Printable View
could have been RP 2008! Lets go back to 2000. Al Gore wins (he actually did) and in 2002, the republicans elect a backlash congressional/senate majority. Then in 2004, with no sitting rep president, Ron runs and the same thing that happened this time had happened in 04. 2008 he would have run again with greater name recognition and a much greater chance! If only.......;)
//
I'd do this all over again....he's the only man we really truly unite behind....
I hope that he considers giving it a shot.
Should we start drafting a battle plan? Get signatures to have him registered as an independent in all 50 states or something?
Nothing wrong with a good head start.
He'll be up there in age but if he remains healthy he may be able to pull it off. With someone like Ventura in the VP slot the media won't be able to ignore him.
We should be more concerned about 2010 at this point though
as long as he is healthy which he definitely is, he's a doctor! And also a lively Ventura or Lawson or Gary Johnson at his side! I think RP will live well into his 90s. He will probably be smart and witty until he croaks.
By 2012, we will have built up the infastructure of the Liberty Movement alot more!
I don't think he would be interested even if he were younger than 77...he was skeptical about running for president...yes he was pleasantly surprised he got so much support and so many people agreed with his ideas but it's still not enough support or converted folks to change the country for the better.
For the same reason he refused to run 3rd party, I predict he'll decline a 2012 run...time for another liberty candidate to get people excited in 2012....no need to compete with Ron Paul Republicans who want to run for President.
Ron Paul won't run..just forget that. tones
I'm not sure if Ron Paul would run again, even if he is healthy enough, but if he did I'd hope that the campaign would have learned from the mistakes made. There are a whole list of obstacles that were against Ron Paul but several of them were caused by the campaign itself. Granted, it is a learning process, so hopefully they have learned.
I'm assuming that our candidate will run under the Republican ticket if we are talking about a realistic chance of winning. If that is the case, then the strategy implemented at the beginning of the campaign will mean everything.
If you don't fair well in the first 5-6 states, it's over. Ron Paul (or whoever our candidate is) would need lots of money BEFORE the first primary to make them "viable". Because we are up against a system that is biased against us, we may need to outspend our opponents 2 or 3 to 1.
We need huge grassroots movements in those first few states and we have several years to make that happen. We can't have a campaign that hordes cash either. If we give them money they need to spend it efficiently and early. If they win, more donations and support will follow.
Finally, as much as I don't want to knock Ron Paul for anything, he would need to play the political "game" more effectively. In the first debate, the media was giving him the benefit of the doubt as he spoke mostly on personal liberty and returning to our constitution. But when they started hammering him on his foreign policy and Giuliani had some verbal battles with him on the subject, the media jumped on him and began pegging him as a radical and fringe long shot. You really can't recover from that. You either have to win over the media, or PROVE them wrong at the polls. How many times did we here them say that Ron Paul's support wasn't equating to votes?
I'm not saying the needs to abandon his principles... he just needs to avoid the political landmines.
Strategy
Grassroots organizations in the Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida is EVERYTHING because once our candidate proves they can win, and the Media join in (or in our case we don't even need the media's endorsement, we just need them NOT to sabotage us), then people in the following states follow suit. If you are a front runner going into Super Tuesday, they can close the door. People like to vote for the "winner".
The primaries are about Momentum and many think Giuliani killed his chances because he put all of his focus on Florida but by the time you get to Florida you're already out of it.
Romney suspended his campaign after Super Tuesday even after winning several states. Mostly I believe it was because McCain won California and he didn't want to spend even more of his own money when he'd have to pretty much run the table or win enough to go to the RNC for a decision.
So let's take a look at the first few states.
Iowa:
The final results were:
Huckabee - 34%
Romney - 25%
Thompson and McCain - 13%
Paul - 10%
Giuliani - 4%
We tend to do well in caucus states and give us a few years to prepare and I think we can do well here.
Wyoming:
We will need to beef up our support in Wyoming. Romney took it and even if we don't win it, we need to take a close second to maintain momentum running into New Hampshire.
New Hampshire:
McCain was dead until New Hampshire. Romney and McCain staked a LOT on this state and it paid off for McCain. It has a huge independent voter base which could help us.
Michigan:
Michigan was everything for Romney. He already lost Iowa and New Hampshire. His father was governor in Michigan so he really needed something in the win column regardless of how many delegates there were. You can't be perceived as "electable" if you can't win states.
Here were the results:
Mitt Romney - 338,316 (38.92%)
John McCain - 257,985 (29.68%)
Mike Huckabee - 139,764 (16.08%)
Ron Paul - 54,475 (6.27%)
Fred Thompson - 32,159 (3.7%)
Rudy Giuliani - 24,725 (2.84%)
Nevada:
This is a closed caucus. Romney won Nevada but Ron Paul took second. We have a good base in Nevada and I know we can grow it in the next few years. Nevada has a fairly large Mormon population which helped Romney but I doubt that will help Palin much (if she is running in 2012). Half of Romney's votes came from Mormons, while two-thirds of the independent voters favored Paul.
