Rand's Senate seat in 2016 and running for president at same time

[Brett85]

Hey, I was just wondering if anyone knows whether it's possible for Rand to run for the GOP nomination in 2016 and run for re-election to the Senate at the same time. I know that Paul Ryan was able to get re-elected to the house even though he was the VP nominee. Does anyone know what the election laws in Kentucky are regarding running for two offices at once?

[itshappening]

I dont think he can in Kentucky.

The headache is the GOP Senate primary and GOP presidential primary.

He can't be nominated for both.

We're discussing it here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?395247-Rand-Paul-receives-0-support-from-GOP-insiders-in-2016-poll/page10

[Brett85]

From reading that thread it sounds like the best option might be for Rand to give up his Senate seat in 2016 and endorse Massie. That way we'll make sure that we won't lose a liberty candidate in the Senate in 2016. We would have to go all out to get Rand the GOP nomination since he would be out of politics if he lost. There's also the possibility that he could run for office in the future for the Senate or for Governor.

[Confederate]

If the senate primary and the presidential primary are on the same day, he would have to choose one or the other. If he won both, he could not appear on the ballot for both in the general election. His name can only appear once on the ballot.


118.405 Name of candidate to appear on ballot but once -- Exceptions for filling of vacancy. (http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/KRS/118-00/405.PDF)

No candidate's name shall appear on any voting machine or absentee ballot more than once, except that a candidate's name may appear twice if he is a candidate for a primary or a regular election and also a candidate to fill a vacancy in the same office required to be filled at a special election, when the special election to fill a vacancy is scheduled for the regular election day.

[itshappening]

The best solution is for KY GOP to schedule the presidential primary in April and the Senate primary in June.

That way if he doesn't have a chance at the nomination he can still at least keep the Senate seat.

If he won the nomination then the GOP would have time to hold a contest for the Senate seat.

If he wins the nomination and loses the presidential election he would be out the Senate :(

[Rudeman]

Kentucky's primary this cycle was towards the end of May, I would think we'd have a good idea of how likely Rand becoming the Presidential nominee is by then.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Kentucky's primary this cycle was towards the end of May, I would think we'd have a good idea of how likely Rand becoming the Presidential nominee is by then.

That is my thinking too. If the calendar is similar to 2012, 75% of the contests will be completed before KY. We should know by Super Tuesday whether or not he is in contention.

[itshappening]

But the GOP need enough time in case he's the nominee to hold a contest for the Senate nomination

So they need to schedule it right.

[Occam's Banana]

From reading that thread it sounds like the best option might be for Rand to give up his Senate seat in 2016 and endorse Massie. That way we'll make sure that we won't lose a liberty candidate in the Senate in 2016.

From what I understand, Massie's current seat is pretty much a solid lock until he decides to give it up (unless he really screws the pooch on something). Why should we give that up for an uncertain Senate bid?

How is it a good idea to give up a safe House seat in order to gain a (mere) *candidate* for a Senate seat? Massie should stay right where he is, regardless of what Rand does.


We would have to go all out to get Rand the GOP nomination since he would be out of politics if he lost. There's also the possibility that he could run for office in the future for the Senate or for Governor.

Which is *exactly* why I think Rand should NOT run for POTUS in 2016. The gambit is just far too risky. And if we lose, we face the prospect of having to go through a hell of a lot of trouble and effort just to get back to where we were before.

I just isn't worth it. Rand should stay right where he is and we should focus our efforts and resources on getting as many Constitutionalists & nullifiers into Congress and state legislatures.

That would be a MUCH bigger and more valuable payoff in the long run, and we don't risk losing what we've already got.

POTUS is just a bright, shiny distraction - so to hell with it. Bottom-up is the way to go. Not top-down.

[Kregisen]

From what I understand, Massie's current seat is pretty much a solid lock until he decides to give it up (unless he really screws the pooch on something). Why should we give that up for an uncertain Senate bid?

How is it a good idea to give up a safe House seat in order to gain a (mere) *candidate* for a Senate seat? Massie should stay right where he is, regardless of what Rand does.



Which is *exactly* why I think Rand should NOT run for POTUS in 2016. The gambit is just far too risky. And if we lose, we face the prospect of having to go through a hell of a lot of trouble and effort just to get back to where we were before.

