PDA

View Full Version : 2012 - An election year odyssy




Elwar
10-31-2008, 11:03 AM
Ok, I've thrown this idea out before but it didn't get much attention.

The problem: Who do we support in 2012?

Bigger possible problem: Multiple Ron Paul/pro-liberty candidates running in the primary in 2012.

Solution: A primary primary on the Interwebs.

I had a few ideas after thinking this through quite a bit. First would be to create a website ala the Nov. 5th pledge site. You go on there and pledge to donate $100 for a vote. Then, at a given date we all donate the $100 per vote toward a newly formed PAC (or whatever legal thing would be needed).

Once we have the big pot of money and the candidate we go to that candidate and say "we have X amount of people who want to donate Y amount of dollars toward your campaign to become our next president".

The PAC then returns everyone's money leaving it in their hands to then donate it to the candidate or the sorry losers who's favorite candidate didn't win can take their money and go home. Or, the PAC donates to grassroots efforts such as chipins and such...or whatever the legal way to go may be.

Any thoughts?

Elwar
10-31-2008, 02:42 PM
Ok, since nobody responds to this idea I'll just choose the candidate for 2012.

It is Gary Johnson.

No input allowed.

nate895
10-31-2008, 03:03 PM
I like this idea. I think we should first have a pledge of $100 for whatever candidate wins, and then we can make a list of those who almost everyone would approve of. Our first round could be approval voting, before anyone pledges anything, and whichever potential candidates exceed 90% approval could go on to a face off. Everyone would pledge $100 to whoever wins, and then we vote for our favorite, and whoever wins that round we say that we have X million dollars pledged, will you run? If they refuse, go to the second and so on.

slothman
10-31-2008, 08:37 PM
Nobody.
That is the end of time, well at least accoring to the Mayans.

trey4sports
10-31-2008, 09:41 PM
2012 will be very important to us, it will be the steamroller for 2016. in 2012 we need multiple candidates adleast two, possibly gary johnson and jesse ventura.
Yes, they will splinter the movement with gary probably getting 7-10% in the primarys and ventura getting 10-15% in the GE many will debate between who will best lead the movement, However the secondary consequence of such actions will bring more people to the fundamental libertarian principles which will springboard a candidate in 2016 who will be able to push the movement over the top.

just my $.02
probably more like $.0002 by 2012

nate895
10-31-2008, 09:53 PM
2012 will be very important to us, it will be the steamroller for 2016. in 2012 we need multiple candidates adleast two, possibly gary johnson and jesse ventura.
Yes, they will splinter the movement with gary probably getting 7-10% in the primarys and ventura getting 10-15% in the GE many will debate between who will best lead the movement, However the secondary consequence of such actions will bring more people to the fundamental libertarian principles which will springboard a candidate in 2016 who will be able to push the movement over the top.

just my $.02
probably more like $.0002 by 2012

That won't work. We need to focus solely on one candidate and work to advance the message. Division will only lead to us being weaker, we must present a united front. Our next candidate needs to start campaigning early next year and building up a massive war chest. We need to be the face of the political opposition to the incoming Obama administration, and if we are united behind one candidate who announces early on and has terrific fund raising numbers, we might be able to put ourselves in a position to win several seats in the House and Senate in the midterms.

trey4sports
10-31-2008, 10:24 PM
That won't work. We need to focus solely on one candidate and work to advance the message. Division will only lead to us being weaker, we must present a united front. Our next candidate needs to start campaigning early next year and building up a massive war chest. We need to be the face of the political opposition to the incoming Obama administration, and if we are united behind one candidate who announces early on and has terrific fund raising numbers, we might be able to put ourselves in a position to win several seats in the House and Senate in the midterms.

eh, i dont agree.
we (libertarians/RPR's/3rd party members) makeup 5% or so of the voting population at this time, and i think its wishful thinking to believe we can go from 5% to 30 or 40 or 50% in 4 years, especially with just one candidate. if we get a RPR, a RPD, and solid INDY then i believe the voters who have somewhat libertarian leanings but align with the major partys wont feel so alienated by having to cross party lines. people dont want to change their political alignment easily, a Dem would much rather vote for Bob Conley than they would for Graham even if graham better supports their views, alot of folks define themselves by their political alignment. Im not saying its right but its how voters work IMHO, and to change the rules we need to play by em first.

Expatriate
10-31-2008, 10:33 PM
I think we would be better served trying to take back the GOP as Ron Paul has been saying. Their support is greatly declining right now, and they need a new face that can pull voters from the Democrats. We could be that face.

We need to groom someone to run in the Republican primaries next election. I think RP might be too old by then, great as he is, so we need to find someone else.

