PDA

View Full Version : Why we do NOT want an independant run




work2win
01-14-2008, 01:51 AM
Every day on this board we see calls for an independent run, which seems to be driven by the fact that instant gratification is the theme of our day. Long term plans are not discussed that much and they really should be. With the exception of a narrow loss for the nomination, where RP's independent chances would be good, an independent run would be shooting ourselves in the foot.

The following thread is what got me thinking about this and pulled me back to reality:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=83917

Whether we win this year or not, we are building our base for future victories. We are on the upswing, and the current republican party is on the downswing. To take this thing to the next level, we will need to keep expanding our base and appeal to the impulse/no research voters as well. There lies the problem. A third party run will cause a PERMANENT negative reaction and alienate a large portion of voters that we need to win in the future.

Example: Perot

We've all all heard it a thousand times: "It is Perot's fault Clinton won." Is that absurd? Yes, but many people believe that to this day. These people are completely stuck on the two party system and view Perot as the poison that ruined the election for the GOP. Some of these people are no doubt the people who voted for McCain as their anti-war candidate in NH.

If Ron doesn't get the nomination, the GOP will lose the general whether he runs as an independent or not. We want to let them lose all by their lonesome, so there is absolutely no doubt that the cause of their loss was themselves and their failed policies. This will put us in a position to swoop in and be the saviors of the crumbling Republican party. We will be viewed as the medicine, not the poison.

exer51
01-14-2008, 01:56 AM
It's a double edged sword that I have thought long and hard about. The rank and file will care, but in reality the top guys in the GOP don't give a shit. Them and the Dems are all playing for the same team anyway. NOW we COULD sweep the rank and file and FORCE the party to change. That is possible.

However the double edged part is if he doesn't run, and the GOP take over doesn't go so well because the top guys hold it back... Well we just lost a huge opportunity. I think with 11 months he COULD win. Not a for sure thing, but given momentum it's possible. Just remember once in, you're never out... Expand that out 11 months of everyone babbling to all their friends and spamming their myspace with RP bulletins.

FSP-Rebel
01-14-2008, 01:56 AM
None of us are against an Independent run, just chill on that for awhile.

MayTheRonBeWithYou
01-14-2008, 01:57 AM
A possible troll?

You are wrong. Dr Paul is 72 years old, so this is his last chance. If we do not get the GOP nod, he will run independent. Then we get 10 or 20 million votes, and build the party after November. That's what Perot did.

And guess what? With the coming economic collapse, Ron might actually WIN a three- for four-way general election.

Mitt Romneys sideburns
01-14-2008, 02:04 AM
You cant create a new leading party without destroying one of the others. As of now, the Rep/Dem thing is so locked in, I dont think either one is ever going to go away. On the other hand, a party realignment can be achieved in a relatively short time. The neo-con base is already on the downswing. The goal is not to just get Paul elected. Its much more of a long term thing. We have to get one of the major parties closer in alignment with libertarianism. The Republican party is already a little closer, and has a history of a libertarian platform, so its the logical choice for party realignment.

The thing with libertarianism, is nobody knows what it means. A majority of the population thinks its something like, "pro-choice conservatives", or some bullshit like that.

Taco John
01-14-2008, 02:05 AM
My first option is to see Ron Paul win the Republican nomination. But I am not afraid of a Libertarian run. We'd take virtually all of our support with us, and look who we'd be running against:

McCain/Huckabee
Giuliani/Huckabee
McCain/Thompson
Giuliani/Thompson

If it's a McCain/Huckabee ticket, we will win the conservative vote. If it's a Giuliani ticket, we win all the pro-lifers.

The hardest ticket we'd have to face on the Republican side would be Tompson/Huckabee. We'd have a hard time competing against that one because that's the blind sheep ticket that would satify the conservatives and the religious folks.

