What's the best a 3rd party candidate has done?

[Jeremy]

And I mean since the Republican and Democratic parties have been the two bigees.

[CoreyBowen999]

Ross Perrot did very well.

[JSCHAFER1337]

Yeah, Perot's 19% in '92, I believe.

[Jeremy]

, he received 18.9% of the popular vote - approximately 19,741,065 votes - (but no electoral college votes), making him the most successful third-party presidential candidate in terms of the popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election

Hmm... we could beat that if we needed to

[scandinaviany3]

Perot in 92 at his peak reached 40% of the polling, then dropped out and got close to 20% in the end.

[Mystile]

Perot in 92 at his peak reached 40% of the polling, then dropped out and got close to 20% in the end.

damn...we were so close to destroying the two party system...

[nate895]

Perot in 92 at his peak reached 40% of the polling, then dropped out and got close to 20% in the end.

That must have been an even worse campaign than Giuliani's. Drop out with 40%, come on.

We could make it their though, I think we could get most of the same vote + some if we had $100M.

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

The model to look at is of course Perot in 1992. A lot of people on this forum are too young to remember the Perot race, but he was actually leading both Clinton and Bush in 1992. Out of curiosity, I went to a MASSIVE rally in Denver for Perot, just to see what it was all about. Perot was literally on the way to possibly winning the White House when he suddenly dropped out of the race and sabotaged his own campaign. Ed Rollins' book details the bizarre behavior of Perot during this time. If he had not flipped out, Perot could have WON that race. Even after all his bizarre behavior, he still pulled 20 million votes!!

[blaumittwoch]

3rd party will not get Ron Paul elected. Even Perot couldn't do it with his billions. FOTGOP.

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

3rd party will not get Ron Paul elected. Even Perot couldn't do it with his billions. FOTGOP.

Perot was independent in 1992, not third party.

Also, see my post above.

[blaumittwoch]

Perot was independent in 1992, not third party.

Also, see my post above.

Oh, I was replying while you posted that. I thought 3rd party = any other party than R and D, including independents? And Ron Paul still doesn't have the money or media coverage to do that.

[Jeremy]

3rd party will not get Ron Paul elected. Even Perot couldn't do it with his billions. FOTGOP.

Sounds like he was very close...

and he didn't even have the internet

Also, supposedly the Libertarian and Consitution parties would both back RP... and if McCain wins reps, more conservatives. And if Hillary wins dems, Obama supporters and... we wouldn't be competing on the net.

[constitutional]

oh god please, no this shit again. This thread is already given 5 star, it only means one thing: the independent trolls are at it again.

[amonasro]

The model to look at is of course Perot in 1992. A lot of people on this forum are too young to remember the Perot race, but he was actually leading both Clinton and Bush in 1992. Out of curiosity, I went to a MASSIVE rally in Denver for Perot, just to see what it was all about. Perot was literally on the way to possibly winning the White House when he suddenly dropped out of the race and sabotaged his own campaign. Ed Rollins' book details the bizarre behavior of Perot during this time. If he had not flipped out, Perot could have WON that race. Even after all his bizarre behavior, he still pulled 20 million votes!!

So what happened? I read somewhere (unconfirmed, going by memory) that his family threatened. Establishment shenanigans??

[Jeremy]

oh god please, no this shit again. This thread is already given 5 star, it only means one thing: the independent trolls are at it again.

Troll would mean I registered here to cause a disturbance... now you're just being silly.

[Eponym_mi]

George Wallace did pretty well also

[noztnac]

If Perot had not dropped out he would have won.

[IDefendThePlatform]

Sounds like he was very close...

and he didn't even have the internet

Also, supposedly the Libertarian and Consitution parties would both back RP... and if McCain wins reps, more conservatives. And if Hillary wins dems, Obama supporters and... we wouldn't be competing on the net.

Excellent points, StormCommander.