I just isn't worth it. Rand should stay right where he is and we should focus our efforts and resources on getting as many Constitutionalists & nullifiers into Congress and state legislatures.

That would be a MUCH bigger and more valuable payoff in the long run, and we don't risk losing what we've already got.

POTUS is just a bright, shiny distraction - so to hell with it. Bottom-up is the way to go. Not top-down.

Respectfully disagree. Getting a few congressmen and/or senators is good and all, but really isn't practical in the long run. In the long run, in order for us to succeed, we need to change enough minds in the country. How do you do that? By putting liberty candidates in the national spotlight i.e. a PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.

How do you think Ron Paul's message got out to so many people? How do you think Ron Paul has over 1 million likes on facebook alone? Because he decided to play it safe and stay a congressman the whole time?

Nope. He went into national debates - and changed the hearts and minds of millions of people, which erupted into what we have now.

Your suggestion is like a fast food joint like mcdonalds choosing not to spend 3% of income on advertising, because they will need to save that 3% of budget for their bottom line, when in reality, spending that 3% on advertising results in a 50% increase in net income.

Sort of same thing here. Worst case scenario, we change a million more republicans to be a little more libertarian and lose a senate seat for a measly 6 years until Rand runs again (for president or senate or governor or congressman) after 2016.

[Occam's Banana]

Respectfully disagree.

Disagreement respectfully returned. :)


Getting a few congressmen and/or senators is good and all, but really isn't practical in the long run. In the long run, in order for us to succeed, we need to change enough minds in the country.

I don't understand. If getting pro-liberty Constitutionalists & nullifiers into Congress & state legislatures isn't "practical in the long run," then why bother trying to change *any* minds (never mind *enough* minds)? I thought getting liberty people into offices from which something substantive might actually be accomplished was the whole point. Changing minds is nice and all - and I would like to change as many minds as possible - but what is necessary in order for us to succeed is to *get enough votes.* Consider all those rank-and-file Republicans who say they don't like Ron but really like Rand. Their minds haven't been changed, but it's quite possible we could get their votes. There just aren't enough people willing to change their minds that a strategy hinging solely or primarily on mind-changing could work. Freedom is popular, but it's not *that* popular (yet). Consider also: Obama won the election, but I doubt it was because very many peoples' minds were changed (this time or in 2008). A lot of non-ideological independents voted for him simply because they didn't like Romney as much (or disliked Obama less).


How do you do that? By putting liberty candidates in the national spotlight i.e. a PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.

How do you think Ron Paul's message got out to so many people? How do you think Ron Paul has over 1 million likes on facebook alone? Because he decided to play it safe and stay a congressman the whole time?

Nope. He went into national debates - and changed the hearts and minds of millions of people, which erupted into what we have now.

Well ... I couldn't care less about Facebook likes. Facebook likes are as cheap as mouse-clicks. When those million-plus Facebook-likers go out and start helping to take over the GOP, *then* I'll get excited about them.

As for the POTUS debates: Ron changed the hearts and minds of lots of people, I'm sure. Millions, though? I don't think so. "What we have now" is a *very* great many people who already agreed with him, *plus* a whole bunch of newcomers (but certainly not millions of them). What Ron did was charge them up. But regardless of how one assesses the impact & consequences of Ron's debate appearances, any expectations that Rand will have the same impact & consequences are misguided. Rand's style and approach is VERY different. People who already believe in the message may be excited (assuming they're not among the ones who have decided to hate Rand because he's a "traitor"). But it's the rank-and-file Republicans and non-ideological independents who would be Rand's audience. This is obvious from the rhetorical stances Rand has consistently taken in his interviews, media appearances, etc. It is extremely unlikely he will change tack. He would NOT have the sort of galvanizing effect that Ron did.


Your suggestion is like a fast food joint like mcdonalds choosing not to spend 3% of income on advertising, because they will need to save that 3% of budget for their bottom line, when in reality, spending that 3% on advertising results in a 50% increase in net income.

Sort of same thing here. Worst case scenario, we change a million more republicans to be a little more libertarian and lose a senate seat for a measly 6 years until Rand runs again (for president or senate or governor or congressman) after 2016.

