Libertarians May Co-Nominate Rand Paul in 2016

[FriedChicken]

The Libertarian Party would never nominate Rand Paul unless he did a Johnson and after losing the GOP primary early on went to their party. Then they would nominate him in a heart beat based on his name recognition alone, regardless of issues. Just like Johnson.

If Rand is the Republican nominee they'll treat him as the enemy, because he is the republican nominee ... not the LP nominee.

Honestly the LP party loyalist would probably enjoy costing him the election in a way - because it would "teach those liberty candidates not to run as republicans".

The liberty movement growing in the GOP is a huge threat to the existence of the LP.

[r3volution 3.0]

I'm not too concerned about what course of action the LP/CP chooses, because it's largely out of their hands.

Their members will overwhelmingly vote for Rand in the general if he wins the GOP nomination - of that I have no doubt.

It's easy to nitpick when your own political operation is essentially symbolic - once the White House in is view they'll change their tune.

[FriedChicken]

I'm not too concerned about what course of action the LP/CP chooses, because it's largely out of their hands.

Their members will overwhelmingly vote for Rand in the general if he wins the GOP nomination - of that I have no doubt.

It's easy to nitpick when your own political operation is essentially symbolic - once the White House in is view they'll change their tune.

I hope you're right and think you are, mostly.
However ... if Rand is the nominee I'm still not going to be surprised in the slightest when the LP runs their own candidate against him and a small portion of my facebook friends start posting stupid gifs mocking him with the web address for the LP candidate at the bottom.

Just sayin'

[euphemia]

What would really help is if conservatives stopped letting the media pick their candidates for them.

[Brett85]

I don't know much about the Constitution Party in particular (and they may be in line with me on this) but I think for any truce between liberty-minded social conservatives and liberty minded libertarians to work, both sides would have to be willing to agree on leaving social issues to the states. Or even better, counties (which is more or less what most theonomists support doing.)

That's what the Constitution Party supports.

[Galileo Galilei]

The Libertarian Party would never nominate Rand Paul unless he did a Johnson and after losing the GOP primary early on went to their party. Then they would nominate him in a heart beat based on his name recognition alone, regardless of issues. Just like Johnson.

If Rand is the Republican nominee they'll treat him as the enemy, because he is the republican nominee ... not the LP nominee.

Honestly the LP party loyalist would probably enjoy costing him the election in a way - because it would "teach those liberty candidates not to run as republicans".

The liberty movement growing in the GOP is a huge threat to the existence of the LP.

Rand is a FAR bigger name than Gary Johnson. The LP has a history of factoring in fame when picking a candidate.

[Christian Liberty]

That's what the Constitution Party supports.

The Constitution Party currently flat out endorses social conservative causes at the state level though, IIRC. That's fine for the Constitution Party, mind you (I'm not ideologically aligned with them but I'd still work with most of them.) But if the Constitution Party is ever going to make a coalition party with libertarians, I think they really would need a party platform that doesn't take any specific stance on those issues. Let each candidate take his own stance on how those issues should be handled in each state.

Don't misunderstand, I like the Constitution Party, and the Libertarian Party even though I'm unlikely to join either one. Just trying to figure out a way they could work together, and I think that's the best way.

[CPUd]

I remember the last election when people were trying to get Gary or his VP to give their nomination to Ron. It really pissed off some of the LP members.

[Peace&Freedom]

The Libertarian Party would never nominate Rand Paul unless he did a Johnson and after losing the GOP primary early on went to their party. Then they would nominate him in a heart beat based on his name recognition alone, regardless of issues. Just like Johnson.

If Rand is the Republican nominee they'll treat him as the enemy, because he is the republican nominee ... not the LP nominee.

Honestly the LP party loyalist would probably enjoy costing him the election in a way - because it would "teach those liberty candidates not to run as republicans".

The liberty movement growing in the GOP is a huge threat to the existence of the LP.

