PDA

View Full Version : Third party run.....I say now is the time...




puppetmaster
08-25-2010, 11:02 PM
Third parties have never been tried in a America in dire straights.

I am now 100% for 3rd party after the way we came out in Nevada. Fuck the republicans as they have fucked us and they will continue to do so as they are part of the problem not the solution. They can change the rules whenever they want, and will do exactly that. To be successful in the republican party will take many election cycles and we are out of time folks. This country has NEVER been so ready to support a third party....ever.

People are disgusted with both parties and yet could not make themselves vote for the other party. I say give them options!

This is Ron Paul Forums not the Republican Ron Paul Forums. He registered republican for a purpose and that purpose has been served. I would like to honor this fine man by encouraging him to run as RON PAUL (I) without the disease of the republican party attached to his name. We all know this would be his final attempt at the POTUS and the republicans will not allow him to win the nomination. For those saying we need to take over the republican party, we would have to infiltrate the republican party to its highest levels and that my friends is not going to happen for decades if ever.

I am sure I will get bombarded with nay sayers but this is how I feel after the last go around.

low preference guy
08-25-2010, 11:03 PM
yes! this time it's going to work!





/sarcasm

silentshout
08-25-2010, 11:10 PM
Third parties have never been tried in a America in dire straights.

I am now 100% for 3rd party after the way we came out in Nevada. Fuck the republicans as they have fucked us and they will continue to do so as they are part of the problem not the solution. They can change the rules whenever they want, and will do exactly that. To be successful in the republican party will take many election cycles and we are out of time folks. This country has NEVER been so ready to support a third party....ever.

People are disgusted with both parties and yet could not make themselves vote for the other party. I say give them options!

This is Ron Paul Forums not the Republican Ron Paul Forums. He registered republican for a purpose and that purpose has been served. I would like to honor this fine man by encouraging him to run as RON PAUL (I) without the disease of the republican party attached to his name. We all know this would be his final attempt at the POTUS and the republicans will not allow him to win the nomination. For those saying we need to take over the republican party, we would have to infiltrate the republican party to its highest levels and that my friends is not going to happen for decades if ever.

I am sure I will get bombarded with nay sayers but this is how I feel after the last go around.

I agree, but this view is definitely in the minority here. :)

TCE
08-25-2010, 11:13 PM
And slash any chances Rand has to escalate himself either in Leadership positions or the Presidency? Pass. There is much more at stake this time.

Independents and Third Parties are fun in theory but horrible in reality. The only recent Independents elected to major office have been from the major parties originally (Bernie Sanders, Charlie Crist, Joe Lieberman) or a famous person (Jesse Ventura). Third Parties don't work.

specsaregood
08-25-2010, 11:16 PM
This is Ron Paul Forums not the Republican Ron Paul Forums. He registered republican for a purpose and that purpose has been served.

And with that said, Dr. Paul is gonna do what Dr. Pauls wants to do and thinks is best.



For those saying we need to take over the republican party, we would have to infiltrate the republican party to its highest levels and that my friends is not going to happen for decades if ever.

And thus part of the problem with modern day American society. Immediate gratification without the work.

puppetmaster
08-25-2010, 11:17 PM
yes! this time it's going to work!





/sarcasm

How is President Ron Paul (R) doing for you right now....oh wait he did not win the republican nomination last time, but it will work this time, I forgot.:rolleyes:

/sarcasm

Kregisen
08-25-2010, 11:18 PM
And slash any chances Rand has to escalate himself either in Leadership positions or the Presidency? Pass. There is much more at stake this time.

Yup, Rand can run and WIN in 2016 or 2020....if Ron switches to Indy, he pretty much effs up his son's chances later on.


The only recent Independents elected to major office have been from the major parties originally (Bernie Sanders, Charlie Crist, Joe Lieberman) or a famous person (Jesse Ventura). Third Parties don't work.

And Ron Paul definitely isn't part of a major party, right?



Ron would do very well as Indy, there's a chance he could get 2nd place....but to win would still be almost impossible. Just not gonna happen without the majority of republicans behind him.

puppetmaster
08-25-2010, 11:19 PM
And slash any chances Rand has to escalate himself either in Leadership positions or the Presidency? Pass. There is much more at stake this time.

Independents and Third Parties are fun in theory but horrible in reality. The only recent Independents elected to major office have been from the major parties originally (Bernie Sanders, Charlie Crist, Joe Lieberman) or a famous person (Jesse Ventura). Third Parties don't work.


Right....Ron Paul is from a major party.......

puppetmaster
08-25-2010, 11:41 PM
Yup, Rand can run and WIN in 2016 or 2020....if Ron switches to Indy, he pretty much effs up his son's chances later on.

We do not even know if Rand is what we want, or need.
I am not so quick to give up on Ron Paul in hope that his son will lead in the same way.

What if Ron did run as a independent, and lost.... at least he could be proud of being on EVERY state ballot as a presidential candidate. If he tries this as a republican again. His name will not even make it to the ballot.

Plus I don't feel that it would be a game changer for the 2016 election if he lost.

WE NEED HIM ON THE BALLOT, PERIOD or its all BS.
The same people that worked hard for him as a republican candidate only to get shut down will have much better results even if he does not prevail as POTUS




Ron would do very well as Indy, there's a chance he could get 2nd place....but to win would still be almost impossible. Just not gonna happen without the majority of republicans behind him.

And if he ran as a Republican he will not even be on the ballot for us to vote for so his chances are even slimmer.

FrankRep
08-25-2010, 11:43 PM
Ron Paul will NOT and should NOT.

puppetmaster
08-26-2010, 12:22 AM
Ron Paul will NOT and should NOT.

OK so do you think his chances are better to become President as an independent or a Republican?

He won't even make the ballot as a republican.



Why does the establishment not want him to run as 3rd party?

libertybrewcity
08-26-2010, 12:32 AM
Not a good idea. If Ron Paul can make it to the general election, the republicans will slowly but surely get behind him once they see his platform and consistency. Independent runs don't work and have never worked. Even if Ron Paul had billions of dollars, it would still be nearly impossible.

Bad idea, sorry.

LibertyMage
08-26-2010, 12:34 AM
If there is ever a time to work within the Republican party, it is NOW.

FrankRep
08-26-2010, 12:35 AM
OK so do you think his chances are better to become President as an independent or a Republican?

He won't even make the ballot as a republican.

Why does the establishment not want him to run as 3rd party?

- He's currently a Republican Congressman. Why jeopardize that?

