PDA

View Full Version : Will Peter run for Senate against Lieberman in 2012?




qh4dotcom
08-11-2010, 12:24 AM
Post your thoughts

low preference guy
08-11-2010, 12:27 AM
the political/economic situation is too uncertain and changing too decide right now.\

he probably won't rule it out, get married, and take a vacation. thoughts about the 2012 race will be postponed.

libertybrewcity
08-11-2010, 12:29 AM
probably not. The race is going to be very competitive. Many Republicans would vote for Lieberman because he is 'moderate' and probably somewhat in line with many Republicans views.

The dems are going to be angry and out for the kill. They will likely nominate a top tier candidate to defeat Lieberman.

Peter Schiff should run for a Representative position but that doesn't seem like him.

Captain America
08-11-2010, 12:32 AM
if i was in his position i would feel it would be my duty to run again

trey4sports
08-11-2010, 12:34 AM
Peter is NOT a political cronie. He's built a fortune and he deserves to relax, invest in some gold, and relax while America shoots itself in the foot day in and day out. I'd love for him to run again but i just dont see it

AJ Antimony
08-11-2010, 12:48 AM
Not sure. How much of his own money did he spend on this one? A million or two?

I'm going to say if he doesn't make that money back by then, then he won't. Peter obviously has no desire at all to blow a couple million every 2 years just to lose.

qh4dotcom
08-11-2010, 12:50 AM
Not sure. How much of his own money did he spend on this one? A million or two?

I'm going to say if he doesn't make that money back by then, then he won't. Peter obviously has no desire at all to blow a couple million every 2 years just to lose.

He can run and spend considerably less than he did in 2010

trey4sports
08-11-2010, 01:05 AM
He can run and spend considerably less than he did in 2010

Less money against Lieberman?

iFollowPeterSchiff
08-11-2010, 01:16 AM
Don't think so. Incumbents are hard to beat to begin with. It's a on-year presidential election and candidates like Schiff (that actually stand for something) probably do better with lower turnout. Especially considering that both the mainstream media and Fox News took sides and both refused to even mention he was running in most of their reporting. If he can't even get Fox News to say his name, he's toast in a on-year election.

Then I think Peter was disappointed that more of his fans/base didn't rally to his aid in either donations or phone banking. And what's up with Ron Paul and other people who did endorse Peter so long to do so? That affects how much money you raise.

And particularly the phone banking, I think he really believed he could get over a 1000 volunteers doing it. And based on what just happened, I think he was correct in thinking he needed 1000 volunteers phone banking to cement a win. I think the phone banking was actually effective since there was no money to run ads and the media ignored him. But if you look at the total number of calls made, there is a massive amount of wasted time in calls that don't pick up, voice mail, hang ups, etc. Only a small percentage talk to real people and make a difference. I think if we had gotten 10 times the number of calls we actually made, we might have won, particularly since McMahon's and Simmons's support is so weak. Number of callers is also a sign of how much support you actually have, so other things would have been different too.

Then I don't know about the actual organizational campaign staff. I seen a lot of criticism about Ron Paul's staff in 2008. I don't know how Peter's compares. But I can say that I am personally extremely frustrated and angry that they wouldn't even acknowledge the iPhone app that fell out of the sky and hit them on the head. Couldn't even be bothered for 10 seconds to Tweet about the thing, let alone 15 minutes to talk to me and ask for free features to help them. And to this day, I still don't know if I'm actually on their volunteer sign up list. I signed up on the website (multiple times), but never got any confirmation or mailing list type stuff. (Good thing they opened up that new phone bank system so anybody could use it on the fly.) It makes me wonder what other talented volunteers offered support (conventional or unconventional) but were ignored.

Peter also believes the currency crisis will be here within the next 6 years and even 2 years from now is very likely. I expect he will be working on his escape plans (as we should all be now).

To convince me otherwise, the fantasy scenario would have to be he becomes a Fox News host with his own show (maybe FNBC) or a really popular reoccurring guest on something hugely popular like Glenn Beck and gets frequent cross appearances on all the other Fox shows. Then he abruptly leaves to run for Senate. In this scenario, it is hard for Fox News to ignore him because he now must be referred to as a former Fox News host/commentator. And the mainstream media then has to report on him because they have to demonize Fox News.

RonPaulwillWin
08-11-2010, 02:38 AM
I don't know what to think. It's good and bad. We have to keep pushing....it's working.

