A 3rd Party Run Strategy Possibility

[justinc.1089]

I know its too early to be talking about a 3rd party run, but I had an idea that just might help to make it more possible to win a 3rd party run if we do that, which is why not split the democratic vote too if we would be splitting the republican vote?

If we had Paul running 3rd party taking some dems and some more republicans, then we could get a 4th person in there to take the hard core anti-war vote or perhaps some other voting block. Then once they had split the vote more, which would help Paul since neither the republicans or democrats would have quite as big of a solid lead, the 4th person could just drop out and endorse Paul!

I think it could help at least a little bit, but I don't know if its something possible or not.

[TexasAggie09]

I was thinking more along the lines of a four person race with Clinton, Giulianni, Bloomberg, and Paul.

[ValidusCustodiae]

What's your strategy for changing the laws in the states that do not allow someone to run independent or 3rd party after losing a run at a nomination?

[Xonox]

What's your strategy for changing the laws in the states that do not allow someone to run independent or 3rd party after losing a run at a nomination?

There are laws like this that exist? Well, I suppsoe we could just win the other states :rolleyes:

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

I think RP should reach out to a big name antiwar Dem to take more votes from the democrats. If Ron does not win the GOP nod, I don't give a damn who we take the most votes from in the general, because the GOP candidate is likely to be a bigger war-monger than the Dem.

[ValidusCustodiae]

There are laws like this that exist? Well, I suppsoe we could just win the other states :rolleyes:

Major disadvantage, that's all. Only reason I always bring this up is that the people that want to hype up a 3rd party run right now never do.

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

What's your strategy for changing the laws in the states that do not allow someone to run independent or 3rd party after losing a run at a nomination?


Please post evidence that such laws exist in a presidential race. Not to mention whether they would hold up to a court challenge.

[No1ButPaul08]

I was thinking more along the lines of a four person race with Clinton, Giulianni, Bloomberg, and Paul.

3 pro choice and 1 pro life

I would bet on the pro lifer every single time

[ValidusCustodiae]

I think RP should reach out to a big name antiwar Dem to take more votes from the democrats. If Ron does not win the GOP nod, I don't give a damn who we take the most votes from in the general, because the GOP candidate is likely to be a bigger war-monger than the Dem.

Hate to break it to you, but the Dems won't need any help (that is unless Ron Paul gets GOP nod =)

[justinc.1089]

Bloomberg is probably not going to run because he wouldn't win. Giuliani would have a better chance running 3rd party than Bloomberg lol. Its just hype or a story to talk about or something.

I don't know what would be done for laws stopping someone from running that lost the nomination, but I have heard lots of talk about Paul running 3rd party so I think he is now thinking about it, so I guess Paul is taking that into consideration if he is actually thinking about doing it.

Plus the majority of his support like myself want him to do it very badly because we don't see a big benefit from having a republican like Giuliani, Romney, or McCain winning than we do Clinton or Obama. There would be some small benefits but not much. Plus in my mind this might be the only time a 3rd party candidate truly has a shot at winning.

But I'm not talking like someone running like Bloomberg, I'm talking like someone running that actually LIKES Paul and is doing it only for that purpose, dividing the vote further and then endorsing Paul so that he gains more votes.

[justinc.1089]

Please post evidence that such laws exist in a presidential race. Not to mention whether they would hold up to a court challenge.

There are laws like that, Paul has mentioned them before when being asked about running third party if I recall correctly.

[ValidusCustodiae]

I don't know what would be done for laws stopping someone from running that lost the nomination, but I have heard lots of talk about Paul running 3rd party so I think he is now thinking about it, so I guess Paul is taking that into consideration if he is actually thinking about doing it.

No, it's just the media asking him over and over if he is thinking about it.

They're trying to make hardcore GOP turn against him thinking he is not loyal to the party. They want people to think he might really run 3rd party.

