STEVE DEACE: The Buchanan Treatment Won't Work on Ron Paul

[niklarin]

Nothing can stop an idea whose time has come...

http://townhall.com/columnists/stevedeace/2011/12/24/the_buchanan_treatment_wont_work_on_ron_paul/page/full/

[Napolitanic Wars]

Good one!

At this point I wonder why the establishment candidates even bother campaigning. They know they're gonna get a free ride from the media and the establishment will basically guide their hand-picked choice to the White House. Remember 2008 when McCain was having his "comeback" in the polls? That was so hyped-up that I assumed the media was over-inflating McCain's progress so that he would win the primaries but will easily lose to Obama. Obama was better at fooling the public into thinking that things will be different than under G.W. Bush. Romney had a chance against Obama but Romney would hardly pacify a Bush-weary public, so stick with Obama. All that work and money Mitt Romney spent was for nothing. What's the point?

[South Park Fan]

Good one!

At this point I wonder why the establishment candidates even bother campaigning. They know they're gonna get a free ride from the media and the establishment will basically guide their hand-picked choice to the White House. Remember 2008 when McCain was having his "comeback" in the polls? That was so hyped-up that I assumed the media was over-inflating McCain's progress so that he would win the primaries but will easily lose to Obama. Obama was better at fooling the public into thinking that things will be different than under G.W. Bush. Romney had a chance against Obama but Romney would hardly pacify a Bush-weary public, so stick with Obama. All that work and money Mitt Romney spent was for nothing. What's the point?

Romney's 2008 campaign was just to solidify his frontrunner position in 2012. They started speculating about Romney's 2012 campaign the moment he dropped out.

[Steppenwolf6]

Nothing can stop an idea whose time has come...

http://townhall.com/columnists/stevedeace/2011/12/24/the_buchanan_treatment_wont_work_on_ron_paul/page/full/

A rare ,exotic spice this has become of recent:
A courageous,coherent,sincere,deeply intelligent conservative.


Hope never dies,I ask God he is for once right,my fear born out of thousand endless cycles.
Republicrats electorate is a sheeple held together by ignorance itself.
They always end up straight to their worst enemy,their worst possible pick.
The State won a thousand times over a thousand,will Ron Paul start a new era?

[wgadget]

Written by Steve Deace for Townhall.com...not bad.

[pauladin]

besides a much better campaign apparatus, ron has something buchanan didn't to combat the MSM. he has full power of the goddamn internet. also, things are bit different for paul because he may be able to get a one-two punch by winning both of the first two states, while buchanan only won new hampshire.

[sailingaway]

I changed your title to put in Steve Deace's name because he is a very influential Christian conservative radio host in Iowa. He has been conflicted over Ron, but there MUST be a misunderstanding in there somewhere because THIS is how Deace describes the candidate we need -- tell me this isn't Ron Paul:


the Republican Party needs to champion candidates who have good powerful ideas about how to return to the roots of the American Revolution—which begins with the premise individuals have liberty and rights from God alone, and the role of government is to protect those God-given rights and then get out of the way to allow liberty to flourish.

In any event I am pleased this was his reaction to the whole newsletter flap.

[Steppenwolf6]

True,Paul has the internet which Buchanan did not have.
Buchanan thou had an easier time talking to conservative, a big plus on his side that made things easier,at least initially.

Foreign policy was never Buchanan's problem and it is not Paul's problem now.
Paul's problem is in the label ,in the marketing package,in the appearence:
Conservatives like conservatives.

[shadowhooch]

I thought the key to the whole article was this...


And as much as I disagree with Paul, I’d choose him over the Republicrat ruling class any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

Wow. That's almost an endorsement eh?

[PierzStyx]

I changed your title to put in Steve Deace's name because he is a very influential Christian conservative radio host in Iowa. He has been conflicted over Ron, but there MUST be a misunderstanding in there somewhere because THIS is how Deace describes the candidate we need -- tell me this isn't Ron Paul:

"the Republican Party needs to champion candidates who have good powerful ideas about how to return to the roots of the American Revolution—which begins with the premise individuals have liberty and rights from God alone, and the role of government is to protect those God-given rights and then get out of the way to allow liberty to flourish. ".


The problem is that he, like the rest of the GOP, doesn't recognize what that truly means. They talk the talk but they have no vision, no understanding, of what someone who actually walks the walk looks like. When it looks different from what they expected, they rebel, even though its exactly what they always wanted.

[niklarin]

I changed your title to put in Steve Deace's name because he is a very influential Christian conservative radio host in Iowa. He has been conflicted over Ron, but there MUST be a misunderstanding in there somewhere because THIS is how Deace describes the candidate we need -- tell me this isn't Ron Paul:



In any event I am pleased this was his reaction to the whole newsletter flap.

