PDA

View Full Version : Lew Rockwell's Johnny Kramer: No Third-Party Candidate Can Win the Presidency




Harry96
01-30-2008, 12:09 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kramer/kramer9.html

hazek
01-30-2008, 12:13 AM
doh

It blows my mind how some on this forum still want RP to run as a 3rd party.

josh24601
01-30-2008, 12:14 AM
doh

It blows my mind how some on this forum still want RP to run as a 3rd party.

Nothing blows my mind on this forum anymore. Otherwise, yeah, I agree.

Matt Collins
01-30-2008, 12:14 AM
Yes, 3rd party is a guaranteed loss for Ron Paul. However it would also deny a victory to the GOP.

MayTheRonBeWithYou
01-30-2008, 12:15 AM
This guy doesn't know jack shit.

Perot was leading in the polls and could have won the white house in 1992 if he did not have his little meltdown. The country is RIPE for an independent run, and Ron is the man to do it.

EvilEngineer
01-30-2008, 12:15 AM
He's right. A 3rd party cannot win in our current system. If Dr. Paul went independent, they would just exclude him from the debate like they did Nader in 2000. I mean, this also presumes that there already isn't someone running on the independent ticket. Which there are MULTIPLE already, but guess what? You've never heard of them, because the media doesn't cover them.

Which will be the same problem we face on a 3rd party ticket. Think the coverage we get now is nothing? Wait till we aren't on a "major" ticket.

Tonight will pose many problems for us. Unless Dr. Paul can WIN a few super Tuesday states, than the debates are going to be nearly impossible for him to get into. As the next metric will be to limit the stage to candidate that have WON a state already. Since Rudy dropped out tonight, that gives them the perfect excuse to use against Dr. Paul.

RevolutionSD
01-30-2008, 12:16 AM
doh

It blows my mind how some on this forum still want RP to run as a 3rd party.

They don't 'want' him to run 3rd party, they're trying to see another way to make this happen since it seems republican voters like pro-war, pro-tax, status quo candidates.

It's very difficult to run 3rd party but NO WAY is it impossible.

The point is IF HE DOES NOT win the Gop, do you want to just flick it in and go home or keep the revolution moving forward?

coffeewithchess
01-30-2008, 12:16 AM
Yes, 3rd party is a guaranteed loss for Ron Paul. However it would also deny a victory to the GOP.

GOP is going down in flames if they don't nominate RP...RP or the GOP is steamrolled in November.

RevolutionSD
01-30-2008, 12:17 AM
He's right. A 3rd party cannot win in our current system. If Dr. Paul went independent, they would just exclude him from the debate like they did Nader in 2000. I mean, this also presumes that there already isn't someone running on the independent ticket. Which there are MULTIPLE already, but guess what? You've never heard of them, because the media doesn't cover them.

Which will be the same problem we face on a 3rd party ticket. Think the coverage we get now is nothing? Wait till we aren't on a "major" ticket.

Tonight will pose many problems for us. Unless Dr. Paul can WIN a few super Tuesday states, than the debates are going to be nearly impossible for him to get into. As the next metric will be to limit the stage to candidate that have WON a state already. Since Rudy dropped out tonight, that gives them the perfect excuse to use against Dr. Paul.

The r3VOLution would RIOT if they kept him out of debates.
We CANNOT rule out an independent run.

free.alive
01-30-2008, 12:19 AM
If we don't win the nomination, then we must let the GOP lose and spend the next four years entrenching ourselves, ousting their PCO's, district leaders, county chairs, state chairmen, etc.

We need to change the platform at the state and county levels and then the national.

We need to run and ELECT constitutionalists to Congress, the Senate, Governorships, and the state houses, assemblies and senates. We need to create the largest voting bloc in the GOP and we need to demand a consistent philosophy fro top to bottom!

0zzy
01-30-2008, 12:24 AM
the guy is like 20 years old.

kaligula
01-30-2008, 12:30 AM
this brokered convention stuff is nonsense. Most of the GOP primaries are winner take all. There is going to be no brokered convention. I have no idea how anyone believes this pipedream. McCain will be the nominee. And last time I checked, Paul was at 11% according to Rasmussen running as a 3rd party against McCain. Getting to 15% and into the general debates seems infinitely more plausible than relying on some pipedream brokered convention strategy. if anyone in the campaign seriously believes that, they ought to be fired.

The Only Woj
01-30-2008, 12:31 AM
if McCain is the nominee, the GOP already lost. yes, he'd be the lesser of two evils. but I'd much rather have Ron run and fail as a 3rd party if it meant spreading the message to more Americans. The President can only do so much without a Congress to pass legislation. Do the Dems have the votes to get universal healthcare? Or amnesty? Or anything else? Sure, we need to be concerned about who is in there signing the legislation into law ... but when it comes to McCain and Hillary in office, there might not be that big of a difference.

Harry96
01-30-2008, 12:41 AM
this brokered convention stuff is nonsense. Most of the GOP primaries are winner take all. There is going to be no brokered convention. I have no idea how anyone believes this pipedream. McCain will be the nominee. And last time I checked, Paul was at 11% according to Rasmussen running as a 3rd party against McCain. Getting to 15% and into the general debates seems infinitely more plausible than relying on some pipedream brokered convention strategy. if anyone in the campaign seriously believes that, they ought to be fired.

I guess Ron should fire himself then:

http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_2008/2008/01/message-from--2.html

Matt Collins
01-30-2008, 12:49 AM
Perot was leading in the polls and could have won the white house in 1992 if he did not have his little meltdown. The country is RIPE for an independent run, and Ron is the man to do it.Ross Perot couldn't even get ballot access in all 50 states even with his billions of dollars.

Paul10
01-30-2008, 12:51 AM
....