[AlexMerced]

Ron Paul doesn't have the billion Ross Perot did but he does have the internet and:

- A growing and awesome precinct leader program

- a crumbling economy, which would make americans look to unlikely candidates, it's how Reagan won the first time after Jimmy Carter

- he'd be better funded than any 3rd party candidate other than Ron Paul cause of us, so he could put a fighting shot, plus his book will get him a lot of publcicity, and if Bloomberg and Nader join the race. The three might have enough star power to entice a MSM 3rd party debate.


Just saying it's possible, I'd rather have the GOP nod

[constitutional]

Troll would mean I registered here to cause a disturbance... now you're just being silly.

Not you but watch how this thread will be shamelessly bumped by someone until it has no shame left.

[Flash]

Bloomberg has a slight chance at winning as a 3rd party. Ralph Nader and Ron Paul don't.

Plan B to ressurect GoldWater Conservatism is to get Ron Paul and Ron Paul-like politicians into the Senate and the Congress.

[AlexMerced]

Bloomberg has a slight chance at winning as a 3rd party. Ralph Nader and Ron Paul don't.

Plan B to ressurect GoldWater Conservatism is to get Ron Paul and Ron Paul-like politicians into the Senate and the Congress.

I don't know, I think either these guys might have chance this year... November is gonna be really really odd...

everyone knows the system is screwed up, so they are more open to unlikey alternatives

always happens during economic downturn during elections, except this one is more present in people mind due to the internet

[Join The Paul Side]

If Perot was that close in 1992 then I don't see why people doubt Ron Paul could do better in an Indy/3rd party run.

Perot got 20% of the vote. In a 3 way race one would only need 34% to win. That's only 14% more than what Perot did. With the power of the Internet today I would say it's very very possible Dr. Paul could win Indy or 3rd party. :)

[Ron Paul Fan]

3rd party means no debates and even less coverage than you get as a major party candidate. Teddy Roosevelt was a popular former President, and he couldn't do it. Ross Perot had billions to put infomercials out nationwide and get into the debates, and he didn't win a state. What makes you think Paul would even be relevant to the conversation as these two were? He doesn't have anywhere near the notoriety Teddy had and he certainly doesn't have billions of dollars to throw around. The internet has certainly changed things, but then Paul should be doing better in the primaries if it's such a big factor.

[AlexMerced]

3rd party means no debates and even less coverage than you get as a major party candidate. Teddy Roosevelt was a popular former President, and he couldn't do it. Ross Perot had billions to put infomercials out nationwide and get into the debates, and he didn't win a state. What makes you think Paul would even be relevant to the conversation as these two were? He doesn't have anywhere near the notoriety Teddy had and he certainly doesn't have billions of dollars to throw around. The internet has certainly changed things, but then Paul should be doing better in the primaries if it's such a big factor.

The book will get him a fair share of press, and his growing base will eventually gorw to the point they can't ignore it too much

I'm not saying it's a good chance, I but I wouldn't say no chance.

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

So what happened? I read somewhere (unconfirmed, going by memory) that his family threatened. Establishment shenanigans??

He claimed the Republicans were trying to sabotage his daughter's wedding with "dirty tricks" (:confused:)... he was nuts. It's absolutely stunning that he still pulled in 20 million votes after such a meltdown, and after literally dropping out of the race.

Perot spent 60 million on his race, not "billions." Ron could raise more than Perot spent.

[kyleAF]

Just remember these words:

"Sore Loser Laws"

Further hamstrung from day one.

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

The book will get him a fair share of press, and his growing base will eventually grow to the point they can't ignore it too much

I'm not saying it's a good chance, I but I wouldn't say no chance.

The fact is, that he's got an actual CHANCE. The book tour will come at just the right time to get him on all the TV and radio shows for an independent run!

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

Just remember these words:

"Sore Loser Laws"



Wrong. No sore loser laws will not effect Ron. That's a myth. Those laws do not apply to presidential candidates.

