Should We Also Take Over the Democrats?

[BSU kid]

If the GOP is a dying party, like the pundits want us to believe...should we not also infiltrate Democratic ranks? After all, Dr. Paul himself said they are essentially the same party. By putting some of our members in their ranks it would allow a safety net should the GOP collapse or no longer becomes viable at a national level.

Essentially I advocate we run Liberty Candidates in both, and it is really not that bizarre of an idea. The YAL already encourages members to join either-or at the college level and take them over.

[Jeremy]

If the GOP is dying, it only helps us. The Democratic Party has nothing in common with us. A few of them were antiwar when Bush was the president.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

If there are possible instances, sure. But don't waste resources on bad propositions.

[jmdrake]

Yes. Mark Clayton won the dem nomination for the U.S. senate in TN much to the chagrin of the state party. They tried to get him thrown off the ballot and failed. Sure he got beat pretty significantly in the general (though he came as close as the last dem to run despite having the party bosses against him) but he got national recognition (and ridiculous attacks) regardless.

[jmdrake]

If the GOP is dying, it only helps us. The Democratic Party has nothing in common with us. A few of them were antiwar when Bush was the president.

Maybe not the party as a whole, but there are democrats who share Ron Paul values on a lot of issues. (Mark Clayton for example).

[supermario21]

No. Maybe 25 years ago but they are too wrapped up with big labor, and progressive causes associated with the welfare state. Court them on civil liberties only.

[BSU kid]

No. Maybe 25 years ago but they are too wrapped up with big labor, and progressive causes associated with the welfare state. Court them on civil liberties only.

Yes, that is a problem.

[sailingaway]

We have Dems who support Ron and won't become GOP for anyone else. I definitely would like them to. There are Jeffersonian Democrats, they tell me.

[Okie RP fan]

The Democrats are going further and further left. Plus, while we have a sizable and respectable force, that would be spreading our resources too thin. Our ultimate goal really needs to be establishing a viable and competitive third party, and we need to go through one or both of the parties to set that stage up.

People have heard me say many a time, I've had far more success, personally, with neocons and die hard R's than I have progressive liberals and die hard D's. The progressive/liberal Democrats want communism in this country and they are succeeding in their goal.

But, it depends where we are. Some Democrats may be more apt to influence from us, than others, but, I'm not sure. Does anyone know if blue dog Dems are dying out, or growing?

[CPUd]

Yes. Mark Clayton won the dem nomination for the U.S. senate in TN much to the chagrin of the state party. They tried to get him thrown off the ballot and failed. Sure he got beat pretty significantly in the general (though he came as close as the last dem to run despite having the party bosses against him) but he got national recognition (and ridiculous attacks) regardless.

Anyone in TN with a D by their name will lose badly, unless it is for sometihng in Nashville, or possibly Memphis.

LOL just looked at the Senate results for 2012:

http://i.imgur.com/j9o3M.png

[Meatwasp]

I think we should find a latino like Ron Paul. That is the wave of the future.

[sailingaway]

I think we should find a latino like Ron Paul. That is the wave of the future.

I am really surprised to see color coded thinking here.

I'm not opposed to one, but I wouldn't racially select one, either.

[nasaal]

Democracy is so devoted to central planning it would be ridiculous. But they can push certain liberty platforms. Foreign policy, Drug war, patriot act, NDAA, audit the Fed. All of these can be pushed through the Democratic party. You won't get Austrian economics, but you can get lower spending and taxes to a degree. You can at least get a somewhat balanced budget. It'd be easier to deal with in congress when we're just fighting over true economic issues, than trying to fight an entire culture of social planning.

[sailingaway]

Democracy is so devoted to central planning it would be ridiculous. But they can push certain liberty platforms. Foreign policy, Drug war, patriot act, NDAA, audit the Fed. All of these can be pushed through the Democratic party. You won't get Austrian economics, but you can get lower spending and taxes to a degree. You can at least get a somewhat balanced budget. It'd be easier to deal with in congress when we're just fighting over true economic issues, than trying to fight an entire culture of social planning.

You can get Jeffersonian constitutionalism -- as THEY see it. And it isn't far from us. At least it would be really easy to form coalitions with them on most things once in office.

[Meatwasp]

I am really surprised to see color coded thinking here.

I'm not opposed to one, but I wouldn't racially select one, either.I am not being racially motivated. I am being realistic.
Saling Away my dad was spanish and Indian so I can say it. Heh

[Travlyr]

If the GOP is a dying party, like the pundits want us to believe...should we not also infiltrate Democratic ranks? After all, Dr. Paul himself said they are essentially the same party. By putting some of our members in their ranks it would allow a safety net should the GOP collapse or no longer becomes viable at a national level.

Essentially I advocate we run Liberty Candidates in both, and it is really not that bizarre of an idea. The YAL already encourages members to join either-or at the college level and take them over.

Yes.

Understanding the proper role of government is not party specific.

[sailingaway]

I am not being racially motivated. I am being realistic.
Saling Away my dad was spanish and Indian so I can say it. Heh

Yeah, but I'd be the one to vote for him because he was your dad, not because he was spanish and Indian.

[nasaal]

You can get Jeffersonian constitutionalism -- as THEY see it. And it isn't far from us. At least it would be really easy to form coalitions with them on most things once in office.