Elle
01-30-2008, 12:56 AM
It would be hard for a 3rd party to win the way the election system is set up.

specsaregood
01-30-2008, 01:02 AM
Ross Perot couldn't even get ballot access in all 50 states even with his billions of dollars.

You are wrong. I remember when it was announced that he was on all 50 states ballots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot
"Nevertheless, in September he qualified for all 50 state ballots. "

and

"At one point in June, Perot led the polls with 39% (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton). " Then he dropped out and his polls dropped.

TexasAggie09
01-30-2008, 01:03 AM
Ross Perot couldn't even get ballot access in all 50 states even with his billions of dollars.


I think this would be a place where our strong grassroots would help immensely.

Look at it this way. How many voters are actually aware Ron Paul exists, and if they do know of him, how many know his positions. You could look at it in the way this guy did and say, "Look at how much media attention he gets now. Imagine how little he would get going 3rd party." I look at it this way. It gives us until November to get his name out there and his message voiced. I've experienced this. I only joined RP within the LAST MONTH. Before that I viewed him as a kook. I WAS A NEOCON. But you know what? I heard the message. It wasn't handed to me by the MSM. I had to FIND it. A third party run would give him 10 more months to be found and heard, and 10 more months for the grassroots to grow. WE CAN fund a 3rd party run, and have RP very visible in every state. A THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE CAN WIN THE PRESIDENCY. There has been no better time in history for it to occur with all the resources that are availabe and the variety of mediums with which to be heard.

RickyJ
01-30-2008, 01:04 AM
This guy doesn't know jack shit.

Perot was leading in the polls and could have won the white house in 1992 if he did not have his little meltdown. The country is RIPE for an independent run, and Ron is the man to do it.

QFT

angrydragon
01-30-2008, 01:06 AM
Perot had billions, Ron doesn't.

Just because he's 20 doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about.

RickyJ
01-30-2008, 01:15 AM
Perot had billions, Ron doesn't.

Just because he's 20 doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about.


Ron Paul doesn't need billions to win in the general election, neither did Perot, he didn't spend a billion, not even close. Ron Paul has something Perot didn't have, strong grassroots support. Ron Paul has so many meetup groups spread across the country with more forming almost daily, that it is not out of the realm of possibility to directly bring Ron Paul's message to each and every household in America through canvassing, DVD and slimjim hand outs to those interested, and even laptop videos of Ron Paul on YouTube to those without DVD players.

Ron Paul can be our next President and it is us, the grassroots, that can make that happen despite the media blackout of him.

dante
01-30-2008, 01:19 AM
Hey guys...Think about this: Ron Paul has put in plain sight the precondition for him to run 3rd party. The precinct leader program. If he gets 180k precinct leaders... and they all have 10 months to spread the word to 500 households in their precinct... then we can win a 3rd party run. So there you have it... we must all become precinct leaders.
That would give us an organized grassroots... EVERYWHERE! just think of the possibilities... all media blackouts would be meaningless... we would have word of mouth advertising ... plus we can all donate too

RickyJ
01-30-2008, 01:29 AM
Hey guys...Think about this: Ron Paul has put in plain sight the precondition for him to run 3rd party. The precinct leader program. If he gets 180k precinct leaders... and they all have 10 months to spread the word to 500 households in their precinct... then we can win a 3rd party run. So there you have it... we must all become precinct leaders.
That would give us an organized grassroots... EVERYWHERE! just think of the possibilities... all media blackouts would be meaningless... we would have word of mouth advertising ... plus we can all donate too

Exactly! The writer of this piece was only looking at recent history and coming to erroneous conclusions based on Ron Paul's results in the GOP primaries so far. Ron Paul can defintely win a fair election in November even if we have to write his name in.

J Free
01-30-2008, 01:32 AM
There are two other REALLY serious problems with a 3rd party run.

First, the moment he announced such a run, he would cut off the legs of every Ron Paul supporter who has gone through the efforts of becoming a precinct captain or getting involved as a delegate or in their county. They would lose their personal credibility within their local party and would become permanently marginalized in politics. Those individuals are head and shoulders the most important people in this movement since they are actually DOING something rather than yapping on a computer or spending 10 seconds in a voting booth or bitching at the TV. This damage would IMO be incalculable - and would be enough for me to NOT vote for Ron Paul as an independent. And yes, I am a precinct leader who will deliver my precinct for Ron Paul in the upcoming caucus.

Second, even if he were elected, an independent Presidency would be a complete failure. BOTH parties would feel free to destroy all his plans and programs. However difficult the challenge is to win the nomination of an obstinate blind powerful GOP, recognize the other side of that coin. That difficulty reverses in a nanosecond when/if the nominee get the party nod. All that obstinacy and power turns around to SUPPORT the candidate - and when elected the President.

It may well be that Ron Paul will not be the first freedom-loving constitutionalist President in 100+ years. His campaign may not succeed this year.

But if this movement is to succeed - sometime in our lifetimes - then that President will almost definitely be among those who are currently supporting Ron Paul this year. Most likely among those who are becoming precinct leaders - and who will soon begin running for county leader, state house, then Congress or Governor.

dante
01-30-2008, 01:35 AM
Hold on... Let me be perfectly clear. If you want RP to even consider taking a chance at a 3rd party run we must get a precinct leader in all 180k of them. RP would only try if he thought he has a legit chance at winning... and not a moment sooner. That requires 180,000 precinct leaders... and not just any precinct leaders... but clean cut, shaven, non 9-11 truther type precinct leaders. i.e. Mainstream people... that can have heart to heart conversations with their 500 closest neighborhood households over the next ten months. Thats about 2 a day or 14 every saturday. Very doable

RickyJ
01-30-2008, 01:38 AM
Second, even if he were elected, an independent Presidency would be a complete failure. BOTH parties would feel free to destroy all his plans and programs.