[TonySutton]

Perot bought Prime Time TV slots to pitch his ideas to America, complete with charts! I was one of the 19 million plus votes.

[nate895]

3rd party means no debates and even less coverage than you get as a major party candidate. Teddy Roosevelt was a popular former President, and he couldn't do it. Ross Perot had billions to put infomercials out nationwide and get into the debates, and he didn't win a state. What makes you think Paul would even be relevant to the conversation as these two were? He doesn't have anywhere near the notoriety Teddy had and he certainly doesn't have billions of dollars to throw around. The internet has certainly changed things, but then Paul should be doing better in the primaries if it's such a big factor.

Go away and stop posting in the indy threads.

Teddy Roosevelt had a huge disadvantage: he was as big government as George W. Bush and our wing of the party would've rather voted for the fat slob Taft, who followed that stupid little thing called the Constitution.

[MozoVote]

Perot was self-financed, so that's kind of an oddity. A better example of an independent politician would be John Anderson (1980, 6.6% of the vote and no states) or Strom Thurmond (1948, 2.4% and 4 states).

George Wallace did pretty well in 1968, he got 13.5% of the vote and 5 states.

[Flash]

Heres my complaint though:

If we can't even get number 1 in a few primary states then how can we ever win the presidency? The Republicans will all back Mccain and Democrats will back Hillary. And the media will totally ignore Paul's independent run just like they're ignoring Mike Gravel's.


Go away and stop posting in the indy threads.

I'm not against the idea of a 3rd party run. But I'm just not too sure he can win that way.

[nate895]

Perot was self-financed, so that's kind of an oddity. A better example of an independent politician would be John Anderson (1980, 6.6% of the vote and no states) or Strom Thurmond (1948, 2.4% and 4 states).

Yes, but those candidates had little money, we could raise 100 million for the general if we really wanted to.

[AlexMerced]

Wrong. No sore loser laws will not effect Ron. That's a myth. Those laws do not apply to presidential candidates.

He's right, sore loswer law wouldn't effect his run, and he does have a very reasonable chance.

- He could win his congressional seat hands down as independant if he had to so that isn't really a concern, he's too popular in his ditrict to lose. I fyou know anything about his electoral history that seat ain't going nowhere.

- although maybe focusing on an indpendant run would be counter productive to focus on getting people in congress, thoguh keeping RP in the spotlight might help fuel new receuits to get the votes we need to build up the congress.

I mean we'll know what we need to do after tomrrow

[nate895]

Heres my complaint though:

If we can't even get number 1 in a few primary states then how can we ever win the presidency? The Republicans will all back Mccain and Democrats will back Hillary. And the media will totally ignore Paul's independent run just like they're ignoring Mike Gravel's.

Wrong: Paul gets 11% of the vote in a four way race with McCain, Obama, and Bloomberg. A 1/4 of Republicans will never, I repeat, never, vote for McLame.

[nate895]

Heres my complaint though:

If we can't even get number 1 in a few primary states then how can we ever win the presidency? The Republicans will all back Mccain and Democrats will back Hillary. And the media will totally ignore Paul's independent run just like they're ignoring Mike Gravel's.



I'm not against the idea of a 3rd party run. But I'm just not too sure he can win that way.

I was talking to Ron Paul Fan, he has been negative since Iowa didn't deliver, and I'm really sick of it.

[Mogwai]

The best I could find was George Wallace in 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1968) . After losing in the democratic primaries in 1960, he ran on the independent party ballot in 1968 and won 5 states. I think the reason he was popular was the opposition against the civil rights for blacks :( and law and order.

Actually, the opposition against civil rights for blacks is the 'same' position Ron Paul takes. It's about the individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and not what we see today as collective rights (black rights, gay rights, handicap rights, etc.). The constitution sees everybody as equals and there is no purpose for collective rights. George Wallace wanted to use education, uplift and time to eliminate racism.

