Is the time right for Ron Paul to run as a third party candidate?

[wgadget]

I know all the arguments from 2008...ugh.

But times have changed, and drastically.

Even conservatives have been voicing their anger at the GOP.

How about RON PAUL 2012 as the TEA PARTY CANDIDATE?

Before anyone else gloms onto the idea.

[Pennsylvania]

I think he'd do very well just running as an independent, without the Tea Party label. Lots of tea partiers would already get behind him, but we need to consider actual independent voters too, which may (and most likely do) have concerns about the Tea Parties.

[cpike]

You have to try for the GOP nomination. If you lose that, then I guess you could run as an independent and try to pick up some of the anti-war from the left. But you have to try to get the GOP nom first.

[Krugerrand]

I know all the arguments from 2008...ugh.

But times have changed, and drastically.

Even conservatives have been voicing their anger at the GOP.

How about RON PAUL 2012 as the TEA PARTY CANDIDATE?

Before anyone else gloms onto the idea.

That would imply that he or a candidate of similar convictions does not win the GOP primary.

[Pennsylvania]

AFAIK, you can't run as a GOP primary candidate and then go rogue. That is, it's part of the party rules. Ron should just stay indy this time. He'd guarantee a GOP loss, so people would need to rally around him instead. Conservatives wouldn't want to risk that, because they know us Paul people aren't going to budge.

[rp08orbust]

AFAIK, you can't run as a GOP primary candidate and then go rogue. That is, it's part of the party rules. Ron should just stay indy this time. He'd guarantee a GOP loss, so people would need to rally around him instead. Conservatives wouldn't want to risk that, because they know us Paul people aren't going to budge.

What if he were to take it as far as the Ames straw poll? If he wins it (after much campaigning among the local Tea Party groups), continue. If he doesn't, then withdraw from the Republican race before getting on the state ballots. I believe in the latter situation he could still gain a position on state ballots as an independent.

[paulitics]

nope.

[wgadget]

What has he got to lose? This would probably be his last go 'round as a presidential nominee.

In the process, he could assert the need to change ELECTION RULES. I bet The People would put up a good loud clamor on that one, especially if the elites put up a fight.

[klamath]

..

[ctiger2]

AFAIK, you can't run as a GOP primary candidate and then go rogue. That is, it's part of the party rules. Ron should just stay indy this time. He'd guarantee a GOP loss, so people would need to rally around him instead. Conservatives wouldn't want to risk that, because they know us Paul people aren't going to budge.

IIRC it's called the Ron Paul Rule. Actually, I'm not sure if it is a rule but I remember hearing that the GOP wasn't going to let him in the debates if he went rogue after he didn't get the nomination. They forced him to agree to it.

[rp08orbust]

IIRC it's called the Ron Paul Rule. Actually, I'm not sure if it is a rule but I remember hearing that the GOP wasn't going to let him in the debates if he went rogue after he didn't get the nomination. They forced him to agree to it.

There are actual "sore loser laws", and Texas is one state that has them. You can't be on the general election ballot for a position for which you sought and lost your party's nomination.

[sofia]

I know all the arguments from 2008...ugh.

But times have changed, and drastically.

Even conservatives have been voicing their anger at the GOP.

How about RON PAUL 2012 as the TEA PARTY CANDIDATE?

Before anyone else gloms onto the idea.

He will run (and lose) in the GOP primary. But he should follow up with an independent run.

An independent run would be a long shot....but winning inside the GOP is impossible.

Too many dumb Christian-Zionist neo-cons and northeatern moderates

[tmosley]

If ever there was a time for a new party to knock out one of the others, this is that time.

[mello]

There is no way in hell that he would run as an independent.

1st) The deck is stacked against independents because it's much more difficult & expensive to get on
the ballot.

2nd) During the 2008 elections how many national debates did you watch that involved 3rd party
candidates & Independents? Zero. The mainstream media does not show those debates.

3rd) Mainstream news access. News stories about Ron Paul literally dropped off the face of the earth
by Super Tuesday & stayed like that for about a month and he was running AS A REPUBLICAN!
If there was no internet I would not have found any stories about Ron Paul. The only nationwide
news story about 3rd party candidates that I can remember watching is when Ron Paul gave that
speech to vote for the 3rd party candidates instead of McCain or Obama.

I think that if Ron Paul runs again in 2012, he would have much more credibility & name recognition
since he was the only candidate that talked about the upcoming financial & housing bubbles bursting.
He was also prescient about the Fed, monetary policy, & how Obama would continue Bush's policies.

[Krugerrand]

What are the restriction on running under multiple parties at the same time? I know it's been done in the past. It also happens all the time around here with judges. RP could run on every parties ticket.

This would only work in closed elections where people can only vote in the party election of which they are a member. Otherwise, his supporters would be scattered across separate elections.

His line could be ... if the Green Party, Libertarian Party, Communist Party, or any other party want to put me on their ballot, why should I stop them?

This way, if he loses the GOP, he could potentially make the ballot for Constitution or Libertarian etc. The sore loser laws would be moot.

The coordination of something like this would have to be on the QT. Otherwise the big parties would quickly change the rules of the game.

[wgadget]

There is no way in hell that he would run as an independent.

1st) The deck is stacked against independents because it's much more difficult & expensive to get on
the ballot.

2nd) During the 2008 elections how many national debates did you watch that involved 3rd party
candidates & Independents? Zero. The mainstream media does not show those debates.