Whatever he won as they would unite as they are doing now against him. It would make no difference at all. Ron Paul can bring the troops home without their approval. The media would continue to ridicule him but even they would have to cover his speeches. His message would get out to the people who elected him and they would demand Congress to get their act together. It won't be easy, but it is sure not impossible for real change to occur.

Harry96
01-30-2008, 01:38 AM
Ron Paul doesn't need billions to win in the general election, neither did Perot, he didn't spend a billion, not even close. Ron Paul has something Perot didn't have, strong grassroots support. Ron Paul has so many meetup groups spread across the country with more forming almost daily, that it is not out of the realm of possibility to directly bring Ron Paul's message to each and every household in America through canvassing, DVD and slimjim hand outs to those interested, and even laptop videos of Ron Paul on YouTube to those without DVD players.

Ron Paul can be our next President and it is us, the grassroots, that can make that happen despite the media blackout of him.

But if that grassroots support wasn't enough to get him even close to the GOP nomination, what makes you think it'll be enough to win the presidency on a third-party -- especially when virtually everything about his chances will be worse than they were when he was running with the GOP? Yes, his support is still growing, it can't grow enough to win by cavassing. The idea that we'll ever gain enough supporters through things like Meet-Ups to bring the message directly to "each and every household in America" (which I think is over 200 million houses) in the next nine months is nuts.

I'm seeing an almost religious-like passion among some people here (not necessarily you), where it's like they're just chanting: "Ron Paul will be the next president. Ron Paul will be the next president," and they won't even consider any evidence that they might be wrong, no matter how devastating the evidence is. I appreciate enthusiasm, but it has to be tempered with reality.

I'm not trying to be a downer; obviously I support Ron or I wouldn't be here. I think there'll be a brokered convention, and Ron will have a real shot.

But he has no chance as a third-party candidate, barring some unforeseeable miracle.

Matt Collins
01-30-2008, 01:39 AM
You are wrong. I remember when it was announced that he was on all 50 states ballots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot
"Nevertheless, in September he qualified for all 50 state ballots. "

Sorry, but I don't accept Wiki as a reliable source :rolleyes:

John P Slevin
01-30-2008, 01:41 AM
The country is RIPE for an independent run, and Ron is the man to do it.

How right you are.

Harry96
01-30-2008, 01:46 AM
Exactly! The writer of this piece was only looking at recent history and coming to erroneous conclusions based on Ron Paul's results in the GOP primaries so far. Ron Paul can defintely win a fair election in November even if we have to write his name in.

No third-party candidate has ever been elected president. Is that far enough back into history for you?

I'm curious how you define a "fair" election, and what reason you have to expect this one to be "fair."

Ricky, no offense, but if you think Ron not only can be elected on a third-party, but even can as a write-in, then I'm going to stop trying to reason with you. Good luck on your quest; let me know in November how it went. I have a feeling you'll be all excited, frantically telling us what went wrong so we don't make the same mistakes in 2012. Because next time, we're going to win for sure!

Shink
01-30-2008, 01:50 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kramer/kramer9.html

This is obviously the worst path for Ron to take, but Kramer seems to have ignored "I'm not closing the door on anything" from the campaign update video.

MayTheRonBeWithYou
01-30-2008, 01:54 AM
He's right. A 3rd party cannot win in our current system. If Dr. Paul went independent, they would just exclude him from the debate like they did Nader in 2000.

Nader had no support at all. That's a stupid comparison that degrades Dr Paul. Ron is already polling at something like 15% nationwide against Hillary and McCain, and those numbers will go way, way up. He barely has any name recognition at this point. What you need to think about is Perot's run in 1992. He was in all the debates, and could have won the white house if he did not go insane in the middle of the race.

angrydragon
01-30-2008, 01:55 AM
Perot also didn't win any delegates.

TexasAggie09
01-30-2008, 01:56 AM
Where did you get that 15% number when going up against McCain and Hillary?

MayTheRonBeWithYou
01-30-2008, 01:57 AM
But if that grassroots support wasn't enough to get him even close to the GOP nomination....

The problem is not Ron or his message, which have attracted millions of people in a very short period of time. The problem is the GOP. Once we get off this disastrous, sinking ship, Ron's message will be unleashed with no restrictions.

If you at the stupid ads the HQ has been cranking out, they are basically designed to HIDE who Dr Paul really is, to trick the sheepish GOP voters. Do you notice there has never even been one single antiwar ad???????? That's Ron's #1 message, and we have had to HIDE it because the GOP is such a fucked up, war-mongering party.

PennCustom4RP
01-30-2008, 01:58 AM
No third-party candidate has ever been elected president. Is that far enough back into history for you?


Maybe so...But to be fair, no man had even been to the Moon prior to August 20, 1969...so this is possible, extremely difficult? Yes...but there is a 1st time for everything.

Harry96
01-30-2008, 02:11 AM
The problem is not Ron or his message, which have attracted millions of people in a very short period of time. The problem is the GOP. Once we get off this disastrous, sinking ship, Ron's message will be unleashed with no restrictions.

If you at the stupid ads the HQ has been cranking out, they are basically designed to HIDE who Dr Paul really is, to trick the sheepish GOP voters. Do you notice there has never even been one single antiwar ad???????? That's Ron's #1 message, and we have had to HIDE it because the GOP is such a fucked up, war-mongering party.

But if he has "millions" of supporters, then why isn't he getting more votes? How can you blame it on the GOP? Why can't he unleash his message now with no restrictions? You may say it's because some of his positions won't resonate with the base. But the results of him "restricting" his message is single-digit percentages in almost every state. And all of those "millions" of supporters could've changed their registrations and voted in the primaries. So why didn't they? If they wouldn't do that, what makes you think they'll vote for him in the general as a third-party?