MayTheRonBeWithYou
01-14-2008, 02:07 AM
We've all all heard it a thousand times: "It is Perot's fault Clinton won." Is that absurd? Yes, but many people believe that to this day. These people are completely stuck on the two party system and view Perot as the poison that ruined the election for the GOP. Some of these people are no doubt the people who voted for McCain as their anti-war candidate in NH.


Honestly, who gives a shit? The GOP has treated Ron like dirt. The party is filled with war-mongers and "moral" police. They need to be taught a severe lesson, and Ron is the person to teach it to them.

Is your loyalty to the GOP, or to Ron and the Constitution?

gaazn
01-14-2008, 02:10 AM
independents never win the presidency. if anything there has to be a new party that provides the support base for a third party run. that's why its important to get as many delegates as possible to the convention. those delegates can be pulled from the convention and form the beginnings of a new party, if thats the route we later decide on.

MayTheRonBeWithYou
01-14-2008, 02:11 AM
that's why its important to get as many delegates as possible to the convention. those delegates can be pulled from the convention and form the beginnings of a new party, if thats the route we later decide on.

Explain this, please.

gaazn
01-14-2008, 02:18 AM
Explain this, please.

it is the delegates that decide the party platform and structure if a new party is to be created. not ron paul. that's the difference between third party and independent run. a third party has a support base that advocates for a candidate. pulling more delegates makes the third party look more legitimate than having few to pull.

work2win
01-14-2008, 02:19 AM
I think with 11 months he COULD win. Not a for sure thing, but given momentum it's possible. Just remember once in, you're never out... Expand that out 11 months of everyone babbling to all their friends and spamming their myspace with RP bulletins.

I am not so sure of this after looking at the NH exit poll results. The sheep factor is enormously high. The sheep need a bandwagon to jump on, and that bandwagon is the R or D on the ballot.

Obviously, things could change between now and November, but I just wanted eveyone to think about this and consider the big picture. I feel that the movement (that is bigger than RP) will lose a lot with a failed independent run.

FSP-Rebel
01-14-2008, 02:25 AM
I feel that the movement (that is bigger than RP) will lose a lot with a failed independent run.
Where would we go??? Independent talk would elevate us above the 2-party BS/ We won't lose the grassroots... We all know that more people are on board with RP's message of Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom.

gaazn
01-14-2008, 02:26 AM
You cant create a new leading party without destroying one of the others. As of now, the Rep/Dem thing is so locked in, I dont think either one is ever going to go away. On the other hand, a party realignment can be achieved in a relatively short time. The neo-con base is already on the downswing. The goal is not to just get Paul elected. Its much more of a long term thing. We have to get one of the major parties closer in alignment with libertarianism.


there may not be hope for the two parties because their interests are so locked in as well. if that is the case, then there could be a new party that could eventually replace one of the other parties since we are traditionally a two party country.

work2win
01-14-2008, 02:41 AM
Where would we go??? Independent talk would elevate us above the 2-party BS/ We won't lose the grassroots... We all know that more people are on board with RP's message of Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom.

We wouldn't go anywhere. I think RP was wise with his decision to change the Republican Party from the inside. Just look at how far it has taken him! I can tell you for a fact that I know 10 or so people voting for RP and maybe one of them would be voting for him if he was on a third party ticket.

The system is pretty locked down to the two parties, but thats fine, we can use that to our advantage as we already have.

Goldwater Conservative
01-14-2008, 02:41 AM
Haven't libertarians been trying to influence the GOP from the inside for years? And hasn't the party simultaneously become more theocratic, more imperialistic, and more supportive of the welfare state?

Working within the GOP could take a generation before we can elect a true conservative as president, considering it wouldn't be Ron and there's no heir-apparent. By then, America might be so hopped up on the Big Government drug that the only remedy people would consider for our country's ills is more government, like the Fed inflating the money supply to fight inflation. It'd be even harder to advocate constitutionalism and small, limited government than it is now.