You fell for it. No offense, but the closest he's come to saying he was even thinking about it is that he wasn't willing to rule it out. But even he has said that the reason he doesn't is because he doesn't like the absolutist mentality.

Not that I wouldn't support him 100% and vote for him in the event he ran 3rd party.

[justinc.1089]

No, it's just the media asking him over and over if he is thinking about it.

They're trying to make hardcore GOP turn against him thinking he is not loyal to the party. They want people to think he might really run 3rd party.

You fell for it. No offense, but the closest he's come to saying he was even thinking about it is that he wasn't willing to rule it out. But even he has said that the reason he doesn't is because he doesn't like the absolutist mentality.

Not that I wouldn't support him 100% and vote for him in the event he ran 3rd party.

I know that is why the media asks him that, I'm not dumb. But you must not realize like 3/4 of Paul's support will be very upset if he does not run third party. Paul could not have known that before this campaign, and now if he is thinking about doing that for his supporters or even if he has decided to do it he can't say so while trying to win the republican nomination.

And the reason he never just says no is because he does not want to lie in case he decides to run 3rd party. He is saying no to them about it without saying no basically so that he can leave that option open.

[Xonox]

Ron Paul has said he will continue running until we stop funding him. If we keep funding him after he has lost nomination he would probably keep running.

[AlexMerced]

they are called sore loser laws, though i think it mnay state their sore loser laws don't apply to the presidential race, we could get on enough states ballots to win

it'd get some intial media buzz, and if you get a running mate that disruptive enough that could make some news as well.

I think if their is someone who can do it, it'd be paul, but if you think these primaries are an uphill battle wait till the general election

[tfelice]

The subject of a four way race is interesting. If it was Clinton, Rudy, Bloomberg, Paul then it becomes a pro-life vs pro-abortion race and Paul wins.

However, if it is Clinton, Bloombery, Paul & a pro-life Republican then it changes significantly and I believe the Republican wins. I am starting to believe that Paul's support is based mostly on former Dems, Indys and Third Party folks - with the disgruntled GOP members making up only a small amount of his base.

I got a poll running on this to try and get an idea of it all, but not getting a good enough sample. Does anyone have some good data on this ie. where Paul's supporters come from.

[Xonox]

The subject of a four way race is interesting. If it was Clinton, Rudy, Bloomberg, Paul then it becomes a pro-life vs pro-abortion race and Paul wins.

However, if it is Clinton, Bloombery, Paul & a pro-life Republican then it changes significantly and I believe the Republican wins. I am starting to believe that Paul's support is based mostly on former Dems, Indys and Third Party folks - with the disgruntled GOP members making up only a small amount of his base.

I got a poll running on this to try and get an idea of it all, but not getting a good enough sample. Does anyone have some good data on this ie. where Paul's supporters come from.

I would love to see a four way race in the American presidential elections... it would truly challenge the two party system that has dominated the country for over a century.

[Drknows]

Don't Rule Out Independent Run. Rand Paul speaks
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1243645856/bctid1370962993

..

[tfelice]

I would love to see a four way race in the American presidential elections... it would truly challenge the two party system that has dominated the country for over a century.

It's really not a two party system when you really look deeply into it. That's what the primaries are all about. Here within the GOP we have a libertarian wing, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, Rockefeller Republicans, etc. Those various factions have a lot in common, but fight out the differences in the primaries. Same thing I imagine if we had 3 or 4 different parties on the right and they fought it out in the general election

[justinc.1089]

The subject of a four way race is interesting. If it was Clinton, Rudy, Bloomberg, Paul then it becomes a pro-life vs pro-abortion race and Paul wins.

However, if it is Clinton, Bloombery, Paul & a pro-life Republican then it changes significantly and I believe the Republican wins. I am starting to believe that Paul's support is based mostly on former Dems, Indys and Third Party folks - with the disgruntled GOP members making up only a small amount of his base.

I got a poll running on this to try and get an idea of it all, but not getting a good enough sample. Does anyone have some good data on this ie. where Paul's supporters come from.