Thanks! I think he is just afraid that Ron Paul's libertarian views are promoting atheism or something..

[specsaregood]

In any event I am pleased this was his reaction to the whole newsletter flap.

uhm


The peasants want to storm the Bastille, and in many respects the philosophy Paul is espousing of individualized liberty for the sake of self is right out of the French Revolution—so it fits the mood of the country perfectly.

This brings us to how to defeat Paul.
really? i think not.

[ord33]

I didn't realize until a second read that Steve Deace wrote that article. Now that is a pretty fair article. I liked it! Those with TownHall commenting privileges please go and comment - otherwise we may take a beating!

[sailingaway]

The problem is that he, like the rest of the GOP, doesn't recognize what that truly means. They talk the talk but they have no vision, no understanding, of what someone who actually walks the walk looks like. When it looks different from what they expected, they rebel, even though its exactly what they always wanted.

Ron can easily speak a language they understand but he has gotten into speech patterns. If it wasn't during campaign and he wasn't expecting attack at every side, he would probably make it clearer.

[sailingaway]

Thanks! I think he is just afraid that Ron Paul's libertarian views are promoting atheism or something..

I thinks he gets that RON doesn't, he wonders about us. Ayn Rand was an objectivist, Ron is not, but everyone and their dog say in media that he and we are.

[sailingaway]

uhm

really? i think not.

He said the way to defeat Paul is to run better candidates -- not something they can change at this moment.

[sailingaway]

I didn't realize until a second read that Steve Deace wrote that article. Now that is a pretty fair article. I liked it! Those with TownHall commenting privileges please go and comment - otherwise we may take a beating!

Oddly I can vote in their polls and get incredible volumes of spam from them, but can't seem to comment.

[ord33]

The problem is that he, like the rest of the GOP, doesn't recognize what that truly means. They talk the talk but they have no vision, no understanding, of what someone who actually walks the walk looks like. When it looks different from what they expected, they rebel, even though its exactly what they always wanted.

I respectfully disagree. I listen to Deace's show all the time and I think he honestly tries to be fair and point out the positives and negatives of each person based on his views. He holds some strong views and that is his right. If someone agrees with those views he will praise them. If a candidate pretends to hold those views, but doesn't live them out he calls them out on it. He isn't our strongest ally by any means, but he is pretty fair for the most part (at least so far he has been in my opinion) and that's all one can ask for really. Just the other day he had Rand Paul on for 30 minutes and Jesse Benton on for another 30 minutes. Then, the following hour, he had on two undecided voters that had Ron Paul in the top 3 and they talked rationally on where they agreed and disagreed. This was the day after Ron signed the Personhood Pledge.

Although I haven't read his new book yet, the title alone sounds good to me: We Won't Get Fooled Again: Where the Christian Right Went Wrong and How to Make America Right Again (http://www.amazon.com/We-Wont-Get-Fooled-Again/dp/0983723818/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320351792&sr=1-1) Having not read it yet, I can't be certain of the content, but after listening to him I think it would be something like this very generally.....The past Republican officials talk a good game about values and social conservative issues, but they fail miserably in enacting these principles and gaining any positive action from their time in office.

One of the quotes in the review is:


If you are a GOP cheerleader then you likely be disturbed with the authors. If you've given your hard earned dollars to pro-family/pro-life organizations, then you likely be disturbed with the organizations mentioned in We Won't Get Fooled Again

I think that Steve Deace just tells it like he sees it. I disagree with him on some things, but he at least mentions a rational reason on why he believes what he does.

I have been up and down on how Steve Deace views Paul for a while. At one point I thought he might actually endorse Ron Paul. For a short period he seemed pretty displeased with Ron Paul (primarily during the time he hadn't signed the Personhood Pledge). Now, I think you will just see his straight up opinion on Ron Paul both good and bad. I am hoping he won't actually endorse anybody. I wrote a long e-mail to him describing my reasons why. I think it would be best for him not to endorse anyone for his own good. It would be so divisive among his listeners. Who primarily side with Paul, Santorum, or Bachmann. With some much lesser interest in Gingrich/Perry. I have a feeling he isn't going to outright endorse any candidate, but tell the strengths and weaknesses of each and let people decide on their own. I mean just look what happened in Iowa with Bob Vander Plaats endorsing Santorum and now there are all of these allegations that money was involved with obtaining the endorsement or at least BVP asking for money allegedly to promote his endorsement of Santorum. It is creating divisiveness among evangelicals in Iowa from what I can tell.