Specter
08-11-2010, 02:45 AM
Hopefully he will run for president. He got my vote.

eqcitizen
08-11-2010, 05:55 AM
When i met Peter i asked him this very question. His response "Yes, if the support is there."

JackieDan
08-11-2010, 05:55 AM
Phone Banking should have started the day he announced his campaign.

We have much to learn from this campaign in order to win next time.

LibertyRevolution
08-11-2010, 06:05 AM
I hope he would run again in 2012.
But I wouldn't blame him if he just packed his bags and left this country to its demise.

LibertyRevolution
08-11-2010, 06:08 AM
If he is going to run in 2012, I hope that from Jan 2011 he is running tv ads.
Not attack ads, but explaining how bad things are, you know like Peter Schiff the infomercial.

I don't care what everyone says about how expensive the media market is here. He should be advertising on CABLE, Its friggin cheap!
You know how many times a day I see the same local cable company made tv ads?
Seriously, if the pizza shop down the street can run an ad on every other commercial break, so many times that there name and number is stuck in my head, then why the hell can't schiff?

In 2007 when I called cox cable to price running some ads here in CT in the Hartford/Manchester market, it was $1500 for 115 ads spots in the 5AM-9AM timeslot.
The plan they laid out was for 1 ad every hour, on 4 channels (news channels), for that 4 hour block, for 1 week.

This is pocket change....Like I said this how the pizza shop down the street does it.

So If Schiff put 1million into local cable tv ads, that be ... more than 76,000 spots. That is 1 ad every hour on 100 channels for 31days....

K466
08-11-2010, 06:29 AM
I think he is open to running but well have to show some serious support. And he'll have to use a different strategy.

G-Wohl
08-11-2010, 07:46 AM
Peter is NOT a political cronie. He's built a fortune and he deserves to relax, invest in some gold, and relax while America shoots itself in the foot day in and day out. I'd love for him to run again but i just dont see it

I agree. Peter Schiff is fully prepared for Atlas to shrug, and that is probably what he will be bracing for in the years to come. I'm certain that Peter has been completely discouraged from entering politics a second time. I imagine Peter was quite pained by the utter disrespect paid to him by the very people who encouraged him to run. If I were in his position, I'd abandon political progress altogether, and curse those who wasted the opportunity to elect such a brilliant person to public office.

qh4dotcom
08-11-2010, 09:16 AM
I agree. Peter Schiff is fully prepared for Atlas to shrug, and that is probably what he will be bracing for in the years to come. I'm certain that Peter has been completely discouraged from entering politics a second time. I imagine Peter was quite pained by the utter disrespect paid to him by the very people who encouraged him to run. If I were in his position, I'd abandon political progress altogether, and curse those who wasted the opportunity to elect such a brilliant person to public office.

I disagree. After the government jailed his father, took half of his income and gave him a nightmare regulating his business, Peter obviously likes to speak out against the government and campaigning is a great way to do it, considering other people are eager and willing to pay him for it. I am sure he will consider it again but he'll require much more support than in 2010 in order to run. Look at the poll numbers above. What I said is what most forum members agree with.

Liberty_Mike
08-11-2010, 09:22 AM
Peter won't run again. This was the only shot we had on getting one of the most credible libertarian minded individuals elected to the US Senate. I hope to see Peter stay involved with the process somehow though. I hope to see Peter giving more lectures to bigger groups of people in the future, in an attempt to convert people to the liberty movement. I think he may have more success than anything in doing that. Best of luck, Pete!

qh4dotcom
08-11-2010, 09:24 AM
Peter won't run again. This was the only shot we had on getting one of the most credible libertarian minded individuals elected to the US Senate. I hope to see Peter stay involved with the process somehow though. I hope to see Peter giving more lectures to bigger groups of people in the future, in an attempt to convert people to the liberty movement. I think he may have more success than anything in doing that. Best of luck, Pete!

See my post above #18

itshappening
08-11-2010, 09:34 AM
Peter needs to broaden appeal, talk about term limits, balanced budget and offer other policies like Rand did and Ken Buck :

YouTube - ‪Grassroots‬‎ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgUjFPgLyx4)

He needs to offer policies that are easily understandable and run on them

He needs to keep sweet talking the RTC's and the tea parties by showing up at their events, shake some hands, make grassroots connections, offer his advice and position himself as a leader

This is his path to victory in 2012 and I actually think he can be the senator because of Lieberman runs again that will split the Dumbocrat/liberal vote allowing energized Republicans in 2012 to give him at least 40+% of the vote.