I agree. People want purity, and so do I. But I really only worry about purity when it comes to presidential candidates that have a serious chance of winning, like Ron Paul. But if there is a D candidate in a place that they could actually win that is more or less a Jeffersonian Democrat then what is the problem? Beats sanctions in Iran and increased military spending. Also, it would completely skew the caucusing that is done in congress and throw the whole system into whack a bit. I like the idea of the Liberty community being bigger than red or blue team politics. If we can get enough into office, we can truly break away as our own political group and perhaps even party. I'd rather see Kucinich and Paul debate in primaries and Rick Perry and Santorum.

[GunnyFreedom]

Yes but. Don't bother with 2014. History tells us that 2014 will be an insanely strong GOP year.

And then when we do, we need to focus on particular areas where there are high concentrations of the exceeding rare "conservadems." Like here in NE North Carolina. A Ron Paul Democrat could run away with an election in North East NC, BUT not in 2014. 2014 will be a very, very GOP year.

[sailingaway]

I agree. People want purity, and so do I. But I really only worry about purity when it comes to presidential candidates that have a serious chance of winning, like Ron Paul. But if there is a D candidate in a place that they could actually win that is more or less a Jeffersonian Democrat then what is the problem? Beats sanctions in Iran and increased military spending. Also, it would completely skew the caucusing that is done in congress and throw the whole system into whack a bit. I like the idea of the Liberty community being bigger than red or blue team politics. If we can get enough into office, we can truly break away as our own political group and perhaps even party. I'd rather see Kucinich and Paul debate in primaries and Rick Perry and Santorum.

there are also states where it is easier to run as a Dem.

[sailingaway]

Yes but. Don't bother with 2014. History tells us that 2014 will be an insanely strong GOP year.

And then when we do, we need to focus on particular areas where there are high concentrations of the exceeding rare "conservadems." Like here in NE North Carolina. A Ron Paul Democrat could run away with an election in North East NC, BUT not in 2014. 2014 will be a very, very GOP year.

which means it is a good ORGANIZATIONAL YEAR at the Dem party, to get in place, for any who may want to do that.

[nasaal]

there are also states where it is easier to run as a Dem.

Part of my point exactly. We talk all the time about using the system to beat it. Well we can't do that using only half the system.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

Democracy is so devoted to central planning it would be ridiculous. But they can push certain liberty platforms. Foreign policy, Drug war, patriot act, NDAA, audit the Fed. All of these can be pushed through the Democratic party. You won't get Austrian economics, but you can get lower spending and taxes to a degree. You can at least get a somewhat balanced budget. It'd be easier to deal with in congress when we're just fighting over true economic issues, than trying to fight an entire culture of social planning.Yep. We can shine a light on the Dems' hypocrisy, just as we've done to Republicans. :D

[parocks]

Some people, some Ron Paul supporters, just have a real hard time with the Republican Party for some reason. There are others who are in the Libertarian Party. For those who just can't hang with the Republicans, Ron Paulizing the D's is an option. Go in there, push the antiwar legalize it hard.

[sailingaway]

Some people, some Ron Paul supporters, just have a real hard time with the Republican Party for some reason. There are others who are in the Libertarian Party. For those who just can't hang with the Republicans, Ron Paulizing the D's is an option. Go in there, push the antiwar legalize it hard.

I'd say push the constitution. Yes anti war but I think there is a huge following for getting rid of NDAA and the police state.

[RonPaulMall]

We work on the Republican side because Republicans pay lip service to limited government even though they support big government in practice. So there is at least that theoretical opening. Democrats preach and believe in big government. There is literally no in for us in the Democratic Party. The second we start talking about limited government they will tune us out. Jeffersonian Democrats? This isn't the 18th Century anymore. The last good Democrats were the Bourbon Democrats. And they haven't existed in over a hundred years. I would love to infiltrate the Democratic Party too, but there just isn't any way of doing it. It is a dead end. Only chance you'd ever have of success is to pull a Mark Clayton/Flat Top Bob move and pick a Democratic Primary that nobody pays attention to and nobody knows the candidates and win the nomination on pure chance.

[supermario21]

No no no no no. Time is right to take over the Republican Party. While the establishment squabbles for the next 2 years we should be focused on organizing.

[sailingaway]

There are a LOT of democrats who actually believe in civil liberties and are antiwar and they have as much natural overlap with us, if those are truly their hot button issues, as the general fiscally conservative Republican. I'm in California. I'm telling you the kids at UCLA would not be thinking of being Republican except for Ron.

[nasaal]

No no no no no. Time is right to take over the Republican Party. While the establishment squabbles for the next 2 years we should be focused on organizing.
That assumes that the power structure is a single party. The power structure is both parties. The republican party stagnated a lot during the time of W Bush. The Democratic party is going to do the same in the next 2-4 years. You use those opportunities to push certain agendas on both sides. You will not pass these things with just 1 party.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

Some people, some Ron Paul supporters, just have a real hard time with the Republican Party for some reason. There are others who are in the Libertarian Party. For those who just can't hang with the Republicans, Ron Paulizing the D's is an option. Go in there, push the antiwar legalize it hard.That was me in the late 90s. I got sick of the Democrats and found the Libertarian Party. There's no way I would've registered Republican back then.

[parocks]

I am really surprised to see color coded thinking here.

I'm not opposed to one, but I wouldn't racially select one, either.

Blacks are 12.4% of the population
Black Women were 8% of the vote on Tuesday, and they voted for Obama 96/3.