[Ron Paul Fan]

Go away and stop posting in the indy threads.

Teddy Roosevelt had a huge disadvantage: he was as big government as George W. Bush and our wing of the party would've rather voted for the fat slob Taft, who followed that stupid little thing called the Constitution.

As big a disadvantage as the big government Woodrow Wilson who won the election? Taft was a great President and I wouldn't make fun of him like that. I will not go away just because you don't like my view. If you want to argue that it's wrong, then do it. The fact is that you guys say Paul is being blacked out by the media, then you say that he'll miraculously get all of this coverage from a book tour and running as a 3rd party. If he can't get enough people to vote for him running as a Republican and being in debates, then he's not going to do it as a 3rd party. How do you think Paul even got into Congress? He joined the Republican Party. He's said before that many in his district would vote Republican no matter who was running and that only magnifies in the general election. How can you not see this?

[hawks4ronpaul]

The most successful 3rd party is the Republican Party (GOP), in case you want to know what 3rd parties do when they get power.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

[trey4sports]

He's right, sore loswer law wouldn't effect his run, and he does have a very reasonable chance.

- He could win his congressional seat hands down as independant if he had to so that isn't really a concern, he's too popular in his ditrict to lose. I fyou know anything about his electoral history that seat ain't going nowhere.

- although maybe focusing on an indpendant run would be counter productive to focus on getting people in congress, thoguh keeping RP in the spotlight might help fuel new receuits to get the votes we need to build up the congress.

I mean we'll know what we need to do after tomrrow

nope, your wrong on this one bud.
the sore loser law would apply in Texas and a couple other states. I watched a video of Rand Paul talking about the subject. He for sure couldnt get on Texas ballot as an indy and a couple others but 1 or 2 of the states sore loser laws could be contested

[fuzzybekool]

I remember perot also. We were so excited cuz we had a real 3rd choice, then all of a sudden, Perot disappeared like he was black-mailed or something to keep quiet. I dunno. it was wierd. But Perot got like 20% of the vote. Best ever for an independent in history.

[mysticgeek]

Jesse Ventura won the Governor mansion for 4 years here in MN!!!!

[Ron Paul Fan]

I was talking to Ron Paul Fan, he has been negative since Iowa didn't deliver, and I'm really sick of it.

It's not negative, it's just realistic. You seem to think that Paul can get 40-45% as a 3rd party and win the general election. I'm sorry, but that's just wishful thinking and I'm very skeptical that he would even crack 10% as a 3rd party candidate. Yes, I'm very skeptical that he'll win a state tomorrow. I gave you two examples of people who ran 3rd party or independent and didn't do much despite being more popular and having more money than Paul. You think Teddy had a disadvantage, just think of what Paul will be facing.

[nate895]

As big a disadvantage as the big government Woodrow Wilson who won the election? Taft was a great President and I wouldn't make fun of him like that. I will not go away just because you don't like my view. If you want to argue that it's wrong, then do it. The fact is that you guys say Paul is being blacked out by the media, then you say that he'll miraculously get all of this coverage from a book tour and running as a 3rd party. If he can't get enough people to vote for him running as a Republican and being in debates, then he's not going to do it as a 3rd party. How do you think Paul even got into Congress? He joined the Republican Party. He's said before that many in his district would vote Republican no matter who was running and that only magnifies in the general election. How can you not see this?

You have no understanding of that election: Wilson won because he was able to have a united front against a Republican party that was fighting for its heart and soul, this is the reason why our campaign could be so successful.

The Republican party will be fighting for its heart and soul in November if McCain wins the nomination, we can get the people who distaste McCain so much that they'd rather vote for Clinton, but we'd be there for them. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh hop on board the RP boat, possibly Hannity and Savage. this could well be 20-30% of the vote. We could then take advantage of a split in the Democratic Party, probably closer to 10% of the vote, if Clinton wins, which I think is likely. We could also pick up many Independents who dislike the war, but remember the 8 years of Clinton. If I had enough money ($100M) and Ron Paul, I could win the election, I can guarantee you that.

