PDA

View Full Version : Would RP have a better chance as a 3rd party candidate?




bobmurph
08-18-2007, 07:33 AM
Ignoring the money & ballot issues, what would be more likely to happen:

Win GOP Primary as Republican?

Win General Election as 3rd Party?

I often hear average (non RP supporters) people state they want a legitimate 3rd party candidate as an alternative to the GOP/Dems. RP, in my view, is basically like having a 3rd party candidate already, but he's running as a Republican. At least if he wasn't running as a republican the GOP establishment couldn't say he isn't one of them

Kuldebar
08-18-2007, 07:41 AM
I don't really know how you can ignore money and ballot issues, as a 3rd party candidate. :/

A 3rd party route would be a forced path, not a chosen one. The dems and repubs have a pretty good lock on voters, even independents go back and forth between the two.

I voted for a Libertarian as a Libertarian in 2 previous presidential elections, but most independents aren't actually voting third parties.

Perhaps, Ron Paul could end that trend and maybe successfully break the 2 party hold, but that would be yet one more challenge on an already overwhelming pile of challenges.

Sean
08-18-2007, 07:48 AM
To get change in this country we have to take over one of the two parties from the inside. The campaign laws favor the two major parties that passed them for a reason. They don't want to lose power. Everyone needs to join the Republican party and try to start taking over leadership positions at the local and state level.

Politeia
08-18-2007, 08:04 AM
Ignoring the money & ballot issues....

Been there, done that: Ron Paul learned his lesson in 1988. So long as you're ignoring the money & ballot issues, why not ignore the election "issue" also... :rolleyes:

None of this groundswell would have happened if Ron Paul hadn't been a Republican candidate, and thus invited to the South Carolina debate. Clearly the establishment thought they could do that and make him look ridiculous, but it backfired: Instead, Giuliani made himself look ridiculous, once people outside the handpicked audience saw him. If Ron Paul had been running as a Libertarian again, he would still be unheard of.

The idea of registering Republican is about as attractive as eating excrement, but that's the way it's set up, and that's the only way the Constitution is going to get a hearing in this next election. Or, I'm pretty sure, the one after that -- if there ever is another. Like Rome in 44 BCE, this is the watershed.

BuddyRey
08-18-2007, 08:08 AM
If, God forbid, Ron can't swing the GOP nomination, he should DEFINITELY go after it as a Third Party or Indie. He'd take both of the big dogs down in a flash. It would make Perot '92 look like a mere footnote!

fj45lvr
08-18-2007, 08:12 AM
NO

NO!

NO!!!!!

(Paul is not stupid....just listen to what he says about it from his own mouth).

Foremost is that PAUL would not have gotten in any debates to date if that were the case.....the country (like it or not) is locked up in the 2 party system and as a Supporter of Paul in 1988 the only coverage that other parties get is on C-span


secondary....the republicans need PAUL!!! to get them back to the place from whence they have strayed (back to sanity and rationality).

quickmike
08-18-2007, 08:12 AM
If, God forbid, Ron can't swing the GOP nomination, he should DEFINITELY go after it as a Third Party or Indie. He'd take both of the big dogs down in a flash. It would make Perot '92 look like a mere footnote!

Difference is Perot had BILLIONS to spend on half hour segments bought on all the major networks. It wouldnt be the same for Ron Paul. The MSM would just ignore him even more, he would get no debate time in a 3rd party, and would be difficult to even get him on the ballot in most states. Sorry to say, it wouldnt work. Thats just the reality of the corrupt system that handles our elections today. You think its tough going now, it would be 4 times worse in he ran 3rd party.

RPatTheBeach
08-18-2007, 08:13 AM
The mass public doesn't take 3rd party seriously. The infamous "I'm not voting for him because he can't win". With a crowded GOP field, he needs fewer votes to take the Primary, and then victory in the general election is a shoe in.

Badger Paul
08-18-2007, 08:21 AM
The reason RP is running is to win the GOP nomination, not make a point. He's already done that. I'm sure many of who support him have as well wether it was with Nader in 2000, Buchanan 2000, past LP and CP candidates. It just doesn't work. And what's thrilling about this RP camapaign is that many rank and file and some leaders of the CP and LP feel the same way and are helping Ron Paul out.

constituent
08-18-2007, 08:23 AM
no.

he will still do excellent work in the House and the Senate would be a very real possiblity. it would benefit the freedom movement if he were to then get very serious about changing laws and proceedures that exclude third party candidates IMO.