Linda won't win and independents and Republicans will be energized in 2012, the only question is will Linda spoil again and waste more money in 2012

qh4dotcom
08-11-2010, 09:43 AM
When i met Peter i asked him this very question. His response "Yes, if the support is there."

Knowing Peter, that is why I put that option in the poll. Question now, is, how much support? Has to be more than in 2010.

Kludge
08-11-2010, 09:43 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if he ran again, but I imagine he'll get more support from the Liberty Movement in 2012, upping the strain for support of other liberty candidates. He's now more experienced and many people are familiar with the phonebanking system set up. Peter did fairly poor for a campaign given so much, and I'd be annoyed if he ran again in 2012 without a significantly better initial prospects. If possible (but I'm guessing CT has sore loser laws?), he should consider a run as an independent to distinguish himself between the inevitable-to-fail Linda McMahon. This should position himself better in 2012, though will strain any establishment support he may have with the CT GOP.

qh4dotcom
08-11-2010, 09:47 AM
If possible (but I'm guessing CT has sore loser laws?), he should consider a run as an independent to distinguish himself between the inevitable-to-fail Linda McMahon. This should position himself better in 2012, though will strain any establishment support he may have with the CT GOP.

Peter promised he wouldn't run as an independent. His words: "If I can't get the Republicans to vote for me, how am I going to get the Democrats to vote for me?". He also deserves a vacation from nearly a year of campaigning.

G-Wohl
08-11-2010, 09:48 AM
What I said is what most forum members agree with.

:rolleyes: Let "most forum members" speak for themselves.

K466
08-11-2010, 09:49 AM
Remember from one his radio shows a month or two ago he said something about "there's always 2012".

Liberty_Mike
08-11-2010, 09:51 AM
I disagree. After the government jailed his father, took half of his income and gave him a nightmare regulating his business, Peter obviously likes to speak out against the government and campaigning is a great way to do it, considering other people are eager and willing to pay him for it. I am sure he will consider it again but he'll require much more support than in 2010 in order to run. Look at the poll numbers above. What I said is what most forum members agree with.

You do present an interesting point, but if Peter were to run again, he would need a lot more support than he had in 2010. Much more than people think I would imagine.

G-Wohl
08-11-2010, 09:53 AM
Peter did fairly poor for a campaign given so much, and I'd be annoyed if he ran again in 2012 without a significantly better initial prospects.

Given so much? Give me a break - Peter was low-balled and was disappointingly ignored by but a small number of people in this so-called "liberty movement."

People encouraged him to run, and donated enough money to him in the pre-candidate money bomb, knowing that it would be a 20 million dollar race. Then, at the height of his campaign, he had a mere couple-hundred phone-bankers and a little over 3 million in total donations.

Peter Schiff was failed by the Ron Paul grassroots, and the only mistake his campaign made was relying so heavily on them instead of the citizens of CT.

Kludge
08-11-2010, 09:53 AM
:rolleyes: Let "most forum members" speak for themselves.

At any rate - the question isn't "Would you will Peter run for Senate" - it's "Will Peter run for Senate"


Schiff supports McMahon in 2010 as she's the lesser of two evils, so we need to gear up and support the GOP's decision for now.

Kludge
08-11-2010, 10:00 AM
Given so much? Give me a break - Peter was low-balled and was disappointingly ignored by but a small number of people in this so-called "liberty movement."

People encouraged him to run, and donated enough money to him in the pre-candidate money bomb, knowing that it would be a 20 million dollar race. Then, at the height of his campaign, he had a mere couple-hundred phone-bankers and a little over 3 million in total donations.

Peter Schiff was failed by the Ron Paul grassroots, and the only mistake his campaign made was relying so heavily on them instead of the citizens of CT.