But that's just it. We *won't* change that many minds to being "a little more libertarian." Some, maybe - but not millions. Best case scenario: we change millions more Republicans to liking Rand Paul and (maybe) voting for him. That's *not* the same thing. POTUS votes for Rand != newly-minted libertarians. This is why I think the McDonald's advertising analogy doesn't apply here. It's sort of like the Facebook thing I mentioned before. If I thought that a POTUS run by Rand would inspire as significant, vigorous and enthusiastic a pro-liberty "take-over-the-GOP" upsurge as Ron's did, then I would be excited about it. But it won't. And such an upsurge is the only reason I can see that would make it worth losing his place in the Senate.

(What's more, I would include an actual POTUS *win* by Rand in that conclusion! Yep. That's right. I actually think Senator Paul > President Paul. :eek::eek::eek:)

[Matt Collins]

dont worry about it, I assure you that this will be a non-issue by then.

[itshappening]

why will it be a non issue ??

if RAND decides to run for president then the GOP senate primary in 2016 is a problem as is the KY law about not being on ballots twice

[Brett85]

dont worry about it, I assure you that this will be a non-issue by then.

What do you mean by that?

[69360]

It's not a big deal as I understand it. The KY primary is in May. By early Feb Rand would know if he is viable in the presidential primary and know if he should be on the ballot for president or senate.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Has anyone posted the KY law?

[Matt Collins]

why will it be a non issue ??

if RAND decides to run for president then the GOP senate primary in 2016 is a problem as is the KY law about not being on ballots twiceBecause Rand is fully aware of these implications. Trust me, he's thought of these things.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I'm with Occam's Banana. My criticisms of Rand are nearly always predicated on the notion that he's next in line to be the ideological leader of the liberty movement, and a presidential candidate/president needs to be an ideological creature. To have Rand in his current form become the figurehead of the movement would cut it off at the knees; unless he radicalizes on a number of issues, libertarian goals will go unfulfilled (whether he wins or not).

Moving forward, the idea should be to use the presidential race to get the message out, and get members of Congress elected in both parties - no more of this GOP only crap. If we're going to be okay with going the Leninist route, we need to do the same in the Democratic party, too.

[Brett85]

I'm with Occam's Banana. My criticisms of Rand are nearly always predicated on the notion that he's next in line to be the ideological leader of the liberty movement, and a presidential candidate/president needs to be an ideological creature. To have Rand in his current form become the figurehead of the movement would cut it off at the knees; unless he radicalizes on a number of issues, libertarian goals will go unfulfilled (whether he wins or not).

Moving forward, the idea should be to use the presidential race to get the message out, and get members of Congress elected in both parties - no more of this GOP only crap. If we're going to be okay with going the Leninist route, we need to do the same in the Democratic party, too.

Good luck getting liberty candidates elected in a party that believes that the government is responsible for building private businesses.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Good luck getting liberty candidates elected in a party that believes that the government is responsible for building private businesses.

It also divides efforts as well. If by chance some libertarian conservative Dem was to actually get elected to Congress he would be placed in a broom closet by the party leadership and aggressively primaried each and every election. So much easier just to run people for open seats in the GOP and challenge the RINO incumbents. There are a ton of safe GOP districts, so all our guys have to go is win the primary which requires a lot less money, volunteer effort and votes.

[Feeding the Abscess]

It also divides efforts as well. If by chance some libertarian conservative Dem was to actually get elected to Congress he would be placed in a broom closet by the party leadership and aggressively primaried each and every election. So much easier just to run people for open seats in the GOP and challenge the RINO incumbents. There are a ton of safe GOP districts, so all our guys have to go is win the primary which requires a lot less money, volunteer effort and votes.

In most cases, the person who would be infiltrating the Democratic party wouldn't be running as a blue dog.

[Kregisen]

Disagreement respectfully returned. :)



I don't understand. If getting pro-liberty Constitutionalists & nullifiers into Congress & state legislatures isn't "practical in the long run," then why bother trying to change *any* minds (never mind *enough* minds)? I thought getting liberty people into offices from which something substantive might actually be accomplished was the whole point.

I respectfully respect your respectful returnment of my respectful disagreement and respectfully send this respectful disagreement back at you. :)

We have elected a few liberty people across the nation. This is due to having a large national base of paying supporters (like us) who are able to contribute to people such as forum members GunnyFreedom and Thomas Massie. But what happens when you start electing more? Then our monetary support keeps getting split. And what happens every 2 years? These same people need more money to run for re-election.