- Running third party will split the Republican vote and give the Democrat the advantage. This will cause resentment towards Ron Paul from Conservatives and Republicans.

- In reality, Third Party/Independent candidates don't win. Elections are biased, sorry.

- The establishment will benefit from the Republican party splitting the vote.

- Most of your effect will be directed at just trying to get on the ballot in the first place.

AJ Antimony
08-26-2010, 12:39 AM
Third parties have never been tried in a America in dire straights.

I am now 100% for 3rd party after the way we came out in Nevada. Fuck the republicans as they have fucked us and they will continue to do so as they are part of the problem not the solution. They can change the rules whenever they want, and will do exactly that. To be successful in the republican party will take many election cycles and we are out of time folks. This country has NEVER been so ready to support a third party....ever.

People are disgusted with both parties and yet could not make themselves vote for the other party. I say give them options!

This is Ron Paul Forums not the Republican Ron Paul Forums. He registered republican for a purpose and that purpose has been served. I would like to honor this fine man by encouraging him to run as RON PAUL (I) without the disease of the republican party attached to his name. We all know this would be his final attempt at the POTUS and the republicans will not allow him to win the nomination. For those saying we need to take over the republican party, we would have to infiltrate the republican party to its highest levels and that my friends is not going to happen for decades if ever.

I am sure I will get bombarded with nay sayers but this is how I feel after the last go around.

http://www.afunnystuff.com/forumpics/Are.you.that.stupid_640.jpg

Oooo there's nothing I like more than pointing out someone's complete lack of logic and rationality!


They can change the rules whenever they want, and will do exactly that.

All political parties can and will do this. Sorry to tell you, but a third party is a political party too.


To be successful in the republican party will take many election cycles

Yeah, hard work sucks! Historically this is nothing new. It usually takes a while to see political changes... hmm... maybe because we have federal elections every 2, 4, and 6 years. The elections themselves make it take a while. Oh and by the way, nobody here in 2007 would have believed you if you said in ONLY THREE YEARS there would be fiscal conservatives/libertarian leaners actually winning federal primaries and generals. We've actually had an incredible amount of success influencing the GOP in ONLY THREE YEARS. Two since the 2008 election. Sit back and think about that for a second so you can understand how incredible that is.


This country has NEVER been so ready to support a third party....ever.

God, not another happy, hippie, wishful thinking BULLSHIT comment with absolutely NO facts, evidence, numbers, statistics or polls to back it up. If any of your ill conceived statement was true, we would be seeing it in the polls. THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES ARE NOT POLLING SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER THAN ANY OTHER YEAR. With absolutely no evidence to back up your ridiculous statement that the country is soooo ready for third parties, it's bullshit.


People are disgusted with both parties and yet could not make themselves vote for the other party. I say give them options!

Read my last comment again. Now another time. Once more. Ok now let's talk about your non-thought out, again ill conceived, and possibly drunk idea that third parties themselves provide options. Third parties perform so poorly because they have to spend all their money to just get on the ballot. They have to hire petitioners and then hire lawyers for legal challenges. This is your plan to give people options? Put down that beer and realize that the easiest way to give people more options is to elect Republicans willing to sponsor legislation to make third party/independent ballot access easier.


He registered republican for a purpose

Yeah, to win.


and that purpose has been served

So are you actually saying that now Ron Paul needs to start losing?


I would like to honor this fine man by encouraging him to run as RON PAUL (I) without the disease of the republican party attached to his name

Reality check! Ron Paul would never have been elected to Congress without the Republican Party, so you should think twice about that one. Ehh better think 3 times about that actually.


the republicans will not allow him to win the nomination

LOL Running third party won't allow him to even have a chance of winning!

In conclusion, you should read my signature, enter reality, understand that winning brings the change we want, understand that we can only win in the Republican Party, understand that it actually takes hard work, and understand that third party candidates HAVE NEVER FUCKING WON.

libertybrewcity
08-26-2010, 12:39 AM
Ron Paul has been consistent on his Republican view, and I doubt he would change that. He has said it a million times that we need to return to our Republican party roots. Remember? The Republican party used to be the anti-war party. Returning takes time. Let's not give that up with an independent run.

Ekrub
08-26-2010, 12:46 AM
As cool as it would be to see Ron give the GOP the middle finger and win the Presidency as an independent, this will not result in long term change. Winning back the Republican party is the ONLY way to do this. Ron understands this, and this is why he is choosing to stick with the (R).

puppetmaster
08-26-2010, 01:01 AM
http://www.afunnystuff.com/forumpics/Are.you.that.stupid_640.jpg

Oooo there's nothing I like more than pointing out someone's complete lack of logic and rationality!



All political parties can and will do this. Sorry to tell you, but a third party is a political party too.



Yeah, hard work sucks! Historically this is nothing new. It usually takes a while to see political changes... hmm... maybe because we have federal elections every 2, 4, and 6 years. The elections themselves make it take a while. Oh and by the way, nobody here in 2007 would have believed you if you said in ONLY THREE YEARS there would be fiscal conservatives/libertarian leaners actually winning federal primaries and generals. We've actually had an incredible amount of success influencing the GOP in ONLY THREE YEARS. Two since the 2008 election. Sit back and think about that for a second so you can understand how incredible that is.



God, not another happy, hippie, wishful thinking BULLSHIT comment with absolutely NO facts, evidence, numbers, statistics or polls to back it up. If any of your ill conceived statement was true, we would be seeing it in the polls. THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES ARE NOT POLLING SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER THAN ANY OTHER YEAR. With absolutely no evidence to back up your ridiculous statement that the country is soooo ready for third parties, it's bullshit.



Read my last comment again. Now another time. Once more. Ok now let's talk about your non-thought out, again ill conceived, and possibly drunk idea that third parties themselves provide options. Third parties perform so poorly because they have to spend all their money to just get on the ballot. They have to hire petitioners and then hire lawyers for legal challenges. This is your plan to give people options? Put down that beer and realize that the easiest way to give people more options is to elect Republicans willing to sponsor legislation to make third party/independent ballot access easier.



Yeah, to win.



So are you actually saying that now Ron Paul needs to start losing?



Reality check! Ron Paul would never have been elected to Congress without the Republican Party, so you should think twice about that one. Ehh better think 3 times about that actually.



LOL Running third party won't allow him to even have a chance of winning!