Well first Bloomberg is out. Bloomberg has no chance of winning if he runs third party, just like Giuliani. Bloomberg probably couldn't even win states like New York and New Jersey. I don't quite get why bloomberg is being talked about as potentially running third party by the media. It might be because he was expected to become a republican candidate, but did not, I really don't know, but I do know he has NO chance of being a legit third party candidate.

The chance of a pro-life republican being nominated is kind of low too, but you were already pointing that out. Thompson and Huckabee are not likey to win the nomination. Huckabee can't win nationally, and now Huckabee is in risk of losing in SC, and if that happens its over for him. Thompson just does not have enough support to win. So the more likely candidates are McCain who has already won a primary, and is looking shockingly strong in SC, Romney who has solid finishes and solid money, and Giuliani if we go to a brokered convention and he manages to win some states because the republicans will then rejoice at their second chance to nominate Giuliani.

[tfelice]

Well first Bloomberg is out. Bloomberg has no chance of winning if he runs third party, just like Giuliani. Bloomberg probably couldn't even win states like New York and New Jersey. I don't quite get why bloomberg is being talked about as potentially running third party by the media. It might be because he was expected to become a republican candidate, but did not, I really don't know, but I do know he has NO chance of being a legit third party candidate.

I don't know why Bloomberg is talked about so much either. You are right he cannot do well except in NY & NJ, maybe FL too due to the NY population that lives there.

I think some of these guys run or tease to run for their own egos. It gets them on TV more, keeps the spotlight on them for whatever they want to do next.

Take Keyes for example. He has no chance of winning anything, but he's in the race - came in late for that matter. One would have to ask why. But the answer is to pad his resume. See the last thing on Keyes' resume is that he lost the Senate contest to Obama in 06 i think it was. Now he's a presidential candidate once again. "Three time Presidential Candiate" pays much better on the speaker's circuit than "IL Senate Loser"

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

I imagine any such "sore loser" laws might be shot down in federal courts.

I think Anderson and Perot fought some important court battles already that makes it easier to get on the ballot.

[justinc.1089]

I don't know why Bloomberg is talked about so much either. You are right he cannot do well except in NY & NJ, maybe FL too due to the NY population that lives there.

I think some of these guys run or tease to run for their own egos. It gets them on TV more, keeps the spotlight on them for whatever they want to do next.

Take Keyes for example. He has no chance of winning anything, but he's in the race - came in late for that matter. One would have to ask why. But the answer is to pad his resume. See the last thing on Keyes' resume is that he lost the Senate contest to Obama in 06 i think it was. Now he's a presidential candidate once again. "Three time Presidential Candiate" pays much better on the speaker's circuit than "IL Senate Loser"

Haha yeah you're certainly right about Bloomberg, and probably partially right about Keyes, although I get the feeling that guy really does truly hate and despise the establishment people like the media and the republican party. But he is probably in it more for publicity like you were saying than anything else.

[tfelice]

Haha yeah you're certainly right about Bloomberg, and probably partially right about Keyes, although I get the feeling that guy really does truly hate and despise the establishment people like the media and the republican party. But he is probably in it more for publicity like you were saying than anything else.

Of course, he's either in it for gain or he is insane. The guy's an educated man, I doubt he is insane. If you want insane you need to look at some of those minor party candiates that are perenially in the race.

[justinc.1089]

Haha well he may be in it for publicity and gain, and also for the rare opportunity to hate on the republican party about how they always exclude him lol. Its ridiculous they exclude him though.

[tfelice]

Haha well he may be in it for publicity and gain, and also for the rare opportunity to hate on the republican party about how they always exclude him lol. Its ridiculous they exclude him though.

Yeah I agree. He does make some good points about the decay of society because of liberal social policies. I think the GOP should let them all in the debates for the first two, but there does come a time when they need to weed people out. You cannot have candidates that are only in it for their own gain messing up the serious business.