White Women voted for Romney 56/42. Turnout was huge for black women, and low everywhere else. Romney got fewer votes than McCain or Kerry in 04. Obama, too, got fewer votes than he got in 08 or Bush in 04.

It's not unreasonable to think that good looking latino Ron Paul would close the wide latino gender gap - Latino women went to Obama with 73%.

I don't think that's the way to go, but it makes sense if you're looking at exit polls.

[sailingaway]

It makes sense if you think people think that way but people who think like we do don't.

I really dont like picking candidates for collectivist reasons is all

odds are, since we reflect society so will our candidates

[BSU kid]

As pointed out, it geographically makes sense to run Democratic candidates in some areas, slabbing an R after any candidates name is essentially political suicide in certain regions of the U.S. such as Vermont, New York, Rhode Island etc etc. At least running someone in the primaries locally gives us a chance, while we continue working on the GOP.

And I disagree with the notion that all Democrats want big government, there is a large chunk of them who want less government...the anarchist anti-establishment type. They channel there anger against corporations, when government and bad fiscal policy is to blame. I would imagine that at least some of these could be converted, especially once they find out that the FED is way more evil then Wall Street.

[parocks]

I mentioned a few weeks ago my idea about getting rock stars to run for office. Make it a thing. If you believe in Ron Paul's message entirely, run as a republican, if you are 100% uncompromising on antiwar, and aren't sure about other Ron Paul ideas, run as a democrat.

[Victor Grey]

The opportunities available for a viable run would be much more rare to run on the democrat ticket.

If they presented themselves, I wouldn't be against it.

[parocks]

As pointed out, it geographically makes sense to run Democratic candidates in some areas, slabbing an R after any candidates name is essentially political suicide in certain regions of the U.S. such as Vermont, New York, Rhode Island etc etc. At least running someone in the primaries locally gives us a chance, while we continue working on the GOP.

And I disagree with the notion that all Democrats want big government, there is a large chunk of them who want less government...the anarchist anti-establishment type. They channel there anger against corporations, when government and bad fiscal policy is to blame. I would imagine that at least some of these could be converted, especially once they find out that the FED is way more evil then Wall Street.

If you think we could get a win, give them all their issues, but insist on Antiwar and the rest of our issues that Democrats do like. If there's a Liberty person who wants to run for office in a place (usually a city) that only elects Democrats, it might be a good idea to run as Democrat.

[sailingaway]

The opportunities available for a viable run would be much more rare to run on the democrat ticket.

If they presented themselves, I wouldn't be against it.

House and Senate in some states are usually Dem. For some people, those positions might fit better.

[Bastiat's The Law]

No Ron Paul supporter has won a major election as a democrat. Stick with what has gotten us results instead of doing anything too fanciful.

[parocks]

The opportunities available for a viable run would be much more rare to run on the democrat ticket.

If they presented themselves, I wouldn't be against it.

In Maine, the new US Senator is an Independent. He was the Governor as an Independent. The Democrat got 13.15%

[sailingaway]

No Ron Paul supporter has won a major election as a democrat. Stick with what has gotten us results instead of doing anything too fanciful.

that's only because Ron has been in the GOP and they joined for him. We have some people who don't feel they fit there, and if they aren't going to be GOP no matter what, it seems to me trying these other avenues is a good thing to look into. I think GOP will get most gains but there are dems also who like Ron, and there may be opportunities. I wouldn't be against people who constitutionally have a problem working in the GOP looking into it.

And Ron specifically said we need these ideas in ALL parties, multiple times.

[cindy25]

Yes but. Don't bother with 2014. History tells us that 2014 will be an insanely strong GOP year.

And then when we do, we need to focus on particular areas where there are high concentrations of the exceeding rare "conservadems." Like here in NE North Carolina. A Ron Paul Democrat could run away with an election in North East NC, BUT not in 2014. 2014 will be a very, very GOP year.

but this also open opportunities as regular Dems may hold back and wait until 2016 or 2018

Ron Paul first ran for congress in 1974, a huge Democratic year, in a district that had not elected a Republican in 100 years. he lost, but it paved the way.

[erowe1]

The GOP isn't a dying party.

They say that about a party every time they lose. But we have a 2-party system and a natural balance that shifts between them. When one wins too much and moves too far to its base the other shifts to the middle and starts winning again.

If some people don't want to work with the GOP because they don't fit in there, then it would be great for them to infiltrate the Dems. That would certainly accomplish more than the LP. But our bread and butter has to remain the Republican party for now.

[cindy25]

The opportunities available for a viable run would be much more rare to run on the democrat ticket.

If they presented themselves, I wouldn't be against it.

in a Democratic primary one could play the race card (either way) and win with 35-40% of the vote.
also, some issues play better in a Dem primary (anti-war, anti-drug war, anti-police, anti-SOPA)

[Victor Grey]

in a Democratic primary one could play the race card (either way) and win with 35-40% of the vote.
also, some issues play better in a Dem primary (anti-war, anti-drug war, anti-police, anti-SOPA)

Not related to an argument for or against the democrat strategy, but you could play the race card and gain a benefit in any party.

It's just what it is.

I don't have to like it, but it's the world we live in.

By all means, if there's a libertarian leaning non-white candidate and has a shot in an election, go for it.
People care about dumb novelties like that.