In conclusion, you should read my signature, enter reality, understand that winning brings the change we want, understand that we can only win in the Republican Party, understand that it actually takes hard work, and understand that third party candidates HAVE NEVER FUCKING WON.


why is it, some people become assholes at the mention of 3rd party runs..... not saying anyone in particular.

sorry to ruffle your feathers but this is how I feel and I will keep looking for logical ways to get RP elected if he decides to run. I hope we have better results than last time. Time is of the essence my friends.....

amonasro
08-26-2010, 01:12 AM
sorry to ruffle your feathers but this is how I feel and I will keep looking for logical ways to get RP elected if he decides to run. I hope we have better results than last time. Time is of the essence my friends.....

It's fine to ruffle feathers... in fact that's how we get things done sometimes.

The fact is that Rand's going to win the Republican Senate seat in KY, which will open the Paul family influence to the mainstream media. If Ron runs Independent, Rand's opponents will use it against him to divide & conquer, making our job MUCH harder.

crazyfacedjenkins
08-26-2010, 01:31 AM
What the hell happened to the 2nd amendment??? Shouldn't that fix the NV problem? Remember, if you don't use it you lose it.

AJ Antimony
08-26-2010, 01:47 AM
why is it, some people become assholes at the mention of 3rd party runs..... not saying anyone in particular.

sorry to ruffle your feathers but this is how I feel and I will keep looking for logical ways to get RP elected if he decides to run. I hope we have better results than last time. Time is of the essence my friends.....

I become an asshole about it because it just really frustrates me how some people walk around with a hippie attitude believing in fantasies like a successful third party presidential run without ever thinking about any of it for a SECOND.

If you keep looking for a logical way to get RP elected... either Congressman or President, I'll give you a hint: it's in the Republican Party

Imperial
08-26-2010, 01:47 AM
Even though I follow third party politics on a daily basis, I am still a Republican. Simply put, third parties are not viable enough in the status quo as an institution to get the bang for your buck.

There are a few exceptions to this. The Vermont Progressive Party has become pretty powerful in Vermont politics, polling second place in a gubernatorial race in 2006, electing several state representatives, and taking over the local government in Burlington, Vermont. They have also managed to use their ballot to influence who the Democrats run, as a candidate unfavorable to their interests will get a rival Progressive.

Other than the VPP, some third party state affiliates are doing ok. The Minnesota Independence Party continues to reach double-digits in races every election. The Illinois Green Party has been polling in the double-digits this election cycle and has major party status in that state. The Maine Green Party has a decent registration base in that state and has made many prominent runs in the past. Arkansas Greens elected a state legislator in 08 and have fielded some pretty strong slates in the past.

As far as as third parties favorable to the liberty movement are concerned, the prospects aren't quite as favorable. Montana had a solid Constitution Party in the past; Nevada has the IAP that may elect a state legislator this year and has had strong showings in the past (as has the LP). The New Hampshire LP once had several state reps but its influence isn't as strong as it once was. In Georgia, North Carolina, Indiana and Texas you see growing Libertarian Parties that have the potential to keep growing stronger, but right now haven't really broken out past 10% in three-way races.

In this election-cycle, only one candidate who could be construed as a liberty candidate to be approaching 20% in the polls in a gubernatorial or senatorial race is Tom Tancredo, and his credentials are questionable in many regards as favorable to our interests.

That doesn't mean that third parties don't serve useful purposes. They allow you to protest vote and to slowly build institutions opposing the two major parties over time to "check" their failures. But don't expect third parties to be an instant cure to all of our problems, even if Dr. Paul ran as a third party candidate.

american.swan
08-26-2010, 02:13 AM
I'd agree with this third party starting only if polls showed over and over again it's time.

For example, there needs to be broad polls showing what percent of America is stuck on GOP and DNC and would never change no matter what. Secondly, the "tea party" would have to consistently have higher polling numbers then the GOP for month after month after month. Independence would have to denounce their independence and insist on joining the tea party/Ron Paul bandwagon in poll after poll.

Polling right now seems to be leaning toward the likely tea party voter outnumbers the likely GOP voter. That's a start. We need that to continue.

nate895
08-26-2010, 02:25 AM
First of all, I am opposed to a Ron Paul third party run unless he runs in the GOP primary first, loses, and decides to make one last go at it in a third party/independent bid after handing over the GOP baton to someone in the party. Also, the GOP nominee would have to be disliked strongly by conservatives. The poll with Ron Paul at 13% clearly shows that he has some viability if he had money in a three-way race, especially against someone like Romney, who is my bet for GOP nominee if Ron Paul doesn't succeed.


Even though I follow third party politics on a daily basis, I am still a Republican. Simply put, third parties are not viable enough in the status quo as an institution to get the bang for your buck.

Actually, on a dollar per vote basis, most third parties far exceed their major party counterparts, here are 2004-2008 statistics (from Wikipedia, I hate using it, but I'm lazy and it's 1 in the morning):

2004 Finance

* George W. Bush (R) $367,227,801 / 62,040,610 = $5.92 per vote
* John Kerry (D) $326,236,288 / 59,028,111 = $5.52
* Ralph Nader (i) $4,566,037 / 463,653 = $9.85
* Michael Badnarik (L) $1,093,013 / 397,265 = $2.75
* Michael Peroutka (C) $729,087 / 144,498 = $5.05
* David Cobb (G) $493,723 / 119,859 = $4.12
* Walt Brown (SPUSA) $2,060 / 10,837 = $0.19

Candidate (Party)↓ Average spent per vote↓
Barack Obama (D) $7.39
John McCain (R) $5.78
Ralph Nader (I) $5.67
Bob Barr (L) $2.57
Chuck Baldwin (C) $1.17
Cynthia McKinney (G) $1.48

The reason why third party candidates do so poorly is that even relatively well-funded third party Presidential candidates don't get enough to win competitive statewide elections in an average size state, let alone enough to win a significant national vote. However, a third party candidate could easily become competitive like Perot if he had enough money to get his message across. However, there must be intense voter dissatisfaction with both sides in order for the race to be competitive.

If the 2012 race winds up being Romney vs. Obama, or possibly Gingrich vs. Obama, then you will have a left wing angry at its President for not being liberal enough, an independent voter who thinks the President is too liberal and the GOP has nominated a cheezy politician you never trusted to begin with, and a conservative voter who hates the GOP nominee. The only people who would be satisfied would be Democratic and GOP party loyalists, who might account for 20% of the population each. The question would be whether Ron Paul could capture the grassroots GOP conservative and the moderately conservative independents, and hopefully the liberals will put up someone like Kucinich or Sanders to eat away at Obama's left flank. It isn't likely, but I can easily see something like this happening given all the political chaos happening right now. It is quite possible that this primary season will have seen three sitting United States Senators ousted in a primary battle. That is simply unprecedented. It sends political shockwaves when one gets the boot in a primary. Three is like a wet dream for anti-establishment politicos.

