RP Party Poll

[Pauls' Revere]

Should Ron Paul run as a third party candidate? Specifically as an Independent?

[low preference guy]

great idea! let's have history remember Ron Paul as the one who gave Obama a second term instead of remembering Ron as the great statesman that he is!

[puppetmaster]

is this what they call spam....


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!

[nate895]

great idea! let's have history remember Ron Paul as the one who gave Obama a second term instead of remembering Ron as the great statesman that he is!

Great idea! Let's stop putting up supposedly witty one-liners and actually discuss an issue!*

I voted "no" as well, btw. That doesn't mean I am entirely closed to the possibility in the perfect circumstances. They would have to be perfect, though, and isn't something we should be discussing as a serious possibility right now.

*Seriously, I did a cursory look at your past 50 posts, and none of them contained anything that indicated actual consideration of an issue. The long posts run 3 lines of drivel, and there are only a couple of them at that.

[Bman]

The only reason it would ever, EVER make sense for someone to run third party, and actually be in it to win it, is if they were in all the debates. Kind of like Ross Perot in '92. Otherwise it is a complete waste like Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr in '08.

[Pauls' Revere]

what circumstances need to happen? What if Ron lead the Tea Party with a Goldwater philosophy? what percentage do you think he could get? If Palin gets the nod the GOP is gonna fall flat on its face. Who is there besides Ron that could/would lead the Tea Party? Who out there has the record, and experience? I think there is enough anger and frustration to tap into that both the Dems and GOP would run scared.

[Pauls' Revere]

The biggest problem would be the media.

[nate895]

what circumstances need to happen? What if Ron lead the Tea Party with a Goldwater philosophy? what percentage do you think he could get? If Palin gets the nod the GOP is gonna fall flat on its face. Who is there besides Ron that could/would lead the Tea Party? Who out there has the record, and experience? I think there is enough anger and frustration to tap into that both the Dems and GOP would run scared.

I posted on this last night in a similar thread:


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.



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.

I probably could be a bit clearer, but I think it gets the point across.

[Libertydad88]

$20/hour



Not worth discussing in my opinion...

[thehighwaymanq]

I think our chances at success and spreading a message greatly diminish with a third-party run. If we weren't media blocked in 2008, we sure would be in 2012.

[Humanae Libertas]

great idea! let's have history remember Ron Paul as the one who gave Obama a second term instead of remembering Ron as the great statesman that he is!

Obama's going to get a second term either way.

[ibaghdadi]

I didn't vote because I just don't know. A lot depends upon what happens to the economy in 2011.

If we end up with some real trouble (a "crash" as more and more economists are expecting), then the average American voter may end up completely disgusted with both parties and open to the idea of an independent or a non-establishment candidate.

Otherwise if Obama and his economist witch-doctors can postpone the pain a wee bit further, Obama may still win regardless.

If the economy is bad but not *too* bad, I think Ron Paul would have a real chance as a principled republican who actually has the answers and is loyal to the ideals of conservatism and the constitution.

[AlexMerced]

No, he should run GOP, do his best, and if he wants after the election if the GOP doesn't learn his lesson he'll have the ability to kill it by going Libertarian officially... but after 2012

[kahless]

No, since we do not have a favorable propaganda machine to propel a 3rd party candidate to victory. Without a new national news media outlet that is favorable to Libertarians you can forget about Ron Paul winning as a 3rd party candidate.

To overcome the two party indoctrination and brainwashing you would need:

1. A 4th news channel with 100% US cable/satellite penetration providing Libertarian leaning coverage favorable to a 3rd party candidacy.

2. Favorable coverage from nationally recognized newspapers and local newspapers.

3. Favorable Hollywood entertainment coverage. Popular late night comedians, movies and 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. Therefore Ron has a better chance running as a Republican.

There are other factors that might change my opinion that would put him in a better position as a 3rd party candidate.

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

2. At least 2 states successfully secede.

Even then I still have my doubts he could achieve an electoral college victory.

[rich34]

Run republican and see how far he can take it and then possibly make a third party run. I don't give a flip how hard the republican party tries to use the teaparty to prop up one of it's establishment candidates I could be wrong, but I truely believe there's gonna be a big part of the electorate on both sides that aren't going to be fooled by either party. Ron Paul seems to be the only guy that can join the far right with the far left. If we the grassroots can make some inroads into the moderates on both sides we might be able to set off some fireworks!:)

[dean.engelhardt]

RP can best be heard in the GOP primaries. Polls show he is the GOP candidate with the best chance of winning the general election. If he didn't win the the GOP nomination, I would support an third party run. Only problem is there isn't enough intelligence in this country to elect a third party president.

[Jordan]

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.



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.

The fact that third party candidates get more votes per dollar means absolutely nothing. It's all about accumulation, and getting the next 1% will always be more expensive than the first 1% of the vote.

