Comment: The Challenger Has to Give the Voters a REASON to Support Him

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: . (see in situ)

The Challenger Has to Give the Voters a REASON to Support Him

It's a basic reality of politics that psychologically, voters are inherently conservative, i.e., they vote for the devil they know rather than the devil they don't.

Consequently, in order to win an election, the challenger has to DISTINGUISH himself from the incumbent to give the voters a reason to vote FOR him.

Romney failed brilliantly at this. You don't defeat Obamacare by offering Romneycare in its place. You don't run a pro-immigration challenger against a pro-immigration incumbent. You don't capture the White House by offering to engage in more of the same foreign policy disasters.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, would have succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams.

The differences between Ron Paul and Barack Obama on foreign policy, fiscal policy, the Federal Reserve, personal liberty and basic economics are so stark that no one could have failed to recognize them.