MN Patriot
08-26-2010, 04:37 AM
Third parties could be key to our freedom. We just need to use them ruthlessly against the Establishment.

Suppose hundreds of us declared our intentions to run as Libertarians for Congress, and sought the Constitution Party endorsements, to get as much support from as many third party people as possible.

Our hundreds of candidates publicly request the Republican Party and their local Republican Congressperson to work towards these goals:
1) end the income tax, replace it with nothing.
2) dramatically downsize the federal government, abolish agencies, privatize, etc.
3) end the Fed
4) bring our troops home
5) etc, in line with limited government and freedom

Credible, realistic proposals would have to be developed on how those are going to take place.

If Republicans didn't push our agenda forward, run our candidates, make the Republican Party irrelevant, since our candidates would take votes away from them in the election and Democrats would win.

And of course, implement my favorite tactic: propose repealing payroll tax withholding laws. Require workers to personally write a check to the state and federal government every month. That would incite an almost immediate tax revolt, which this country needs, since our government is out of control.

So all you third party critics need to re-assess your opposition to third parties. Yes, they lose elections, but if we use them to our advantage, we could get our freedom back.

NewFederalist
08-26-2010, 06:25 AM
Independents and Third Parties are fun in theory but horrible in reality. The only recent Independents elected to major office have been from the major parties originally (Bernie Sanders, Charlie Crist, Joe Lieberman) or a famous person (Jesse Ventura). Third Parties don't work.



While I don't disagree with your statement above I would point out that Bernie Sanders has not been a member of a major party for at least the past 20 years if ever. He was actually a card carrying member of the Socialist Workers Party at one time and was elected to the House as well as the Senate as an independent.

kahless
08-26-2010, 08:28 AM
Without a new national news media outlet that is favorable to Libertarians you can forget about Ron Paul winning as a 3rd party candidate. A 3rd party run could be successful if there are various outlets that provide our brand of propaganda to educate the masses. Such as:

1. A 4th news channel with 100% US cable/satellite penetration.

2. Several nationally recognized newspapers and infiltration of local newspapers for favorable coverage.

3. Favorable Hollywood entertainment coverage. Popular late night comedians, movies and what appears to be a counter-culture movement in Hollywood supportive of it.

As you see these 3 options are unlikely to happen. Thus the ignorant masses will continue to be brainwashed and vote for R or D. There are other factors that might also help a 3rd party candidate.

1. A complete economic collapse and loss of value of the US dollar.

2. At least 2 states successfully secede.

I however doubt either would be on the magnitude to push a 3rd party candidate to a majority in the electoral college.

Deborah K
08-26-2010, 08:49 AM
I am adamantly against another party. It's already been tried a half a dozen times i.e. the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, etc., etc.. I am against a party system to begin with. Since we have them established already, I think the thing to do is co-opt and/or infiltrate the existing two major parties. It makes no sense to me to try, at this late date, to establish yet another party.


So all you third party critics need to re-assess your opposition to third parties. Yes, they lose elections, but if we use them to our advantage, we could get our freedom back.

Whaaaaaat????? Uh.....I don't think cutting off your nose to spite your face is viable tactic.

sratiug
08-26-2010, 09:02 AM
The Libertarian or Constitution party should move up their convention and nominate Ron before the Republcian primaries get started. If Ron wins the Republican nomination everyone can vote for the Republican electors, if not vote third party. It would be beyond Ron's control so he couldn't be directly blamed.

SilentBull
08-26-2010, 09:25 AM
No way! As with any movement most people are followers and will go along with what's popular. Rand will create the new 'coolness' within the party. All of the idiots will start following him. That's how a minority can actually change things; by getting the idiotic followers on their side. We have already started to do this. Why screw it up now?

Ron and Rand have done a lot already to redefine what it means to be a Republican. Imagine what will happen when Rand becomes senator?

TheTyke
08-26-2010, 09:36 AM
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result.

To my knowledge, not a single Libertarian or Constitution Party candidate has been elected to federal office during the entire life of either party - 40+ years. A 3rd Party president hasn't been elected since Lincoln, which was because of extraordinary circumstances not enjoyed today (one party died completely) and that was BEFORE the anti-third party laws were put in place. Saying "THIS time it's different, run third party" is insanity as defined above.

Additionally, this is what the media has been feeding us.... various outlets and polling agencies keep putting that idea into our minds for a reason. Not only does it ensure Ron won't win, but it will also crush the Revolution when we get blamed for Obama's second term.

Our Revolution is as big as it is today because Ron Paul ran as a Republican. Rand is favored to win the Senate seat in KY because he ran as a Republican... not get the 2% he would've as a Libertarian. Same for Amash. Finally, those who rolled up their sleeves and got to work in the Party have been making amazing progress for our views and candidates - imagine what we could have achieved if everyone had done this, instead of spinning their wheels else?

Ron already tried both ways. Let's stick to the one that's had most success.

William_Paca
08-26-2010, 10:17 AM
Dr. Paul did not run for president in 2008 with any illusion about winning, nor if he runs in 2012 will he run to win. He runs to get the widest exposure possible for the ideals of a non-interventionist foreign policy, sound money, and personal liberty. He runs to spread these ideals so that each of you, in your local community, can more easily find those with a similar mindset. Dr. Paul’s goal is to help set the table so each of you can organize and throw off your own local set of tyrants. In fact Paul donated a sizeable figure leftover from the 2008 run to start a national organization “Campaign for Liberty” to help you organize in your local community.

Right now Ron Paul gets the greatest media attention for his/our principles thru being a member of the Republican Party. Paul has traveled the independent road, but has settled on the Republican Party route. You can second guess him, but the successes of the present approach for delivering the liberty message since 2008 are there for all to see.

Now is not the time for putting our energies into building a third party. Presently we should be building strong local organizations. If you are deeply involved politically in your community you know our principle of a non-interventionist foreign policy will take years to become a majority view in this country. Are you merely letting Dr. Paul carry your water, or are you actively working your tail off to build a local organization and change your neighbor’s mindset and ultimately the direction of this nation. Build a strong, large, local liberty group, become a third rail of politics in your county, and if it is firmly grounded in the principles of liberty, it won’t take much effort to convert it toward a third party if the liberty movement decides to take that approach at a later date.

