Has Ron Commented on an Independent Candidacy?

[escapinggreatly]

So, my curiosity about everyone's favorite Ron continues as I ponder what the political landscape will look like in a few months.

Despite the fervent support for Dr. Paul around these parts, I'm sure most of you would agree that there's still a good chance another Republican will win the party's nomination. However, let's say that, by the time February has rolled around, Paul has given the rest of the field a real run for its money, his name recognition is high, and his fundraising has done very well. Let's even say that he has at least eight digits in the bank.

Assuming that scenario happens, has Ron said anything at all about turning around and declaring an independent candidacy? As most of you probably know, he's done it before, so it's not like it'd be new ground for him. And I really doubt that he'd lose any of his support. If he were to go this route, I could see him surpassing Perot's height back in '92.

Thoughts? Info? Any sort of declaration on this matter from the good doctor himself?

[Mister Grieves]

Officially he's said he wouldn't consider running under a third party, but at that time I don't think he thought he was going to get the kind of support he has, so I'm sure he would. However, I still believe he can pull off the republican nomination so I don't dwell on it too much.

[DeadheadForPaul]

Dr. Paul has commented that he will not run for a 3rd party ticket.

I think it is CRUCIAL that he and his supporters continue with the mindset that we are going to win the GOP nomination. We cannot look like we are going to drop out of the GOP at any time. We need to do this in order to continue gaining supporters and getting free publicity at Republican debates

I do think, however, that if he has significant support (at least double digits), that he will run as an independent if he does not win the nomination. Say, Romney gets 60% of the GOP vote and Ron gets 40%...I think he'd run as an independent though he has said that he will not

I personally think WE WILL win the Republican nomination

[escapinggreatly]

Officially he's said he wouldn't consider running under a third party, but at that time I don't think he thought he was going to get the kind of support he has, so I'm sure he would. However, I still believe he can pull off the republican nomination so I don't dwell on it too much.

Really? That seems strange to me, given his run as a Libertarian before. Did he give any sort of explanation?

[andrewgreve]

I'm pretty sure that when RP said to Alan Colmes after the debate that he wouldn't be running as an independent, it was because you're not supposed to use Republican TV debate time if you're not going to be a Republican. If he was talking about an independent run, they wouldn't let him in any more Republican debates.

[trispear]

He has said he likely won't do it, 99.99% sure, but this is before he became so popular.

IMO, running 3rd party would be political suicide. The democrats would win as the base is divided by two, we'd get blamed for "losing" this election much like Nader did with Gore back in 2000. Every neocon will have a humongous chip on their shoulder concerning Dr. Paul and his career would be on the decline.

Much like Reagan did after his failed run in 1976 where Ford won the primary and went on to lose the election while Reagan came back in 1980 -- I think it would be smarter to sit back and come in 2012 -- use the four years to build support.

Yes, I know how old Ron Paul is. But his grandparents live to 96. And Washington needs Adult supervision ^_^ (As Gravel would say. And Gravel is 5 years older....)

[foofighter20x]

He has said he likely won't do it, 99.99% sure, but this is before he became so popular.

He's said it again as recently as last weekend when he was on Nashua radio is NH. Check the DailyPaul.

[Thom1776]

Question:

If he's on the ballot as a Libertarian in one state and wins, and as a Constitutionalist in another and wins, does he get credit for both states or would they say he has to declare one over the other?

[escapinggreatly]

Much like Reagan did after his failed run in 1976 where Ford won the primary and went on to lose the election while Reagan came back in 1980 -- I think it would be smarter to sit back and come in 2012 -- use the four years to build support.

Yes, I know how old Ron Paul is. But his grandparents live to 96. And Washington needs Adult supervision ^_^ (As Gravel would say. And Gravel is 5 years older....)

If you're measuring your electoral viability by Grumpy Old Gravel, you're not in a great spot.

[trispear]

Well, Gravel is honest - I admire him for that.

Anyway, the sentiment is the same. If the Republicans don't nominate RP, they will lose, RP may come back in 2012 with a vengeance. If he runs 3rd party in 2008, he will lose, and leave a lot of republicans too jaded to ever consider him again.

(Of course, I'd rather he get nominated this time around.)

[1000-points-of-fright]

I don't think he will run again in 2012. He'll just keep his congressional seat until he's had enough.

If he doesn't get the nomination and the support is there, he may change his mind and go independent. Sure he'll probably lose and the Dems will win (honestly what difference would it make who wins at that point), but he might get such a huge chunk of the vote that everyone will have to take notice. The GOP will be in shambles as they see half their base walk out and the Dems will definitely not have a landslide nor a mandate.

RP has said that when this campaign started it was more about changing the political landscape than actually winning.

