PDA

View Full Version : Regarding 3rd Party




Joe3113
01-24-2008, 10:58 PM
I think there are MANY good reasons why a third party run gives us a greater chance at the presidency than a brokered convention.

1. We are losing voters to registration deadlines
2. If Hillary gets the nod for the Democrats, I'm sure we can convince Obama supporters to come to us (They hate Hillary).
3. We don't have to be demoralized by working within the Republican Party corrupted system controlled by the nWo lackies (who will never allow Ron to get the nod anyway)
4. If McCain (It will be him or Romney) gets the nod then we could attract a lot of conservative Republicans who hate him with a passion but are not yet aware of Ron because they are fixated on Romney and the MSM.

Of course the bad thing is that the 2 major parties have worked together to shut out 3rd parties with outrageous rules for getting on the ballot etc...It's fucking fascism. It's CFR V CFR with the Dems and GOP, then you look elsewherre and you find nothing, because they have shut 3rd parties out. Pisses me off so much.

edit: O Yeah....and it will be FUN AS HELL and we could expand the movement MUCH FASTER (Some people are turned off simply because we identify as 'Republicans' - I call that the Keith Olbermann false-left paradigm effect)

Joe3113
01-24-2008, 10:59 PM
Answer me damnit!

Akus
01-24-2008, 11:01 PM
We will lose Christian republicans who would never associate with Libertarians. Whatever we gain in one group we'll lose in another. Besides, there is still a convention to decide who is running in GOP.

InLoveWithRon
01-24-2008, 11:02 PM
The MSM will black Paul out even more.. The media doesnt have to include Paul in debates at all... There are outrageous laws in place that can marginalize a 3rd party run a great deal..

The laws were put in place so it can be a 2 party run.. CFR candidate vs CFR candidate and nothing changes no matter who wins.

Joe3113
01-24-2008, 11:03 PM
We will lose Christian republicans

99% of which are now with Huckabee anyway.

I think most people who are with Ron now, will stay with Ron.

Joe3113
01-24-2008, 11:03 PM
The MSM will black Paul out even more.. The media doesnt have to include Paul in debates at all... There are outrageous laws in place that can marginalize a 3rd party run a great deal..

The laws were put in place so it can be a 2 party run.. CFR candidate vs CFR candidate and nothing changes no matter who wins.

QFT. It's covert fascism.

RollOn2day
01-24-2008, 11:05 PM
OK OK I'm in! I'm all for a third party run much to the chagrin of some on this forum.

If anyone thinks that the knuckleheads that make up the base of the Republican Party are going to back up someone that won't let them "Get some War on! they are not in touch with their own party.

Fun? You bet! I can't wait!

DanK
01-24-2008, 11:06 PM
We will lose Christian republicans who would never associate with Libertarians. Whatever we gain in one group we'll lose in another. Besides, there is still a convention to decide who is running in GOP.

I'm a Christian republican who's pretty much converted to Libertarian because of RP. Well, actually, I'm more a Christian independent who usually liked Republicans more than Democrats, but whatever. I would probably call myself a moderate Libertarian now, though, speaking strictly ideologically, of course, since I could really care less what party someone claims to be a part of as long as they have good positions.

SeanEdwards
01-24-2008, 11:08 PM
You just have to realize that we'd get no free media coverage. None at all.

Ralph Nader filled madison square garden with paying supporters with like one week advance notice, and the event got no media coverage at all.

Goldwater Conservative
01-24-2008, 11:10 PM
I'm all for it if Paul fails to win the GOP nod and is willing to do it. I know there are lot of Paul supporters who couldn't change their party registration in time, and I bet there are others who refuse to register Republican or like Paul but won't vote for a Republican. A third party or independent run would only entail registering to vote, period. Also, there'd be no need to recruit delegates or learn caucusing rules and the like. It'd be a much simplified, albeit more difficult because of the bias against third parties and independents, process.