[justinc.1089]

Yeah I agree. He does make some good points about the decay of society because of liberal social policies. I think the GOP should let them all in the debates for the first two, but there does come a time when they need to weed people out. You cannot have candidates that are only in it for their own gain messing up the serious business.

Yeah I agree. Did you know they refused to invite him to some debate before when he ran for president and he showed up to debate anyway so they had security take him away? I think he had a real shot then but I don't really know much about it. I like how Keyes despises the power in the republican party and probably the media too since they have mistreated him, but I disagree with him about foreign policy. There might be other things I disagree with him on but I don't know all of his positions, just some, and out of the ones I know foreign policy is my only real disagreement with him.

[tfelice]

Yeah I agree. Did you know they refused to invite him to some debate before when he ran for president and he showed up to debate anyway so they had security take him away? I think he had a real shot then but I don't really know much about it. I like how Keyes despises the power in the republican party and probably the media too since they have mistreated him, but I disagree with him about foreign policy. There might be other things I disagree with him on but I don't know all of his positions, just some, and out of the ones I know foreign policy is my only real disagreement with him.

He's not too bad, better than most. Strong social conservative but in a paleocon way, not a Huckabee way. I felt bad for him when they threw him into the lion's den with that IL race.

[AlexMerced]

The speculation began when bloomberg shifted to independant when the primaries started and a bunch of other weird behavior from Bloomberg

Ron Paul could make a good 3rd party run, I think Rand Paul should run in 2012

[rp08orbust]

Please post evidence that such laws exist in a presidential race. Not to mention whether they would hold up to a court challenge.

Search "sore loser laws". Texas has them.

A question I have though is this: if Ron Paul drops out of the race before Texas's March 4 primary, do the sore loser laws still prevent him from running 3rd party in Texas?

[AlexMerced]

He's not too bad, better than most. Strong social conservative but in a paleocon way, not a Huckabee way. I felt bad for him when they threw him into the lion's den with that IL race.

Keyes is a nutjob when it comes to Euqal rights under the law, and issues concerning civil liberties

[Hook]

I don't know why Bloomberg is talked about so much either. You are right he cannot do well except in NY & NJ, maybe FL too due to the NY population that lives there.

I think some of these guys run or tease to run for their own egos. It gets them on TV more, keeps the spotlight on them for whatever they want to do next.

Take Keyes for example. He has no chance of winning anything, but he's in the race - came in late for that matter. One would have to ask why. But the answer is to pad his resume. See the last thing on Keyes' resume is that he lost the Senate contest to Obama in 06 i think it was. Now he's a presidential candidate once again. "Three time Presidential Candiate" pays much better on the speaker's circuit than "IL Senate Loser"

I'm not sure. The 2 Billion dollars (Thats Billion with a 'B') that he has committed could buy an awful lot of face time, ad time, and buzz. Luckily he would probably take more from the Dems than the Repubs. Lucky that is if Ron wins.

[justinc.1089]

Didn't a billionaire run 3rd party before and not get anywhere?

Besides, again, what would Bloomberg be running on, and where could he win?

Bloomberg would be one of the weakest third party candidates ever lol.

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

Search "sore loser laws". Texas has them.

A question I have though is this: if Ron Paul drops out of the race before Texas's March 4 primary, do the sore loser laws still prevent him from running 3rd party in Texas?

Well by March 4th, we will already know whether he's going to win the GOP nod. Interesting question, though.

Another interesting question is whether those sore loser laws would hold up in federal courts.

[justinc.1089]

Keyes is a nutjob when it comes to Euqal rights under the law, and issues concerning civil liberties

Really? Doesn't seem too surprising lol. Keyes seems to just be mad all the time about things. Maybe his campaign slogan should be "Keyes- Mad At America" lol

[Brian Bailey]

What's your strategy for changing the laws in the states that do not allow someone to run independent or 3rd party after losing a run at a nomination?

There are 'sore loser' laws, but in only in 4 states. 2 of those are being contested in court.