PDA

View Full Version : Plan for 2012




Maximus
08-11-2010, 03:51 PM
One of the other threads got my thinking about how to best focus the energy of our movement for the 2012 election cycle. It's exciting to see us having real electoral success (who could have imagined a Senator Paul in 2007)? I do believe that one of our problems though is that we have so many candidates deserving of our support. We are diluting the impact of the limited cash resources that we have.

Some of mentioned that it would be wise to "go local", electing candidates to State legislatures, because those races are noticably cheaper, and build great name recognition for our candidates. The clearest example of this is Justin Amash. I've lurked on these forums since the summer of 2008, and yet it wasn't until three weeks ago that we seriously started discussing Amash. His support was already on the ground because of his time as a State legislator.

I think it would be reasonable to lay down a commitment for us to focus our resources in State, US House, and US Senate races for 2012.

US Senate, I do believe that this movement can realistically support and carry to victory one candidate to the Senate. Rand Paul is exhibit A for us here. He ran in a conservative state with a media market that was not too expensive. As much as I love Schiff (and I donated to him multiple times), the expensive media market combined with the deep pockets of McMahon did him in. Therefore, we should commit to raising about two million dollars in a single US Senate race for 2012.

US House, we had many great candidates for US House, in my perspective almost too many. We need to select five candidates in GOP districts, win the primary and cruise through the general. Amash really showed the way on this one. We should commit to raise 500k for five races (100k each).

Lastly we need to make a more concerted effort on State races. This is difficult because A) when living in another state, donating to a state rep across the country makes less financial sense. B) It's tough to get directly involved in the races if one is not actually in the district.

Hence I propose that we form "slates" of state candidates. Each slate would have five candidates running for different districts. We would commit to raising 150k per slate, which translates to 30k per candidate (which is huge in a state race). We could have one slate per region (West, Midwest, South, East... something like that). This could encourage more local involvement, and help people feel like they are making a difference.

So it breaks down like this:

US Senate, one candidate, two million dollars+
US House, five candidates, 500k+ (100k+ each)
State Slates of five candidates, 150k+ per slate (30k+ each)

Total, about 3-4 million, which I believe is very doable based on this last election cycle

I've purposely left out the Presidency, what do you think of this idea of US Senate, US House, and State Slates?

South Park Fan
08-11-2010, 05:11 PM
As counterintuitive as it is, I believe that local politics is much more important than national politics. Through funding national liberty candidates, we simply get a few more nays on most bills. I suspect if the same resources were devoted to taking a majority in certain state legislatures, we could be telling the feds to take a hike altogether. The newfound popularity of nullification makes this all the more important.

Vessol
08-11-2010, 05:12 PM
We need to get more people like Glen Bradley to run :)

He's doing great on his limited resources, but imagine how well him and many other candidates would do if he got 5% of the support we've given Rand or Schiff.

Maximus
08-11-2010, 05:25 PM
As counterintuitive as it is, I believe that local politics is much more important than national politics. Through funding national liberty candidates, we simply get a few more nays on most bills. I suspect if the same resources were devoted to taking a majority in certain state legislatures, we could be telling the feds to take a hike altogether. The newfound popularity of nullification makes this all the more important.

I agree, but we can't just ignore the Congress. We have seen the evil that it can do. We have also seen the good that a single bill can do even if it doesn't pass (HR 1207).

I think we need more organization in raising money for state candidates, hence the idea of the "slate". I hate to say it, but it's hard for me to get amped up about a guy running for the state legislature across the country. I think this is true for other people. By supporting slates however, people might feel like they are making a big difference with each election cycle.

Imagine electing 20 candidates to various legislatures, 5 to the US House, and 1 to the US Senate. I'd say that's a big impact, and more importantly will breed future success as we legitamize the movement

Maximus
08-11-2010, 05:27 PM
We need to get more people like Glen Bradley to run :)

He's doing great on his limited resources, but imagine how well him and many other candidates would do if he got 5% of the support we've given Rand or Schiff.

Exactly, Bradley could have been part of a slate of people in his region. I think he would have gotten more money with this system.

Vessol
08-11-2010, 05:27 PM
I'm starting to think that the Federal Government and the Senate and Congress are sinking ships.

Why worry about lawmakers in DC when we can spend less money to put strong liberty candidates in State houses that won't be afraid to nullify and stand up to Washington?

RPgrassrootsactivist
08-14-2010, 01:36 PM
As counterintuitive as it is, I believe that local politics is much more important than national politics. Through funding national liberty candidates, we simply get a few more nays on most bills. I suspect if the same resources were devoted to taking a majority in certain state legislatures, we could be telling the feds to take a hike altogether. The newfound popularity of nullification makes this all the more important.