That said, we're still in this thing.

wstrucke
01-24-2008, 11:11 PM
seriously -- shut up about this until you have exhausted all other resources.

get outside and talk to everyone you can!!!!!

ronpaulyourmom
01-24-2008, 11:13 PM
It has to be an independent run, not a libertarian run.

www.ronpaulwhitehouse.com <-get started there.

crazyfingers
01-24-2008, 11:14 PM
I don't have any illusions that he could win with a 3rd party run...however I think it's more about sticking it to the GOP. A RP would virtually guarantee a Democratic victory in November. Honestly, despite his answer tonight I don't think it's going to happen, mostly because he says "not gonna happen" at the end of this interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6hZfxsJ4lQ

ArrestPoliticians
01-24-2008, 11:17 PM
We will lose Christian republicans who would never associate with Libertarians. Whatever we gain in one group we'll lose in another. Besides, there is still a convention to decide who is running in GOP.

he can run Constitution party.

Ninja Homer
01-24-2008, 11:17 PM
I think there are MANY good reasons why a third party run gives us a greater chance at the presidency than a brokered convention.

1. We are losing voters to registration deadlines
2. If Hillary gets the nod for the Democrats, I'm sure we can convince Obama supporters to come to us (They hate Hillary).
3. We don't have to be demoralized by working within the Republican Party corrupted system controlled by the nWo lackies.
4. If McCain (It will be him or Romney) gets the nod then we could attract a lot of conservative Republicans who hate him with a passion but are not yet aware of Ron because they are fixated on Romney and the MSM.

Of course the bad thing is that the 2 major parties have worked together to shut out 3rd parties with outrageous rules for getting on the ballot etc...It's fucking fascism. It's CFR V CFR with the Dems and GOP, then you look elsewherre and you find nothing, because they have shut 3rd parties out. Pisses me off so much.

edit: O Yeah....and it will be FUN AS HELL!!!

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but for now, Ron Paul is still getting some free air time because he's running GOP and gets in the debates. We need to stick with that as long as possible. In the end, it's Ron's decision.

Azprint
01-24-2008, 11:19 PM
Man, you don't understand stupidity of American election process. I know that in Australia you have a good variety of parties with a chance to be represented in Parliament, not here.

MayTheRonBeWithYou
01-24-2008, 11:20 PM
Brokered convention = zero chance.
Independent = chance.

Joe3113
01-24-2008, 11:22 PM
Man, you don't understand stupidity of American election process. I know that in Australia you have a good variety of parties with a chance to be represented in Parliament, not here.

And we have something that makes me very proud called Instant-runoff voting (Preference voting). With preference voting, 3rd parties have a chance because people are not scared of wasting their vote.

crazyfingers
01-24-2008, 11:26 PM
Brokered convention = zero chance.
Independent = chance.
Very end of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6hZfxsJ4lQ

Interviewer: So if you don't get the Republican nomination you're out?
RP: That's right

Sad but it doesn't get much more definitive than that. All the more reason to keep pushing hard for the GOP nomination. If he doesn't get it I'm voting for/supporting the libertarian nominee.

Joe3113
01-24-2008, 11:27 PM
Brokered convention = zero chance.
Independent = chance.

Exactly. The nWo can control the game through the GOP process.

RonPaulFanInGA
01-24-2008, 11:29 PM
I posted a thread about this yesterday and it went over like a lead balloon.

All I said, and what I'm saying now, is if Paul DOES go third party, he should do it sooner rather than later. That's all. I'm not advocating it. But unless he does the libertarian thing, ballot access in many states will be a hard thing and waiting till May to announce it would really hurt. Plus there is no sense spending money on the republican nomination if he's going to do this. Money is the biggest reason why third party and independent candidates rarely ever even get 5%. Paul has that and could get more I guess though.

I think Paul's money and newly-gotten name ID could get him the needed 10% to get into the debates. And if it's Romney-Clinton, he would be the only small government and only anti-war candidate running and in said debates.

Akus
01-24-2008, 11:33 PM
I posted a thread about this yesterday and it went over like a lead balloon.

All I said, and what I'm saying now, is if Paul DOES go third party, he should do it sooner rather than later. That's all. I'm not advocating it. But unless he does the libertarian thing, ballot access in many states will be a hard thing and waiting till May to announce it would really hurt. Plus there is no sense spending money on the republican nomination if he's going to do this. Money is the biggest reason why third party and independent candidates rarely ever even get 5%. Paul has that and could get more I guess though.