[nate895]

nope, your wrong on this one bud.
the sore loser law would apply in Texas and a couple other states. I watched a video of Rand Paul talking about the subject. He for sure couldnt get on Texas ballot as an indy and a couple others but 1 or 2 of the states sore loser laws could be contested

Those laws were successfully challenged in 1980, and we could just put our elector slate on the ballot saying "Ron Paul 4 President Plank"

[Ron Paul Fan]

You have no understanding of that election: Wilson won because he was able to have a united front against a Republican party that was fighting for its heart and soul, this is the reason why our campaign could be so successful.

The Republican party will be fighting for its heart and soul in November if McCain wins the nomination, we can get the people who distaste McCain so much that they'd rather vote for Clinton, but we'd be there for them. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh hop on board the RP boat, possibly Hannity and Savage. this could well be 20-30% of the vote. We could then take advantage of a split in the Democratic Party, probably closer to 10% of the vote, if Clinton wins, which I think is likely. We could also pick up many Independents who dislike the war, but remember the 8 years of Clinton. If I had enough money ($100M) and Ron Paul, I could win the election, I can guarantee you that.

Except Wilson was a nominee of one of the major parties, Paul won't be. It seems to me that if you're arguing the Republican Party is in shambles, that would lead to an easy victory for Clinton or Obama. You're arguing that Paul is going to get twice the % he's getting in Republican primaries. He wouldn't take anything close to 10% from the democrats. People rally around their party nominee. It happens every single year.

[Karsten]

How many 3rd party candidates start out with 11% in a hypothetical matchup? RON PAUL DOES!!!

[JAlli41]

the issue that is important here, is that Perot's legacy of being anti-Nafta lived on even to today, whether he won or not, and whether Nafta was put in place or not, anyone who thinks challenging the status quo because it might be too difficult, or we might not win is buying into the media's hype. the reason we talk about third party cadidates with the disgust we do is because the media uses them as a scapegoat to explain Bill Clinton, and George W Bush's election. More democracy should be a priority for everyone and saying no third party run because it will hurt the the cause isnt seeing the forest for the trees. if Dr. Paul can get onto the stages at the debates there is not reason we cant pull in a TON of voted from people who hated the Republican white house and hate the Democratic legislature. Plus, a third party run that garners people's votes would help us get more attention to our causes and issues, not less. The one issue I would have would be a run on the Libertarian or Constitution party tickets, I think the better choice would be Pat Buchanan's Reform Party.

[nate895]

Except Wilson was a nominee of one of the major parties, Paul won't be. It seems to me that if you're arguing the Republican Party is in shambles, that would lead to an easy victory for Clinton or Obama. You're arguing that Paul is going to get twice the % he's getting in Republican primaries. He wouldn't take anything close to 10% from the democrats. People rally around their party nominee. It happens every single year.

You see, those years are different fundamentally. There are fundamental issues the Republicans disagree with McCain on (i.e. immigration, tax cuts, campaign finance reform, etc.), and the Clintons are seen as power hungry warmongers by the smart Democrats who have three brain cells. Also, every other year there is virtually no challenge to the two party system, it is vote for the candidates that you've heard of, or vote for some guy named Badnarik who comes from TX. The only problem in independent bids is the lack of money, which we won't lack.

[Flash]

If RP runs independent then is it still possible for him to run as a congressman?