3rd) Mainstream news access. News stories about Ron Paul literally dropped off the face of the earth
by Super Tuesday & stayed like that for about a month and he was running AS A REPUBLICAN!
If there was no internet I would not have found any stories about Ron Paul. The only nationwide
news story about 3rd party candidates that I can remember watching is when Ron Paul gave that
speech to vote for the 3rd party candidates instead of McCain or Obama.

I think that if Ron Paul runs again in 2012, he would have much more credibility & name recognition
since he was the only candidate that talked about the upcoming financial & housing bubbles bursting.
He was also prescient about the Fed, monetary policy, & how Obama would continue Bush's policies.

Numbers 1 and 2 could be a part of his platform. CHANGE THE ELECTORAL PROCESS. How many voters would be against such a thing?

[Krugerrand]

William Jennings Bryan - 1896
The Bourbon Democrats who supported incumbent conservative President Grover Cleveland were defeated and the party's agrarian and silver factions voted for Bryan, giving him the nomination of the Democratic Party. At the age of 36, Bryan remains the youngest presidential nominee of a major party in American history.
...
In addition, Bryan formally received the nominations of the Populist Party and the Silver Republican Party. Without crossing party lines, voters from any party could vote for him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jennings_Bryan#First_campaign_for_the_Whit e_House:_1896

This seems to be the best way to go.

[Krugerrand]

Numbers 1 and 2 could be a part of his platform. CHANGE THE ELECTORAL PROCESS. How many voters would be against such a thing?

He'd still lose - even with it a part of the platform ... as he'd not be in the debates. Plus, he'd probably vote against any legislation making demands on privately owned media as to who they would invite into a debate.

[wgadget]

He'd still lose - even with it a part of the platform ... as he'd not be in the debates. Plus, he'd probably vote against any legislation making demands on privately owned media as to who they would invite into a debate.

Nothing a popular uprising can't cure.

[puppetmaster]

hell, I'd vote for him if he ran as communist socialistic democratic party.....

[WaltM]

heck no, not when the 3rd party isn't even formed, and not when his support doesn't seem as united as it was in 2007

[mello]

To bad there are no Constitutionalist billionaires that want to start their own 24-cable news network.
If that were ever to happen you would actually see a "Fair & Balanced" news network because they
would blame everyone equally, Republicans & democrats.

[TastyWheat]

Even a Tea Party candidate still doesn't have a chance. Besides, they're too pro-war to nominate Ron Paul.

[Dunedain]

He will run (and lose) in the GOP primary. But he should follow up with an independent run.

An independent run would be a long shot....but winning inside the GOP is impossible.

Too many dumb Christian-Zionist neo-cons and northeatern moderates


Everything you said is correct... He SHOULD run independent and he would do better than people expect. That kind of success would breed other opportunities.

Breaking the 2 party stranglehold on the nation is more feasible than winning elections at this stage.

[RoamZero]

Everything you said is correct... He SHOULD run independent and he would do better than people expect. That kind of success would breed other opportunities.

Breaking the 2 party stranglehold on the nation is more feasible than winning elections at this stage.

Right, Ross Perot sure accomplished a lot when he tried :p

[MN Patriot]

The third party issue has been debated quite a bit. At first there was a lot of hostility towards the idea. I see people aren't so opposed any more.

Many people are trying to reform/convert the Republican Party to a true conservative or even a libertarian party. If that fails, we will have to seriously consider creating a third party to put the Republicans out of business, or at least put some pressure on them, or they will be irrelevant.

Yes, third parties have a difficult time getting ballot access, but if millions are involved, that wouldn't be much of a factor.

With two parties running, candidates need 51% to win. Three major parties would allow the winning candidate to get only 34% (or a little more depending...). If even a few Liberty Constitution (my choice for the name) candidates win the first election, it could encourage more people to get on board.

[TheTyke]

Running 3rd party is a definite recipe for failure.

Ron already ran 3rd party in 88. He knows it's absolutely useless... he got no media coverage, and spent most of his money just getting on the ballot. If he runs independent, he will basically get ignored. Ross Perot only did decently because he had so much money to spend. As a Republican, Ron got way more media coverage - even if that was only half of one percent of the overall coverage.

Now, with a larger liberty movement, the CFL networks in Iowa and New Hampshire, and a few liberty representatives, senators and even a governor behind him... he'll do a lot better in the primary and give them an epic fight. Will he win? Unlikely, but it never stopped us from trying before.

Honestly, the financial and political powers arrayed against us are very great. The presidency may be out of our reach for now, but local elections can be swayed much more easily. If I recall, races for representative was what the JBS considered a good strategy. Even getting Rand in in a state-wide race will be a challenge, but it's pretty much second to the presidency in power, so if we succeed... it will be legendary - and pave the way to more victories.

[Srg1]

that will not happen it seems to me the tea party movement has been hijacked.

[cajuncocoa]

What has he got to lose in trying?

Yeah, winning is a long-shot (to say the least), but his presence in the race will do a lot of good in getting out his message of liberty and freedom.

[cindy25]

if a 3rd party candidate did well it would throw the election to the house and senate, and they would pick the winner.
no way would they select the 3rd party

[JK/SEA]

What has he got to lose in trying?

Yeah, winning is a long-shot (to say the least), but his presence in the race will do a lot of good in getting out his message of liberty and freedom.

Yes.

[RyanRSheets]

I'm torn. I think third parties stand a very good chance depending on how those elected in 2010 vote. If we don't seriously turn things around in 2010, 2012 will probably be the year of independence. If Republicans can stick to Conservatism for a couple years, though, Ron should run as Republican.

[cindy25]

3rd party can be viable for senate and house race, where one can win with 35-40%