I think Paul's money and newly-gotten name ID could get him the needed 10% to get into the debates. And if it's Romney-Clinton, he would be the only small government and only anti-war candidate running and in said debates.


I'd do it, but only if him winnig the GOP is completely 100% out of the question. Switching parties right in the middle of race will do to him what withdrawing from race and then suddenly running again did to another RP back a decade and a half ago.

VoteForRonPaul
01-24-2008, 11:34 PM
I think there are MANY good reasons why a third party run gives us a greater chance at the presidency than a brokered convention.

1. We are losing voters to registration deadlines
2. If Hillary gets the nod for the Democrats, I'm sure we can convince Obama supporters to come to us (They hate Hillary).
3. We don't have to be demoralized by working within the Republican Party corrupted system controlled by the nWo lackies (who will never allow Ron to get the nod anyway)
4. If McCain (It will be him or Romney) gets the nod then we could attract a lot of conservative Republicans who hate him with a passion but are not yet aware of Ron because they are fixated on Romney and the MSM.

Of course the bad thing is that the 2 major parties have worked together to shut out 3rd parties with outrageous rules for getting on the ballot etc...It's fucking fascism. It's CFR V CFR with the Dems and GOP, then you look elsewherre and you find nothing, because they have shut 3rd parties out. Pisses me off so much.

edit: O Yeah....and it will be FUN AS HELL!!!

If this revolution(the supporters)do not turn into something after this election, then forget any hope in any change, say into the next one hundred years.
If the supporters are going to be abandoned, very soon after this election they would be forgotten and their efforts would turn into nothing, that is exactly what the big heads want to see happening, and I hope we would not give them what they want.
But now we have to do our best in all the next states because the grassroots need to grow more and more, so giving up early and waiting until after may would be the most bad decision ever because it would shrink our movement, we have to continue into this like we are the winners.
And later in may it has to turn into something either wining the nominee, 3RD Party or whatever
Cannot wait to share in the first boycott, we have really to crack on those gangs and expose them to the public, and I believe hand in hand we can do this!

Joe3113
01-24-2008, 11:35 PM
I think Paul's money and newly-gotten name ID could get him the needed 10% to get into the debates.

They'll fake the polls anyway. We need to take our own polls.

CorkyAgain
01-24-2008, 11:35 PM
A RP [third party candidacy] would virtually guarantee a Democratic victory in November.

I don't think this is true. Dr Paul would draw more voters away from the Democrat than he would from the any of the other Republicans, whose constituencies are adamantly pro-war.

We all know that Dr Paul is Hillary's worst nightmare, because he can outflank her on the issue of the war. The other Democrats have the same weakness.

I've suggested this in another thread, but I want to say it here too. The pro-war Republicans know that the majority of the country opposes the war. I.e., they know they're in the minority position. So how do they plan to win the general election? One obvious strategy is to divide the opposition --- and that's why they keep prodding Dr Paul to run on a third party ticket. They don't think he can win, but they do think he can help them win.

nate895
01-24-2008, 11:36 PM
It takes 15% in the polls and have a mathematical chance at winning (be able to receive 270 electoral votes). It would be easy to get in the debates.

Joe3113
01-24-2008, 11:37 PM
If this revolution(the supporters)do not turn into something after this election, then forget any hope in any change, say into the next one hundred years.
If the supporters are going to be abandoned, very soon after this election they would be forgotten and their efforts would turn into nothing, that is exactly what the big heads want to see happening, and I hope we would not give them what they want.
But now we have to do our best in all the next states because the grassroots need to grow more and more, so giving up early and waiting until after may would be the most bad decision ever because it would shrink our movement, we have to continue into this like we are the winners.
And later in may it has to turn into something either wining the nominee, 3RD Party or whatever
Cannot wait to share in the first boycott, we have really to crack on those gangs and expose them to the public, and I believe hand in hand we can do this!


Yep. I like it.