South Carolina:
While Romney was going after Nevada, McCain and Huckabee were battling over South Carolina. I'm not sure what we can do to win South Carolina but it is a pretty important state because since 1980 no candidate has won the nomination that hasn't won South Carolina.
Here were the numbers:
John McCain - 147,686 (33.15%)
Mike Huckabee - 132,943 (29.84%)
Fred Thompson - 69,651 (15.63%)
Mitt Romney - 68,142 (15.3%)
Ron Paul - 16,154 (3.63%)
Rudy Giuliani - 9,557 (2.15%)
Louisiana:
We all know the issues we had in Louisiana. Ron Paul officially took second in the Louisiana caucuses but technically Paul won the state until the Louisiana GOP extended the deadline to allow other candidates to file more delegates. I can only hope we can overcome these obstacles next time around. It isn't easy when you are fighting a system that doesn't play by the rules.
Florida:
This is where you can really start to see where momentum is important. Giuliani campaigned solely in Florida and had really thought that a win there would propel him into front-runner status. But the media was already talking about Romney and McCain as the candidates to beat.
McCain came off of a narrow win in South Carolina while Romney just won Nevada and also had wins in Wyoming and Michigan. Mike Huckabee won Iowa and nearly won South Carolina. He was nearly the third candidate to defeat Giuliani in Florida.
Here were the results:
John McCain - 701,761 (36%)
Mitt Romney - 604,932 (31.03%)
Rudy Giuliani - 286,089 (14.68%)
Mike Huckabee - 262,681 (13.47%)
Ron Paul - 62,887 (3.23%)
Conclusion:
I believe a win in Iowa & New Hampshire will translate to a win in at least two of the next 3 (Michigan, South Carolina, Nevada). Hopefully a win in South Carolina will convince the superstitious media that our candidate is electable. From there, Florida and Louisiana are good possibilities which gives us huge momentum going into Super Tuesday. If we somehow took California and/or New York the game may be over.
We need a campaign that is serious about winning. This isn't about hiring "friends". This is about hiring the people with the experience and expertise to WIN. If it is just a matter of money, we'll take care of that, but sometimes I got the feeling that the RP campaign didn't really believe they could win and it was more about spreading the message. Granted, that serves its purpose but in 2012 we are in it to win it.
Truth, thanks for your reasoned reply! I would add that we must follow Jim Condit's advice to prepare for massive votefraud.
If RP is up for it, I'll support him! (assuming the country is still around in 2012)
What I would add, irregardless of whether Ron Paul runs in 2012, what we need to do to maintain and grow public exposure and awareness, is to stage a series of rallies across the nation - maybe 3 or 4 a year - with RP the featured speaker and which directly addresses the political agenda coming out of the Democrat Congress and the Obama administration. We need to go on the offensive in a big way - we can probably expect the MSM to try and ignore the movement - but regional rallies supported and backed by thousands of patriots would make a splash with the local media.
This could be stage at relatively low cost and would serve the double purpose of introducing the movement to those individuals in line to come after Dr Paul. It would also serve as a means of maintaining the enthusiasm and support we have built up these past 18 months.
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by alaric
One would hope that a Ron Paul supporter would know that it's the electoral college and not the popular vote that counts.
I agree with very much of your conclusions except for a few pointsQuote:
Originally Posted by TruthAtLast
RP needs to shake every had in the state of NH. This is more important than all the TV, radio and newpaper ads in the world.
He needs to condeme the grassroots when they step out of line with his message. The grass roots harmed him in NH. It is pretty much over if he can't win NH. Rudy's strategy of skipping all states before Florida was about the stupidest tactic I have seen in the 32 years I have been following politics.
I like this idea. We can build and recruit if you will. Pass out literature and educate the public while we still have freedom of speech. Personally I would have loved to have atteneded at least one rally or Ronstock but my budget is tight and travel is an issue. Perhaps getting the meetups together again and organize locally as we should already be doing. I would love to hear Dr Paul or Rand or any other freedom loving speakers attend such a rally. Heck, give them the platform to plug thier book or whatever but at least stay out and about. Ron always said he was impressed that we have so many young people involed in our movement. Obviously this means we hold the keys to the future of the GOP in our hands. Sooner or later we will be in the drivers seat so we best be out there listening now to what the public has to say and learning so we are extremely prepared come next time. I think we need to start raising money, and raising it now! 6 million in one day is really awesome but we've seen that the likes of Obama can pull in 100's of millions at the drop of a hat. Sad to say but that's the game. I hope Dr Paul is up for 2012 and I'd certainly be onboard if that comes true. I also think that the tone of the nation will be much different and we will have to play with that to our advantage. Perhaps the economy will be worse or ww3 has broken out? who knows...but things will change and so must we, be ready. There is also the CFL with which to work with. Build our base.Quote:
Originally Posted by Number19
i think this is a great idea. It is an informal way of "campaigning" 3 years early. I think this should be regional but we should also focus on some of those early states. Iowa and New Hampshire are REALLY important.Quote:
Originally Posted by Number19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pauls' Revere
+1000
My thoughts exactly.