I want everyone to know I'm not attacking Ron. I'm simply saying if the reality of the situation (limited resources, especially the media blackout, etc.) turns out to be that he can't get the GOP nomination, specifically why do you think that reality is going to magically change if he runs as a third-party candidate -- especially when history indicates that every single aspect of his chances will get significantly worse in that situation?

Harry96
01-30-2008, 02:13 AM
Maybe so...But to be fair, no man had even been to the Moon prior to August 20, 1969...so this is possible, extremely difficult? Yes...but there is a 1st time for everything.

Sure; that's true for probably millions of things. But what specific reasons can you give to expect that Ron can be elected president this year under a third-party, other than blind hope?

RickyJ
01-30-2008, 02:33 AM
No third-party candidate has ever been elected president. Is that far enough back into history for you

It depends on how you define a third party. In 1860 the recently formed Republican Party won with 39.8% of the vote.

kaligula
01-30-2008, 02:34 AM
I guess Ron should fire himself then:

http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_2008/2008/01/message-from--2.html

As a campaign strategist, he should...

Harry96
01-30-2008, 02:45 AM
It depends on how you define a third party. In 1860 the recently formed Republican Party won with 39.8% of the vote.

Technically they became the second major party that year; the last year the Whigs ran a candidate was 1856.

RickyJ
01-30-2008, 02:51 AM
But if that grassroots support wasn't enough to get him even close to the GOP nomination, what makes you think it'll be enough to win the presidency on a third-party.

Many could not vote for Ron Paul because they did not register Republican in time, or weren't registered to vote at all. Ron Paul can not only win in November, he can win in a landslide. I know you are trying to defend your article, but you really are not taking into account at the present conditions in America. We are on the brink of an economic depression and their is only one candidate that is talking about doing something real about it, that's Ron Paul. The dollar is not going to wait to crash until after November. The Fed can't prop the dollar up no matter what it does.

ralucelom
01-30-2008, 02:52 AM
" because the future is unknowable and things can always change in ways that one can't foresee beforehand. "

Hey, I wholeheartedly believe that we CAN win the nomination. I also believe that in the event we do not, there should be a 3rd party run.
But speculation about a run beforehand is an action of self defeating caliber, in that it will undoubtedly usher voters away from him who are
more attuned to voting with the pack....... so to speak.

J Free
01-30-2008, 02:53 AM
Whatever he won as they would unite as they are doing now against him. It would make no difference at all. Ron Paul can bring the troops home without their approval. The media would continue to ridicule him but even they would have to cover his speeches. His message would get out to the people who elected him and they would demand Congress to get their act together. It won't be easy, but it is sure not impossible for real change to occur.

Here's a bit of history for you. IMO, the closest candidate to Ron Paul is probably William Jennings Bryan - 1896. That too was the last time "money" was an election issue - and the last time a candidate spoke out against what private banker control of the money supply and the value of the dollar was doing to the population.

WJ Bryan not only had the support of the Dems then (excluding the Bourbon Dems), he also had the support of the Silver Republicans, and the Populist Party.

The standard hoohaa about why he lost the election was because a)he was outspent 10-1 by Mark Hanna creating "modern" electioneering and b)because he was a kook/fringe. Sound familiar?

The TRUTH about why he lost the election was that a)(at the demand of bankers holding their loans) large companies sent out notices to all their suppliers saying that all their orders were contingent and would be cancelled if WJ Bryan won and insisting that those suppliers read that notice to all their employees (with the implicit promise that they would then be laid-off) and b)bankers sent out notices to their mortgage borrowers (mostly big farmers back then) stating that their property would be foreclosed if WJ Bryan won. Sound like a feasible scenario?

THAT is the reality of what we face in the election even if Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination. That 1896 election was still close because back then most people were self-employed and most people owned their home free-and-clear or thought of themselves as renters/mobile - and the option of an alternative temporary-barter economy in rural areas was feasible to people as a transition.

We have none of those advantages today and we are far more dependent. Thus far more susceptible to being frightened into voting our short-term pocketbook. And people are suggesting that a third-party candidacy can achieve what 1896 did not? Get real.

After 100+ years of being lulled, it is going to take multiple elections to achieve even the preconditions for a true transformative election. And it is going to take many stealth candidates - possibly throughout both parties - and stealth legislation - to lay the groundwork.

Getting out of Iraq is NOTHING. Hell, for the elites that might be viewed as just a bone to throw the Paulbots so they shut up and go back to sleep. Especially if they believe that the "movement" is really just an uprising of antiwar Dem sheep or pacifist Libertarian dreamers. They would do that BEFORE the election if they saw an actual threat of election.

But if you understand what Ron Paul is saying about the other issues (money, Constitution, non-intervention as a policy); then you know the connection between them all.

Ron Paul is not IT. He is the START of IT. The real question we supporters have to face is are WE up to governing the country. As long as we believe that someone else can do our governing for us -- even Ron Paul -- and that all we need do is push levers and write our congresscritters and bitch at the TV, then we are NOT facing up to the real issue here.

Harry96
01-30-2008, 02:54 AM
It depends on how you define a third party. In 1860 the recently formed Republican Party won with 39.8% of the vote.

By the way, Ricky, I want to mention that nothing I wrote in this thread was meant to make you feel bad. I really do admire your enthusiasm. I'm curious to know how old you are and how long you've been following politics.

I was a lot like you in 2000, working for Harry Browne. I really thought he could win if we just worked hard enough -- even though I knew it was a long-shot, and especially if he got into the debates. I even thought the two major parties had become so similar (which they have) that they might wind up merging, that maybe the GOP would die and a new small government party, probably the LP, would replace it as the second party. People older and more experienced tried to tell me that Harry had no chance to win, but I wouldn't listen. I'm still proud of my efforts and I think he did a lot of good, but I see now that people who told me he couldn't win were right. It's one of those things you have to learn through experience; those people were probably like me once, too.