Krugerrand
08-26-2010, 10:25 AM
My head says no to the third party run. My heart says yes. Emotional decisions can be dangerous.

FrankRep
08-26-2010, 10:31 AM
My head says no to the third party run. My heart says yes. Emotional decisions can be dangerous.
Ron Paul will not run third party anyway. He knows the system rigged for two parties.

pacelli
08-26-2010, 10:57 AM
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result.
<>

Ron already tried both ways. Let's stick to the one that's had most success.

Well, he's already run an educational campaign funded by $30 million worth of moneybombs. So I won't be doing that again either. No matter which party (if any) Ron decides to run under, I'll only participate in moneybombs if he is actually interested in winning. I can't afford to pay for public education. Besides, I've got boxes full of slimjims and educational material from the 2008 campaign that I am still putting on cars in parking lots. I won't run out of that stuff until 2013.

The most important thing here is not the party affiliation or lack thereof. The most important thing is the candidate's motivation to WIN the OFFICE. If Ron isn't motivated to win, he will not win. How many times in 2007/2008 did we say that we probably wouldn't have enough time for a 2012 run?

I see this argument coming back again.

What was that about insanity?

CUnknown
08-26-2010, 11:42 AM
I would like to see Ron run as a 3rd party candidate, too. But mostly just because I want to see him run. I'd support him as a 3rd party candidate, or if he seeks the Republican nomination. The best thing about this choice is that it's a choice we don't have to make. It's entirely up to him. ;)

Imperial
08-26-2010, 11:49 AM
Actually, on a dollar per vote basis, most third parties far exceed their major party counterparts, here are 2004-2008 statistics

Alot of that is because those are the small number of people voting for the 3rd party candidate who already would be voting against a major party candidate. Efforts to massively fund a third party candidate have not ended up resulting in success. Look at Michael Badnarik's run in his 2006 congressional district, or even Ed Thompson in Wisconsin.

The simple fact is that people are afraid to vote for a third party candidate. They think they are throwing their vote away or giving their vote to some evil Republicrat.

TCE
08-26-2010, 11:53 AM
While I don't disagree with your statement above I would point out that Bernie Sanders has not been a member of a major party for at least the past 20 years if ever. He was actually a card carrying member of the Socialist Workers Party at one time and was elected to the House as well as the Senate as an independent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Vermont,_2006

He won the Democratic Primary, though and then dropped out. Had he not run in the Democratic Primary, he would have lost a 3-way race. Looking at all of his endorsements, he had every corner of the Democratic establishment on his side.

In response to some of my earlier critics, yes, Dr. Paul is from a major party, but he has been endorsed by neither. All of those people listed were backed by the establishment. Dr. Paul will be torn to pieces by the GOP establishment and then the Democrats will take their turn if he runs Independent. Face it, he can't win as an Independent, all he can do is split the vote.

MN Patriot has an interesting strategy.

heavenlyboy34
08-26-2010, 11:58 AM
And with that said, Dr. Paul is gonna do what Dr. Pauls wants to do and thinks is best.


And thus part of the problem with modern day American society. Immediate gratification without the work.

Yes, but in this case he is right. The RP has failed to live up to its promises for a very long time now. Your complaint about "Immediate gratification without the work" is thus invalid in this case-the "work" has been going on for decades, with no significant results.

A common definition of insanity is "to do the same thing over and over, expecting different results each time". This is what you are proposing in your naive, ignorant criticism of those of us who oppose the system as it is.

I suggest you read Harry Browne's "Why Government Doesn't Work". He had a helluva lot more real life experience in this than you.

Andrew-Austin
08-26-2010, 12:00 PM
The only way one can come to the conclusion that he should run third party, is if one thinks he does not have a chance to win (running Republican) to begin with. Sure, he won't win running third party, what makes you think he will win running Republican? I think there can be just as strong of a case that he won't win. So with that in mind, isn't there some benefit in running Independent? Will that enable a greater ability to "spread the message" (Ron Paul's original reason for running in the first place)?

His decision will be independent of what this forum thinks anyways I bet.

heavenlyboy34
08-26-2010, 12:51 PM
Ron Paul has been consistent on his Republican view, and I doubt he would change that. He has said it a million times that we need to return to our Republican party roots. Remember? The Republican party used to be the anti-war party. Returning takes time. Let's not give that up with an independent run.

He also endorsed Chuck Baldwin in '08, and spoke enthusiastically about 3rd parties, remember?;)

puppetmaster
08-26-2010, 01:04 PM
Third parties could be key to our freedom. We just need to use them ruthlessly against the Establishment.

Suppose hundreds of us declared our intentions to run as Libertarians for Congress, and sought the Constitution Party endorsements, to get as much support from as many third party people as possible.

Our hundreds of candidates publicly request the Republican Party and their local Republican Congressperson to work towards these goals:
1) end the income tax, replace it with nothing.
2) dramatically downsize the federal government, abolish agencies, privatize, etc.
3) end the Fed
4) bring our troops home
5) etc, in line with limited government and freedom

Credible, realistic proposals would have to be developed on how those are going to take place.

If Republicans didn't push our agenda forward, run our candidates, make the Republican Party irrelevant, since our candidates would take votes away from them in the election and Democrats would win.

And of course, implement my favorite tactic: propose repealing payroll tax withholding laws. Require workers to personally write a check to the state and federal government every month. That would incite an almost immediate tax revolt, which this country needs, since our government is out of control.

So all you third party critics need to re-assess your opposition to third parties. Yes, they lose elections, but if we use them to our advantage, we could get our freedom back.

Yes , This is what i was talking about. I would love to have all of us pissed of folks from all sides shoving 30+ million in the face of the establishment.....does not matter if your a Republican or Democrat...when your pissed off you are looking for recourse. Strong pointed issues like these resonate across party lines.

Yep if the republicans don't give him the nomination then they deserve what they get.

wasn't Ross Perot doing well until.....he dropped out for unknown reasons?

so many way to motivate the masses via the internet now.....The younger gen that i see are looking for something different then their parents parties.

Bottom line is unless we see his name on the Ballot then he has know chance of winning. I hope he makes up his mind soon so I can get busy......my TV Studio is ready.......

Deborah K
08-26-2010, 01:11 PM
Yes , This is what i was talking about. I would love to have all of us pissed of folks from all sides shoving 30+ million in the face of the establishment.....does not matter if your a Republican or Democrat...when your pissed off you are looking for recourse. Strong pointed issues like these resonate across party lines.