No, the liberty movement in the GOP is the result of the existence of the LP and the grassroots, building the case for liberty for years until the harvest we have seen since 2007. Since the elite co-opts or neuters movements within the major parties, the latest movement is hardly a threat to those who already are, and want to remain independent of the major parties. The issue of Rand being the Republican nominee may not be settled until the GOP convention in the summer of '16, while the LP convention will be held in the spring of '16. So it is unlikely he will be treated badly because of his GOP situation, which will be unresolved by that point. If he is received poorly it will be because of the non-libertarian things he has said, emphasized or voted for.

I remember the last election when people were trying to get Gary or his VP to give their nomination to Ron. It really pissed off some of the LP members.

It's an insult to an entire party apparatus to demand, after their convention has decided on a candidate, to just junk its procedures, nix the decision of their party members, and disenfranchise their candidate in order to replace him with Paul, who did not show for that convention or ever indicate he wanted their nomination. Can anyone imagine somebody demanding the Democrats or Republicans doing that after their convention?

The movement should not be a cult of personality surrounding the Pauls, that blithely thinks organizations can suspend their rules on a dime for them, even if they have not asked them to. The liberty people in the LP and grassroots are long term advocates, not Johnny come latelys, who were there for the cause decades before 2007, and will continue to be there after 2016. There is a pathway for Rand to get the Republican nomination in 2016, by going to the LP/CP conventions and getting theirs first (especially if he announces he is going for such a fusion candidacy by late 2015, before the primary voting starts). But he has to respect the process of these other organizations if he is going to do it.

[Peace&Freedom]

I hope you're right and think you are, mostly.
However ... if Rand is the nominee I'm still not going to be surprised in the slightest when the LP runs their own candidate against him and a small portion of my facebook friends start posting stupid gifs mocking him with the web address for the LP candidate at the bottom.

Just sayin'

If Rand does not seek a third party nomination, those parties will nominate somebody else---these organizations do not exist to be place holders for Paul, but to run candidates who actually seek their nomination, to insure the liberty position is reflected on the ballot. Rand must run for their nominations, and appear at their conventions, in order to get their nominations, simple. Pragmatically speaking, he must do so, to have the leverage to get the GOP nomination, otherwise the media and Republican leadership will soft blackout, marginalize, and election fraud him out of having a chance, just as they did to Ron.

What is the pathway for Rand winning the Republican primaries, following the GOP-only template of '08 and '12? At least in '12, we could say "Ron to win Iowa, to prove he can win, and to get a wave of momentum to place first or a very close second in NH. Then he sweeps through most of the caucuses, and as the other contenders beside Romney drop out, win a one-on-one primary race against Mitt during the spring."

It didn't work out that way, but at least the sequence was plausible. As it now stands for '16, I see Rand being blocked in Iowa by Santorum and Huckabee, then blocked in NH by Bush and perhaps Romney, then unable to fight the money/media battle in SC and FL, etc., after which the frontloaded primaries will steamroll establishment candidate x to a nomination victory. So this highly likely pathway to defeat for Rand running only as a Republican, is why I have suggested the fusion alternative.

[Brett85]

The Constitution Party currently flat out endorses social conservative causes at the state level though, IIRC. That's fine for the Constitution Party, mind you (I'm not ideologically aligned with them but I'd still work with most of them.) But if the Constitution Party is ever going to make a coalition party with libertarians, I think they really would need a party platform that doesn't take any specific stance on those issues. Let each candidate take his own stance on how those issues should be handled in each state.

Don't misunderstand, I like the Constitution Party, and the Libertarian Party even though I'm unlikely to join either one. Just trying to figure out a way they could work together, and I think that's the best way.

Well, if the Constitution Party did that, then they would basically be no different from the Libertarian Party. I think they want to have at least some differences between themselves and the Libertarian Party. I don't think that the Constitution Party members are just rabid drug warriors though, even at the state level. I don't think they really take a position on marijuana legalization at the state level.

[KingNothing]

I think the Republican party, Libertarian party, Constitution party, Green party, and Democratic party, and any other party who gets on a ballot should nominate Rand. That would be pretty neato.

[Shane Harris]

I can definitely see Rand bringing together at least the Constitution Party and possibly the Libertarian Party into a 2016 alliance with the GOP to win the presidency.