There wouldn't be anything wrong with trying to run a non-socialist, pro-liberty Democrat either. A lot of Democrat voters are more open to our ideas than Republicans.

I am afraid the two-party system is here to stay for some time, so we might as well try to work from within.

nate895
10-31-2008, 11:06 PM
eh, i dont agree.
we (libertarians/RPR's/3rd party members) makeup 5% or so of the voting population at this time, and i think its wishful thinking to believe we can go from 5% to 30 or 40 or 50% in 4 years, especially with just one candidate. if we get a RPR, a RPD, and solid INDY then i believe the voters who have somewhat libertarian leanings but align with the major partys wont feel so alienated by having to cross party lines. people dont want to change their political alignment easily, a Dem would much rather vote for Bob Conley than they would for Graham even if graham better supports their views, alot of folks define themselves by their political alignment. Im not saying its right but its how voters work IMHO, and to change the rules we need to play by em first.

The majority of the population actually agrees with us (and according to Rasmussen, 41% describe themselves if told what it means generically they say "socially liberal/moderate, fiscally conservative"). The just don't know it. The average person only knows Ron Paul is a "kooky" Congressman from somewhere who ran for President. If they actually knew what Ron Paul stood for, they might take a liking to it, especially if we were able to build up a big enough war chest to be the ones opposing the Obama administration every step of the way.

trey4sports
10-31-2008, 11:18 PM
The majority of the population actually agrees with us (and according to Rasmussen, 41% describe themselves if told what it means generically they say "socially liberal/moderate, fiscally conservative"). The just don't know it. The average person only knows Ron Paul is a "kooky" Congressman from somewhere who ran for President. If they actually knew what Ron Paul stood for, they might take a liking to it, especially if we were able to build up a big enough war chest to be the ones opposing the Obama administration every step of the way.

right, i totally agree with you there. I believe that from a fundamental standpoint most people (30-50%) agree with Ron Pauls ideas but for external reasons (mass media, fringe labeling) dont vote for him, but we simply differ on the best strategy to gain the votes of the masses.

each of our ideas have pros and cons to them but a slower, dual-pronged approach to a libertarianesque gov't seems more sustainable to me. But I'd happily support a single party effort if it proves more valuable.

nate895
11-01-2008, 11:31 AM
right, i totally agree with you there. I believe that from a fundamental standpoint most people (30-50%) agree with Ron Pauls ideas but for external reasons (mass media, fringe labeling) dont vote for him, but we simply differ on the best strategy to gain the votes of the masses.

each of our ideas have pros and cons to them but a slower, dual-pronged approach to a libertarianesque gov't seems more sustainable to me. But I'd happily support a single party effort if it proves more valuable.

We should have a two-prong approach in that we should have both a third party and a GOP contender, but we shouldn't split our resources between the two at one time. We need to give tons of money to a GOP candidate, and if they lose, we then need to poor just enough money into a third party candidate to give that candidate some sort of voice, I'd say around $20 million. Whatever happens, we need a presidential candidate in the General to be noticed, because that is when most of America starts to watch. Not very many people actually pay attention in the primary season, and so we should always have a General Election candidate with enough money to spread the message to a new set of voters.

Austin
11-01-2008, 01:23 PM
I think Liberty Straw Poll would work out much better in the presidential primary..

Elwar
11-03-2008, 08:07 AM
Maybe we should shoot for having a liberty candidate in one year...having an extra year to raise funds would be quite handy going into the first debates with several million more than even Romney.

tggroo7
11-03-2008, 08:49 AM
Gary Johnson should run as a Republican. Unless we can find a super-rich libertarian to run for the LP, we should focus on Johnson and doing it within the republican party. Johnson may not even be considered nearly as "kooky" as RP. Johnson has even better and more credible experience since he was a governor. I think a major reason for Paul's exclusion was because he was just a representative and not a senator or governor or already famous (Giuliani).

nate895
11-03-2008, 06:21 PM
Gary Johnson should run as a Republican. Unless we can find a super-rich libertarian to run for the LP, we should focus on Johnson and doing it within the republican party. Johnson may not even be considered nearly as "kooky" as RP. Johnson has even better and more credible experience since he was a governor. I think a major reason for Paul's exclusion was because he was just a representative and not a senator or governor or already famous (Giuliani).

As the last Republican governor of New Mexico, he would also have a leg up by having one state already in the bag. Hopefully New Mexico will move its primary up or the GOP can hold a caucus in the early going to give Johnson the Big Mo' that comes from an early primary win. Hopefully he could win in Iowa and New Hampshire as well.