Rightfully so, IMO. Support for Schiff was unfounded. Those same people who encouraged him to run are the same who've been spamming this forum for Schiff looking for grassroots money and labor. He wasn't failed by the grassroots - he failed make a case worthy of grassroots support. Once McMahon jumped into the race, his campaign went from long-shot to being flat-out wasteful. Think of what else we could have used those millions for! -- Justin Amash won his GOP primary and has a fantastic shot at winning his GE with just a few hundred thousand dollars. Rand Paul will likely win his GE and received about the same amount as Peter. The point is -- there were/are candidates far more deserving of grassroots support. We shouldn't subsidize bad candidates because we feel bad for them.

qh4dotcom
08-11-2010, 10:18 AM
Looks like I was correct

YouTube - ‪Schiff for Senate final thoughts‬‎ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuJxB4VMVXM)

Peter talked like he was going to run in 2012

jmdrake
08-11-2010, 10:20 AM
probably not. The race is going to be very competitive. Many Republicans would vote for Lieberman because he is 'moderate' and probably somewhat in line with many Republicans views.

The dems are going to be angry and out for the kill. They will likely nominate a top tier candidate to defeat Lieberman.

Peter Schiff should run for a Representative position but that doesn't seem like him.

That's actually not a bad scenario for Peter. If serious GOP candidates stay out, or don't spend much money, because they think most republicans will vote for Lieberham then that means an easier primary for Peter. (Of course if/when Linda McHam loses the general next year she might decide to run another self funded "vanity" campaign in 2012). Anyway, if Peter gets through the primaries and there's a strong democratic candidate, Joe Liberman will have to submit himself to a highly televised debate. Peter would have free publicity and name recognition as the "official" GOP nominee and in a competitive 3 way race he might have a shot.

G-Wohl
08-11-2010, 10:21 AM
Rightfully so, IMO. Support for Schiff was unfounded. Those same people who encouraged him to run are the same who've been spamming this forum for Schiff looking for grassroots money and labor. He wasn't failed by the grassroots - he failed make a case worthy of grassroots support. Once McMahon jumped into the race, his campaign went from long-shot to being flat-out wasteful. Think of what else we could have used those millions for! -- Justin Amash won his GOP primary and has a fantastic shot at winning his GE with just a few hundred thousand dollars. Rand Paul will likely win his GE and received about the same amount as Peter. The point is -- there were/are candidates far more deserving of grassroots support. We shouldn't subsidize bad candidates because we feel bad for them.

If he failed to make a case for the grassroots, why did he successfully raise the 500,000 necessary to convince him to run, when those donors KNEW that they were going to have to help Peter raise 20 million for the race?

You merely have to look at the number of posts between the Schiff & Rand forums to see that your claims are utterly ridiculous. To say that Peter got the same amount of support (financially and otherwise) is a straight-up lie. And even if it were so, a Senate race doesn't cost 20 million dollars in Kentucky. In fact, the last time I was there, a bottle of water was a mere $1. :rolleyes:

It is astounding how completely ignorant so many members here are with regard to the DMAs of the tri-state area. You cannot drop context here; 3 million gets you NOWHERE in a Senate race in Connecticut, because most of CT shares the NYC DMA, and the Hartford and Litchfield County DMAs are similarly high. I would imagine that almost all participants in the Schiffathon understood what would be required of them. The only reason why Pete didn't get the massive support that other "liberty" candidates got was because he breaks the (predominantly southern/religious) Ron Paul ethics. He advocates an America-first foreign policy and doesn't base his political philosophy on whimsical, mystical Judeo-Christian thought. That, for some ridiculous reason, caused most of the members of this forum, and the other high-profile Ron Paul communities, to completely disengage him.

To say that Pete was a bad candidate is insane; he's by far the most charismatic, outspoken, and qualified person seeking Senatorial office this year. The grassroots understood that he couldn't run this race alone, and the grassroots proceeded to ignore and fail him.

jmdrake
08-11-2010, 10:38 AM
With all of the vocal atheists at RPF you're seriously suggesting Schiff didn't get enough support from RPF because he wasn't "Judeo-Christian" enough? :rolleyes: Besides. That shouldn't matter. Schiff got backed by the tea parties. (Far more "Judeo-Christian" than RPF by a long shot). Plus the tea party movement is much bigger than RPF and it could have fully funded Schiff. And Rand departed quite a bit from Ron on foreign policy as did Ken Buck. Did you miss the firestorm over the Ken Buck CFL pseudo endorsement last year? By contrast RJ Harris is in lock step with Ron on foreign policy, but much of his support shriveled up after his criticized Rand on foreign policy.

That said I think Schiff was overall a decent candidate despite my misgivings in the foreign policy arena. He made a decent showing despite the odds and I wish him the best in 2012.