What happened after Gunny got elected to his state senate (or congress or whatever it was?)? He lost badly in the election 2 years later. Why? His opponents got WAY more funding.

We are not a big enough movement to monetarily support more than a dozen candidates at a time. Yes, we can try to keep growing an inch every election, maybe getting 2 new candidates and only losing 1, but ultimately this won't do anything practical within the next 10-12 years. A more practical approach in my opinion is getting someone like Rand in, who can shake up the entire party, gain millions of new supporters (some new liberty lovers...some typical republicans who just like Rand) who will like Rand enough to vote for who he endorses. Think something along the lines of Sarah Palin in 2010. Her endorsements made waves across the country. The same can be true for Rand in 2014 and 2016 and beyond.

This is how you can sustainably elect liberty people to office. Not by stacking more candidates on the same size base (yes we are growing but relatively not fast enough...hence gunny's huge loss) but by rapidly expanding the base.

Hope I made that clear enough....these are my thoughts.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I respectfully respect your respectful returnment of my respectful disagreement and respectfully send this respectful disagreement back at you. :)

We have elected a few liberty people across the nation. This is due to having a large national base of paying supporters (like us) who are able to contribute to people such as forum members GunnyFreedom and Thomas Massie. But what happens when you start electing more? Then our monetary support keeps getting split. And what happens every 2 years? These same people need more money to run for re-election.

What happened after Gunny got elected to his state senate (or congress or whatever it was?)? He lost badly in the election 2 years later. Why? His opponents got WAY more funding.

We are not a big enough movement to monetarily support more than a dozen candidates at a time. Yes, we can try to keep growing an inch every election, maybe getting 2 new candidates and only losing 1, but ultimately this won't do anything practical within the next 10-12 years. A more practical approach in my opinion is getting someone like Rand in, who can shake up the entire party, gain millions of new supporters (some new liberty lovers...some typical republicans who just like Rand) who will like Rand enough to vote for who he endorses. Think something along the lines of Sarah Palin in 2010. Her endorsements made waves across the country. The same can be true for Rand in 2014 and 2016 and beyond.

This is how you can sustainably elect liberty people to office. Not by stacking more candidates on the same size base (yes we are growing but relatively not fast enough...hence gunny's huge loss) but by rapidly expanding the base.

Hope I made that clear enough....these are my thoughts.

Gunny tried moving up from state House to state Senate, if I recall correctly. Had he stayed in his House seat he may have been able to keep it.

[Brett85]

I'm not a fan of Gunny after he told me I was going to hell. I'm looking forward to watching Thomas Massie in Congress, however.

[Occam's Banana]

Gunny tried moving up from state House to state Senate, if I recall correctly. Had he stayed in his House seat he may have been able to keep it.

Actually, he had no choice in the matter. They Gerrymandered him out of the house.

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

I just found out that Kentucky has a law saying your name can't be on the ballot for two different offices. This means that if Rand runs for President, he gives up his Senate seat. Will he go for it anyway, or is he going to wait until 2020/2024?

http://www.examiner.com/article/rand-paul-2016-1

[Smart3]

This is precisely why Rand and Rubio won't run in 2016.

Besides, even if he could do both at the same time, KY still has a massive lead for the Ds in terms of registration, and Beshear would just take Rand's seat, if he doesn't take on McConnell (in deference to Ashley Judd)

[tsai3904]

Bachmann was in the same situation but she found a way to run for President, withdraw as a candidate for President then run for reelection in Congress. This won't be that big of a deal when the time comes. If he doesn't win the early states, he will drop out and run for Senate. If he does win the early states, he won't be worried about the Senate.

[QWDC]

The deadline to file for Senate in KY is 1/31. Iowa, NH, and South Carolina will have taken place, so Rand will know by then if he is probably going to win the nomination. The only risk at that point is losing the presidency to the dems.

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Ah, very good points, tsai and QWDC. Makes sense.