Original_Intent
08-18-2007, 09:04 AM
I think Paul's chances of getting the GOP nom are increased if Romney, Giuliani, and McCain all stay in. If the establishment convinces one or two two "fall on his sword" it really hurts our chances.

Mastiff
08-18-2007, 09:09 AM
He might try running as an independent, but then he'd just hand the election to the democrat. If he associates with the LP, he's doomed. And no wonder IMO. The LP comes off as crazy to most people, myself included, and I consider myself libertarian. I'm just not obsessed with drug legalization and anarchy.

In reality, RP is a republican anyway, at least what a republican is supposed to be: small constitutional government, non-interventionism. And he doesn't fit in with the LP crowd with his stands on abortion and immigration.

quickmike
08-18-2007, 09:26 AM
He might try running as an independent, but then he'd just hand the election to the democrat. If he associates with the LP, he's doomed. And no wonder IMO. The LP comes off as crazy to most people, myself included, and I consider myself libertarian. I'm just not obsessed with drug legalization and anarchy.

In reality, RP is a republican anyway, at least what a republican is supposed to be: small constitutional government, non-interventionism. And he doesn't fit in with the LP crowd with his stands on abortion and immigration.

Trust me, even if Ron Paul completely dropped out right now, the democrats will win. There are not enough pro war people left in this country to win the presidency for a candidate who supports it. The way I see it, our next president will be one of 4 people........... Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, or Ron Paul.

You can pretty much take that to the bank. Lets just hope the Republican mainstream voters pull their heads out of their asses in time to realize this.

klamath
08-18-2007, 09:35 AM
Not while he has a chance at the Republican nomination. As bad as our two party system is, for the most part us voters are making the choice on how we want the parties. I hear a lot of people wanting European style elections with dozens of parties but when you think about it those systems just removes the process of choosing the government one more step away from the people. All those parties have to get together and make political deals on what will be the ruling coalition.
Do we want more party bosses making choices for us?

RoyalTenenbaum
08-18-2007, 09:37 AM
What do you all think would happen in this scenario:

1. The Dems nominate Clinton (or Obama, doesn't matter)
2. The Republicans nominate Romney (or Thompson, doesn't matter)
3. BLOOMBERG actually gets in and runs as an Independant
4. Paul is nominated by both the Constituional and Libertarian parties (I've read somewhere that this would put him on the ballot in every state).

First - is what I said in #4 correct and/or possible?

Seoncd - Does Bloomberg strip enough from Hillary to hurt the Dems substantially, or are they so intent on getting the WH back that they are going to do anything to avoid another Nader effect scenario?

Third, the scenario I put forth above obviously gets much better for Paul if the Republicans are dumb enough to put up Giuliani, b/c now all of your social conservatives are looking for a new home.

Any thoughts?

klamath
08-18-2007, 09:42 AM
Trust me, even if Ron Paul completely dropped out right now, the democrats will win. There are not enough pro war people left in this country to win the presidency for a candidate who supports it. The way I see it, our next president will be one of 4 people........... Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, or Ron Paul.

You can pretty much take that to the bank. Lets just hope the Republican mainstream voters pull their heads out of their asses in time to realize this.

I agree. What I like to tell republicans that are voting for the big name candidates because they can win is, "Do you think that the there is a 237 vote margin in Florida and a 130,000 vote margin in Ohio now? Get freaking Real!

quickmike
08-18-2007, 09:46 AM
What do you all think would happen in this scenario:

1. The Dems nominate Clinton (or Obama, doesn't matter)
2. The Republicans nominate Romney (or Thompson, doesn't matter)
3. BLOOMBERG actually gets in and runs as an Independant
4. Paul is nominated by both the Constituional and Libertarian parties (I've read somewhere that this would put him on the ballot in every state).

First - is what I said in #4 correct and/or possible?

Seoncd - Does Bloomberg strip enough from Hillary to hurt the Dems substantially, or are they so intent on getting the WH back that they are going to do anything to avoid another Nader effect scenario?

Third, the scenario I put forth above obviously gets much better for Paul if the Republicans are dumb enough to put up Giuliani, b/c now all of your social conservatives are looking for a new home.

Any thoughts?


hey Royal,

I used to be your neighbor in Valparaiso, IN

anyway, I dont think any of these scenarios will change things much for the democrats. They pretty much have a lock on things unless Ron gets nominated. Bloomberg wont change things enough to hurt the democrats to give a win to Ghoulianni. Ron running as an independant will get him about 3 percent of the vote mainly because he wont even be on the ballot in many states if he did this. When 70%+ of americans want us out of Iraq and are unhappy with Bush, theres no chance in hell that a pro war republican can win............ not by a long shot. If Ron doesnt get nominated, I think well see one of the biggest lopsided elections in our history, in favor of the democrat, no matter which one it is.

