Do we gain national exposure as a movement by supporting state races?

[Michigan11]

This goes along with the other thread on what motivates people in here, US Senate Races, US House Races, State Senate Races, or State House Races.

[Michigan11]

I would say yes we would. Nobody could stop a national movement trying to put liberty candidates into state positions. It would be unique and possibly gain even more influence from the locals in these races who would jump on board, gaining more influence across the board as time went on.


Edit: I mean as we put money and influence into state races, we also see the influence gained from local races(candidates and supporters) trickle upward to our national US House and US Senate races. Creating a natural cycle.

[LibertyMage]

Yes. There is a candidate for delegate in Maryland which - if they won - would start a liberty caucus in the house.

[LittleLightShining]

I haven't been around here much lately because I'm absolutely certain that we HAVE to get involved in state races and that's what I'm doing.

VT is a much different place than anywhere else in the US. I can't get into all of the nuances of VT politics but I will say that it's not pretty for freedom-loving individuals. It's been a challenge locally for me to try to get people to understand that the US House, US Senate, Governor, Lt. Gov, Secretary of State, Atty General and Auditor's races are important but not AS important as the races for the legislature. House races in VT are an inexpensive endeavor as compared to other places-- like NC where Gunny's running. The most expensive House races here cost an average of $5000. The biggest bang for anyone's buck is in the legislative seats. Immediate return on investment.

I have begun a project looking for 6 candidates around the state to push widespread support for. The candidates need to be in races that can be won (with effort), be taking their own race seriously, is not a politician or bureaucrat and most importantly be of a limited government mindset. The VT House has 150 members and is split 1/3 Republican and Independent to 2/3 Democrat and Progressive (which is a major party here).

I spent a lot of time in the State House last year citizen-lobbying and I know that the people who make our laws are cowards. We need people who will stand up and say, "no," defend the state and its Constitution from infringements and aggressions by the Federal government and the very legislature who crafts the laws in the first place.

I chose 6 because I believe 6 candidates is enough to throw a wrench in the gears, especially if they are supportive of each other. I have no party loyalty, 6 candidates from any party (or no party!) who fit the criteria work for me. Even if they are not perfect, I know they are better than the incumbent.

The next step is getting wider geographical support from voters outside of the candidate's district. I have no choice in my own district but there's a great candidate in the next district that I have been busting my ass for. I'm pulling in actual boots on the ground support for her from the corners of the state so I know I'll be able to direct assistance to other candidates as well.

Anyway, that's what I've been up to and I think everyone everywhere should be scrutinizing their candidates for State Legislature and finding someone--somewhere-- to get behind 100%.

[GunnyFreedom]

Yes. There is a candidate for delegate in Maryland which - if they won - would start a liberty caucus in the house.

I've been toying with forming a "Constitutionalist Caucus" once I am seated in the State House, but do not as yet know how to go about that. Also, if i cannot make the notion palatable, is a caucus still a caucus if it's a caucus of one? ;)

[Koz]

I would say yes we would. Nobody could stop a national movement trying to put liberty candidates into state positions. It would be unique and possibly gain even more influence from the locals in these races who would jump on board, gaining more influence across the board as time went on.


Edit: I mean as we put money and influence into state races, we also see the influence gained from local races(candidates and supporters) trickle upward to our national US House and US Senate races. Creating a natural cycle.

Your poll is about national exposure and your answer is more related to effectiveness. I agree that it is more effective to put more money and time into liberty candidates at the state and local levels, but it does not get us national exposure. I think you may want to re-word your poll.

[Galileo Galilei]

Ed Thompson!

[Adrock]

I feel it is important to back candidates in state races because:

1.) We have someone on the local level espousing the right ideals on local television. That is invaluable to waking people up.

2.) It motivates like-minded people to get involved in their local parties.
ie: taking control of the local/state party leadership from the inside

3.) When some of these state representatives decide to run for higher office they already have name recognition. That translates to an easier primary for the Republican party at least. There is a real sense of it "being somebodies turn" with the run of the mill GOP voter. That will help make sure we have a better chance of success with regards to national seats in the future.

I think if we are looking to have a better shot at getting a like-minded candidate through the primary (Presidential?), then supporting like-minded state officials is a must.

[TCE]

I am naturally for the state solution and believe our best chance of promoting liberty is in the states. If we can dominate the legislatures, we can literally go nuts with nullification and that would be the end of federal jurisdiction in that particular state.

EX: Gunny wins his House race and in two years BJ Lawson runs and wins for State House. With a foothold in the North Carolina legislature, they begin touting their solutions and searching for other Constitutionalists to join them in the legislature. Pretty soon, you have a good section of liberty-minded individuals promoting the reduction of government and the increase of liberties.

[nayjevin]

Enforcement will depend on economic solvency. State's rights, nullification, interposition, and local currencies will be key. States have a chance to avoid collapsing with the octopus by allowing competing currencies -- an honest money system -- thereby detaching the fate of the commonwealth from the fate of the D.C. bureaucracy.

The import of a given election will vary, but the state level seems of greater importance in the current environment than in times past.

[RPgrassrootsactivist]

If we capture both chambers of a state legislature with Ron Paul Republicans and utilize nullification, that will get huge mainstream media attention. Look at the stories covering Missouri's nullification of Obamacare, and that wasn't even an example of the strongest form of nullification.

Strong acts of nullification would not just nullify an act and wait around for the U.S. Supreme Court to inevitably declare it "unconstitutional." An example of a strong act of nullification would be for a legislature to nullify the act, require all applicable state, county and city officials to enforce the nullification, and prevent the state supreme court from yielding jurisdiction to the federal system. The last element may include (among other things) disbarring any federal judge in that state who tries to enforce the nullified law; see http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/29/to-our-state-legislators-nullification-requires-protection-of-citizens/ for some discussion of how this could work.

If I had to choose one or the other, I'd rather fill the legislature of a conservative-leaning state with Ron Paul Republicans more than I would see Ron Paul become president. Ron as president could accomplish a lot, but without a true, widespread awakening throughout the country, even Ron wouldn't be able to come close to what really needs to be done. But a single state legislature with a supermajority in both chambers, or a legislature with a simple majority in both chambers and a favorable governor, could truly change the course of history, and in the process set an example for every other state to follow.

[TCE]

Most of Ron's policies would be blocked in Congress. His most powerful weapon, ironically, would be the Executive Order, closely followed by appointing people to cabinet positions who would systematically dismantle them. Such as Departments of Education, Homeland Security, Commerce, etc.

[anaconda]

I live in CA and have donated till it hurts to Rand Paul's campaign in KY. If he follows through we will have a large national voice speaking from the U.S. Senate.