(And this wasn't meant to insult you if you're older or more experienced than I think you are; maybe we just see things differently.)

Harry96
01-30-2008, 03:06 AM
Many could not vote for Ron Paul because they did not register Republican in time, or weren't registered to vote at all. Ron Paul can not only win in November, he can win in a landslide. I know you are trying to defend your article, but you really are not taking into account at the present conditions in America. We are on the brink of an economic depression and their is only one candidate that is talking about doing something real about it, that's Ron Paul. The dollar is not going to wait to crash until after November. The Fed can't prop the dollar up no matter what it does.

I agree with most of this, but it won't matter if people don't hear the message. So I ask again: If he wasn't able to overcome the media blackout in the GOP race, what makes you think he'll be able to for a third-party run?

MayTheRonBeWithYou
01-30-2008, 03:31 AM
But if he has "millions" of supporters, then why isn't he getting more votes? How can you blame it on the GOP? Why can't he unleash his message now with no restrictions? You may say it's because some of his positions won't resonate with the base. But the results of him "restricting" his message is single-digit percentages in almost every state. And all of those "millions" of supporters could've changed their registrations and voted in the primaries. So why didn't they? If they wouldn't do that, what makes you think they'll vote for him in the general as a third-party?

I want everyone to know I'm not attacking Ron. I'm simply saying if the reality of the situation (limited resources, especially the media blackout, etc.) turns out to be that he can't get the GOP nomination, specifically why do you think that reality is going to magically change if he runs as a third-party candidate -- especially when history indicates that every single aspect of his chances will get significantly worse in that situation?

It's clear that you do not think Ron's message can win, so why even bother posting here? Ron Paul has BARELY ANY name recognition right now. Ask anyone who has canvassed. That will all change with nearly a year to get his message out, without having to RESTRICT IT to the GOP's narrow views. Why do you think RON HAS NO ANTIWAR ad right now??????? Think about it. And many of the people who might consider him if Hillary wins would never register Republican. They think of Republicans as "Bush."

Harry96
01-30-2008, 03:44 AM
It's clear that you do not think Ron's message can win, so why even bother posting here? Ron Paul has BARELY ANY name recognition right now. Ask anyone who has canvassed. That will all change with nearly a year to get his message out, without having to RESTRICT IT to the GOP's narrow views. Why do you think RON HAS NO ANTIWAR ad right now??????? Think about it. And many of the people who might consider him if Hillary wins would never register Republican. They think of Republicans as "Bush."

We're just going in circles here.

I think Ron's message can win if he can get it out. If he fails to win the GOP nomination, that proves he can't get it out well enough to win, given the realities that exist today.

You just said it yourself: He's a sitting Congressman who's been running for a major-party nomination for a year, who's been in every debate, and who raised more money last quarter than any of his opponents, yet the media blackout of him has been so successful that, despite all of that, he has almost no name recognition.

So why do you think his ability to get his message out will magically change over the next nine months when it failed over the previous 12? I don't think he's restricted much; he's been totally up-front about his views on the war. Even if you think he has been holding back, the problem isn't what he's saying; it's that there's no way to overcome the media blackout to broadcast the message. (I think the Internet will eventually change that, but if he can't get the GOP nomination, it shows the technology and people's reliance on it isn't there yet, and this won't be the year.)

I want to remind everyone that we're not debating whether Ron should run as a third party candidate for other reasons if he fails to win the GOP nomination; we're debating whether it's realistic to think he can win the presidency in 2008 that way.

MayTheRonBeWithYou
01-30-2008, 03:50 AM
We're just going in circles here.

I think Ron's message can win if he can get it out. If he fails to win the GOP nomination, that proves he can't get it out well enough to win, given the realities that exist today.

You just said it yourself: He's a sitting Congressman who's been running for a major-party nomination for a year, who's been in every debate, and who raised more money last quarter than any of his opponents, yet the media blackout of him has been so successful that, despite all of that, he has almost no name recognition.

So why do you think his ability to get his message out will magically change over the next nine months when it failed over the previous 12? I don't think he's restricted much; he's been totally up-front about his views on the war. Even if you think he has been holding back, the problem isn't what he's saying; it's that there's no way to overcome the media blackout to broadcast the message. (I think the Internet will eventually change that, but if he can't get the GOP nomination, it shows the technology and people's reliance on it isn't there yet, and this won't be the year.)

I want to remind everyone that we're not debating whether Ron should run as a third party candidate for other reasons if he fails to win the GOP nomination; we're debating whether it's realistic to think he can win the presidency in 2008 that way.


Dude, AGAIN, you are not listening. Ron has had to HIDE his message from the GOP. Why don't we have ONE SINGLE ANTIWAR AD in this campaign?????? ANSWER ME.

Harry96
01-30-2008, 04:10 AM
Dude, AGAIN, you are not listening. Ron has had to HIDE his message from the GOP. Why don't we have ONE SINGLE ANTIWAR AD in this campaign?????? ANSWER ME.

I disagree 100% that he's hidden his message. I don't even know that it's true that he's never run an anti-war ad. If it is, it's because he's trying to stress issues that appeal to the GOP base.

But let's assume you're right, and he's been watering down a message that would appeal to people outside the GOP base in the general election. I'm still confused as to how you think he's going to get that message out well enough in the next nine months (which will be less than that by the time a third-party run starts) to win the presidency.

Why do you think everything is going to magically change the moment he stops "hiding" his message?

Steve Dasbach, if you're reading this thread, I'd love to read any thoughts you have to share.

westmich4paul
01-30-2008, 05:36 AM
My biggest question is this. For all of those completely and absolutely not in favor of a third party run, if Ron doesn't recieve the nomination, who do you vote for? The nomineee of the GOP? Would that make any sense? Or do you not vote at all? To vote for any of the GOP after the way they have treated our candidiate would seem completely hypcritical to me.