[goldpants]

The internet has allowed sunlight to break through the thick clouds. Exposing the media's manipulations, distortions and true agendas for those that will their eyes open. Once a person catches a glimpse at liberty they can't resist the urge to see her in all her glory. Deace may not see it all yet but he is getting closer.

[sailingaway]

I respectfully disagree. I listen to Deace's show all the time and I think he honestly tries to be fair and point out the positives and negatives of each person based on his views. He holds some strong views and that is his right. If someone agrees with those views he will praise them. If a candidate pretends to hold those views, but doesn't live them out he calls them out on it. He isn't our strongest ally by any means, but he is pretty fair for the most part (at least so far he has been in my opinion) and that's all one can ask for really. Just the other day he had Rand Paul on for 30 minutes and Jesse Benton on for another 30 minutes. Then, the following hour, he had on two undecided voters that had Ron Paul in the top 3 and they talked rationally on where they agreed and disagreed. This was the day after Ron signed the Personhood Pledge.

Although I haven't read his new book yet, the title alone sounds good to me: We Won't Get Fooled Again: Where the Christian Right Went Wrong and How to Make America Right Again (http://www.amazon.com/We-Wont-Get-Fooled-Again/dp/0983723818/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320351792&sr=1-1) Having not read it yet, I can't be certain of the content, but after listening to him I think it would be something like this very generally.....The past Republican officials talk a good game about values and social conservative issues, but they fail miserably in enacting these principles and gaining any positive action from their time in office.

One of the quotes in the review is:



I think that Steve Deace just tells it like he sees it. I disagree with him on some things, but he at least mentions a rational reason on why he believes what he does.

I have been up and down on how Steve Deace views Paul for a while. At one point I thought he might actually endorse Ron Paul. For a short period he seemed pretty displeased with Ron Paul (primarily during the time he hadn't signed the Personhood Pledge). Now, I think you will just see his straight up opinion on Ron Paul both good and bad. I am hoping he won't actually endorse anybody. I wrote a long e-mail to him describing my reasons why. I think it would be best for him not to endorse anyone for his own good. It would be so divisive among his listeners. Who primarily side with Paul, Santorum, or Bachmann. With some much lesser interest in Gingrich/Perry. I have a feeling he isn't going to outright endorse any candidate, but tell the strengths and weaknesses of each and let people decide on their own. I mean just look what happened in Iowa with Bob Vander Plaats endorsing Santorum and now there are all of these allegations that money was involved with obtaining the endorsement or at least BVP asking for money allegedly to promote his endorsement of Santorum. It is creating divisiveness among evangelicals in Iowa from what I can tell.

Still, for people who want to vote for someone with a shot to take it further, that most of the candidates didn't qualify for the ballot in Virginia has got to winnow the field. At least, it would with me had I been in that mind set. Before Paul I was planning to vote for someone other than the frontrunner (since I refused to vote for McCain in the primary) but I wanted there to at least be a possibility they could win.

And Deace basically, to my reading, said between Romney and Gingrich and Ron, he'd go with Ron.

Except I'm not sure he recognizes that he described Gingrich in the Republican establishment elite.

[muh_roads]

He sounds like a Paul supporter but near the end he says he hates him and has dangerous ideas. Is it foreign policy or is it just that Paul doesn't want to squelch the gays like this guy talks about in the first half?

This guy confuses the hell out of me. It was a really bad ass article until 2/3 of the way down.

[kylejack]

Sounds to me like Deace just wants a credible conservative who is willing to maintain America's 'world leader' status, but unfortunately it's all scumbags selling out the American people. So he reluctantly says that at least Ron Paul is principled, and he can respect that.

[damiengwa]

Wow, can I say that this is a beautiful piece of journalism!

[sailingaway]

He sounds like a Paul supporter but near the end he says he hates him and has dangerous ideas. Is it foreign policy or is it just that Paul doesn't want to squelch the gays like this guy talks about in the first half?

This guy confuses the hell out of me. It was a really bad ass article until 2/3 of the way down.

I think he THINKS he disagrees with Ron more than he does. They need a translator.

[sailingaway]

Sounds to me like Deace just wants a credible conservative who is willing to maintain America's 'world leader' status, but unfortunately it's all scumbags selling out the American people. So he reluctantly says that at least Ron Paul is principled, and he can respect that.

I'm not sure world leader is his thing. Israel might be, but I think he was willing to look for the best and the differences on how to approach that one issue isn't the block, here. Honestly, if Ron wins the caucus he should go on Deace's show AFTER and just talk.