It would be fantastic if more people in the Ron Paul movement realized this. I'm glad that we're going to win a few key federal offices in 2010. But imagine if instead, all of the resources we expended on those races were directed into running a bunch of Ron Paul Republicans for the legislature in a couple of conservative states; we could very possibly dominate those legislatures with a majority (or maybe even a supermajority) of Ron Paul Republicans by early next year. Then comes nullification. And when it happens in one or two states, it will spread to others.

BlackSand
08-14-2010, 01:52 PM
Although what youre saying makes sense, I think I'd rather we get ideas out there. Yes, making change at the local levels is good. But in the long run does it do much? Wouldnt getting popular candidates at a national level influence more change at the local level than getting a few small candidates? Should we really focus on individual districts rather than getting the idea out to ALL Americans?

Plus, we got the Tea Party. Isnt that going to give us a lot more funding that we would have otherwise?

RPgrassrootsactivist
08-14-2010, 01:56 PM
Although what youre saying makes sense, I think I'd rather we get ideas out there. Yes, making change at the local levels is good. But in the long run does it do much? Wouldnt getting popular candidates at a national level influence more change at the local level than getting a few small candidates? Should we really focus on individual districts rather than getting the idea out to ALL Americans?

Plus, we got the Tea Party. Isnt that going to give us a lot more funding that we would have otherwise?

Let's say Ron Paul Republicans took control of the legislature in Oklahoma, Tennessee or some other similar state. Then the legislature nullified not only Obamacare, but started nullifying virtually every law passed by Congress (most all of which are unconstitutional). It would be all over the news; it would be a history-changing event. It's hard to imagine a better educational campaign than that, and it would demonstrate that nullification works.

speciallyblend
08-14-2010, 07:29 PM
I'm starting to think that the Federal Government and the Senate and Congress are sinking ships.

Why worry about lawmakers in DC when we can spend less money to put strong liberty candidates in State houses that won't be afraid to nullify and stand up to Washington?

this is what i am thinking! i do not expect much from the federal government except them taking my money(slave tax)! i am focusing on the state of colorado and my county! I will do what i can for national but my focus is local(county), then state. Then i pay my fed slave tax and expect nothing from my government but misery!!!

libertybrewcity
08-14-2010, 07:38 PM
Thank you for not saying part of the plan is a Independent run by RP.

Priorities I'd like to see IMO:
Ron Paul for President
Gary Johnson-Senate
At least another slate of 5 or 6 Tea Party senate candidates that don't need continuous money bombs from liberty folks.
State House is KEY in every state.

I thought it would be an interesting idea if the liberty movement got nominated candidates for every state legislature seat in one state and fund them, giving liberty a stronghold in one state that can go crazy with nullification. Some states might be easier than others and cheaper.

acptulsa
08-14-2010, 07:39 PM
I find myself interested in the following three things for the future:

I remain very interested in seeing us break into national politics in a big way because this is where we're needed most and can have the greatest impact for the good. I do agree that having a state legislature and letting it make some serious splashes would be a wonderful thing, but again the fact that we're discussing nullification and the like just emphasizes that Washington, D.C. is where we're needed most.

I think we need to concentrate between now and then in making the MSM laughable for the lies they tell about us. We need to disassociate the rank and file Tea Partier from this raft of has-been neocons trying to preempt us and let the RNC have just what they deserve for doing a halfass job of coopting our movement with their pitiful third-stringers.

We need to spend the next two years communicating! Everyone from Rand and Schiff to Joe the new dog catcher needs to compare notes and share, share, share so we will know what's working for us and what isn't--all over the nation--in time for the next 'round.

libertybrewcity
08-14-2010, 07:42 PM
We need to spend the next two years communicating! Everyone from Rand and Schiff to Joe the new dog catcher needs to compare notes and share, share, share so we will know what's working for us and what isn't--all over the nation--in time for the next 'round.

A note on this. I think communication will be important especially when it comes down to welcoming the old Ron Paul core of volunteers back into the movement. I'm assuming many haven't visited this site in a while so there is a million new ideas to share with them.

acptulsa
08-14-2010, 07:46 PM
A note on this. I think communication will be important especially when it comes down to welcoming the old Ron Paul core of volunteers back into the movement. I'm assuming many haven't visited this site in a while so there is a million new ideas to share with them.

I was thinking specifically about the campaigns. But you know what? You're right.

libertybrewcity
08-14-2010, 08:13 PM
I was thinking specifically about the campaigns. But you know what? You're right.

oh yea, i know that. i was just adding on:)