Third party run seem impossible? Yeah probably is but I would rather see that done and screw McCains chances to win especially after the absolute disrespect that he has given Ron during this process.

deedles
01-30-2008, 05:38 AM
Dr. Paul keeps saying he'll stay in it as long as we continue to support him and give him the financial means to stay in it.

Donate.

Harry96
01-30-2008, 05:43 AM
My biggest question is this. For all of those completely and absolutely not in favor of a third party run, if Ron doesn't recieve the nomination, who do you vote for? The nomineee of the GOP? Would that make any sense? Or do you not vote at all? To vote for any of the GOP after the way they have treated our candidiate would seem completely hypcritical to me.

Third party run seem impossible? Yeah probably is but I would rather see that done and screw McCains chances to win especially after the absolute disrespect that he has given Ron during this process.

I'll still vote for Ron if he runs third-party; I just said he won't win that way. If he doesn't win the GOP or continue the race, I'll probably vote for the LP candidate, depending on who it is. I also might not vote at all or write-in Ron.

Mortikhi
01-30-2008, 06:42 AM
Yes, 3rd party is a guaranteed loss for Ron Paul. However it would also deny a victory to the GOP.

This is why I'm for Ron running indie or 3rd party if he doesn't get the republican nomination.

If my fellow republicans cant see the conservative right before their eyes, then the whole party needs to lose and lose BAD.

IRO-bot
01-30-2008, 07:15 AM
I am on the fence. I think the best thing that could come from a 3rd party run is for the rest of the "conservative" remnants to permanently go to the LP. In which, possibly, it would pave a path for a true 3-party system. But then again, sometimes, I think that is being a little too optimistic.

jumpyg1258
01-30-2008, 07:19 AM
If Dr. Paul went independent, they would just exclude him from the debate

Umm don't they already do this to him, so whats the difference?

Badger Paul
01-30-2008, 07:46 AM
He's right, even if Ron Paul goes non-major party route he will not win the Presidency. And polling percentage criteria for debate has been bumped up to 20% so he won't get in those either and yes there will be a media blackout so get used to it.

But a McCain-Clinton race almost begs Paul to run. Hopefully the LP or CP will nominate him via draft so that he won't have to worry so much about ballot access.

One good thing about Paul running is if McCain loses, many Republicans will not hold it against us.

cayton
01-30-2008, 07:58 AM
Quite frankly, if it is Hillary vs Mccain, I EXPECT Paul to run third party. I think he's waiting to see who exactly he'd face

speciallyblend
01-30-2008, 08:02 AM
Yes, 3rd party is a guaranteed loss for Ron Paul. However it would also deny a victory to the GOP.

FACT IS RON PAUL running is a loss for the GOP,thats the point
Id rather vote for RON PAUL 2008 then a Hillary republican ,im glad your gonna support Hillary republicans over ron Paul if the gop turns there back on ron paul;,which is what they are planning,
so continue to build within the republican party,then after convention day , i guess your gonna vote for romney or mccain well im NO SHEEP ,
I'm VOTING FOR RON PAUL PERIOD

i guess your planning on voting for whoever the gop forces down your throat ,enjoy while you swallow that crap.

RON PAUL or the gop is dead in the water..

who are you voting for?? who the gop tells you to vote for? now thats a sheep


lets take away the gop's ky jelly so when they get screwed IT HURTS,they will beg for RON PAUL as their nominee on convention day ,once they realize they need us to win:)
\
Matt never say never, how do you know Ron Paul cant win a general? if thats the case then we should of lost to the british. i do hear what your saying ,but let the gop lay in the bed they made ,its not our fault they cant listen,its not our fault the gop has lost it way.
I know you will stand firm with RON PAUL as i will:) so lets enjoy watching the gop squirm until convention day RON PAUL will be the republican nominee or the GOP WILL LOSE the GENERAL Election ,look at it this way your gonna get screwed by the democrats or the hillary republicans,so why waste the votes on people who are gonna screw you;)
RON PAUL 2008
IM NO SHEEP,
I'm voting for RON PAUL ,dont blame me blame the deaf dumb and blind GOP/msm

scooter
01-30-2008, 08:08 AM
If you think that Ron Paul should just give up if he doesn't get the GOP nomination, then you might as well quit supporting already. I agree that we should focus on the nomination first and take that all the way to the convention, but after the convention is over he should still run as an independent. I would rather see it be independent than LP, but whatever it takes.

As for the Ross Perot connection, remember that Perot was polling in the single digits only a few months before the elections and ended up getting 19% of the final vote. If the GOP gives the conservatives McCain and the DNC gives the dems Hillary, there will be a lot of people in both parties that are not satisfied with their candidates. These could easily be people who did not vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, but decided to later on. So it's definitely not going to be a 1-to-1 relationship with the success of the primaries (especially with Hillary/McCain).

So stop arguing about this silly stuff. Support Ron for the GOP nomination until it is 100% clear that he won't get it. Then at that point if the support is still there, we should encourage him to keep going. Don't think about everything as win or lose, think about the momentum for the movement that could be created if Ron Paul got 10-20% of the popular vote in a national election and threw off either one of the parties. It got major attention in 1992, but Ross Perot and his support didn't capitalize on it.

speciallyblend
01-30-2008, 08:15 AM
If you think that Ron Paul should just give up if he doesn't get the GOP nomination, then you might as well quit supporting already. I agree that we should focus on the nomination first and take that all the way to the convention, but after the convention is over he should still run as an independent. I would rather see it be independent than LP, but whatever it takes.