[ord33]

Still, for people who want to vote for someone with a shot to take it further, that most of the candidates didn't qualify for the ballot in Virginia has got to winnow the field. At least, it would with me had I been in that mind set. Before Paul I was planning to vote for someone other than the frontrunner (since I refused to vote for McCain in the primary) but I wanted there to at least be a possibility they could win.

And Deace basically, to my reading, said between Romney and Gingrich and Ron, he'd go with Ron.

Except I'm not sure he recognizes that he described Gingrich in the Republican establishment elite.

I agree with you 100% on the qualifying for Virginia. Deace even posted that article on Facebook! Although Steve Deace seems to hold on to his principles and he thinks Santorum/Bachmann probably align a little closer (or are at least more outspoken about it) there is definitely something in there in the back of his mind saying that Ron Paul is the one who can continue on of those three candidates. There is absolutely ZERO chance Deace will ever side with Mitt Romney. When he talks about Gingrich he mentions that his current message is receptive to the Christian Community and has some good thought to it, however he always mentions his past and whether people can overcome that. And he has bashed him on several other things as well. I think if it was between Paul, Romney, and Gingrich he would support Ron Paul - in fact he has as much as said so previously.

I think we are on the same page here definitely though about the ability of Ron Paul to continue on and your Virginia example is a perfect indicator of that.

[PaleoPaul]

Guys:

A vote is a vote. Does his vote not count, even if he only agrees with Paul on a few issues?

[harikaried]

So it sounds like Deace could endorse Ron Paul after Iowa if both Santorum and Bachmann drop out?

[LibertyEagle]

Oddly I can vote in their polls and get incredible volumes of spam from them, but can't seem to comment.

Did you register? You have to do that first and get a login.

[sailingaway]

Did you register? You have to do that first and get a login.

Hm. Now that you mention it, I'm not sure. I guess I figured they clearly had my email. I get multiple things from them each day.

[Echoes]

Guys:

A vote is a vote. Does his vote not count, even if he only agrees with Paul on a few issues?

Im not big on endorsements, but his is one that would definately cement our numbers in Iowa. More so then any poiitician's endorsement.

[LibertyEagle]

I think he THINKS he disagrees with Ron more than he does. They need a translator.

^^ This.

[dante]

Oddly I can vote in their polls and get incredible volumes of spam from them, but can't seem to comment.

One time their spam was an exact copy of a Ron Paul fundraising email I had previously received from the campaign. Wrapped with their (townhall.com's) unsubscribe footer.

[Adam West]

That article was great, and well written. Definitely put the "R" in Ron Paul Revolution.

[The Binghamton Patriot]

yes this was def a well written article. He pretty much just admitted that the neocons are blatant, out in the open, and are in the closet w. the democrats. Even though he disagrees with Ron on a lot, he confirms that Ron is indeed much more suited to carry the conservative/republican mantra against barry soetoro.

[airborne373]

Good one!

At this point I wonder why the establishment candidates even bother campaigning. They know they're gonna get a free ride from the media and the establishment will basically guide their hand-picked choice to the White House. Remember 2008 when McCain was having his "comeback" in the polls? That was so hyped-up that I assumed the media was over-inflating McCain's progress so that he would win the primaries but will easily lose to Obama. Obama was better at fooling the public into thinking that things will be different than under G.W. Bush. Romney had a chance against Obama but Romney would hardly pacify a Bush-weary public, so stick with Obama. All that work and money Mitt Romney spent was for nothing. What's the point?

From what I can tell establishment puppets like Newt & Romney do not campaign. At least not on the ground with real voters face to face. Neither has a real campaign office operating in Iowa. We have all seen the "news" reports of closed or just opening campaign office for these liberal progressives calling themselves Republican. Newt and Romney get favorable coverage while they speak to a small audience with the MSM cameras close up and in their face so the public does not see the absence of a real crowd. (Newt has teenage children of staffers standing behind him to help give the impression of grassroots support.)

It is very Soviet in its production style and lack of substance. Our media is literally guilty of treason.

[Feeding the Abscess]

He sounds like a Paul supporter but near the end he says he hates him and has dangerous ideas. Is it foreign policy or is it just that Paul doesn't want to squelch the gays like this guy talks about in the first half?

This guy confuses the hell out of me. It was a really bad ass article until 2/3 of the way down.

It's both.

[69360]

They have no problem burning down the entire system, because they distrust it anyway.

Yep.

[Voluntary Man]

Great article, for the most part. Just goes a little schizophrenic, at the end, when he suggests the only candidate the establishment (whom the voters despise and distrust) could offer up, to defeat Ron Paul ... is, essentially, Ron Paul. If that was an intentional paradox, props to Deace.

[Voluntary Man]

Yep.

"no problem"? Sometimes, that's the only "fix" left.