[CTRattlesnake]

Living in Connecticut, there is definitely a possibility for this to work. There a districts that will vote for anyone with a D in front of their name, so winning the primaries is key. We can take advantage of weak or retiring incumbents and then strike. Now, I would tend to favor running our liberty candidates in districts that are more urban and wealthy because there the anti war, civil liberties, social issues type voter will be attracted to us and they are found in their largest numbers in those type of regions.

I would also be intent on increasing our appeal to latino voters. Although demographic trends say that their immigration boom is over and their subsequent rate of growth will slow in the coming years, there are still a key area that we could win over.

[parocks]

Living in Connecticut, there is definitely a possibility for this to work. There a districts that will vote for anyone with a D in front of their name, so winning the primaries is key. We can take advantage of weak or retiring incumbents and then strike. Now, I would tend to favor running our liberty candidates in districts that are more urban and wealthy because there the anti war, civil liberties, social issues type voter will be attracted to us and they are found in their largest numbers in those type of regions.

I would also be intent on increasing our appeal to latino voters. Although demographic trends say that their immigration boom is over and their subsequent rate of growth will slow in the coming years, there are still a key area that we could win over.

Good analysis. Portland, ME has a whole bunch of Liberty Republicans who were just creamed in State House races. If they were wearing Democrat hats, Green hats, or even Independent hats, they might've broken 20%

[parocks]

If we don't have a candidate that we like for President on the Republican side in 2016, some could support an uncompromising antiwar Dem. Antiwar is mostly Dem. So, how do you get that? Antiwar protests. I don't enjoy them, but if there's an antiwar dem, well, they need some encouragement.

[parocks]

The GOP isn't a dying party.

They say that about a party every time they lose. But we have a 2-party system and a natural balance that shifts between them. When one wins too much and moves too far to its base the other shifts to the middle and starts winning again.

If some people don't want to work with the GOP because they don't fit in there, then it would be great for them to infiltrate the Dems. That would certainly accomplish more than the LP. But our bread and butter has to remain the Republican party for now.

Is the media telling the "low turnout" story? Because Obama got fewer actual votes than he did in 2008 and fewer than Bush in 2004, and Romney got fewer than McCain and fewer than Kerry.

[sailingaway]

Not related to an argument for or against the democrat strategy, but you could play the race card and gain a benefit in any party.

It's just what it is.

I don't have to like it, but it's the world we live in.

By all means, if there's a libertarian leaning non-white candidate and has a shot in an election, go for it.
People care about dumb novelties like that.

I wouldn't play any card I wouldn't want to live with having played.

Would we like Ron nearly as much if he did?

[cindy25]

I wouldn't play any card I wouldn't want to live with having played.

Would we like Ron nearly as much if he did?

as long as the card you play is true I don't see a problem; running a black in a black district or a latino in a latino district is just good politics.

[sailingaway]

as long as the card you play is true I don't see a problem; running a black in a black district or a latino in a latino district is just good politics.

I don't really believe in 'just good politics' if it means 'playing the game', personally, but if your candidate in a black neighborhood is black, great. I didn't know what you meant by 'the race card' to be honest.

[TheGrinch]

Haven't had a chance to read this thread yet, but no, I don't think the Democratic route makes much sense in most cases.

IMO, the goal should be to gain the more moderate democrats and/or at least the ones who recognize the same important issues we do. I think it's too much of a contradiction of message to be on the side of explicit big government, entitlements, etc.

Yes, the republican party may be no different, but that really doesn't matter too much when it comes to effective rhetoric (and no I studied rhetoric, and it doesn't have to be bullshit, it's just used that way). That requires that your message cannot be in such great contradiction with the stated ideals and constituents you use.

Even if Romney had been genuine (purely hypothetical and for example), this was one of the reasons that Dr. Paul would never be the pick for vice-president. Him dropping truth bombs would have only undermined Romney's BS, and gotten them slaughtered by the well-oiled Obama rhetoric machine.

That's not to say that the republican route is necessarily the best or only way to spread the message of liberty, and of course it'd be great if there were more on that side of the aisle who at least recognize the really important issues we do, but for those of us who are small-government fiscal libertarains, I jsut don't think it's a good fit.

[jkob]

If the opportunity presents itself sure but as an actual strategy it's a waste of time and money. Unless it's a place where the national party is unpopular there is no point and in that case you'd probably have better luck running as Republican. The Democrats won't just allow pro-liberty candidates to win primaries, anybody that goes against the national party will be labeled a racist plant from the vast right wing conspiracy.

The places you could sneak a candidate through the Democratic primary would likely be Republican leaning districts and just as you have some people that will always for the Democrat, you'll have just as many people who'll automatically pulls the lever for the candidate with the R next to their name too.

[Brian4Liberty]

In areas where Democrats only win, we should run liberty Democrats. It's a no-brainer.

[amonasro]

Why not? The tree of liberty is a fast growing plant. The seeds are already sown.

[nasaal]

If the opportunity presents itself sure but as an actual strategy it's a waste of time and money. Unless it's a place where the national party is unpopular there is no point and in that case you'd probably have better luck running as Republican. The Democrats won't just allow pro-liberty candidates to win primaries, anybody that goes against the national party will be labeled a racist plant from the vast right wing conspiracy.

The places you could sneak a candidate through the Democratic primary would likely be Republican leaning districts and just as you have some people that will always for the Democrat, you'll have just as many people who'll automatically pulls the lever for the candidate with the R next to their name too.