Mastiff
08-18-2007, 09:54 AM
I agree. What I like to tell republicans that are voting for the big name candidates because they can win is, "Do you think that the there is a 237 vote margin in Florida and a 130,000 vote margin in Ohio now? Get freaking Real!

You guys may be a little too pessimistic. I'm not saying it looks good, but a lot can happen before election day. Lots of people truly hate Hillary, not just core republicans. The republican candidate will backpedal on the war once the primary is over (unless it's RP). Don't give up yet.

klamath
08-18-2007, 09:56 AM
"Seoncd - Does Bloomberg strip enough from Hillary to hurt the Dems substantially, or are they so intent on getting the WH back that they are going to do anything to avoid another Nader effect scenario?"

This I think is going to be our biggest hurtle. They want the WH back so bad that there is going to be lots of the old rally around the party. I know this well as I basically left Bush senior in '92 and then was so sick of Clinton that I gagged really hard and voted for Bush twice. Uggggg.

quickmike
08-18-2007, 10:02 AM
You guys may be a little too pessimistic. I'm not saying it looks good, but a lot can happen before election day. Lots of people truly hate Hillary, not just core republicans. The republican candidate will backpedal on the war once the primary is over (unless it's RP). Don't give up yet.

Well it would probably be Edwards then, and he would wipe the floor with any republican mainly because the republicans arent going to be out in numbers this time around. Biggest reason is the fact that they are let down because of all the big govt spending by the republicans lately. Look at the Iowa Straw Poll.... 14000 people? thats really bad, and a sign that republicans dont have any fire in their belly. Compare that to the turnout of democratic events............. much bigger. I just hope there are enough Ron Paul supporters out there who are willing to do the footwork on knocking on doors to get the message out that the MSM is unwilling to do. That is our only chance. Either door to door, or a DVD in the mailbox of every voter in the country. Thats our only chance guaranteed.

klamath
08-18-2007, 10:15 AM
What do you all think would happen in this scenario:

1. The Dems nominate Clinton (or Obama, doesn't matter)
2. The Republicans nominate Romney (or Thompson, doesn't matter)
3. BLOOMBERG actually gets in and runs as an Independant
4. Paul is nominated by both the Constituional and Libertarian parties (I've read somewhere that this would put him on the ballot in every state).

First - is what I said in #4 correct and/or possible?

Seoncd - Does Bloomberg strip enough from Hillary to hurt the Dems substantially, or are they so intent on getting the WH back that they are going to do anything to avoid another Nader effect scenario?

Third, the scenario I put forth above obviously gets much better for Paul if the Republicans are dumb enough to put up Giuliani, b/c now all of your social conservatives are looking for a new home.

Any thoughts?


You guys may be a little too pessimistic. I'm not saying it looks good, but a lot can happen before election day. Lots of people truly hate Hillary, not just core republicans. The republican candidate will backpedal on the war once the primary is over (unless it's RP). Don't give up yet.

That is why the republicans are in trouble, because I as a solid Republican voter will not vote for a Republican other than Ron Paul this election. If out of some strange chance one of the mediocre Republicans candidates wins, our party will be done in four years. However if Hillary makes it we can spend four years realigning (giving the boot to neocons and hypocritical christians) and rebuilding the republican party and running against her when she is just as unpopular as Bush is right now.

njandrewg
08-18-2007, 10:45 AM
Personally I think we should put all our effort to get RP nominated as a republican. Why? Because its much easier to convert people who might otherwise ignore him because 3rd parties are irrelevant(no chance in hell). And each person we get now, is worth 10 people by the time of the voting. And will vote for the independant Ron Paul. And seeing as how we are slowly rising among republicans, at worst, we might come in 2nd(maybe because of stuffed ballots). If we do come in 2nd, Ron Paul should DEFINETLY run as an independant. Because at that point he would have overcame most of things 3rd parties have problems with.
a) he gets national recognition(media, debates, polls), by that point people will know him.
b) he will be seen as an underdog whom the Republicans fought against
c) he got a network of active supporters, my guess probably something like 80-100K by that point
d) he got a network of donors (for general election you can once again donate $2,300, so he'll be able to raise decent money)