[Gravik]

Good article.

Lots of negative comments towards Paul in the comment section though. Just browsing the first page of comments it looked like 1/3 of them were anti Ron Paul posts.

[ctiger2]

Paul >>>>>>>>>> Buchanan

[Slutter McGee]

I would like to thank the dumbass who declared 911 an inside job in the comments of semi-positive townhall column. What a damn idiot.

I would usually use a word other than damn, But trying to tone down my language during the election cycle.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Buchanan(or some of his high ranking campaigners) needs to join the campaign in order to give us advice on how to deal with this stuff....it will affect us to some extent, but less than Buchanan.

[TexMac]

Steve Deace:


First of all, Paul’s campaign apparatus is dramatically superior to anything Buchanan ever had. His Iowa Caucus campaign is a well-oiled machine, and the envy of the entire process. They’re running the best commercials. They’re the best organized. They’re the most loyal. And look beyond Iowa, too. Paul wins straw polls all over the country, including CPAC and even at the 2011 Values Voters Summit. I know several of these people who are the masterminds of Paul’s organization, and these folks don’t put their phasers on stun when it comes to their opponents and know what they’re doing. They’re not kooks, they’re sharp cookies and losing is not an option in their strategy. They have no problem burning down the entire system, because they distrust it anyway.


Buchanan still needed the system. He still needed jobs on cable news networks or help publishing/selling his books and columns. Paul isn’t running to reform the system. He’s running to reboot it. Buchanan has never had an organization this good. In fact, no insurgent candidate in modern American political history has had an organization this professional and well-funded.



http://townhall.com/columnists/stevedeace/2011/12/24/the_buchanan_treatment_wont_work_on_ron_paul

[iamse7en]

Just endorse already, you coward.

[Zap!]

Two more reasons:

1) The establishment, although still a majority, is far weaker today than it was in 1996.

2) The internet. Although it was certainly around in 1996 (I had it), it is 1,000's of times stronger today.

[gmc1988]

GREAT article!!!! Deace hits it right on the head! The more I see and hear from Deace, the more I believe he is a sincere person who is honest and real on the issues he doesn't agree with Ron on. As far as I know, he has expressed disagreements with Dr Paul solely on an issues base, and has not resorted to slander and name calling. I can respect someone like that,and this article is excellent! I know he doesn't agree with Dr Paul on everything, but this is, as far as I'm concerned, a positive article.

[gmc1988]

Two more reasons:

1) The establishment, although still a majority, is far weaker today than it was in 1996.

2) The internet. Although it was certainly around in 1996 (I had it), it is 1,000's of times stronger today.

Very true!!!!!!!!!!! The Internet is THE game changer!!!!!!!!!!! This would not be happening if it wasn't for the Internet!!!!!

[Suzu]

I think the upper echelons of the GOP are well aware that if Ron Paul were to run as an Independent, he would take at least 12% of the Republican vote with him. He would also take 15% of the Independents and 11% from the Democrats. This would give him 38% − enough to win the Presidency in a three-man race. Thus their only hope is to destroy him utterly, and they are going to give it everything they've got. In other words, we ain't seen nothin' yet.

[TexMac]

GREAT article!!!! Deace hits it right on the head! The more I see and hear from Deace, the more I believe he is a sincere person who is honest and real on the issues he doesn't agree with Ron on. As far as I know, he has expressed disagreements with Dr Paul solely on an issues base, and has not resorted to slander and name calling. I can respect someone like that,and this article is excellent! I know he doesn't agree with Dr Paul on everything, but this is, as far as I'm concerned, a positive article.

That was my thought as well. I was really pleased to see how he described the RP campaign. It sounds so badass, lol!

[Zap!]

I think the upper echelons of the GOP are well aware that if Ron Paul were to run as an Independent, he would take at least 12% of the Republican vote with him. He would also take 15% of the Independents and 11% from the Democrats. This would give him 38% − enough to win the Presidency in a three-man race. Thus their only hope is to destroy him utterly, and they are going to give it everything they've got. In other words, we ain't seen nothin' yet.

As must as I love Ron Paul, he wouldn't get anywhere near 38% via a third party run. You don't add up all the votes, you average them out. Roughly 45% will always vote Dem, and 45% will always vote Repub. If he talks 15% of Republicans, that means 85% Republicans are voting Romney. If he gets 11% of Dems, that means 89% of Dems are voting Obama.

That means 85% and 89% are voting Mitt Obama. average that out it comes to 87.5% voting one of the two party candidates, so that's 12.5% for Ron Paul. Still, not too shabby.