[Confederate]

I just found out that Kentucky has a law saying your name can't be on the ballot for two different offices. This means that if Rand runs for President, he gives up his Senate seat. Will he go for it anyway, or is he going to wait until 2020/2024?

http://www.examiner.com/article/rand-paul-2016-1

I posted the law in an earlier thread. The law only says you can't be on the ballot for two different offices on the same day. He could run in both primaries and then drop out of one before the ballots are certified (if he wins both) for the general election.

[MozoVote]

I'm sure there will be deep Shakespearan intrigue in the KYGOP as 2016 approaches. Some in the establishment will be looking to encourage the "irritating" sentor to move out, but others will be afraid of losing an open seat and encourage him to stay.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I posted the law in an earlier thread. The law only says you can't be on the ballot for two different offices on the same day. He could run in both primaries and then drop out of one before the ballots are certified (if he wins both) for the general election.

True, but the issue to address is that if he was contending for the Presidential nomination, there would need to be a primary to choose a successor for his Senate seat. What QWDC posted is the most likely scenario - he will just drop out if he isn't taking states early on. Rand is making friends in the KY GOP, so perhaps between now and 2016, that 1/31 deadline can be changed to 2/15 which would mean (if the schedule is similar to 2012), that 9 contests would have occurred - If Rand is 0 for 9, then he drops out and runs for Senate.

[supermario21]

Couldn't he just decide to not contest the Kentucky primary for President? It's pretty late in the ball game and its results would likely be irrelevant to the outcome of the contest.

[QWDC]

Looking into it a bit more, I think Rand has until the ballots are certified to drop out of the presidency race, which would give him 2 extra weeks and 5 more primary contest. The problem is, I wonder if he could file for both offices and tell the SOS to drop him from one of the races ahead of time? He might not be able to file for both even if he plans to drop one.

[specsaregood]

Worth noting that Rand has repeatedly said and made it obvious he does not want to have a long career in the Senate or politics in general. He seems to really enjoy the eye doctor gig.

[Brett85]

Worth noting that Rand has repeatedly said and made it obvious he does not want to have a long career in the Senate or politics in general. He seems to really enjoy the eye doctor gig.

So do you think that Rand will decide to just quit politics all together after his first Senate term is up? I read a blog post by someone who said they have inside information that Rand misses his eye practice and wants to go back to that after his first Senate term is up. I hope that guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

[BenIsForRon]

Yeah, I really don't want to lose Rand in the senate, unless we can get him in the oval office.

[Brett85]

http://countenance.wordpress.com/

"Anyway, I’m going to let all of you in on a secret, something I heard through a very plugged in grapevine in the last few months.

Not only is Rand not running for President in 2016, he won’t even run for re-election to the Senate. He misses his eye surgery practice dearly. He’s grooming just-elected Congressman Thomas Massie from KY-4 to replace him in the Senate in 2016."

[specsaregood]

So do you think that Rand will decide to just quit politics all together after his first Senate term is up? I read a blog post by someone who said they have inside information that Rand misses his eye practice and wants to go back to that after his first Senate term is up. I hope that guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

I think that when it doesn't really matter if a batter strikes out, it makes it all that much easier for the batter to swing for the fences.

[CaptLouAlbano]

So do you think that Rand will decide to just quit politics all together after his first Senate term is up? I read a blog post by someone who said they have inside information that Rand misses his eye practice and wants to go back to that after his first Senate term is up. I hope that guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

If this is true, then it is a very real possibility that he may not run for the White House. He'd be 53 in 2016, and if he were to win the White House and serve two terms, he'd be 61 when he is out of office. If he wants to practice medicine again, he can forget about it. While I am sure there is some marketing appeal to "Rand Paul, Opthamologist - come get your eyes checked by the former president" I don't think the Secret Service would care too much for that. :)

[July]

I think that when it doesn't really matter if a batter strikes out, it makes it all that much easier for the batter to swing for the fences.

That is very zen...
Anyway, if this is true, who could blame him?

[brandon]

http://countenance.wordpress.com/

"Anyway, I’m going to let all of you in on a secret, something I heard through a very plugged in grapevine in the last few months.

Not only is Rand not running for President in 2016, he won’t even run for re-election to the Senate. He misses his eye surgery practice dearly. He’s grooming just-elected Congressman Thomas Massie from KY-4 to replace him in the Senate in 2016."

Everything Rand has said and done indicate the complete opposite.

www.randpaul2016.com/

[Matt Collins]

I assure you Rand is aware of this, it's a non issue.

