2
URSOlHBkEZy
15 Abril 2012
02:53
Let me preface my rkearms that I am neither a Dem or a Rep, and that I have nothing personally invested on his winning the election (or losing it, either).First, you have to recognize that he is out of lockstep with the Republican Party's current political apparatus. As it stands now, the Party is largely run by highly conservative apparatchiks, and has been so since the early 90 s. This means that most rank and file Republicans are a good deal more moderate than those running it. As a result, Ron Paul is anathema to them first because he does not support the war in Iraq and is a social moderate, and second because he comes in not as a traditional Republican.Second, Mr. Paul has little public support because Republicans do not traditionally nominate mavericks or radicals to represent the Party in the general election. The last man who fell into that category was Barry Goldwater in 1964 and he lost badly to Lyndon Johnson (he only won 48 electoral votes and less than 40% of the popular vote). Republicans as a general rule play it safe.Third, Mr. Paul's more traditional brand of conservatism articulates the notion of a more isolationist America. That is not a winning formula in this day and age, but there are potential big losers should he be elected: mostly large corporations that operate internationally and have depended traditionally on American governmental support to forward their business interests abroad. The potential, too, for greater controls on the American market means that foreign corporations who operate in the U.S. may potentially suffer as well through greater strictures, regulations and possibly tarriffs.The confluence of business and Republican Party antagonism towards Mr. Paul makes his nomination highly unlikely. 8-1 is a sucker bet I'd put him at around 15-1.Cheers.