[William Tell]

The Constitution Party currently flat out endorses social conservative causes at the state level though, IIRC. That's fine for the Constitution Party, mind you (I'm not ideologically aligned with them but I'd still work with most of them.) But if the Constitution Party is ever going to make a coalition party with libertarians, I think they really would need a party platform that doesn't take any specific stance on those issues. Let each candidate take his own stance on how those issues should be handled in each state.

Each candidate does take his own stance, and the State parties have their own platforms I believe. Just as some LP candidates are opposed to legal abortions.

[Bastiat's The Law]

That's what the Constitution Party supports.

They're very churchy.

[Galileo Galilei]

I'd be curious to see some info on this. I do know that Rand would certainly be the most libertarian since Coolidge (provided he didn't seriously compromise further between now and then) but there weren't even any halfway libertarian POTUSes between Herbert Hoover and now. I know Coolidge mostly was (he did, unfortunately, enforce prohibition) and I know Cleveland mostly was (The only anti-libertarian thing he did that I know of was build some internal improvements, but I don't know the details. I'm not as knowledgeable on Cleveland or Coolidge as I'd like to be.)

When I rate the presidents on pro-liberty criteria, I basically look for assertive actions either pro or anti-liberty. Coolidge and then going back to Harding, Taft and then to the 1800s we had many relatively pro-liberty presidents because they were do nothing presidents. Coolidge had a pretty easy go of it. Most of the presidents since Coolidge have been bad with assertive anti-liberty actions. JFK is the only one with assertive pro-liberty actions and maybe Eisenhower as a do nothing president trying to hold the status quo.

JFK for example, pardoned almost every single person convicted of a federal drug crime while president. He cleared out the prisons and made the federal drugs laws essentially inoperable. He amazingly did it in the middle of his first term, he did not bother to wait until the end of his term in office, thank God.

Compare JFK with Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico who never even pardoned a single marijuana user.

[Christian Liberty]

Well, if the Constitution Party did that, then they would basically be no different from the Libertarian Party.

The idea was to combine the two into one party for electoral purposes.

I think they want to have at least some differences between themselves and the Libertarian Party. I don't think that the Constitution Party members are just rabid drug warriors though, even at the state level. I don't think they really take a position on marijuana legalization at the state level.

I've heard they were founded by theonomists, so I doubt they are rabid drug warriors. Mind you, I know lots of them aren't theonomists, but IIRC they started with theonomists.

[Christian Liberty]

They're very churchy.

Hold on, you criticize the Constitution Party for being "churchy", yet you support Rand Paul even though he supports some foreign policy intervention? Wow, your priorities are way different than mine, I guess.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I've heard they were founded by theonomists, so I doubt they are rabid drug warriors. Mind you, I know lots of them aren't theonomists, but IIRC they started with theonomists.

Yeah, Howard Phillips (RIP) was a Theonomist. He was also a Jew from Boston who converted to Evangelical Christianity. And I think he had identified Ron Paul early on as someone the CP wouldn't run candidates against.

[William Tell]

Yeah, Howard Phillips (RIP) was a Theonomist. He was also a Jew from Boston who converted to Evangelical Christianity. And I think he had identified Ron Paul early on as someone the CP wouldn't run candidates against.

They were friends, Ron really helped out the Taxpayers (later became Constitution) party when it was founded. Spoke at some of their early events, one of his speeches was published in Howard Phillips book.

[cindy25]

this would be the best thing that could happen, and it should be early, to let the neo-cons know that Rand would be on the Nov ballot, one way or another. take away any incentive to nominate Jeb. it would also set the tone for future elections. if Jeb was a sure loser he night back down, surely it would effect his fund raising

[FriedChicken]

No, the liberty movement in the GOP is the result of the existence of the LP and the grassroots, building the case for liberty for years until the harvest we have seen since 2007. Since the elite co-opts or neuters movements within the major parties, the latest movement is hardly a threat to those who already are, and want to remain independent of the major parties. The issue of Rand being the Republican nominee may not be settled until the GOP convention in the summer of '16, while the LP convention will be held in the spring of '16. So it is unlikely he will be treated badly because of his GOP situation, which will be unresolved by that point. If he is received poorly it will be because of the non-libertarian things he has said, emphasized or voted for.