I mean look at this past elections, he only raised 500K and spent most of it getting on the ballot, at the current stage this would not be a prolbem, and he could campaign correctly, because the media and people would already be aware of him.

klamath
08-18-2007, 10:54 AM
Personally I think we should put all our effort to get RP nominated as a republican. Why? Because its much easier to convert people who might otherwise ignore him because 3rd parties are irrelevant(no chance in hell). And each person we get now, is worth 10 people by the time of the voting. And will vote for the independant Ron Paul. And seeing as how we are slowly rising among republicans, at worst, we might come in 2nd(maybe because of stuffed ballots). If we do come in 2nd, Ron Paul should DEFINETLY run as an independant. Because at that point he would have overcame most of things 3rd parties have problems with.
a) he gets national recognition(media, debates, polls), by that point people will know him.
b) he will be seen as an underdog whom the Republicans fought against
c) he got a network of active supporters, my guess probably something like 80-100K by that point
d) he got a network of donors (for general election you can once again donate $2,300, so he'll be able to raise decent money)

I mean look at this past elections, he only raised 500K and spent most of it getting on the ballot, at the current stage this would not be a prolbem, and he could campaign correctly, because the media and people would already be aware of him.

This has a lot of merit.

Matt Collins
08-18-2007, 12:53 PM
Difference is Perot had BILLIONS to spend Yes, and not even HE could get ballot access in all 50 states.

slantedview
08-18-2007, 12:59 PM
no, he wouldn't.

Hurricane Bruiser
08-18-2007, 01:19 PM
I agree that all effort should be made to have RP win the nomination. If that fails I believe either or both of the Constitution and Libertarian parties would seek to nominate Ron Paul. That should make ballot access much better and awareness of who he is would be much higher.

If the eventual Dem and Rep nominee are not vastly different, it wouldn't hurt my feelings to see Clinton win just to make a statement and split the Republican vote. They are doomed anyway as I see it unless RP wins the nomination.

njandrewg
08-18-2007, 01:28 PM
+ if its a pro-war republican vs Clinton...we will be seen as the lesser of three evils regardless of his position. Obama people, non-nominated republican people, and other democrats will be looking for a 3rd party candidate

Scribbler de Stebbing
08-18-2007, 01:35 PM
My answer is:

See this thread about the Alabama straw poll:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=12884

mdh
08-18-2007, 01:43 PM
I think we have a better chance of winning the GOP nomination than winning the election on a third party ticket. Ballot access issues are central to this, as is publicity. Dr. Paul is hardly favored by the MSM, but he's gotten a lot more coverage than LP, CP, Green, etc candidates!

Mastiff
08-18-2007, 01:45 PM
I think we have a better chance of winning the GOP nomination than winning the election on a third party ticket. Ballot access issues are central to this, as is publicity. Dr. Paul is hardly favored by the MSM, but he's gotten a lot more coverage than LP, CP, Green, etc candidates!

Is the LP even fielding anyone?

DjLoTi
08-18-2007, 01:46 PM
Ron Paul has explicitly said he will not run 3rd party. I do not expect him to flip-flop on that statment.

Hurricane Bruiser
08-18-2007, 01:53 PM
I KNOW I read a recent interview where he stated something to the effect that he was 99.99 percent certain that he would not run 3rd party but if his support continues to build that he might reconsider. I don't recall who the interview was with or the exact statement.

stevedasbach
08-18-2007, 03:26 PM
I agree that all effort should be made to have RP win the nomination. If that fails I believe either or both of the Constitution and Libertarian parties would seek to nominate Ron Paul. That should make ballot access much better and awareness of who he is would be much higher.

If the eventual Dem and Rep nominee are not vastly different, it wouldn't hurt my feelings to see Clinton win just to make a statement and split the Republican vote. They are doomed anyway as I see it unless RP wins the nomination.

The Libertarian nominating convention is Memorial Day weekend, well after the GOP race should be decided. If Ron Paul changes his mind and decides to run on a 3rd party ticket, he'll have plenty of time.

Original_Intent
08-18-2007, 09:47 PM
Ron Paul has explicitly said he will not run 3rd party. I do not expect him to flip-flop on that statment.

He said he would not run independent.

Also, not that he would lie, but that was right near the first debate. I fhe had said yes, his GOP run would have been over.

I believe when asked if he would run as an independent was, "No, we haven't considered that."

Maybe he really did mean that if he doesn't get the GOP nomination then he is done, but he certainly did not rule out a third party run by his statement.