The idea isn't to jump over to the blue team. It is to run with the red team in areas where red team wins, run blue team where blue teams win. Litmus test candidates for certain things that will help in state legislatures and congress.

[Travlyr]

Yes, and we should call ourselves Jeffersonian Democrats.

[jmdrake]

A) That was pretty good considering that Mark Clayton had to fight his own party just to say on the ballot after getting nominated by a landslide.

B) Had Mark run against Corker in the GOP primary he would have done even worse.

C) Considering how much national coverage he got, bank for the buck this was a great "educational" campaign.



Anyone in TN with a D by their name will lose badly, unless it is for sometihng in Nashville, or possibly Memphis.

LOL just looked at the Senate results for 2012:

http://i.imgur.com/j9o3M.png

[jmdrake]

The idea isn't to jump over to the blue team. It is to run with the red team in areas where red team wins, run blue team where blue teams win. Litmus test candidates for certain things that will help in state legislatures and congress.

Or run blue team where the red team wins because it's easier to win the primary and vice versa. Running as a "libertarian democrat" will get you more press than running as a "libertarian". (And nothing against those who run libertarian.)

[BSU kid]

Or run blue team where the red team wins because it's easier to win the primary and vice versa. Running as a "libertarian democrat" will get you more press than running as a "libertarian". (And nothing against those who run libertarian.)

Good example of this is Wyoming, where you can when a democratic primary for U.S. House with only 17,000 votes. Thats an insanely small number, and means we could save our resources for other races like Amash or Kerry.

[mport1]

I think so. From what I've seen, I think we have more in common with Democrats. Republicans favor even bigger government in addition to more war and an even greater crackdown on civil liberties.

[fj45lvr]

good luck taking anything "over".....

[parocks]

I'd say push the constitution. Yes anti war but I think there is a huge following for getting rid of NDAA and the police state.

yeah, both.

[CPUd]

A) That was pretty good considering that Mark Clayton had to fight his own party just to say on the ballot after getting nominated by a landslide.

B) Had Mark run against Corker in the GOP primary he would have done even worse.

C) Considering how much national coverage he got, bank for the buck this was a great "educational" campaign.

I think Corker would get all of East TN no matter who runs against him. Unless someone can take the suburbs in the counties around Nashville, he's got the seat as long as he wants it.

[Crystallas]

Well, if we had better local strategies, then why not? If the area is dominated by Democrats, and we have a liberty challenger that can take the seat, then in some situations it will be wiser to run as a Democrat.

[TCE]

At the state and local level, we can win as Democrats. Most Democrats locally don't differ much from Republicans. At the local level, it is all about allocating funds and simple tax stuff, so it shouldn't be too difficult to jump in there. Attempting to win a U.S. House seat as a Democrat? That's difficult. Start lower down the totem pole. We don't have very many people in the Democratic Party right now, but all it would take is a few trailblazers. You would be surprised how some Democrats, when they think you're on their side, actually agree with you. Most Democrats on the ground like privacy and aren't the biggest fans of war. Play up to that.

[jmdrake]

I think Corker would get all of East TN no matter who runs against him. Unless someone can take the suburbs in the counties around Nashville, he's got the seat as long as he wants it.

You're missing the point. If you want cheap national exposure for your platform of ideas, winning the nomination for someone against Corker is an easy way to do it. Ron basically ran two educational campaigns. Not every campaign is meant to "win". Clayton got a lot more press (and a lot more votes) than Crowell. If he's able to network with the right black preachers to help him squelch the "bigot" charge (as most of them fit the new democratic party term for "bigot" as well) he could manuver into a position where Corker at least had to debate him.

[devil21]

Sounds like a one party system. That's not a republic either.

[enoch150]

The GOP isn't a dying party.

They say that about a party every time they lose. But we have a 2-party system and a natural balance that shifts between them. When one wins too much and moves too far to its base the other shifts to the middle and starts winning again.

If some people don't want to work with the GOP because they don't fit in there, then it would be great for them to infiltrate the Dems. That would certainly accomplish more than the LP. But our bread and butter has to remain the Republican party for now.

The GOP is absolutely dying, in some areas. As a percentage of registered voters, the Republican party constituted 30.5% of the electorate in Connecticut in 1959. It was down to 20.3%, as of 2012. There has been no back and forth, just a five decade and counting gradual erosion of Republican influence and ability to achieve positions of power. Using the Republican party as a vehicle for most areas of Connecticut is pointless.

A registered libertarian just got elected to a Board of Finance position in one Connecticut town as a Democrat. It will be interesting to see how he is received over the next two years and if he is able to advance.

....................................

Why was the new thread put in hot topics and locked? It's a legitimate topic that's been discussed before.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?432619-We-need-to-start-infiltrating-the-Democrat-Party

[Feeding the Abscess]

If you're a libertarian of the Bleeding Heart or even Robert Sarvis persuasion, why not go into the democratic party and see if you can get elected, especially in heavily blue districts?

I could also see this working in districts that are heavily red. If a left-libertarian or libertarian who would be willing to put on a Bleeding Heart coat worked in a solidly red district as the democratic nominee, that candidate might be able to do damage as well.

[RM918]

Nope. The main driving force for the Blue Team is to take as much money from the rich as possible and give it to themselves. All the other common issues we have with them aren't nearly as important to them as that, and that is one thing we can't tone down.