Yep if the republicans don't give him the nomination then they deserve what they get.

wasn't Ross Perot doing well until.....he dropped out for unknown reasons?

so many way to motivate the masses via the internet now.....The younger gen that i see are looking for something different then their parents parties.

Bottom line is unless we see his name on the Ballot then he has know chance of winning. I hope he makes up his mind soon so I can get busy......my TV Studio is ready.......

Edit: Misread post. Sorry. I think MN Patriot's strategy is doable for mid-term elections but not to win a Presidential election.

klamath
08-26-2010, 01:23 PM
When national polls show RP winning as an independent and not the Republican nomination would I conceed that a third party run was the way to go.

Until some of the third party pushers can show us one stinking little poll showing RP wining in a three way race I have absolutely no faith in their deductive reasoning. They only have an emotional hate of the GOP with no base in reality for wining.

NewFederalist
08-26-2010, 02:10 PM
He won the Democratic Primary, though and then dropped out. Had he not run in the Democratic Primary, he would have lost a 3-way race.



He entered the Democratic primary to insure he would NOT have a Democratic opponent. It was part of his strategy. I believe he would have won in a three way race anyway. He never had any problem winning in three way races before. In Vermont ALL races for "Federal" office are statewide.

TCE
08-26-2010, 08:21 PM
He entered the Democratic primary to insure he would NOT have a Democratic opponent. It was part of his strategy. I believe he would have won in a three way race anyway. He never had any problem winning in three way races before. In Vermont ALL races for "Federal" office are statewide.

I know, he was their At-Large Representative and constantly voted with the Democrats. Had a Democrat won the Democratic Primary and the same Republican won that primary, I'm not sure he could have prevented the Democratic vote split and still held off the Republican. It is impossible to know for sure.

TheTyke
08-26-2010, 08:38 PM
Well, he's already run an educational campaign funded by $30 million worth of moneybombs. So I won't be doing that again either. No matter which party (if any) Ron decides to run under, I'll only participate in moneybombs if he is actually interested in winning. I can't afford to pay for public education. Besides, I've got boxes full of slimjims and educational material from the 2008 campaign that I am still putting on cars in parking lots. I won't run out of that stuff until 2013.

The most important thing here is not the party affiliation or lack thereof. The most important thing is the candidate's motivation to WIN the OFFICE. If Ron isn't motivated to win, he will not win. How many times in 2007/2008 did we say that we probably wouldn't have enough time for a 2012 run?

I see this argument coming back again.

What was that about insanity?

Well, I do think our Revolution and the organizations born of it were worth every penny. After seeing them in action in KY, I find YAL especially impressive.. I've never seen anything like it.

That said, I agree with your point. Haters aside, Rand Paul electrified me when he decided to run... because he convinced me he was running to WIN. Ron needs to adopt this attitude for 2012. I think we are much better positioned for it this time - with some political training under our belts, better organization (YAL, CFL etc.) and a growing percentage of us with some grasp of political strategy (still needs work.) And I do think Ron will be better prepared to take advantage of the support... so we should go all out and work for victory.

He's watching to see our support. We need to convince him he can win. Let's register R for Ron, learn the delegate/convention process, network with local activists, save our money.... and prepare for the greatest battle for liberty in generations!

AJ Antimony
08-26-2010, 10:35 PM
It's incredible that the third party people just absolutely REFUSE to consider what would happen if Ron Paul declared an independent run, before or after the GOP primaries.

It's as if they are completely oblivious of how politics works, how Rand Paul came to be on the verge of winning a US Senate seat, and how a certain voting bloc (the Tea Party) came out of nowhere to seriously influence federal elections.

All of this happened solely because Ron Paul ran as a Republican.

All of this would end if Ron Paul ran independent, pulled all his supporters OUT of the GOP, drew 5-10% of the national vote, and single handedly gave Obama a second term.

heavenlyboy34
08-26-2010, 10:41 PM
And slash any chances Rand has to escalate himself either in Leadership positions or the Presidency? Pass. There is much more at stake this time.

Independents and Third Parties are fun in theory but horrible in reality. The only recent Independents elected to major office have been from the major parties originally (Bernie Sanders, Charlie Crist, Joe Lieberman) or a famous person (Jesse Ventura). Third Parties don't work.

I don't care about the presidency (or any other office), but the counter-argument would probably be something along the lines of "the Republicans were once a 3rd party-a faction of the Whigs-so a 3rd party could work under the right circumstances".

heavenlyboy34
08-26-2010, 10:43 PM
It's incredible that the third party people just absolutely REFUSE to consider what would happen if Ron Paul declared an independent run, before or after the GOP primaries.

It's as if they are completely oblivious of how politics works, how Rand Paul came to be on the verge of winning a US Senate seat, and how a certain voting bloc (the Tea Party) came out of nowhere to seriously influence federal elections.

All of this happened solely because Ron Paul ran as a Republican.

All of this would end if Ron Paul ran independent, pulled all his supporters OUT of the GOP, drew 5-10% of the national vote, and single handedly gave Obama a second term.

the wishful thinking of you poseurs is amusing and seemingly never ending. Keep it up, you make me laugh. :D

TCE
08-26-2010, 10:57 PM
I don't care about the presidency (or any other office), but the counter-argument would probably be something along the lines of "the Republicans were once a 3rd party-a faction of the Whigs-so a 3rd party could work under the right circumstances".

That was before all of these Ballot Access Laws, too. 100 years ago, I would be gung-ho about a Third Party. They have also tightened since Ross Perot.

puppetmaster
08-26-2010, 11:12 PM
It's incredible that the third party people just absolutely REFUSE to consider what would happen if Ron Paul declared an independent run, before or after the GOP primaries.

It's as if they are completely oblivious of how politics works, how Rand Paul came to be on the verge of winning a US Senate seat, and how a certain voting bloc (the Tea Party) came out of nowhere to seriously influence federal elections.

All of this happened solely because Ron Paul ran as a Republican.

All of this would end if Ron Paul ran independent, pulled all his supporters OUT of the GOP, drew 5-10% of the national vote, and single handedly gave Obama a second term.

Funny how FAST the Tea party got their shit together and "seriously influenced" elections....guess we're not as organized?

Do you think people support Ron Paul because he is Republican....stop kidding yourself....they all think he is NOT a Republican and they still like him, in fact it may get him MORE support to be an outsider to the party. I don't know one person who likes Ron Paul because he is a Republican......NOT ONE. I do Know many folks that will not vote for him for that very reason though....