If he failed to make a case for the grassroots, why did he successfully raise the 500,000 necessary to convince him to run, when those donors KNEW that they were going to have to help Peter raise 20 million for the race?

You merely have to look at the number of posts between the Schiff & Rand forums to see that your claims are utterly ridiculous. To say that Peter got the same amount of support (financially and otherwise) is a straight-up lie. And even if it were so, a Senate race doesn't cost 20 million dollars in Kentucky. In fact, the last time I was there, a bottle of water was a mere $1. :rolleyes:

It is astounding how completely ignorant so many members here are with regard to the DMAs of the tri-state area. You cannot drop context here; 3 million gets you NOWHERE in a Senate race in Connecticut, because most of CT shares the NYC DMA, and the Hartford and Litchfield County DMAs are similarly high. I would imagine that almost all participants in the Schiffathon understood what would be required of them. The only reason why Pete didn't get the massive support that other "liberty" candidates got was because he breaks the (predominantly southern/religious) Ron Paul ethics. He advocates an America-first foreign policy and doesn't base his political philosophy on whimsical, mystical Judeo-Christian thought. That, for some ridiculous reason, caused most of the members of this forum, and the other high-profile Ron Paul communities, to completely disengage him.

To say that Pete was a bad candidate is insane; he's by far the most charismatic, outspoken, and qualified person seeking Senatorial office this year. The grassroots understood that he couldn't run this race alone, and the grassroots proceeded to ignore and fail him.

Aratus
08-11-2010, 10:50 AM
if the lady wrestler pulls it off, and she might... peter schiff may take on joe lieberman
on the theory that people who might vote for mr. blumenthal may have already voted for
joe lieberman at least once or twice in their lives. peter schiff may ride her coat-tails into
the senate in 2012 if november goes tea party in a big way. i expect her to go momma grizzly.

Aratus
08-11-2010, 10:52 AM
Aratus looks above...
FOLKs, ITs NOT US
AT ALL WHO HELD
HIM BACK! lets face it!
connecticut is rather
like the bay state.

peter schiff had one
big uphill climb, and he
needed more of a name
recognition with the voters.

itshappening
08-11-2010, 11:19 AM
Given so much? Give me a break - Peter was low-balled and was disappointingly ignored by but a small number of people in this so-called "liberty movement."

People encouraged him to run, and donated enough money to him in the pre-candidate money bomb, knowing that it would be a 20 million dollar race. Then, at the height of his campaign, he had a mere couple-hundred phone-bankers and a little over 3 million in total donations.

Peter Schiff was failed by the Ron Paul grassroots, and the only mistake his campaign made was relying so heavily on them instead of the citizens of CT.

There are many reasons for this:

1) Linda McMahon

She is a whale and everyone knew she planned to spend up to 50 million dollars on the race and that made the primary very difficult and discouraging

2) Dick Blumenthal

A slick and popular Attorney General in a Democrat stronghold looking to move up the career ladder and saying anything to do so even if it's not how he intends to vote when he has a 6 year term, he's well funded by National Dumbocrats, PACs, unions, lobbyists and special interests and therefore is in a strong position making the General election incredibly hard to win even if Peter won which lead to discouragement.

3) Media blackout

The race was always framed as between Linda, the wrestling CEO (makes a good story) and Simmons the ex-congressman who was an ex-serviceman and had a lot of foundations and loyal following in the CT GOP. Schiff barely got mentioned yet as he said in the vlog beat Simmons in 4 CDs and earned a respectable finish

4) Q-PAC polling

Their polling operation, methods and standards underplayed Peter's support within the state which discredits them as a polling organization and lead to an inaccurate picture forming within the media which also lead to discouragement.

-

So to sum up: we had double discouragement due to two very strong, well funded individuals whom are difficult to compete against in both the primary and general and a media blackout which stopped any possible momentum from building for Schiff and therefore hurt him in this race. We also had the farce of Simmons "suspending" his campaign and re-starting it ensuring the writers in the local media had something other than Peter Schiff to write about.