yes, i do. Florida was miscounted and the electoral vote was erroneously given to shrubQuote:
Originally Posted by RonPaulFanInGA
We need a moneybomb for CFL on November 5th 2009. If 10,000 people contribute $100, we'll have raised 1 million for CFL. With that money we can get at least 2 people into REALLY competitive races for congress.
you may have a point there.Quote:
Originally Posted by klamath
But for this reason we need to know relatively soon who our candidate will be. We can't have Ron Paul decide to run (or not) 10 months before the election. The next "liberty" candidate has a lot of work to do and we need all of the time we can to rally behind someone.
If we decide to get behind one or several candidates for the next congressional election, I'd rather donate to them specifically. I trust CFL to help spread the message of freedom, but I don't trust them to donate their funds to the candidates that we want (or for that matter for them to donate their funds at all).Quote:
Originally Posted by Shotdown1027
Hopefully they will be declared candidates a full 1 year before the election. That is unlikely for congressional races---but let's hope so!
Im currently encouraging former Rep. Steve Stockman to run against Democrat Nick Lampson in Texas District 22 (the same seat he lost in 1998).
And im encouraging former Rep. John Hostettler to run against Brad Ellsworth in Indiana District 8 (same seat and person he lost to in 2006).
In either case, if the candidate has a couple hundred thousand dollars and it was a good year for Republicans (as 2010 is likely to do) they'd easily win the primary and coast to victory.
God I pray that Ron runs again in 2012. If it were 100% certain he would not, I probably would be more focused on survivalism at this point in time like the others who "gave up" after we lost.
There is no other candidate who has the name recognition, knowledge, and mainstream Austro-libertarian credentials that Ron Paul has to do this! The only backup would be a Ventura run as an independent in 2012 should Ron Paul not get the Republican nomination.
The way we can do this is here: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/kb.php
Click on your state, if there are hardly any District/County coordinators listed, then we have problems. If you're not yet a precinct leader, you should take the individual responsibility to sign up, and at the very LEAST focus on your own precinct in campaigning for liberty.
Watch the training videos when you sign up, organization is the key to winning any election. Though have the tools afforded to us now to aide in spreading the message, and getting our candidate(s) elected.
Who knows if hyperinflation will NOT happen by 2012, but as long as we still have functioning infrastructure, we should do what we can to implement the message of the C4L.
Gary Johnson 2012 baby! I will support him if he runs for the GOP nomination or LP nomination. I do expect Jesse Ventura to run in 2012 too. A Johnson/Ventura or Ventura/Johnson ticket would be lethal. I'd prefer a Johnson/Ventura ticket though if they went that route.
Sorry but it was counted four times and Shrub won every time. Mr internet didn't win one recount.Quote:
Originally Posted by alaric
I like Ron Paul a lot. If it wasn't for him, this message wouldn't have spread nearly as much and I wouldn't even be here right now. There is no doubt that he served as the spark for an entire Liberty Movement that is growing. And if Ron Paul was running third party, I'd vote for him. And if he ran in 2012 I'd vote for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Misesian
But with that said, he isn't the ONLY liberty minded candidate out there. He got name recognition because WE gave it to him. But I don't worship at the Ron Paul alter. He has his faults too.
Many people may have already attached a negative stigma to Ron Paul and the "R[3VOL]UTION" due to the media bias and even some overzealous supporters.
Some wonder why Kerry or Gore didn't run again when they were so close to winning before. A lot of times it is because if you lose once your image is tainted. People think "how could he win now if he couldn't win before". I'm just saying that it wouldn't be a walk in the park for Ron Paul regardless of how bad the country and economy gets.
A truly ideal candidate may be difficult to come by. Someone with great integrity, a great track record, some experience, someone respected, someone that can wooo the media to some extent, and more importantly..... someone who is a GREAT communicator.
I think people get caught up in the way Obama speaks and they don't even hear what he is actually saying. I don't agree with Huckabee on a lot of things but he could carry a crowd, can tell a story, had humor, and was engaging. Studies have shown that people get bored with long complicated topics and if you add humor right before making a main point, it grabs people's attention and makes them remember.
We shouldn't put all of our eggs in the Ron Paul basket. The man himself doesn't want us to! He just wanted to get the message of freedom out and he has done that. It is up to us to find great candidates, train them, and support them. There are many out there, in fact some future leaders may be in these forums.
What's imperative is to stop focusing just on conservatives. We're doomed again and again if we don't get started on building a solid left-right coalition.
I think Gary Johnson is our best bet. Either way, we need to start early.