

Buckinghamshire Tory

Richard. I am the first to praise Ron Paul for the amount of money he has managed to raise. However, even if Ron Paul had all the money in the world, he would never win the Republican nomination. He is simply too far away from the mainstream of American politics.

Richard

Interesting point Bucks Tory. Would that be the "mainstream American politics" that brought us WMD, the War on Terror, the Patriot Act and now "the subprime crisis" along with the biggest national debt in world history (10 trillion dollars in 2006 - source: CIA world factbook). It is a little odd if that is what American "mainstream" politics now represents.

steve-roberts

quote "However, even if Ron Paul had all the money in the world, he would never win the Republican nomination. He is simply too far away from the mainstream of American politics." Up to a point. The majority of the US electorate is against the war. All the republican candidates except one are pro-war. So the pro-war vote is split, and the anti-war vote is not. This is why Paul can win - aside from having the money, and the activist supporters.

Nick S

A McCain-Guiliani ticket would probably stand the best chance of the Republicans winning.

What Republicans must realise is that this is not their year. The country is trending Democratic, which means that the only way the Republicans can win is if they go with a candidate who has more cross-over appeal to independents and soft Democrats. This is the only way of stopping a complete Democratic takeover of government.

Buckinghamshire Tory

Steve Roberts: Indeed, Ron Paul does have a monopoly on the voters that oppose the war, but don’t want to vote Democratic. However, the vast majority of the Republican core (80%) support the war. A large part of the anti-war vote belongs to the Democrats, who won’t vote for Ron Paul anyway. Richard: I agree that it is difficult at this point to define what is the mainstream American politics, but it is obvious that it isn’t libertarianism. Ron Paul is a libertarian remember. Libertarianism is so marginal and extreme that the only thing Ron Paul can ensure the GOP is a landslide defeat. He will make the job far easier for Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. Nick S: I agree. McCain/Giuliani would stand the best chance against the Democrats.

Richard

More interesting points, thank you Bucks Tory! I wonder if the republican core really does support the war? In November 2006 Congress became dominated by Democrats largely due to the war. The current low approval rating for congress is also largely caused by the Democrat congress's lack of action in ending US military involvement in Iraq. George Bush's approval rating is also at a record low which is surely linked to the general perception of the war? Are all these "non-approving" people Democrats? Does "the vast majority of the Republican core" actually represent very many voters any more? Do you consider the Bush-Cheney government a "mainstream" government? In comparison libertarianism starts to look mainstream!! The credit crisis is after all primarily due to the machinations of the Fed to supply money for the spend-now-pay-later policies of the Bush-Chenel government. Withdrawing troops and abolishing the Fed may not be so drastic! What we are living through today is already getting pretty drastic! (How many billions of euros, pounds and dollars did the ECB, Fed and Bank of England loan last August and have the loans been paid?) Returning the war, Obama and Clinton are on rather shaky ground as they tend to support a continued presence rather like the Democratic congress. If this is the case they could lose their support to a candidate who clearly proposed a withdrawal?

HalcyonDays

The Fed is not above criticism, of course, but abolishing it will solve nothing. The Fed was created only in 1913, before which the US never had a meaningful central bank. The main reason it was established was to prevent US economic, fiscal and monetary policy being subject to private robber baron whim. Up till then financial and banking crises were solved by the likes of Morgan, Rockefeller etc. In today's integrated world it is simply impractical for a dominant nation not to have a central bank. Paul is indeed not mainstream. The real 'protest' candidate, if you like to call him that, is Huckabee, who expresses certain sentiments the 'mainstream' candidates are not articulating.