My history on the LP and liberty movement is rusty but I don't have a problem believing that the liberty movement within the GOP is because of them.
However ... the growth of liberty within the GOP is still a threat to the current existence of the LP regardless of history. The LP stood out because there was such a huge difference.
If there is less of a difference and people start seeing them as just being election spoilers for candidates that the LP itself would have welcomed if they sought their nomination ... yeah.

If Rand does not seek a third party nomination, those parties will nominate somebody else---these organizations do not exist to be place holders for Paul, but to run candidates who actually seek their nomination, to insure the liberty position is reflected on the ballot.

But if there is already a liberty position reflected on the ballot they will run a candidate anyway ... cause they're running for the "wrong" party".

Rand must run for their nominations, and appear at their conventions, in order to get their nominations, simple. Pragmatically speaking, he must do so, to have the leverage to get the GOP nomination, otherwise the media and Republican leadership will soft blackout, marginalize, and election fraud him out of having a chance, just as they did to Ron.

I disagree. If Rand were to actively seek out the LP nomination I think there would be no way in the world people would nominate him for the GOP. Heck the headlines would be nothing but "Rand Paul gives up on GOP, seeks 3rd party nomination".

What is the pathway for Rand winning the Republican primaries, following the GOP-only template of '08 and '12? At least in '12, we could say "Ron to win Iowa, to prove he can win, and to get a wave of momentum to place first or a very close second in NH. Then he sweeps through most of the caucuses, and as the other contenders beside Romney drop out, win a one-on-one primary race against Mitt during the spring."

It didn't work out that way, but at least the sequence was plausible. As it now stands for '16, I see Rand being blocked in Iowa by Santorum and Huckabee, then blocked in NH by Bush and perhaps Romney, then unable to fight the money/media battle in SC and FL, etc., after which the frontloaded primaries will steamroll establishment candidate x to a nomination victory. So this highly likely pathway to defeat for Rand running only as a Republican, is why I have suggested the fusion alternative.

I don't know the plan. But right now Rand is polling way more favorable than Ron ever has, to my knowledge. He is also, to be honest, trying to win far more than Ron ever has.
So pointing back to 08 and 12 is good for finding things to do differently but we also have to keep in mind that Rand is a better politician and campaigner than his father.
There is a good chance he is a better debater as well.

He has more political connections, favors, name recognition, etc. Rand is able to go on any conservative talk show and be treated like a buddy - Ron's appearances were nothing but controversy and butting heads.

So we'll see.
Your fusion suggestion requires more people to think logically than I think are willing to. Kinda like the "no one but Paul" stuff we did during Ron's runs. We flat out told the establishment that if they nominated Romney we wouldn't support him and give the election to Obama ... they did it anyway.
Rand 'being on the ballot anyway' would be treated the same way. They would view that (illogically) as a reason to be against him rather than for him.

[philipped]

I'm kinda in the group that believe Rand should court other peoples votes so a libertarian party nomination doesn't really mean anything to him specifically. Even if it may mean cross party acceptance, but it seems this would only happen if the LP didn't want to split any vote their party would give to a Gary Johnson and they just unite 4 Rand to increase his general election probability. Everyone here knows he stumps to the beat of TeamRed before anything.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Hold on, you criticize the Constitution Party for being "churchy", yet you support Rand Paul even though he supports some foreign policy intervention? Wow, your priorities are way different than mine, I guess.

Non sequitur.

[FriedChicken]

It might be kinda cool if Rand sealed up the GOP nomination early on and, as "presumptive nominee", sought to also receive the LP and CP nomination to unite everyone going into the general election.

It would be very interesting and untested (having someone run for president with 3 different parties united behind him).

Of course it would make negative ads almost too easy for the democrats. Think of all the controversial things they could get 'leaders' in this coalition on record saying ...