Case in point: Pfizer could release a new drug tomorrow and send out an email to doctors, costing the firm maybe a few hundred dollars. In the first week, they already have 10,000 people on this new prescription pill. Per customer, they spent less than $1.

But that was the easy part. Now they have to target people who aren't going in for regular checkups and they need people to ask, not to be told, about their product. So what do they do? Fire up a media campaign.

For the customers won via their marketing they pay several hundred times more in customer acquisition costs than those who are automatically referred to the pill via their doctor.

These two candidates below already had their base. Plus, they benefited from the fact that people went to the voting booth not already knowing who they were voting for, and many who wanted a D or an R probably made the wrong selection. These candidates earned more votes through voting errors than they lost, siphoning a small fragment of the vote from the two mainstream political parties, reducing their cost per vote. Then you have to count in the people who just wanted to vote for someone different. I have a friend who literally wrote in Ralph Macchio for president. Yeah, the Karate Kid.

Walt Brown (SPUSA) $2,060 / 10,837 = $0.19
Michael Badnarik (L) $1,093,013 / 397,265 = $2.75

Ron Paul could probably run as an independent and get 500,000 votes, even if he never raised a single dime. But that doesn't mean all the way up to 20 million votes every vote would be free.

[ChaosControl]

Only if he doesn't run in the primary. No to the sore loser action though.

[Slutter McGee]

I opened this thread hoping somebody was throwing some awesome party and needed advise on where to get the booze and strippers.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[NewFederalist]

RP can best be heard in the GOP primaries. Polls show he is the GOP candidate with the best chance of winning the general election. If he didn't win the the GOP nomination, I would support an third party run. Only problem is there isn't enough intelligence in this country to elect a third party president.

Not only not enough intelligence but by the time the primaries are over it's too late to get on the ballot in several states as an independent. He could try for both the Libertarian and Constitution nominations (which will both be made BEFORE the primaries are over) but if he doesn't win the Republican nomination it would be tough to mount a credible "third party" effort.

[BuddyRey]

Not until he tries and fails to obtain the Republican nomination. After that, sure.

[Flash]

I voted No. I would at least like him to try and win Iowa & New Hampshire. If that fails then I guess an independent run could make sense.

[nate895]

The fact that third party candidates get more votes per dollar means absolutely nothing. It's all about accumulation, and getting the next 1% will always be more expensive than the first 1% of the vote.

Case in point: Pfizer could release a new drug tomorrow and send out an email to doctors, costing the firm maybe a few hundred dollars. In the first week, they already have 10,000 people on this new prescription pill. Per customer, they spent less than $1.

But that was the easy part. Now they have to target people who aren't going in for regular checkups and they need people to ask, not to be told, about their product. So what do they do? Fire up a media campaign.

For the customers won via their marketing they pay several hundred times more in customer acquisition costs than those who are automatically referred to the pill via their doctor.

These two candidates below already had their base. Plus, they benefited from the fact that people went to the voting booth not already knowing who they were voting for, and many who wanted a D or an R probably made the wrong selection. These candidates earned more votes through voting errors than they lost, siphoning a small fragment of the vote from the two mainstream political parties, reducing their cost per vote. Then you have to count in the people who just wanted to vote for someone different. I have a friend who literally wrote in Ralph Macchio for president. Yeah, the Karate Kid.

Walt Brown (SPUSA) $2,060 / 10,837 = $0.19
Michael Badnarik (L) $1,093,013 / 397,265 = $2.75

Ron Paul could probably run as an independent and get 500,000 votes, even if he never raised a single dime. But that doesn't mean all the way up to 20 million votes every vote would be free.

OK, one, your prescription drug analogy is completely false. You can't compare between the two, and, furthermore, prescription drugs actually cost less per unit sold the more you sell due to the high initial investment.

While a lot of what you are saying is true as far as it goes (that there is a minimum amount of votes from spending practically nothing), it is also true that the primary problem in third party campaigns is the perceived lack of viability that comes from low polling numbers, if their numbers are mentioned at all, combined with not having the ability to broadcast their message. With Ron Paul already in the double digits in a general election match-up, that gets rid of the first major hurdle. The second major hurdle would be to have enough money to get on the air and distribute campaign literature to enough people to theoretically win. That can be done for far less than $300,000,000 if the campaign would know how to spend it.

[ronpaulhawaii]

How about a grassroots run write in campaign, running parallel to whatever else...?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate

In 1964, a write-in campaign organized by supporters of former U.S. Senator and vice presidential nominee Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. won Republican primaries for President in New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, defeating declared candidates Barry Goldwater, Nelson Rockefeller, and Margaret Chase Smith.

Not like it hasn't been done before, with a measure of success. And not like we couldn't do it MUCH better if we put ourselves to the task...

Hmmmm...