[trey4sports]

He has given every single indication that he is going to run in '16. Maybe he is willing to give up his seat for a chance at the presidency.

[itshappening]

The only problem from our selfish point of view is that if he got the nomination and he lost to the RATS, we would lose a liberty senator.

which is why we need to get Tom Davis into the U.S Senate, either in 2014 (Graham) or 2016 (DeMint retiring)

[specsaregood]

That is very zen...
Anyway, if this is true, who could blame him?

I don't know zen from zed; but I know Rand has mojo.

[69360]

The deadline to file for Senate in KY is 1/31. Iowa, NH, and South Carolina will have taken place, so Rand will know by then if he is probably going to win the nomination. The only risk at that point is losing the presidency to the dems.

Yep, the field is set by then. He could make a decision at that point if a presidential primary campaign was viable. Lose all 3 and there is no point in continuing. So the KY ballot is a non-issue.

[itshappening]

Iowa, NH and S.C could all be locked up for Rand Paul if we work hard enough !

Ron came in 2nd and 3rd, organization is all in place. Few candidates can compete with that.

Even the anointed media darlings will find it hard to compete. Organization is key and we have been organized for 5 years.

Go Rand Go !

[economics102]

Since Rand will be up for re-election to the Senate in 2016, if he runs for President is he allowed to be on the ballot for both or will he have to give up his Senate seat in order to run?

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

This has been asked 10 times already.

Kentucky state law states you cannot be on a ballot twice. So he will have to choose which one he wants, at least for November. By the Kentucky primary date he should know whether he has a legitimate chance at winning the nomination, and if he does I expect him to go all in.

[jct74]

Since Rand will be up for re-election to the Senate in 2016, if he runs for President is he allowed to be on the ballot for both or will he have to give up his Senate seat in order to run?


This has been asked 10 times already.

Kentucky state law states you cannot be on a ballot twice. So he will have to choose which one he wants, at least for November. By the Kentucky primary date he should know whether he has a legitimate chance at winning the nomination, and if he does I expect him to go all in.

yeah, there is a long thread from a few months ago where this has all been hashed out, i'll merge it with this one to avoid repeating the discussion and keep it in one place.

[jkob]

We should know well before Kentucky whether or not Rand is a viable candidate. He'll be able to influence politics from the senate and should have, to some extent hopefully, the ear of whoever else is the GOP nominee is so there is no use burning bridges to continue an ultimately fruitless campaign.

[rubioneocon]

No, I had heard both Rand and Rubio, if either were the nominee and on the ballot for the POTUS, would have to relinquish their Senate seat.

That said, they are both young and in Rand's case highly likely he would win in the general election for President.

[supermario21]

Kentucky needs to elect a Republican governor in the next election as well as a Republican legislature. They might rewrite the law for him.

[Uriah]

This has been asked 10 times already.

Kentucky state law states you cannot be on a ballot twice. So he will have to choose which one he wants, at least for November. By the Kentucky primary date he should know whether he has a legitimate chance at winning the nomination, and if he does I expect him to go all in.

He should choose one and stick with it. If he pulls out of the Senate race at the last minute it gives little time for a liberty GOP candidate to organize. I would hate to see someone like Massie make a last minute push for the nomination and end up short because he didn't have enough time.

[Brett85]

Kentucky needs to elect a Republican governor in the next election as well as a Republican legislature. They might rewrite the law for him.

I think he might be able to get the law changed even with a Democratic legislature and governor. The Democrats might want him to run for both at the same time, because they might think they have a better opportunity to defeat him in his Senate race if he's distracted by the Presidential race.

[tsai3904]

Kentucky state law states you cannot be on a ballot twice. So he will have to choose which one he wants, at least for November. By the Kentucky primary date he should know whether he has a legitimate chance at winning the nomination, and if he does I expect him to go all in.

He has to decide by the Kentucky primary filing date, which is January 26, 2016.

Here are the relevant Kentucky election laws:


118.165 (http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/118-00/165.PDF) Filing of nomination papers -- Certification.