Also, working within the party structure means we won't be helped by many of the voters who share our views but find the GOP repugnant (that's hurting us even now). After all, the fastest-growing party affiliation is... no party affiliation (independent). As we've learned, the primary process is a headache involving registering under a certain partisan banner, becoming delegates, knowing when your state votes, and the various other hoops that detract from time and energy that could be spent on gaining support.

All that said, I understand Dr. Paul's decision to have run as a Republican, and not just because he feels he's the real one and the rest are fakes. In fact, it was very wise to do so, since now he's by far the most prominent libertarian voice in the United States (as if he wasn't already even when he was obscure). He's only becoming more widely known by the day. However, that might prove to be better as a base for a new movement than as a model to permanently adopt.

I think 2008 is as ripe for an independent presidential candidate as 1992 was, maybe even more. Perot was leading the polls for a while back then and "only" finished with 19% because he had dropped out for a few months. Sure, we wouldn't have the money he did, but as we proved last year we can hold our own in the fund-raising category.

Best of all, we'd have the Internet on our side, which no candidate has ever had, and probably no other will for quite some time. 35% of the popular vote in just a few states might be all it takes to give Ron Paul the presidency. If nothing else, it'd lay the groundwork for a legitimate force in American politics, and unlike the short-lived Reform Party we have a fairly clear set of guiding principles to keep us united and help us remain strong.

I've rambled enough, but keep this in mind, folks: if the R[evol]ution (or whatever it's called in the long run) controlled, say, just 35 seats in the House of Representatives, and the two major parties evenly split the rest, we'd hold the balance of power. On matters of civil liberties and foreign policy, we could side with the Dems and win. On matters of fiscal policy and monetary policy, we could side with the Repubs and win. We will never need to be a majority if we learn how and where to focus.

alexa doherty
01-14-2008, 02:52 AM
Where would we go??? Independent talk would elevate us above the 2-party BS/ We won't lose the grassroots... We all know that more people are on board with RP's message of Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom.

Libertarian party possibly. None of this matters unless Ron doesn't win the pub nomination.

alexa doherty
01-14-2008, 02:58 AM
it is the delegates that decide the party platform and structure if a new party is to be created. not ron paul. that's the difference between third party and independent run. a third party has a support base that advocates for a candidate. pulling more delegates makes the third party look more legitimate than having few to pull.

It doesn't make sense to me because wouldn't the delegates be for the pubs instead of a third party???

Explain details and how many votes or delegates we need for legitimacy in a third party and how that magically is considered a legal transfer if they were originally repubs.

I've heared that we simply need 12-15% for whatever state we're in to be in national tv debates against the top tier of each side.

dvictr
01-14-2008, 03:19 AM
Ron Paul will make the decision... after feb 5th ... adn the donations need to keep coming

damon04
01-14-2008, 03:35 AM
My Loyalty Is To The Constitution, Not The Gop

Marc3579
01-14-2008, 03:37 AM
We should have faith in Ron Paul. He's stuck out his fights in his district for congress for 30+ years. He has an idea of what to do in these campaigns.

Talcott
01-14-2008, 03:44 AM
, say, just 35 seats in the House of Representatives, and the two major parties evenly split the rest, we'd hold the balance of power. On matters of civil liberties and foreign policy, we could side with the Dems and win. On matters of fiscal policy and monetary policy, we could side with the Repubs and win. We will never need to be a majority if we learn how and where to focus.

Yes.....Yes....this is the rub of the Revolution.

ronpaulyourmom
01-14-2008, 03:51 AM
I don't really agree with the talk of the Libertarian Party. Not that I don't have some respect for those guys, but quite frankly people will not vote for an LP candidate, they need to hear the word "Independent" to even consider it an option.

I know there are hurdles to overcome with ballots and stuff. It seems to me that the precinct captain system is especially well suited to overcome that problem. We shouldn't go with the LP route just because it's all set up and waiting for us, if we do it'll bury us. We have to go for the gold if we don't get the republican nod.