[nate895]

the issue that is important here, is that Perot's legacy of being anti-Nafta lived on even to today, whether he won or not, and whether Nafta was put in place or not, anyone who thinks challenging the status quo because it might be too difficult, or we might not win is buying into the media's hype. the reason we talk about third party cadidates with the disgust we do is because the media uses them as a scapegoat to explain Bill Clinton, and George W Bush's election. More democracy should be a priority for everyone and saying no third party run because it will hurt the the cause isnt seeing the forest for the trees. if Dr. Paul can get onto the stages at the debates there is not reason we cant pull in a TON of voted from people who hated the Republican white house and hate the Democratic legislature. Plus, a third party run that garners people's votes would help us get more attention to our causes and issues, not less. The one issue I would have would be a run on the Libertarian or Constitution party tickets, I think the better choice would be Pat Buchanan's Reform Party.

How about all of them? Conservative third parties, unite.

[Todd]

damn...we were so close to destroying the two party system...

I hated Perot...but this is the best point that was ever made about his candidacy. I was too young to pay attention and understand how important it was then.

[nate895]

If RP runs independent then is it still possible for him to run as a congressman?

Not as a Republican.

[constitutional]

Yes, we want to destroy this two party system.... badly. It seems we are getting closer to that objective every year.

[nate895]

Yes, we want to destroy this two party system.... badly. It seems we are getting closer to that objective every year.

If the Republicans nominate McCain, and someone like him in 2012, the party will be dead by 2020.

[blaumittwoch]

Yes, but those candidates had little money, we could raise 100 million for the general if we really wanted to.

Why aren't we raising $100m now? Do we not want to? What about an independent run will get us more money than we've ever raised, ever? It's not like the media will start covering Ron Paul just because he quit the GOP race. In fact, we'd probably get less coverage than we are now.

[nate895]

Why aren't we raising $100m now? Do we not want to? What about an independent run will get us more money than we've ever raised, ever? It's not like the media will start covering Ron Paul just because he quit the GOP race. In fact, we'd probably get less coverage than we are now.

If we can get the over 250000 donors to this campaign to donate $100 every month on average, we could get 100M by June, and 175M by October. We currently average $140> per donor.

[freedom-maniac]

That must have been an even worse campaign than Giuliani's. Drop out with 40%, come on.



It's guess his running mate was an idiot.

[nate895]

Apparently Ron Paul Fan has taken my advice, or now agrees we have a chance.

[Bradley in DC]

Just remember these words:

"Sore Loser Laws"

http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/07/20/do-sore-loser-laws-apply-to-presidential-candidates/

The laws would not apply to the presidential electors to the Electoral College.

[Bold As Love]

I think we all agree that if Ron Paul is on the stage in any of the fall debates he would be formidable....likely would change the entire game. I think he would win the election.

Don't think its a possibility without the GOP nomination. The system is so slanted against a true discussion of ideas. I strongly doubt that the system would allow another independent or 3rd party candidate on the stage again.

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

I think we all agree that if Ron Paul is on the stage in any of the fall debates he would be formidable....likely would change the entire game. I think he would win the election.

Don't think its a possibility without the GOP nomination. The system is so slanted against a true discussion of ideas. I strongly doubt that the system would allow another independent or 3rd party candidate on the stage again.

They allowed Perot in all the debates.

[Starks]

Most successful 3rd party candidate ever was probably George Wallace.

He actually won the entire the Southeast back in the 60's on a segregationist platform.

[Eponym_mi]

They allowed Perot in all the debates.

That was when the League of Women Voters hosted. Now, a corporation based been formed chaired by three Democrats and three Republicans...and the bylaws explicitly exclude third parties.

[ForrestLayne]

That must have been an even worse campaign than Giuliani's. Drop out with 40%, come on.

We could make it their though, I think we could get most of the same vote + some if we had $100M.

The powers that be threatened his family and he did not want to put them through that. He got them secure and came back into the race- - I remember it well

NAFTA - the sucking sound of jobs leaving this country....

everyone just laughed -

sounds all to familiar again in 2008


FED RES - the sound of the crashing dollar

everyone laughing............

[nate895]

That was when the League of Women Voters hosted. Now, a corporation based been formed chaired by three Democrats and three Republicans...and the bylaws explicitly exclude third parties.