As for the Ross Perot connection, remember that Perot was polling in the single digits only a few months before the elections and ended up getting 19% of the final vote. If the GOP gives the conservatives McCain and the DNC gives the dems Hillary, there will be a lot of people in both parties that are not satisfied with their candidates. These could easily be people who did not vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, but decided to later on. So it's definitely not going to be a 1-to-1 relationship with the success of the primaries (especially with Hillary/McCain).

So stop arguing about this silly stuff. Support Ron for the GOP nomination until it is 100% clear that he won't get it. Then at that point if the support is still there, we should encourage him to keep going. Don't think about everything as win or lose, think about the momentum for the movement that could be created if Ron Paul got 10-20% of the popular vote in a national election and threw off either one of the parties. It got major attention in 1992, but Ross Perot and his support didn't capitalize on it.

Exactly ,if your willing to settle for a hillary republican then you were never a ron paul supporter or a republican

RonPaulFTFW
01-30-2008, 08:19 AM
This guy has ran a lot of 3rd party campaigns!!

And hey, it's not always about winning, it's about the fight.

roXet
01-30-2008, 08:41 AM
I think that a 3rd party or independent campaign can work becuase Dr. Paul's message appeals to people in BOTH parties as well as indys. Both my wife and I are independents and quite liberal, and our best friends are liberal democrats and we ALL support Ron Paul.

Dr. Paul now has more than enough support to be included in the debates. I was one of the people who was pissed off when they excluded Nader in 2000.

Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice
01-30-2008, 08:44 AM
What Bloomberg does will also affect Ron's potential 3rd party decision.

I doubt he'd run if Bloomberg does, which would be a shame since Bloomberg is a facist aristocrat but is media savvy and well known

familydog
01-30-2008, 08:50 AM
Third party run? What a good way to garner the hate of the GOP and any chance for them to come to our side. 4 years of Hillary and the GOP will come crawling to us. No need to ruin that.

specsaregood
01-30-2008, 09:08 AM
Sorry, but I don't accept Wiki as a reliable source :rolleyes:

Yeah, I figured you would use the "oh, wiki isn't reliable" argument. Just because wiki says it, doesn't meant it isn't true.

http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/1992.txt
He got lots of votes in all the states, you think those were write-ins? Or maybe, the wiki is correct? I remember the news when it was confirmed he was on all 50 ballots.

blakjak
01-30-2008, 09:12 AM
Perot was leading in the polls and could have won the white house in 1992 if he did not have his little meltdown.

yup

Rob
01-30-2008, 09:15 AM
Ron Paul doesn't need billions to win in the general election, neither did Perot, he didn't spend a billion, not even close. Ron Paul has something Perot didn't have, strong grassroots support. Ron Paul has so many meetup groups spread across the country with more forming almost daily, that it is not out of the realm of possibility to directly bring Ron Paul's message to each and every household in America through canvassing, DVD and slimjim hand outs to those interested, and even laptop videos of Ron Paul on YouTube to those without DVD players.

Ron Paul can be our next President and it is us, the grassroots, that can make that happen despite the media blackout of him.

Ross Perot had great grassroots support AND he spent as much as the other major parties in 1992 and more than them in 1996.

If we can't raise money on par the the Democrats or Republicans, we won't have a chance. We're doubly screwed because Ron Paul won't accept matching contributions (I do not blame him for his stance).

Essentially, we'll need to raise AT LEAST $200 million and that is on the conservative side.

We're going to have to start raising money at about 5 times the rate that we did last quarter. Unless the people start flocking to us and donating money, that's not going to happen.

We NEED the Republican nomination so we can get the Republican base to donate to us and lend us their campaign experts.

Rob
01-30-2008, 09:25 AM
Exactly ,if your willing to settle for a hillary republican then you were never a ron paul supporter or a republican

Can we stop it with this freaking nonsense????

First of all I have to qualify, I'm not willing to settle for them

BUT

You're attitude is an insidious self-fulfilling prophecy, whether you realize it or not.

We're never going to win the REPUBLICAN nomination unless the REPUBLICAN base starts voting for us. These are the same people who will certainly vote Republican in the general for another Republican, because, duh, they're Republicans.

I'm not sure where so many of you get this fairy-tale notion of we're going to "wake everyone up to their true inner libertarians" or find the "millions of libertarians hiding in caves" but if we going to lose for sure if we think that's where are votes will be coming from.

We DESPERATELY need to get the the conservative Republican types on board; the same one who will vote Republican for the Mitt Romneys of the party if that's who wins the nomination.

familydog
01-30-2008, 09:27 AM
Ross Perot had great grassroots support AND he spent as much as the other major parties in 1992 and more than them in 1996.

If we can't raise money on par the the Democrats or Republicans, we won't have a chance. We're doubly screwed because Ron Paul won't accept matching contributions (I do not blame him for his stance).

Essentially, we'll need to raise AT LEAST $200 million and that is on the conservative side.

We're going to have to start raising money at about 5 times the rate that we did last quarter. Unless the people start flocking to us and donating money, that's not going to happen.

We NEED the Republican nomination so we can get the Republican base to donate to us and lend us their campaign experts.

Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner.

I'm not sure how we can compare Ron Paul to Ross Perot. It's completely different times and completely different situation.

Ron Paul has the hatred for a lot in the GOP because of his foreign policy stance. Obviously Perot had disagreements with the GOP which is why he didn't run as one. But were those disagreements as emotional and serious as Iraq, Afghanistan, etc? No. We live in a post 9/11 world. Things are different politically. There is no way a right winger like Paul can win without significant support from the Republican party. Since Republicans have already come to know him and many not like him, why would they switch to Paul if he runs independent?

Even though Hannity and Limbaugh say they hate McCain and might not vote for him, their vote is driven by fear. Anybody but Hillary. And Romney looks like W. jr, so he will definately have the support of most GOP if he gets the nod.

The majority of liberals in this country will end up voting for Hillary if she gets the nod simply because they have been out of power for 8 years and they desperately want to win. So don't look for them to back Paul, especially because many are not one-issue voters (Iraq).