[HarryBrowneLives]

I think the upper echelons of the GOP are well aware that if Ron Paul were to run as an Independent, he would take at least 12% of the Republican vote with him. He would also take 15% of the Independents and 11% from the Democrats. This would give him 38% − enough to win the Presidency in a three-man race. Thus their only hope is to destroy him utterly, and they are going to give it everything they've got. In other words, we ain't seen nothin' yet.

I have no desire to see RP run 3rd party. Ron is right on this one. We would spend tens of millions just getting on the ballots. He would be largely shut out of the press and certainly the national debates. ...and (like it or not) in the end, the libertarian wing of the GOP would be blamed for the loss of the nominee if it were true or not .... further solidifying the Neocons.

FYI, I was hardcore Big L for 20 yrs

[affa]

I think the upper echelons of the GOP are well aware that if Ron Paul were to run as an Independent, he would take at least 12% of the Republican vote with him. He would also take 15% of the Independents and 11% from the Democrats. This would give him 38% − enough to win the Presidency in a three-man race. Thus their only hope is to destroy him utterly, and they are going to give it everything they've got. In other words, we ain't seen nothin' yet.


let's say there are 300 voters.
100 are Dems.
100 are Reps.
100 are Indies.
12 percent of Republicans = 12 voters. 11 percent of Democrats = 11 voters. 15 percent of Indies = 15 voters.
So per your example, RP would get 38 votes, which is only 12.66% of the voter total of 300, not 38%.

[sailingaway]

As must as I love Ron Paul, he wouldn't get anywhere near 38% via a third party run. You don't add up all the votes, you average them out. Roughly 45% will always vote Dem, and 45% will always vote Repub. If he talks 15% of Republicans, that means 85% Republicans are voting Romney. If he gets 11% of Dems, that means 89% of Dems are voting Obama.

That means 85% and 89% are voting Mitt Obama. average that out it comes to 87.5% voting one of the two party candidates, so that's 12.5% for Ron Paul. Still, not too shabby.

He polled at 21% against Romney and Obama and the same against Gingrich and Obama where Romney and Gingrich had the GOP nomination, just earlier this week, nationally. Now if HE had the GOP nomination, Obama would be gone.

But he isn't running third party.

[Peace&Freedom]

These low projections about what a third party candidate would get seems to leave out the cases of Wallace and Perot, who got 20% or more of the vote. This is much more than the 12.6% above estimated, and also doesn't factor in that Perot got that much after he had damaged his credibility with the public. The implication is he would have gotten much higher totals. Keep in mind a large amount of Paul's vote in the election would not just come from independents, but from independents and other people who usually don't vote in elections, and this NEW voter population 'X' factor is simply not accounted for in projections that concentrate on historically partisan voters.

The truth is, all of the above calculations are based on the traditional model of third party candidacies where the contender 1) has no mass national following, 2) cannot raise serious money to contest the race (to get around a media shutout, or beat down), and 3) has no grassroots network in place to get on the ballot in all states. In other words, none of these conditions apply to Paul, who already has the national visibility, grassroots supporters, money bomb capability to run a Perot level third party candidacy without Perot's flaws. Using the normal third party track record info is irrelevant for judging Paul's chances.

As a former three term state LP Chair, I have coordinated several state independent petition drives, and can tell you straight it only takes in the vicinity of $30-35,000 to run a successful petition drive in New York with professional petitioners (we have usually needed only 2-3 petitioners to complete). Most other states, being smaller, would not be as difficult, so the hurdle is being overblown. The LP already has regular ballot status in half the states, which means the job is already half done for its nominee. The existing grassroots base that is willing to petition voluntarily for Paul is enormous in most states, and could easily get the majority of the signatures, thus eliminating most of the cost. They would only need to be coordinated by experienced petitioners, which the LP knows how to supply.

Paul may well be on track to dominating the Republican primaries and winning the nomination. OR, he may be defrauded out of it by vote fraud in January, a February surprise by the party leadership (bending the rules to insert Christie or other persons into the race, ballot deadlines be darned), or a theft of his nomination at a brokered convention. Paul will need to make a first decision about quitting the GOP race to do an independent or LP/CP run by March, when the sour grapes states like TX start holding their primaries, if he wants to be able to be on the ballot on the different line.

Finally, even if Paul can only manage the lower results estimated, it's worth it to 1) be able to vote for Paul in the general election, 2) get the LP or CP to acheive regular ballot status in more states as a result of his candidacy, and 3) to inflict pain on the GOP over this and subsequent election cycles (this time Ron, next time Rand, next time the Judge, etc) until they finally bend to the anti-war/anti-Fed liberty movement. We must stop worrying over "oh, but what will the party think about us," and start making them worry about not crossing us. Cause them pain, or things stay the same.