RonPaulwillWin
08-26-2010, 11:37 PM
I don't think I'll be able to vote for Meg Whitman

Pauls' Revere
08-26-2010, 11:58 PM
I agree, but this view is definitely in the minority here. :)

We need a poll.

I know, I know, another poll.

AJ Antimony
08-27-2010, 12:18 AM
stop kidding yourself....they all think he is NOT a Republican and they still like him, in fact it may get him MORE support to be an outsider to the party.

But, see, this is bullshit.

I have evidence on my side, you have absolutely none.

Polls have shown as an independent, he would get like 13% of the vote against a Republican and a Democrat.

However, if he won the Republican nomination, he would be essentially tied with Obama with 40ish% of the vote.

How can you possibly soberly suggest Ron Paul is more popular not as a Republican? Oh, unless you're defining popularity as NOT winning elections...

low preference guy
08-27-2010, 12:20 AM
great idea! let's have history remember Ron Paul as the guy who gave Obama a second term instead of the great statesman that he is!

puppetmaster
08-27-2010, 12:30 AM
great idea! let's have history remember Ron Paul as the guy who gave Obama a second term instead of the great statesman that he is!

if it's not Ron Paul ....does it matter if it's POS obama or some POS Republican...... nope.
I would prefer he run as Republican, but he will not get the nomination......

Do you think he has a better shot at getting on the ballot as a republican or an independent?

Pauls' Revere
08-27-2010, 12:31 AM
The GOP isnt gonna let it happen...
They didnt even invite him to speak at the convention in 08' yet every other GOP condidtae did. If he runs as a GOP all he's gonna get is a firm handshake "thanks Ron for that Tea Party stuff" and getting us back in power.

puppetmaster
08-27-2010, 12:34 AM
But, see, this is bullshit.

I have evidence on my side, you have absolutely none.

Polls have shown as an independent, he would get like 13% of the vote against a Republican and a Democrat.

However, if he won the Republican nomination, he would be essentially tied with Obama with 40ish% of the vote.

How can you possibly soberly suggest Ron Paul is more popular not as a Republican? Oh, unless you're defining popularity as NOT winning elections...

These polls have always been BS....We all know it and call them on it when they paint our side badly. To use these polls to bolster your opinion is hypocritical.

Since we don not know the details of these polls they are BS

MN Patriot
08-27-2010, 04:23 AM
Edit: Misread post. Sorry. I think MN Patriot's strategy is doable for mid-term elections but not to win a Presidential election.

I'm not talking about doing this once, with short term goals in mind. This should be a LONG TERM strategy. Either get the Republican Party to become libertarian (crazy wild prediction: they never will) or put them out of business politically. Replace them with the Libertarian Party, or at least A libertarian party (but obviously it probably should be the LP)

Republican Party = FAIL.

The Republican Party has allowed the liberal's socialist agenda to proceed unhindered.

Give Americans an honest choice: freedom or slavery.

RM918
08-27-2010, 04:28 AM
I'm not talking about doing this once, with short term goals in mind. This should be a LONG TERM strategy. Either get the Republican Party to become libertarian (crazy wild prediction: they never will) or put them out of business politically. Replace them with the Libertarian Party, or at least A libertarian party (but obviously it probably should be the LP)

Republican Party = FAIL.

The Republican Party has allowed the liberal's socialist agenda to proceed unhindered.

Give Americans an honest choice: freedom or slavery.

You give them that choice and we all know they'll pick the latter.

MN Patriot
08-27-2010, 04:34 AM
It's incredible that the third party people just absolutely REFUSE to consider what would happen if Ron Paul declared an independent run, before or after the GOP primaries.

It's as if they are completely oblivious of how politics works, how Rand Paul came to be on the verge of winning a US Senate seat, and how a certain voting bloc (the Tea Party) came out of nowhere to seriously influence federal elections.

All of this happened solely because Ron Paul ran as a Republican.

All of this would end if Ron Paul ran independent, pulled all his supporters OUT of the GOP, drew 5-10% of the national vote, and single handedly gave Obama a second term.

It can't be ONLY Ron Paul running for president as an independent. This should be a UNIFIED national effort by hundreds of candidates running for Congress on the same platform.

Give the American people an honest third choice. They key is to have credible, respectable candidates running for every congressional seat up for election, using the Tea Party movement momentum. This would take at least three election cycles, since Senate seats are up every 6 years.

Make it apparent that changes are happening and the Republican Party is in jeopardy of going extinct. Liberals might even contribute to us, since their hatred for Republicans is deep. Any Republican who agrees with us is free to join us, since many of them acknowledge the failure of the Republican Party.

MN Patriot
08-27-2010, 04:36 AM
You give them that choice and we all know they'll pick the latter.

At least then the issue is clearly defined, instead of the false Dem/Rep dichotomy people now vote for.

Austrian Econ Disciple
08-27-2010, 05:08 AM
I have pretty much given up on National politics. It's a pox. The main reason I want Ron to run in 2012 is to get into the debates on the National level. I think an Independent run would have a better chance to get into the debates, since he wouldn't have to win the GOP primary, and that to me is much harder than getting another 2% in a poll to get into the Presidential debates (15%). I have no idea what would happen if he were to get into a three-way Presidential debate, but I would imagine he would siphon off all of the disenfranchised voters (independents/old school conservatives), anti-war voters, anti-statist voters (CP/LP/etc.), pro-legalization voters, anti-tax voters, etc.

That's all I want to see. Goddamn Ron Paul schooling Obama & the GOP schill. I will work where you can actually change things and influence policy -- local level. Give me a healthy minority of secessionist libertarians and that WILL change things. Continuing to throw good money after bad on national elections will end up with hardly any policy change, and a giant sucking sound of our money getting flushed.

Start supporting the Vermont/Texas/NH/MT/AK secessionists. Anything is better than keeping this bloated plutocratic tyranny together.

kahless
08-27-2010, 05:46 AM
I have pretty much given up on National politics. It's a pox. The main reason I want Ron to run in 2012 is to get into the debates on the National level. I think an Independent run would have a better chance to get into the debates, since he wouldn't have to win the GOP primary, and that to me is much harder than getting another 2% in a poll to get into the Presidential debates (15%). I have no idea what would happen if he were to get into a three-way Presidential debate, but I would imagine he would siphon off all of the disenfranchised voters (independents/old school conservatives), anti-war voters, anti-statist voters (CP/LP/etc.), pro-legalization voters, anti-tax voters, etc.