Joe3113
01-24-2008, 11:39 PM
I don't think this is true. Dr Paul would draw more voters away from the Democrat than he would from the any of the other Republicans, whose constituencies are adamantly pro-war.

We all know that Dr Paul is Hillary's worst nightmare, because he can outflank her on the issue of the war. The other Democrats have the same weakness.

I've suggested this in another thread, but I want to say it here too. The pro-war Republicans know that the majority of the country opposes the war. I.e., they know they're in the minority position. So how do they plan to win the general election? One obvious strategy is to divide the opposition --- and that's why they keep prodding Dr Paul to run on a third party ticket. They don't think he can win, but they do think he can help them win.

I think you might be right. Not that it matters who wins if RP doesn't. All nWo CFR anyway.

VoteForRonPaul
01-24-2008, 11:41 PM
All I said, and what I'm saying now, is if Paul DOES go third party, he should do it sooner rather than later..
Actually the sooner the worst, That is what they are trying to push Dr.Paul to do!
This primary is the biggest chance to build a national grassroots, and they want us to lose this chance. So let us not give it to them!

John P Slevin
01-24-2008, 11:42 PM
It has to be an independent run, not a libertarian run.

www.ronpaulwhitehouse.com (http://www.ronpaulwhitehouse.com) <-get started there.

Actually, the logical way to go is BOTH independent and third party (and maybe more than one third party).

The precedent is John Anderson's run as an independent after he was in about 15 (or more) Republican primaries, and split to run as an independent.

Ballot access laws are different in each state. In some states, it is more logical for him to run as an independent. In many states, certain third parties already have ballot access, so accepting one or more third party nominations gives Paul status in those states, probably far more than half of the states right off the bat just by accepting the nomination of the LP and maybe that of the Constitution Party as well.

The main battle would be in the courts, as one or both parties would challenge Paul's right to be on the ballot.

Man from La Mancha
01-24-2008, 11:43 PM
I wil keep giving $100 a month no matter what to Ron.

.

crazyfingers
01-24-2008, 11:44 PM
I don't think this is true. Dr Paul would draw more voters away from the Democrat than he would from the any of the other Republicans, whose constituencies are adamantly pro-war.

We all know that Dr Paul is Hillary's worst nightmare, because he can outflank her on the issue of the war. The other Democrats have the same weakness.

I've suggested this in another thread, but I want to say it here too. The pro-war Republicans know that the majority of the country opposes the war. I.e., they know they're in the minority position. So how do they plan to win the general election? One obvious strategy is to divide the opposition --- and that's why they keep prodding Dr Paul to run on a third party ticket. They don't think he can win, but they do think he can help them win.

Despite the war issue I'm fairly certain libertarian leaning politicians take away more votes from the GOP than the Democrats. Of course there's no way to know for sure. Regardless Dr. Paul has already ruled out the possibility of a 3rd party run, per that link I've already posted several times in this thread.

VoteForRonPaul
01-24-2008, 11:45 PM
I wil keep giving $100 a month no matter what to Ron.
.http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/icons/icon14.gif

jeffhenderson
01-24-2008, 11:50 PM
There are enormous barriers to getting on the ballot. It would take a LOT of money and a lot of signatures from every single state. Even then, the media blackout will continue.

Ben Elliott
01-24-2008, 11:57 PM
If Ron Paul ran an independent campaign that would give the grassroots the most amount of time and ability to expand the grassroots tenfold. Secretly, I kind of hope we go into a third party run. It would give us a few more months to make an impact.

Paul4Prez
01-24-2008, 11:58 PM
Ron Paul's chances in a brokered convention are not very good, unless he goes in with more than 40% of the delegates. Everyone else will gang up to defeat him -- count on it.

If he's going to win the nomination, it will have to be by winning a lot of primaries between now and June.

I think his chances as a third party candidate are better than his chances of winning the nomination in a brokered convention. A big money bomb right after February 5th might be what it takes to convince Ron Paul to go third party -- how about President's Day, Feb. 18th?

No one should use the third party option as an excuse not to go all out in the Republican primaries, though -- the better Ron Paul does in them, the stronger his position will be to start a third-party campaign. If he does really well, he won't have to. If he does poorly in most of the remaining primaries, the excitement of a third party run would go right out the window.