No, they say 15% in the average of polls. So Ross Perot would've have qualified, and we're only 4 points away.

[Paul4Prez]

The model to look at is of course Perot in 1992. A lot of people on this forum are too young to remember the Perot race, but he was actually leading both Clinton and Bush in 1992. Out of curiosity, I went to a MASSIVE rally in Denver for Perot, just to see what it was all about. Perot was literally on the way to possibly winning the White House when he suddenly dropped out of the race and sabotaged his own campaign. Ed Rollins' book details the bizarre behavior of Perot during this time. If he had not flipped out, Perot could have WON that race. Even after all his bizarre behavior, he still pulled 20 million votes!!

I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 (and Ron Paul in 1988 and 2008). I think the highest he polled was about 33%, but he was in the lead at one point. He dropped out after alleging that George H.W. Bush's Republican dirty tricks machine had threatened to disrupt his daughter's wedding.

He rejoined the race later on (after the wedding?), but a lot of people thought he was paranoid and didn't trust him with the nuclear button after that. The sad part is that these days, half the country wouldn't bat an eyelash if someone started rambling on about Republican dirty tricks -- they know all too well that it's believable.

[Paul4Prez]

No, they say 15% in the average of polls. So Ross Perot would've have qualified, and we're only 4 points away.

Ross Perot got in the debates in 1992 because the League of Women Voters ran them. After his strong showing, the "non-partisan" bi-partisan commission on presidential debates took over, and raised the bar to 15%.

Guess why? Ross Perot was polling around 12% when he ran in 1996, and didn't get in the debates the second time around. He ended up with 8% of the vote.

We will need to energize this group if Ron Paul runs third party (they want to set the bar at 5%):

http://www.opendebates.org/

[scandinaviany3]

That must have been an even worse campaign than Giuliani's. Drop out with 40%, come on.

We could make it their though, I think we could get most of the same vote + some if we had $100M.

This was during the famous media vs perot questions on gays.

After he spoke against gays the media butchered him.

He thought he had blown the presidency with those comments and then dropped out.

He wasnt a bush or clinton...he couldnt work with the media and they hated him...so he gave up. Even though his support was not going to shift on this...

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

We can reach 15%.

The only poll taken so far had Ron at 10%, and that was WITH Bloomberg in as well, so I think 15% can be done rather easily.

[ultimaonliner]

They allowed Perot in all the debates.

Paul would definitely stand out as the most articulate and honest candidate compared to either products of the democratic and republican machines.

I think although most democrats and republicans will stand behind their candidates normally, I do NOT think that will happen with this election. There are many democrats who are not entirely happy with their choices of Hillary vs Obama, just as there are many republicans who are secretly unhappy about the war but just ignorant of Paul's existence (thanks to the MSM).

[blakjak]

Perot did not spend 'billions' of his own money to campaign in 1992, he spent only $65.4 million.

He campaigned in 16 states and spent an estimated $65.4 million of his own money. Perot employed the innovative strategy of purchasing half-hour blocks of time on major networks for infomercial-type campaign ads; these ads garnered more viewership than many sitcoms, with one Friday night program in October attracting 10.5 million viewers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot

[scandinaviany3]

They allowed Perot in all the debates.

because at that time either clinton or bush wanted him there to weaken the other.

after that ever legislature in america created enormous barriers to independent and 3rd party runs.

Ballot access is a nightmare and would require someone very famous right now, a number of voters that are not tied to only vote republican or democrat like in texas or a for a 3rd party to give ballot access and nominate the candidate.

After that the debates are a real problem because no one has taken the case to the courts accept the candidates. The courts will not rule in the cycle during the election. Someone either would have to get a case in DC court now and break up the 15% rule for debate commission or other reasons else never will happen through these debates.

So the person would have to have a major way to get on TV some other way.

For perot networks wouldnt even sell him time in later elections. It wasnt money they just chose to surpress his message.