That's all I want to see. Goddamn Ron Paul schooling Obama & the GOP schill. I will work where you can actually change things and influence policy -- local level. Give me a healthy minority of secessionist libertarians and that WILL change things. Continuing to throw good money after bad on national elections will end up with hardly any policy change, and a giant sucking sound of our money getting flushed.

Start supporting the Vermont/Texas/NH/MT/AK secessionists. Anything is better than keeping this bloated plutocratic tyranny together.

I agree with you in areas in bold. An independent run would however give Obama another 4 years. Even if Ron wins the popular vote I doubt the electoral college in its current state would vote for him.

puppetmaster
08-27-2010, 10:59 AM
I agree with you in areas in bold. An independent run would however give Obama another 4 years. Even if Ron wins the popular vote I doubt the electoral college in its current state would vote for him.

does it matter if it is obama or a republican, they are the same any more.....

puppetmaster
08-27-2010, 11:02 AM
I have pretty much given up on National politics. It's a pox. The main reason I want Ron to run in 2012 is to get into the debates on the National level. I think an Independent run would have a better chance to get into the debates, since he wouldn't have to win the GOP primary, and that to me is much harder than getting another 2% in a poll to get into the Presidential debates (15%). I have no idea what would happen if he were to get into a three-way Presidential debate, but I would imagine he would siphon off all of the disenfranchised voters (independents/old school conservatives), anti-war voters, anti-statist voters (CP/LP/etc.), pro-legalization voters, anti-tax voters, etc.

That's all I want to see. Goddamn Ron Paul schooling Obama & the GOP schill. I will work where you can actually change things and influence policy -- local level. Give me a healthy minority of secessionist libertarians and that WILL change things. Continuing to throw good money after bad on national elections will end up with hardly any policy change, and a giant sucking sound of our money getting flushed.

Start supporting the Vermont/Texas/NH/MT/AK secessionists. Anything is better than keeping this bloated plutocratic tyranny together.


I agree with this, not a blind run, but a coordinated efffort/attack by many

TheTyke
08-27-2010, 11:37 AM
I remember Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr reaching so many people last year! :rolleyes: Oh wait... that's only because a Republican presidential candidate held a press conference for them! Actually, since Perot, the debates have been taken over by former leadership of the Republicans and Democrats. A third party or independent won't get in now.

The only way for Ron to get in the debates is to run Republican... that's why he did it last time.

Saying the polls are lying you just know the country ACTUALLY likes Ron Paul better is delusional. Certain agencies have a record for reliability. Yes, polls are "weighted" to slightly favor some people, but they're not 30% off.

Again, this third party thing is a whole lot of ignoring facts, political reality and strategy and believing blindly in the world you want to see. It's really unfortunate that several people in our movement want to spend their time, effort and treasure in fruitless endeavors, instead of someplace they could have a big effect.

puppetmaster
08-27-2010, 12:39 PM
I remember Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr reaching so many people last year! :rolleyes: Oh wait... that's only because a Republican presidential candidate held a press conference for them! Actually, since Perot, the debates have been taken over by former leadership of the Republicans and Democrats. A third party or independent won't get in now.

The only way for Ron to get in the debates is to run Republican... that's why he did it last time.

Saying the polls are lying you just know the country ACTUALLY likes Ron Paul better is delusional. Certain agencies have a record for reliability. Yes, polls are "weighted" to slightly favor some people, but they're not 30% off.

Again, this third party thing is a whole lot of ignoring facts, political reality and strategy and believing blindly in the world you want to see. It's really unfortunate that several people in our movement want to spend their time, effort and treasure in fruitless endeavors, instead of someplace they could have a big effect.


Well I am for a third party run, I am registered republican and was a delegate for RP in the last election cycle. I work daily to spread the message and I am sure that everyone on this board does the same whether or not they support third party runs.
I do know that the party leaders don't give a rats ass if we get him delegates as they will ignore the results and place the chosen one as the candidate. I not only want him in the debates but we need him on the BALLOT......
There is a reason the establishment always wants to marginalize third parties.....

Example:
This candidate is making good headway and they are doing what they can to shut him down,...... they are going to try to shut down any non conventional candidate regardless if he is labeled (R) or (I)http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=258609

TheTyke
08-27-2010, 01:21 PM
Well I am for a third party run, I am registered republican and was a delegate for RP in the last election cycle. I work daily to spread the message and I am sure that everyone on this board does the same whether or not they support third party runs.
I do know that the party leaders don't give a rats ass if we get him delegates as they will ignore the results and place the chosen one as the candidate. I not only want him in the debates but we need him on the BALLOT......
There is a reason the establishment always wants to marginalize third parties.....

Example:
This candidate is making good headway and they are doing what they can to shut him down,...... they are going to try to shut down any non conventional candidate regardless if he is labeled (R) or (I)http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=258609

The difference is sort of like climbing up the outside of a skyscraper vs. pushing and shoving your way into an elevator. 3rd Party is trying to achieve what they've built rules specifically to prevent... taking the conventions is like taking the elevator.

If you watched the convention training videos, you know with less than 50% at a convention... you lose. Period. In Kentucky there were only 525 delegates at the entire state convention. Only 125 or so Ron Paul delegates bothered to show up, out of tens of thousands of supporters statewide and hundreds more who were trained but let apathy/confusion/despair take over again.

If you more than 50% and know what you're doing, you'll probably win. If you have 66%, you can do anything you want - suspend rules, remove the chairman, etc. They can't ignore hundreds of delegates and the soul of the party. Best they can do is turn the lights off (Nevada) but if we're alert for that kind of mischief, it's not going to work... and Sue Lowden went down because of it.

You have a much better chance of getting a few hundred/thousand of motivated, idealistic people involved in your state to take a few afternoons and become core of a party which is already in the news cycle, than convincing millions of voters to vote for someone they haven't heard of and don't think can win.

This is simple logic. If you can't do the former, the latter is impossible. And if you do the former, the latter is no longer necessary. Therefore, a third party victory is either impossible, or unnecessary.

Elwar
08-27-2010, 01:36 PM
A third party run would give the media more of an excuse to ignore him.

SilentBull
08-27-2010, 01:39 PM
Some people are not thinking straight. I can't believe people are still bringing this up even after seeing the success we are having. Ron Paul was right! Rand Paul is about to become a very popular senator whom the "followers" will want to now agree with. Hell, Karl Rove is helping him win now! This is how we win. Ron Paul knew this was the way to do it, and people here want him to turn his back on a strategy that IS WORKING?? Makes no sense at all.