[Zap!]

These low projections about what a third party candidate would get seems to leave out the cases of Wallace and Perot, who got 20% or more of the vote. This is much more than the 12.6% above estimated, and also doesn't factor in that Perot got that much after he had damaged his credibility with the public. The implication is he would have gotten much higher totals. Keep in mind a large amount of Paul's vote in the election would not just come from independents, but from independents and other people who usually don't vote in elections, and this NEW voter population 'X' factor is simply not accounted for in projections that concentrate on historically partisan voters.

The truth is, all of the above calculations are based on the traditional model of third party candidacies where the contender 1) has no mass national following, 2) cannot raise serious money to contest the race (to get around a media shutout, or beat down), and 3) has no grassroots network in place to get on the ballot in all states. In other words, none of these conditions apply to Paul, who already has the national visibility, grassroots supporters, money bomb capability to run a Perot level third party candidacy without Perot's flaws. Using the normal third party track record info is irrelevant for judging Paul's chances.

As a former three term state LP Chair, I have coordinated several state independent petition drives, and can tell you straight it only takes in the vicinity of $30-35,000 to run a successful petition drive in New York with professional petitioners (we have usually needed only 2-3 petitioners to complete). Most other states, being smaller, would not be as difficult, so the hurdle is being overblown. The LP already has regular ballot status in half the states, which means the job is already half done for its nominee. The existing grassroots base that is willing to petition voluntarily for Paul is enormous in most states, and could easily get the majority of the signatures, thus eliminating most of the cost. They would only need to be coordinated by experienced petitioners, which the LP knows how to supply.

Paul may well be on track to dominating the Republican primaries and winning the nomination. OR, he may be defrauded out of it by vote fraud in January, a February surprise by the party leadership (bending the rules to insert Christie or other persons into the race, ballot deadlines be darned), or a theft of his nomination at a brokered convention. Paul will need to make a first decision about quitting the GOP race to do an independent or LP/CP run by March, when the sour grapes states like TX start holding their primaries, if he wants to be able to be on the ballot on the different line.

Finally, even if Paul can only manage the lower results estimated, it's worth it to 1) be able to vote for Paul in the general election, 2) get the LP or CP to acheive regular ballot status in more states as a result of his candidacy, and 3) to inflict pain on the GOP over this and subsequent election cycles (this time Ron, next time Rand, next time the Judge, etc) until they finally bend to the anti-war/anti-Fed liberty movement. We must stop worrying over "oh, but what will the party think about us," and start making them worry about not crossing us. Cause them pain, or things stay the same.

Perot the billionaire got 19% in 1992 and didn't win a single state, the most of the century. Wallace in 1968 and Strom Thurmond in 1948 got less than Perot, however both won some states.

[Steppenwolf6]

Perot the billionaire got 19% in 1992 and didn't win a single state, the most of the century. Wallace in 1968 and Strom Thurmond in 1948 got less than Perot, however both won some states.

As a third party candidate he would have a shot at winning,forget upsetting the republican establishement ,which would be a good deed all by itself.
21% is an amazing beginning.
Perot had 0% when he began his campaign.
He would be a VERY serious contender.

[69360]

As a third party candidate he would have a shot at winning,forget upsetting the republican establishement ,which would be a good deed all by itself.
21% is an amazing beginning.
Perot had 0% when he began his campaign.
He would be a VERY serious contender.

You're kidding yourself. A third party candidate has virtually no chance at winning the presidency in the USA. Ron himself says this.

I'd do all I could to help A RP 3rd party run, but it's virtually impossible to win with the way ballot and debate access is.

[nbhadja]

Ron Paul has a good shot of winning the Republican nomination. But if he does not win it, then he should immediately endorse Gary Johnson who will runas a Libertarian if RP does not win the RP nomination.

This would send a message that the Republican party will never have another president again unless they nominate a politician like Ron Paul.

Plus I want the neo-con ass hat supporters to suffer and see Obama win. They deserve it.

[Peace&Freedom]

You're kidding yourself. A third party candidate has virtually no chance at winning the presidency in the USA. Ron himself says this.

I'd do all I could to help A RP 3rd party run, but it's virtually impossible to win with the way ballot and debate access is.

To repeat, you're basing the "no chance" prediction on the typical limitations and weaknesses of third party candidates, none of which Paul has. With Paul running through to election day, we would finally see what a properly funded, nationally popular and competitively organized candidate could do on a third party line. My take is he would do mid-30's% in most states or higher, pulling a larger fraction of Democrat and Republican votes than usual, plus an even larger group of independents and NEW population of people who don't normally vote in elections. His chances of winning are good.