So you really need your own tv and newspaper wire service or the like....

Tough order all the way around.

[mstrmac1]

its Time To Anounce 3rd Party!!!!

[Eponym_mi]

he spent only $65.4 million.


Do you have any idea what that represents in today's dollars? Nearly $100M! And that is based on the government's CPI calculator!

[amonasro]

If the Republicans nominate McCain, and someone like him in 2012, the party will be dead by 2020.

Not so fast. The dems want to get McCain nominated as a "straw man" to knock over in the general election. McCain has no chance against Clinton or Obama. Republicans know that if a dem is elected, the economy will suck more than it does now, thus paving the way for a Republican candidate to "fix" everything in 2012. It's all about a power struggle between two parties and it's gross.

[jersdream]

Too bad Ron Paul doesn't have billions :(

[ronpaultag]

i think the most successful 3rd party candidate in terms of electoral votes was weaver in the election of 1892. i think he won a couple states.

[chandlerLBT]

What if Ron got Ross Perot to run as Paul's VP?

[jersdream]

I think it was Teddy Roosevelt of the Bull-Moose Party/Progressive Party.

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

after that ever legislature in america created enormous barriers to independent and 3rd party runs.

Ballot access is a nightmare and would require someone very famous right now, a number of voters that are not tied to only vote republican or democrat like in texas or a for a 3rd party to give ballot access and nominate the candidate.


This is a total and complete lie. Everything you just said is 100% false. Perot KNOCKED DOWN all the barriers to third party and independent runs. He cleared the path for Ron.

[Goldwater Conservative]

Do you have any idea what that represents in today's dollars? Nearly $100M! And that is based on the government's CPI calculator!

There was no Internet as we know it in 1992. We've proven how effective a tool it is in raising money at no expense to or even effort by the official campaign and allowing the grassroots to make their own ads, projects, etc. This is a great climate for an independent run, it's just a matter of finally getting the right candidate.

[colecrowe]

my dad said he'd donate another 500 to Paul (IF he announces 3rd party) (he donated 200 on Dec. 16th--but that was when it seemed like he REALLY could maybe, possibly win the Nom. I would donate 500 the day he declares (even though it will hurt financially), whereas I can't afford to give anymore (I gave just over a 1,100 in Q4 to the cause--so shut up) for his Republican run; and gramps would probably wager another 1776.00

The 2nd and 3rd tier, broader-base of supporters aren't (many or most of them) going to donate MORE--if they already have once--because TO THEM it is obvious or at least nearly certain that he's not going to get the Nom from the Republican party (I'm not saying I believe that--but they DO). However, they would be very willing and enthusiastic about supporting him in an iNDEPENDENT run.

IF he doesn't do well enough in the next month or two, and then makes the calculated decision to run iNDY, and then declares say in March, and starts campaigning and runs a couple infomercials to pique some interest (emphasised because it's the most essential part), we could pick one perfect day, and make sure to have two months to plan it--and do everything in our power to make it better and bigger than the Tea Party. Independence Day would make so much sense--the country could declare it's independence from the parties, the special interests and lobbyists, the IRS, the Bankers, the Bush war and the Bush and McCain shamnesty, and the tax and spend Democrats--and we'd have 3 or however many months to prepare for it and drum up support. We could set a goal of 25 million in one day, and hope to shatter it. And then Ron Paul would have July, August, September, and October to spend it and raise more all along--while all along, for those 4 plus months, we could fill every precinct captain position and canvass and call every house--while Iraq continues exploding and the economy collapses.

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

Great post, colecrowe. You've got some great ideas, my friend.

[anaconda]

There is a perfect storm brewing for a successful third party run. Give us McCain and Hillary and this unprecedented nine months of general election campaigning with Ron Paul on the Libertarian ticket with an excellent VP choice. The RP movement just continues to grow and Republicans and Democrats are already grumbling about their poor choices in candidates.