Candidates for offices to be voted for by the electors of more than one (1) county, and for members of Congress and members of the General Assembly, shall file their nomination papers with the Secretary of State not earlier than the first Wednesday after the first Monday in November of the year preceding the year the office will appear on the ballot and not later than the last Tuesday in January preceding the day fixed by law for holding the primary


118.405 (http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/118-00/405.PDF) Name of candidate to appear on ballot but once -- Exceptions for filling of vacancy.

No candidate's name shall appear on any voting machine or absentee ballot more than once, except that a candidate's name may appear twice if he is a candidate for a primary or a regular election and also a candidate to fill a vacancy in the same office required to be filled at a special election, when the special election to fill a vacancy is scheduled for the regular election day.

[tsai3904]

FYI, Rubio cannot appear on two ballots at same time either but he has until June 10, 2016 to decide whether to run for Senate or President.

Relevant Florida election laws:


99.061(1) (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=99.061&URL=0000-0099/0099/Sections/0099.061.html) Method of qualifying for nomination or election to federal, state, county, or district office.

The provisions of any special act to the contrary notwithstanding, each person seeking to qualify for nomination or election to a federal, state, or multicounty district office, other than election to a judicial office as defined in chapter 105 or the office of school board member, shall file his or her qualification papers with, and pay the qualifying fee, which shall consist of the filing fee and election assessment, and party assessment, if any has been levied, to, the Department of State, or qualify by the petition process pursuant to s. 99.095 with the Department of State, at any time after noon of the 1st day for qualifying, which shall be as follows: the 120th day prior to the primary election, but not later than noon of the 116th day prior to the date of the primary election, for persons seeking to qualify for nomination or election to federal office or to the office of the state attorney or the public defender; and noon of the 71st day prior to the primary election, but not later than noon of the 67th day prior to the date of the primary election, for persons seeking to qualify for nomination or election to a state or multicounty district office, other than the office of the state attorney or the public defender.


99.012(2) (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0099/Sections/0099.012.html) Restrictions on individuals qualifying for public office.

No person may qualify as a candidate for more than one public office, whether federal, state, district, county, or municipal, if the terms or any part thereof run concurrently with each other.

[itshappening]

We need KY to change the law regardless so they have LBJ law allowing him to seek the presidency and run for the Senate otherwise we risk losing him.

Start a petition drive and force the Dems to consider it.

I bet the GOP will change the law for Rubio in FL if he foolishly decides to run

[ronpaulfollower999]

What about Thomas Massie for Rand's seat?

[itshappening]

What about Thomas Massie for Rand's seat?

Massie has said he only wants to be a congressman and go no higher.

[Occam's Banana]

Massie has said he only wants to be a congressman and go no higher.

And good for him for doing so! This is an entirely sensible and much-needed approach.

We need to fill the (so-called) "lower ranks" with as many of our people as we can get in, instead of wearing ourselves out by constantly jumping for bright, shiny objects just out of our reach.

Once we have a solid base, *then* we can afford to press higher and higher - with much greater chances of success.

To use a metaphor from military strategy: we must not let our vanguard get too far ahead of our main body of troops.

[MaxPower]

Respectfully disagree. Getting a few congressmen and/or senators is good and all, but really isn't practical in the long run. In the long run, in order for us to succeed, we need to change enough minds in the country. How do you do that? By putting liberty candidates in the national spotlight i.e. a PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE.

How do you think Ron Paul's message got out to so many people? How do you think Ron Paul has over 1 million likes on facebook alone? Because he decided to play it safe and stay a congressman the whole time?

Nope. He went into national debates - and changed the hearts and minds of millions of people, which erupted into what we have now.

Your suggestion is like a fast food joint like mcdonalds choosing not to spend 3% of income on advertising, because they will need to save that 3% of budget for their bottom line, when in reality, spending that 3% on advertising results in a 50% increase in net income.

Sort of same thing here. Worst case scenario, we change a million more republicans to be a little more libertarian and lose a senate seat for a measly 6 years until Rand runs again (for president or senate or governor or congressman) after 2016.
Agreed; let's remember that even in the Senate, Rand hasn't actually been able to directly effect policy a great deal. The impact he has made has been more the result of the public platform he gets to speak from thanks to his position as a Senator, and I guarantee you that at this point, his profile (and thus his speaking platform) will not disappear if he no longer holds a Senate seat, especially after an unsuccessful-but-nevertheless-high-profile presidential run.