[CaptLouAlbano]

If you're a libertarian of the Bleeding Heart or even Robert Sarvis persuasion, why not go into the democratic party and see if you can get elected, especially in heavily blue districts?

I could also see this working in districts that are heavily red. If a left-libertarian or libertarian who would be willing to put on a Bleeding Heart coat worked in a solidly red district as the democratic nominee, that candidate might be able to do damage as well.

It's a novel idea, but my question is what happens if they get elected? Say a libertarian Democrat gets elected to the House, he's going to be put into a coat closet. If he changes parties after being elected, he'll likely lose the seat the next election.

Personally, I think the best course of action is to focus on the GOP and continue to grow our presence there. First we need a majority, then we need to completely chase all the progressives out of the party, and then we can start chipping away at the Dems.

[TheTyke]

The GOP should be our priority because that's where we've made the biggest gains. We need all possible hands on deck to secure that advantage.

That said, I would love to see a day when BOTH parties' nominees are liberty-leaning and we win either way. It's what our enemies have done to us for 100 years. Maybe those folks who simply can't stand the GOP it could try getting a foothold in the Dem party - and we can each be supportive of the others' approaches.

[enoch150]

It's a novel idea, but my question is what happens if they get elected? Say a libertarian Democrat gets elected to the House, he's going to be put into a coat closet. If he changes parties after being elected, he'll likely lose the seat the next election.

Personally, I think the best course of action is to focus on the GOP and continue to grow our presence there. First we need a majority, then we need to completely chase all the progressives out of the party, and then we can start chipping away at the Dems.

But there are districts where Republicans can't get elected. There are cities in Connecticut which have guaranteed minority representation for the city council. There is a maximum allowable limit of 6 from one party and the next 3 slots are given to the highest vote getters from any party other than the one which took the first 6 spots. There are cities where the Republicans don't even have those 3 guaranteed minority representation spots. The Working Families Party gets more votes and wins those seats.

To put it in terms you'll appreciate, the electoral success of Republicans in those districts is equaled by that of Libertarians.

Even at the federal level, the 1st and 3rd Congressional districts (basically Hartford and New Haven Counties) have such a monstrously overwhelming Democratic advantage that some Republican candidates for Congress in those districts have literally raised $0.00 for their campaigns because everyone knows the outcome before the campaign season even begins.

[compromise]

I think so. From what I've seen, I think we have more in common with Democrats. Republicans favor even bigger government in addition to more war and an even greater crackdown on civil liberties.

And the Democrats don't?

As shown by the attempted Syria intervention and NSA scandal, it's much easier to bring Tea Party Republicans over on these issues than Democrats on core fiscal issues.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Nope. The main driving force for the Blue Team is to take as much money from the rich as possible and give it to themselves. All the other common issues we have with them aren't nearly as important to them as that, and that is one thing we can't tone down.

This is correct.

[erowe1]

I think so. From what I've seen, I think we have more in common with Democrats. Republicans favor even bigger government in addition to more war and an even greater crackdown on civil liberties.

Which part of what you said about Republicans isn't true of Democrats?

[CaptLouAlbano]

But there are districts where Republicans can't get elected. There are cities in Connecticut which have guaranteed minority representation for the city council. There is a maximum allowable limit of 6 from one party and the next 3 slots are given to the highest vote getters from any party other than the one which took the first 6 spots. There are cities where the Republicans don't even have those 3 guaranteed minority representation spots. The Working Families Party gets more votes and wins those seats.

To put it in terms you'll appreciate, the electoral success of Republicans in those districts is equaled by that of Libertarians.

Even at the federal level, the 1st and 3rd Congressional districts (basically Hartford and New Haven Counties) have such a monstrously overwhelming Democratic advantage that some Republican candidates for Congress in those districts have literally raised $0.00 for their campaigns because everyone knows the outcome before the campaign season even begins.

Understood, and I agree totally. But are these districts, and there are many across the country, dominated by the Dems because of party label or because of ideology of the voters? I tend to think in the large majority of cases it is ideology. You mentioned the Working Families Party that gets seats in CT towns - that is a progressive party, from what I can see, and they look to be to the left of the Dems. The point being that a libertarian cannot win in these districts because of the views that they would hold to, not because of any party label they may have.

[MelissaWV]

I think so. From what I've seen, I think we have more in common with Democrats. Republicans favor even bigger government in addition to more war and an even greater crackdown on civil liberties.

That is the method being used, yes, but fundamentally the party line is supposed to be something totally different.

On the other side, you could easily say Democrats favor even bigger government in addition to more war and an even greater crackdown on civil liberties.

When I put it most simply to people who won't give up their left/right paradigm, I point out that essentially the R's want to take your money and wage wars and crush your freedoms in the name of security, while the D's want to take your money and redistribute it to those individuals and causes they feel are more important than anything you'd spend it on, and crush your freedoms in the name of fairness.

In other words, I don't particularly think there's much merit in thinking one side is way better than the other, but I do think infiltrating the GOP is more possible because the battleground is generally an economic one. On the Democrat side it's going to come down to how anyone that doesn't support massive welfare and "humanitarian intervention" overseas is obviously a heartless libertarian monster.

[acptulsa]

Why was the new thread put in hot topics and locked? It's a legitimate topic that's been discussed before.


Bryan's stated reason was that he considered the word 'infiltrate' in the title of the new thread too inflammatory. But I suspect that the ease with which you found a worthwhile discussion of the same topic from the past on which to build has something to do with it, too... ;)


That is the method being used, yes, but fundamentally the party line is supposed to be something totally different.