When there is a level playing field and the opportunity to win like in Kentucky or other states the grassroots RP people will step up nationally. When the polls show Schiff within striking distance then that will attract excitement, momentum, new supporters, PACs, more endorsements, more local media attention, more national attention etc etc. This is what Peter never had because the field was dominated by Linda and many nationally dont consider CT to be a battleground state after Dodd retires, they see Dick as a slam dunk

IT WILL BE DIFFERENT IN 2012 and that's a fact. Also he will not be "competing" with other liberty candidates who were viable like Rand and to a lesser degree, Angle, Kenneth Buck and Mike Lee who all went before him and exhausted those potential donor dollars.

Bergie Bergeron
08-11-2010, 11:21 AM
How do you know he won't be competing against good candidates in 2012?

G-Wohl
08-11-2010, 11:58 AM
How do you know he won't be competing against good candidates in 2012?

I believe the logic is that he'll be a better-established candidate by 2012 - especially if he keeps active in the local GOP scene. I really hope he doesn't, though, to be perfectly honest. Running for office is a very self-defeating process, especially for a political "outsider" such as Pete.

Aratus
08-11-2010, 12:08 PM
How do you know he won't be competing against good candidates in 2012?

he has roughly 25% of the GOP knowing WHO he is and liking him! the way to
get more of a name recognition is to leap in early and campaign hard via the good
ole "mckinley" handshake across the state to each small and big gathering that
one possibly can! mr. simmons came in a close second, he may not leap in the next
time. linda mcmahon could edge past mr. blumenhal the way scott brown eased past
martha coakley up here in the bay state. as i said, i expect linda mcmahon to ask
sarah palin to connecticut, and i wouldn't be surprised if she extends olive branches
to her rivals as the Democrats in D.C focus national attention on connecticut...

low preference guy
08-11-2010, 02:10 PM
Phone Banking should have started the day he announced his campaign.

We have much to learn from this campaign in order to win next time.

Setting it up and finding which is the right company is not trivial. Peter learned that through the campaign. There was a system to phonebank at the beginning, but it wasn't at good. Next time Peter can have an excellent system from the first day.

low preference guy
08-11-2010, 02:12 PM
I agree. Peter Schiff is fully prepared for Atlas to shrug, and that is probably what he will be bracing for in the years to come. I'm certain that Peter has been completely discouraged from entering politics a second time. I imagine Peter was quite pained by the utter disrespect paid to him by the very people who encouraged him to run. If I were in his position, I'd abandon political progress altogether, and curse those who wasted the opportunity to elect such a brilliant person to public office.

Well, you're not Peter. Not even close.

low preference guy
08-11-2010, 02:19 PM
Rightfully so, IMO. Support for Schiff was unfounded. Those same people who encouraged him to run are the same who've been spamming this forum for Schiff looking for grassroots money and labor. He wasn't failed by the grassroots - he failed make a case worthy of grassroots support. Once McMahon jumped into the race, his campaign went from long-shot to being flat-out wasteful. Think of what else we could have used those millions for! -- Justin Amash won his GOP primary and has a fantastic shot at winning his GE with just a few hundred thousand dollars. Rand Paul will likely win his GE and received about the same amount as Peter. The point is -- there were/are candidates far more deserving of grassroots support. We shouldn't subsidize bad candidates because we feel bad for them.

I think the support for Schiff is deserved because his impact on the Senate will be better than anyone else (some might disagree, of course) in terms of changing minds on economic issues. No one is as good as moving the acceptable range of economic ideas as Peter, because he is good at refuting the supposed crazyness of our ideas convincingly, often making the other person look like a fool.

And it's not wasted effort. Peter Schiff will start his 2012 run with 50% name recognition among Republicans. He started with at most 2% for this run.

Also, it's a Senate seat. It's the only Senate seat we attempted to win besides Rand's. From my POV is worth it to put significant resources when the price is big. Every now and then you'll win, but if you never try, you'll never win.

TomtheTinker
08-11-2010, 02:34 PM
Justin Amash won his GOP primary and has a fantastic shot at winning his GE with just a few hundred thousand dollars. Rand Paul will likely win his GE and received about the same amount as Peter

To compare the political atmosphere in the state of Kentucky or a district in Michigan to the political atmosphere in in the state of Connecticut is faulty.

To compare the amount value of the U.S. dollar in Kentucky and Michigan to its value in Connecticut is also faulty.

It makes me come to the conclusion that your whole thought process regarding this matter is completely wrong.

Kludge
08-11-2010, 03:31 PM
To compare the political atmosphere in the state of Kentucky or a district in Michigan to the political atmosphere in in the state of Connecticut is faulty.