People here need to wake up. There is no way we can raise enough money running as an independent to comepete with the hundreds of millions of dollars that will be pumped out by the Dems and Republicans.

When Ron Paul doesn't win as an independent, he will be blamed for getting a Dem in the Whitehouse. While I would love slap the smirk off Romney and McCains face for all their crap they've given Paul, ruining their chance to be president would have serious blowback. Why would conservatives, Republicans, etc give the Ron Paul message a chance, if they see him as being a "sore loser," petty, and vindictive, and just wanted to cause the GOP to lose, because he didn't win?

EDIT: Before I get accused of being a GOP lackey, not really supporting Ron Paul, etc I'd like to say that I will be voting for him regardless. My point is that he has a better chance winning the GOP than as an independent.

Mark
01-30-2008, 09:30 AM
I think this would be a place where our strong grassroots would help immensely.

Look at it this way. How many voters are actually aware Ron Paul exists, and if they do know of him, how many know his positions. You could look at it in the way this guy did and say, "Look at how much media attention he gets now. Imagine how little he would get going 3rd party." I look at it this way. It gives us until November to get his name out there and his message voiced. I've experienced this. I only joined RP within the LAST MONTH. Before that I viewed him as a kook. I WAS A NEOCON. But you know what? I heard the message. It wasn't handed to me by the MSM. I had to FIND it. A third party run would give him 10 more months to be found and heard, and 10 more months for the grassroots to grow. WE CAN fund a 3rd party run, and have RP very visible in every state. A THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE CAN WIN THE PRESIDENCY. There has been no better time in history for it to occur with all the resources that are availabe and the variety of mediums with which to be heard.

+1 - It's time for a REAL choice. Not the 2 pre_ordained MSM choices. OUR choices.

What we've gotten for the last umpteen years isn't a choice, it's 2 parties bought and paid for by corporate and private interests.

It's time the people TAKE BACK OUR choice. We are NOT bought and paid for, and all we need to do is to reject those that are.

We need to STAND UP FOR OURSELVES!

Mark
01-30-2008, 09:35 AM
People here need to wake up. There is no way we can raise enough money running as an independent to comepete with the hundreds of millions of dollars that will be pumped out by the Dems and Republicans.



Well, then go back to your Media and Corporate chosen 2 candidates and vote like a good citizen for whom they allow you to vote for.

We have a Revolution to run. We're changing how things work. Other parties have come and gone, and if the Reps and Dems have to go, so be it.

Original_Intent
01-30-2008, 09:38 AM
This guy doesn't know jack shit.

Perot was leading in the polls and could have won the white house in 1992 if he did not have his little meltdown. The country is RIPE for an independent run, and Ron is the man to do it.

Perot had billion$ of dollars to spend.

familydog
01-30-2008, 09:40 AM
Well, then go back to your Media and Corporate chosen 2 candidates and vote like a good citizen for whom they allow you to vote for.

We have a Revolution to run. We're changing how things work. Other parties have come and gone, and if the Reps and Dems have to go, so be it.

If you noticed at the bottom of my post you will see I am supporting Paul no matter what he does. Thanks for playing though.

Rob
01-30-2008, 09:45 AM
Well, then go back to your Media and Corporate chosen 2 candidates and vote like a good citizen for whom they allow you to vote for.

We have a Revolution to run. We're changing how things work. Other parties have come and gone, and if the Reps and Dems have to go, so be it.

Why is realism interpreted as trolling or being one of the enemy around here?

You obviously didn't read my post where I said I won't be voting Republican or Democrat if it's not Ron. I'll likely vote Libertarian again, like I did in 2004. Did you vote Libertarian or for the Constitution Party in 2004?

Some of us have been a part of the libertarian (note small "l") movement before this election. I think those who haven't seen how bad things from experience when you're not working from within one of the "Big 2" would be wise to listen to those who have.

There isn't going to be a sea change in political parties in the US right now. Things aren't bad enough. The Civil War caused the rise of the modern Republicans and the fall of the Wigs. The Great Depression caused the birth of the liberal Democrat. If you think you've going to convert enough people to the libertarian mindset by any means before next November, you're living an illusion that those experienced among you can tell you won't happen.

We need to be realistic.

EvilNight
01-30-2008, 09:51 AM
Is the 3rd party fight really the hill you want to die on?

After FL our chances at a brokered convention seem to have improved astronomically.

RickyJ
01-30-2008, 12:39 PM
Ross Perot had great grassroots support

Ross Perot's grassroots support paled in comparison to Ron Paul's. No candidate has ever raised more in a single day from over 60,000 contributers than Ron Paul. Ron Paul not only has more grassroots supporters than Ros Perot had, he has more dedicated ones as well. With over 140,000 individual contributors to his campaign so far he undoubtedly has the largest number of grassroots supporters than any candidate has had in modern times. Ron Paul's issues beat the other candidate's issues by a large margin when they alone are taken into account, which a Zogby poll has confirmed. Ron Paul can not only win by running third party, he can win with over 60% of the vote.

RickyJ
01-30-2008, 12:42 PM
Perot had billion$ of dollars to spend.

But he didn't spend a billion, not even close.

sgrooms
01-30-2008, 12:45 PM
Yes, 3rd party is a guaranteed loss for Ron Paul. However it would also deny a victory to the GOP.

how is that your goal? the establishment/cfr is in BOTH parties.

atleast gop SAYS theyll lower taxes, democrats advertise RAISING them.

sgrooms
01-30-2008, 12:45 PM
and when it comes down to it, either one will continue the war. no matter what they say to get elected.

MayTheRonBeWithYou
01-30-2008, 12:53 PM
Perot had billion$ of dollars to spend.

Perot only spent about 60 million. We could easily raise more than that.