Paul4Prez
01-25-2008, 12:01 AM
There are enormous barriers to getting on the ballot. It would take a LOT of money and a lot of signatures from every single state. Even then, the media blackout will continue.

Getting on the ballot isn't as hard or as expensive as people make it out to be. It's not easy, but the Libertarian Party usually gets on in 48+ states, and they have about one fourth as many members as the Ron Paul Meetup groups do. The cost is high, but not prohibitively so -- a single good-sized money bomb would probably cover it. With so many volunteers, we might not even have to hire that many paid petitioners.

The media blackout would continue, but they couldn't treat him like a typical Libertarian or Constitution Party candidate, if he was raising tens of millions per quarter, advertising nationally, and had 200,000 volunteers or so.

Joe3113
01-25-2008, 12:04 AM
Getting on the ballot isn't as hard or as expensive as people make it out to be. It's not easy, but the Libertarian Party usually gets on in 48+ states, and they have about one fourth as many members as the Ron Paul Meetup groups do. The cost is high, but not prohibitively so -- a single good-sized money bomb would probably cover it. With so many volunteers, we might not even have to hire that many paid petitioners.

The media blackout would continue, but they couldn't treat him like a typical Libertarian or Constitution Party candidate, if he was raising tens of millions per quarter, advertising nationally, and had 200,000 volunteers or so.

I think going third-party is the best option for expanding the movement also. When you say 'Republican' it puts a bad taste in peoples mouth.

Eponym_mi
01-25-2008, 12:05 AM
Ron Paul's chances in a brokered convention are not very good, unless he goes in with more than 40% of the delegates. Everyone else will gang up to defeat him -- count on it.

If he's going to win the nomination, it will have to be by winning a lot of primaries between now and June.

I think his chances as a third party candidate are better than his chances of winning the nomination in a brokered convention. A big money bomb right after February 5th might be what it takes to convince Ron Paul to go third party -- how about President's Day, Feb. 18th?

No one should use the third party option as an excuse not to go all out in the Republican primaries, though -- the better Ron Paul does in them, the stronger his position will be to start a third-party campaign. If he does really well, he won't have to. If he does poorly in most of the remaining primaries, the excitement of a third party run would go right out the window.

I disagree. He might need 15% of the delegates...just enough to be a threat if he were to bolt from the party and run independent. The neocons will try to neogiate something, he'll stick to his guns, and they'll cave. They can't win without us.

Joe3113
01-25-2008, 12:06 AM
I disagree. He might need 15% of the delegates...just enough to be a threat if he were to bolt from the party and run independent. The neocons will try to neogiate something, he'll stick to his guns, and they'll cave. They can't win without us.

The nWo higher-ups WILL NEVER ALLOW HIM TO GET THE GOP NOMINATION. There will be no deal made.

Joe3113
01-25-2008, 09:23 AM
...

Theocrat
01-25-2008, 10:08 AM
The only way I'm voting for a third-party candidate is if Congressman Paul either drops out of the race or doesn't get the nomination from the GOP. In that case, it's the Constitution Party (http://www.constitutionparty.com/) for me. :D

colin1
01-25-2008, 10:09 AM
Ron Paul's chances in a brokered convention are not very good, unless he goes in with more than 40% of the delegates. Everyone else will gang up to defeat him -- count on it.

If he's going to win the nomination, it will have to be by winning a lot of primaries between now and June.

I think his chances as a third party candidate are better than his chances of winning the nomination in a brokered convention. A big money bomb right after February 5th might be what it takes to convince Ron Paul to go third party -- how about President's Day, Feb. 18th?

No one should use the third party option as an excuse not to go all out in the Republican primaries, though -- the better Ron Paul does in them, the stronger his position will be to start a third-party campaign. If he does really well, he won't have to. If he does poorly in most of the remaining primaries, the excitement of a third party run would go right out the window.

What's the point of a third party run? A third party candidate has about zero chance of winning the election. I'm in this thing to win the Republican nomination and then the general election. I'm sorry but I'm not going to spend money and effort on some quixotic third party run.