[Bradley in DC]

Question:

If he's on the ballot as a Libertarian in one state and wins, and as a Constitutionalist in another and wins, does he get credit for both states or would they say he has to declare one over the other?

The only thing that matters is the votes in the electoral college. Constitutionally, there is no formal role for political parties.

Dr. Paul has said that he is not going to run third party--and he says what he thinks and follows that with what he does. Also, he has never run as an independent previously as state in the thread.

[themanhere]

He will if all else fails we just have to hound him about it.

Hes a smart guy i think i understand his strategy.

[escapinggreatly]

Also, he has never run as an independent previously as state in the thread.

Well....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2008


This is Paul's second bid for the presidency. In 1988, he ran as the nominee of the Libertarian Party.

[Paul4Prez]

Question:

If he's on the ballot as a Libertarian in one state and wins, and as a Constitutionalist in another and wins, does he get credit for both states or would they say he has to declare one over the other?

The Electoral College doesn't care about political parties. If he wins a state under any label, that state's Electors are pledged to him.

We need Ron Paul on all 50 state ballots -- as a Republican.

[njandrewg]

my position is use 100% of the efforts to get him in as a republican..because its much easier to build support. I mean honestly most people don't even care about 3rd parties... I know in the last election I can't even tell you who liberterians nominated.

Then if he ends up coming a close 2nd in republican then we can pressure him to run as an independant...because he'll have the close support. And can be the alternative to Hillary/Giulliani .

[escapinggreatly]

my position is use 100% of the efforts to get him in as a republican..because its much easier to build support. I mean honestly most people don't even care about 3rd parties... I know in the last election I can't even tell you who liberterians nominated.

Then if he ends up coming a close 2nd in republican then we can pressure him to run as an independant...because he'll have the close support. And can be the alternative to Hillary/Giulliani .

Yeah, that's a scenario that I believe is very likely. And I honestly think it would do more good for him than harm.

[max]

He has said he likely won't do it, 99.99% sure, but this is before he became so popular.



Much like Reagan did after his failed run in 1976 where Ford won the primary and went on to lose the election while Reagan came back in 1980 -- I think it would be smarter to sit back and come in 2012 -- use the four years to build support.

_..)


By 2012 USA will be finished

[0zzy]

He'd have to have a billionaire Ross Perot-type VP. Otherwise he wouldn't be in the debates nor ballots.

[Harry96]

Dr. Paul has stated numerous times that he won't run as a third party candidate, and he has also said numerous times that he is not running this time to educate anyone or to make a point; he's running to win the election. I know people will say he has to say that because he's still running for the GOP nomination, so maybe he's saying it with a wink. But, based on his record of honesty and integrity, I'm taking him at his word. If he's only running because he believes he has a chance to get elected, then there's no way he'll run under a third party banner.

[foofighter20x]

Well....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2008

Running on any party's ticket is not an independent run.

An independent run is where you run without a party or form your own party for that election. Reference the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.

Thank you and good night. :)

[V-rod]

If we can't even raise 10million dollars by December, Dr. Paul has as much of a chance of winning the election as Gravel has of getting the Democratic nomination.
Half of Paul's money would be spent just on lawyers to get on ballots. We would need to raise 20million by next summer for him to have a decent chance, and still would be a uphill battle.

[Matt Collins]

He'd have to have a billionaire Ross Perot-type VP. Otherwise he wouldn't be in the debates nor ballots.Ross Perot did not even have ballot access in all 50 states. You realize that, right?

[UtahApocalypse]

He has said he will not run as independent or 3rd party. However before he started this campaign he had no thought of running for President. maybe his mind will change now he is seeing how powerful the message is. I still think our best bet is to get him the Republican nomination.

[Trance Dance Master]

He originally said he wouldn't run if he didn't win the nomination. That was before his campaign took off the way it has. Now he says that as long as his numbers keep going up he'll stay in, so tell all your friends about him and keep spreading the message.

[Zeeder]

If the libertarian party was smarter, they'd be running a Paul-like candidate in one of the two major parties everytime. The Primaries have low turnout because nobody believes they can make a difference, and aren't really welcome there. We are going to change that.
If we can't get enough votes in the primary, then I don't think it's possible to win a national election. We are doing well in the straw polls because we show up, while the sheep stay home. In the primaries, a little more sheep come out, but we can beat them. In a national election, the Sheep come out in droves.

[JenHarris]

Check out Unity 08 - I see them as a real possibility if he doesn't win the Republican nomination, though I am going to keep working toward that and will continue to believe it can happen. :)

[scrosnoe]

We have the opportunity to elect Ron Paul and reinvent the Reagan coalition inside the Republican party in one fell swoop. Let's just get the job done folks!:D