To compare the amount value of the U.S. dollar in Kentucky and Michigan to its value in Connecticut is also faulty.

It makes me come to the conclusion that your whole thought process regarding this matter is completely wrong.

Those factor into where we should be focusing.

Schiff doesn't get any special benefits because he's in a pricey race. He doesn't get any benefits because he started with virtually no name recognition. He gets one vote and the associated influence IF he would have won. Rand's win will be just as powerful as Schiff's would have been.


COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS. Think! We have limited resources - we can't enthusiastically support every liberty-minded candidate/project which comes at us just because we LIKE the candidate/project.

qh4dotcom
08-11-2010, 04:25 PM
Looks like I was wrong about the "require much more support" option in the poll. He seemed pretty eager to run in his last video blog so about the same level of support he received in 2010 should be sufficient to convince him to run. He probably won't require "much more support".

Aratus
08-11-2010, 04:40 PM
the same level of initial support + david adams = 2012 senate primary romp...?

Nathan Hale
08-11-2010, 06:45 PM
Peter should absolutely run - but he needs to basically keep the campaign going from this time around. He needs to highlight that he was gaining traction in the end (20%+ in final voting vs ever increasing poll results before that), but that McMahon bought the election. Then in 2011 he needs to start early and win it. Until then he needs to get back on TV and keep his celebrity status.

G-Wohl
08-11-2010, 08:22 PM
Well, you're not Peter. Not even close.

Wow. Are you that unperceptive? If you read between the lines even a little bit, you'd know Peter is a rational egoist. What the fuck did you do during this entire campaign, anyway, besides rack up 5000 posts on a forum? You can go to hell all the same.

low preference guy
08-11-2010, 08:30 PM
Wow. Are you that unperceptive? If you read between the lines even a little bit, you'd know Peter is a rational egoist. What the fuck did you do during this entire campaign, anyway, besides rack up 5000 posts on a forum? You can go to hell all the same.

Random distraction from my point.

Peter does not think like you, and that was my point. You ruled out that Peter would "make the same mistake again" a few days ago, and now he is considering running again. So you have a pretty awful record at predicting what Schiff will do, which is what you're trying to do.

I also think Peter is a rational egoist, but what does that have to do with my post you quoted?

G-Wohl
08-11-2010, 08:32 PM
I think the support for Schiff is deserved because his impact on the Senate will be better than anyone else (some might disagree, of course) in terms of changing minds on economic issues. No one is as good as moving the acceptable range of economic ideas as Peter, because he is good at refuting the supposed crazyness of our ideas convincingly, often making the other person look like a fool.

The reason why he doesn't look crazy is because he follows a different ideology than the other candidates this forum supports.

G-Wohl
08-11-2010, 08:39 PM
Random distraction from my point.

Peter does not think like you, and that was my point. You ruled out that Peter would "make the same mistake again" a few days ago, and now he is considering running again. So you have a pretty awful record at predicting what Schiff will do, which is what you're trying to do.

I also think Peter is a rational egoist, but what does that have to do with my post you quoted?

To suggest that I didn't answer you directly is asinine. Peter introduced me to the way I think - in person - many years ago. His rational egoism stems from his proper readings of the creator of rational egoism. Wanna take a stab at whom that may be? I'll give you a hint: she shares her last name with another senate candidate's first name.:rolleyes:

Besides, why don't you wait and see what he actually does before blowing your load of jackass all over me? Something tells me that I know the man much better than you do.

low preference guy
08-11-2010, 09:04 PM
To suggest that I didn't answer you directly is asinine. Peter introduced me to the way I think - in person - many years ago. His rational egoism stems from his proper readings of the creator of rational egoism. Wanna take a stab at whom that may be? I'll give you a hint: she shares her last name with another senate candidate's first name.:rolleyes:

Besides, why don't you wait and see what he actually does before blowing your load of jackass all over me? Something tells me that I know the man much better than you do.

Peter wouldn't do this:


If I were in his position, I'd abandon political progress altogether, and curse those who wasted the opportunity to elect such a brilliant person to public office.

Saying that makes me a jackass? Peter is not as thin-skinned, so it seems Peter's benevolence influence on you has not been as effective as possible. Try a bit harder.

Also, thanks for the info about Peter being a serious Ayn Rand student. It was obvious he was a fan, but I didn't know he respected her that much.