On the other side, you could easily say Democrats favor even bigger government in addition to more war and an even greater crackdown on civil liberties.

When I put it most simply to people who won't give up their left/right paradigm, I point out that essentially the R's want to take your money and wage wars and crush your freedoms in the name of security, while the D's want to take your money and redistribute it to those individuals and causes they feel are more important than anything you'd spend it on, and crush your freedoms in the name of fairness.

In other words, I don't particularly think there's much merit in thinking one side is way better than the other...

Of course, the reality is that both want to take your money and spend it on wars and death, and redistribute it to other individuals (many of whom are richer than you are) whom they consider more important than anyone or anything you'd spend it on, while crushing your liberties in the name of security and fairness.

But you're right. Those who are still stuck in the mud of the false left/right dichotomy generally can't see these facts for their blinders. And would rather fight than take those blinders off...

[Peace&Freedom]

The approach to the Democratic Party, as with the Republicans, should be less "take over" or nesting, and more one of being opportunistic.The same special interests control both major parties at the top, and have set things up to make one have to run on one or the other to get elected, but we can pick and choose where we will slap on that label. The liberty grassroots in each state should put together an infrastructure and network, to field and support liberty candidates in major runs for office.

The structure should stand distinct from either major or minor parties, and take on whatever primary race where a plausible opening appears. By plausible, I define objectively as an open seat, or competitive race (under 5+ or 5 pts difference between the Democratic and Republican vote), regardless of whether the selected district historically votes Republican or Democrat. Anything less is wishful thinking. Over time at each level, we pick up more and more liberty candidates in office on this basis.

[erowe1]

The GOP is absolutely dying, in some areas.

These things are an ongoing never-ending roller coaster. One party's numbers go down and the other's go up for awhile, and then it's the other way around for awhile.

These dips are not a party dying.

[acptulsa]

These things are an ongoing never-ending roller coaster. One party's numbers go down and the other's go up for awhile, and then it's the other way around for awhile.

These dips are not a party dying.

Not always. The Whigs suffered a succession of dips. Where are they now?

The GOP is not too big to fail. Dickhead Cheney sure did his best to sacrifice it on the altar of short-term gains for the MIC. And when Cheney sets his mind to something...

[grizzlymere]

Personally, I think that both parties are essentially the same. They both push hyper-capitalist control and are in lockstep with whatever their sponsors and benefactors want. Either party could be infiltrated. All people are sick of the same old stuff from both parties: look how Obama is becoming increasingly more similar to Bush, and this illustrates perfectly how the party makes no difference in the policy.

[devil21]

A Democrat that will be running for Mel Watt's (heavily gerrymandered toward Dem) NC seat is a good example of a Dem (Matt Newton) that we have things in common with. When I suggested supporting him here I was soundly blasted for suggesting something that would "damage the inroads made with the GOP". Thing is, there's some in our movement that have ascended inside the GOP and see any Liberty supporters helping a Democrat as damaging their efforts.

[enoch150]

These things are an ongoing never-ending roller coaster. One party's numbers go down and the other's go up for awhile, and then it's the other way around for awhile.

These dips are not a party dying.

In 2008, Republican party registration was 4.30% in Hartford and 4.16% in New Haven. Those were some of the lowest numbers in the country. For comparison, NYC was 12.1% Republican, Washington D.C. was 7.7%, and Berkley California was 4.5%. Hartford and New Haven were rock bottom, you might say. So what happened after four years of Ron Paul bringing young people into the party (and those cities both have a lot of college students, especially New Haven) and Ron Paul Republicans trying to take over the local parties? In 2012 Republican party registration was down to 3.83% in Hartford and 3.82% in New Haven.

And I am absolutely sure that better than 90% of those still registered as Republicans in those cities are in their 50's or older. That's not a dip, that's staring death in the face. They are literally dying off. They're running fewer and fewer candidates for city and state legislature for those areas. It's not going to be many years before they effectively cease to function as a party, at the city level. There are several other cities and towns in Connecticut with fewer than 10% Republican registration where the same thing is happening.

[enoch150]

Understood, and I agree totally. But are these districts, and there are many across the country, dominated by the Dems because of party label or because of ideology of the voters? I tend to think in the large majority of cases it is ideology. You mentioned the Working Families Party that gets seats in CT towns - that is a progressive party, from what I can see, and they look to be to the left of the Dems. The point being that a libertarian cannot win in these districts because of the views that they would hold to, not because of any party label they may have.

It's label, not ideology. Connecticut is one of the highest taxed states in the country and people across the state are sick of it, but the Republican label is toxic, largely thanks to Republicans at the national level pushing a social agenda, the wars, and the police-state PATRIOT Act stuff. I had so many people tell me they would vote for Ron Paul in private, in a general election, but they couldn't stomach being associated with the Republican party even on paper to vote for him in the primary.

I wasn't suggesting running as a Libertarian in those areas. I did switch my registration status to Libertarian, but I don't think they're going to find electoral success this side of a catastrophic economic collapse. I think the Republicans are going to take the brunt of the blame for that and it will be important to have a functional alternative, when the time comes.

But I do think it's possible to run as a Democrat, up to the state legislature level, as long as the candidate can stay on message and avoid talking about welfare programs. Almost no one looks up their state legislator's voting record and if they do, few remember it by election time.