[nbhadja]

Perot was leading the race as a 3rd party candidate (before the establishment gave him death threats and destroyed his momentum) and that was before the internet, so it can be done. If Ron Paul were to run as an independent he would be a formidable contender to win.

Many of the left are angry at Obama for his wars, wars on drugs, bailouts, the bad economy, destruction of civil liberties. Many on the right will be angry at the rhino named Newt/Romney. It could be the perfect storm.

Also remember, even if you don't win the election you still make progress just like a lot of progress was made in 2007 without coming close to winning anything.

The fact that the media would try to keep Paul out of the Romney/Obama debates would instantly make Ron a household name with a lot of sympathy. There would be only 3 people in the race so it would be very easy to blast Romney/Obama for being the same old corrupt fascist politicians.

[specsaregood]

Perot the billionaire got 19% in 1992 and didn't win a single state, the most of the century. Wallace in 1968 and Strom Thurmond in 1948 got less than Perot, however both won some states.
I don't think an independent has a chance NOW, but perot is a bad example. He lost his support because he temporarily dropped out of the race. AFTER taking the lead in national polls (39%). If he had never dropped out, the results might have been different.

[69360]

To repeat, you're basing the "no chance" prediction on the typical limitations and weaknesses of third party candidates, none of which Paul has. With Paul running through to election day, we would finally see what a properly funded, nationally popular and competitively organized candidate could do on a third party line. My take is he would do mid-30's% in most states., pulling a larger fraction of Democrat and Republican votes than usual, plus an even larger group of independents and NEW population of people who don't normally vote in elections. His chances of winning are good.

His chances are good for and as the GOP nominee. His chances 3rd party are next to none and Obama gets re-elected.

I'm not saying I wouldn't support a 3rd party run, I would work 100% at it. But it's virtually impossible in this country.

[Dsylexic]

there are only options in 2013: a ron paul win as GOP nominee or an obama win.
it is upto GOPers to think and find out for themselves if they want 4 years of obama again.any non Paul goper will lose.this insight doesnt have to come from ardent paul supporter,this is simple arithmetic.paul has a solid 10% of GOP as nothing-but-paul voters.they will simply never endorse mittster or getnrich or even palin.this means advantage obama if paul is not nominee.

[nbhadja]

Perot the billionaire got 19% in 1992 and didn't win a single state, the most of the century. Wallace in 1968 and Strom Thurmond in 1948 got less than Perot, however both won some states.

Perot was leading the entire race before they gave him death threats, forcing him to stop and destroying his momentum.

[Eric21ND]

Yeah Perot was winning until he dropped out due to death threats and threats to his family.

[TheTexan]

I'm not saying I wouldn't support a 3rd party run, I would work 100% at it. But it's virtually impossible in this country.

If it were any other candidate I'd agree with this. RP is truly unique.. and if someone could pull off a third party victory, it's him. Improbable, but not impossible.

Of course, why worry about any of that when we're doing so well in the GOP :)

[Peace&Freedom]

His chances are good for and as the GOP nominee. His chances 3rd party are next to none and Obama gets re-elected.

I'm not saying I wouldn't support a 3rd party run, I would work 100% at it. But it's virtually impossible in this country.

I guess some will just repeat assertions and not give reasons, or answer mine to the contrary. Paul's chances are good or even very good as a 3rd party candidate, for reasons I have stated.

[Zap!]

As a third party candidate he would have a shot at winning,forget upsetting the republican establishement ,which would be a good deed all by itself.
21% is an amazing beginning.
Perot had 0% when he began his campaign.
He would be a VERY serious contender.

Perot had over a billion and got himself into the debates in 1992. Paul is a negative on both of that. If he got 10%, I wouldn't be shocked, but 21% I certainly would.

[Zap!]

Perot was leading the entire race before they gave him death threats, forcing him to stop and destroying his momentum.

I don't care about what-ifs, nor do I believe Perot got death threats by the CIA. I care about results. The results are he got 19%. It was my first election, and I voted Bush. I'm sorry, I regret it.

[Steppenwolf6]

To repeat, you're basing the "no chance" prediction on the typical limitations and weaknesses of third party candidates, none of which Paul has. With Paul running through to election day, we would finally see what a properly funded, nationally popular and competitively organized candidate could do on a third party line. My take is he would do mid-30's% in most states or higher, pulling a larger fraction of Democrat and Republican votes than usual, plus an even larger group of independents and NEW population of people who don't normally vote in elections. His chances of winning are good.
I agree.
Not easy but not impossible.
He would necessarily be part of all the debates by the way.
And of course ,21% can turn into 35%,why not?
What so "impossible"?