[CaptLouAlbano]

It's label, not ideology. Connecticut is one of the highest taxed states in the country and people across the state are sick of it, but the Republican label is toxic, largely thanks to Republicans at the national level pushing a social agenda, the wars, and the police-state PATRIOT Act stuff. I had so many people tell me they would vote for Ron Paul in private, in a general election, but they couldn't stomach being associated with the Republican party even on paper to vote for him in the primary.

I wasn't suggesting running as a Libertarian in those areas. I did switch my registration status to Libertarian, but I don't think they're going to find electoral success this side of a catastrophic economic collapse. I think the Republicans are going to take the brunt of the blame for that and it will be important to have a functional alternative, when the time comes.

But I do think it's possible to run as a Democrat, up to the state legislature level, as long as the candidate can stay on message and avoid talking about welfare programs. Almost no one looks up their state legislator's voting record and if they do, few remember it by election time.

I see what you are getting at, but I still think it is a foolish endeavor. In order to win a state legislature seat, one needs quite a lot of votes. A lot more than can be generated by a candidate and his family and friends knocking on doors. So if a liberty candidate was to run in the Dem primary, they are going to face a huge uphill battle as the members of the Dem committee will be working against this candidate. It's hard enough for folks like us to run in GOP primaries, even though we may have some allies on committee. It would be a monumental task for someone to win in a Dem primary when the entire committee is working against them.

Good luck with it, if you try it. But personally, I'll continue to focus my financial support on the path of least resistance.

[erowe1]

That's not a dip, that's staring death in the face. They are literally dying off.

No. It's a dip and nothing more. The same thing has happened before, to both parties, and will happen again and again to both parties.

Plus, it looks like you're talking about a local phenomenon. The two parties will both endure into the foreseeable future. But they'll both change also. And these changes will include some localities becoming almost all one party, and other localities becoming almost all the other party, just like what we have now, only with the locations of these localities changing.

But the two parties themselves will survive through these changes. They never die. Neither does the constant talk of one or the other of them being a dying party.

[Peace&Freedom]

I see what you are getting at, but I still think it is a foolish endeavor. In order to win a state legislature seat, one needs quite a lot of votes. A lot more than can be generated by a candidate and his family and friends knocking on doors. So if a liberty candidate was to run in the Dem primary, they are going to face a huge uphill battle as the members of the Dem committee will be working against this candidate. It's hard enough for folks like us to run in GOP primaries, even though we may have some allies on committee. It would be a monumental task for someone to win in a Dem primary when the entire committee is working against them.


As opposed to the difficulties clearly seen trying to get past the GOP committees running as a liberty Republican? The two parties are about the same in this regard. The resistance put up to liberty by the establishment is more subtle using the major party approach, but is just as real. Neutralizing a movement is likely more easy to do within the big party (where the establishment can 'whip' or defund the faction), than without by marginalization.

[Sam I am]

If the GOP is dying, it only helps us. The Democratic Party has nothing in common with us. A few of them were antiwar when Bush was the president.

Actually, for the most part, democrats are still anti-war, the continuing wars actually weaken the democratic base's support for Obama.

If you wanted to be viewed favorably by Democrats, than railing against War, PRISM and the PATRIOT act would be an excellent place to begin.

[Working Poor]

If you wanted to be viewed favorably by Democrats, than railing against War, PRISM and the PATRIOT act would be an excellent place to begin.


Also making marijuana legal seems to be very popular among dems.

[muzzled dogg]

I'm not sure "we" need to take any party over. Candidates should consider their districts before choosing a party

[CaptLouAlbano]

As opposed to the difficulties clearly seen trying to get past the GOP committees running as a liberty Republican? .

Well since there are far more liberty Republicans holding elected office than liberty Democrats, the results show that it is significantly easier. In fact, there are many counties where libertarians along with their tea party allies have a majority.

[Peace&Freedom]

Well since there are far more liberty Republicans holding elected office than liberty Democrats, the results show that it is significantly easier. In fact, there are many counties where libertarians along with their tea party allies have a majority.

That's due to it being easier in certain parts of the country to get libertarians and TP people into power within the GOP, not because the party made it easier.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Actually, for the most part, democrats are still anti-war, the continuing wars actually weaken the democratic base's support for Obama.

If you wanted to be viewed favorably by Democrats, than railing against War, PRISM and the PATRIOT act would be an excellent place to begin.

People who rail against war, PRISM, and the PATRIOT Act are viewed as crazy isolationists by Democrats.

[acptulsa]

People who rail against war, PRISM, and the PATRIOT Act are viewed as crazy isolationists by Democrats.

Don't confuse media types who claim to be Democrats with human people who are Democrats.

Among the latter, it mostly depends how brainwashed they are.

[CaptLouAlbano]

That's due to it being easier in certain parts of the country to get libertarians and TP people into power within the GOP, not because the party made it easier.

No you are incorrect. The party makes it easier when the county committee is comprised of libertarians and TP folks.

[anaconda]

The Democratic Party has nothing in common with us.

Probably about as much as the GOP. Theoretically civil liberties, foreign policy, the rule of law, the Constitution, and a modernized economy with an educated work force. No reason the Dems couldn't socially redistribute with some fair tax money, road & bridge tolls, and postage stamp revenue. I think it's a really excellent idea, actually. Close in on the establishment from both sides.