# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  2014 Senate Races

## realtonygoodwin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...lections,_2014

The time is here to start looking at which races we should focus on in 2014 for the Senate. I think we should start with seats without an incumbent running, then start looking at who is vulnerable based on close previous elections (Primary and/or General). Once we order the list that way, then we should look at their ideology, and who would be a good challenger in that state. 

Just a quick glance at the above link indicates races in the following states may be good to start looking at.

Alaska
Colorado
Lousiana
Maine
Minnesota
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Oregon
South Carolina

----------


## realtonygoodwin

Here is how each of the above states' incumbent Senator scored on the October 2012 "Freedom Index" It isn't a perfect metric, but it is a good starting point to see where they vote on liberty issues. In parentheses (sp?) is the score of the state's other Senator. This may be a good way to gauge how open the state may be to a more liberty-oriented Senator. The larger the gap between the two numbers, the more likely a strong liberty candidate could win, IMO. If the difference is a negative number, it may be more difficult.

Alaska - 18 (60)
Colorado - 15 (13)
Lousiana - 25 (79)
Maine - 50 (56)
Minnesota - 13 (8)
New Hampshire - 15 (70)
North Carolina - 20 (72)
Oregon - 23 (18)
South Carolina - 73 (85)

Based on this, the best order to prioritize these states would be:

New Hampshire +55
Lousiana +54
North Carolina +52
Alaska +42
South Carolina +12
Colorado -2
Minnesota -5
Oregon -5
Maine -6

Thoughts?

----------


## CaptUSA

Senate takes a good state-wide candidate.  We have that in SC!

Remember, if we get one of our candidate to win the primary, they CANNOT lose the general!  We have to show that _our_ type of candidate wins.  Then the GOP will want more of them.

----------


## KMX

Texas needs to get JC out!

----------


## realtonygoodwin

Good luck with getting Cornyn out. He is popular and powerful and will have the backing of the establishment.

----------


## Smart3

Ron Paul 2014? if not, Robert Paul 2014!

----------


## realtonygoodwin

Ron Paul wouldn't be able to win a statewide election in Texas, unfortunately.

----------


## Smart3

> Ron Paul wouldn't be able to win a statewide election in Texas, unfortunately.


Woops, I meant to write Robert Paul if RP was not a possibility.

Robert would be capable of challenging Cornyn, even if he only got 30% of the vote. If Leppert got in the race as well, we could keep Cornyn below 50% and force a run-off.

----------


## Eric21ND

Remember the three M's.  These have to be at their pinnacle to win any elected office, but especially a Senate seat.

- Money

- Message

- Messenger

----------


## supermario21

My opinion is to focus first on Lindsey Graham, where we have a proven viable candidate in Tom Davis who we know will have the support of Freedom Works, etc. Secondly, Joe Miller in Alaska is a good candidate to get elected as a liberty candidate. He barely lost to Murkowski and Begich is only a Senator due to the DOJ screwing over Ted Stevens. My third target would be Oregon. Why, you might ask? Because the national establishment will be focusing on "easier races" such as NC, Louisiana, etc. Oregon we can find a libertarian-esque candidate and he/she would likely be competitive in Oregon. It could also be a nice test for Rand, who could lead this movement. If it succeeds, it could show everyone that Rand's message would make the party competitive in areas where we have been terrible.

----------


## Confederate

I hope Miller runs in Alaska.

----------


## Uriah

We should only run a candidate that actually has a chance at winning a senate seat. This means solid or competitive red state.

----------


## matt0611

> We should only run a candidate that actually has a chance at winning a senate seat. This means solid or competitive red state.


Remember that 2008 was a democrat "hope and change" election year so many should be vulnerable.

----------


## Athan

Lindsey Grahm. I want him boo hooing in 2014.

----------


## Adrock

Davis against Graham in the SC primary and Miller against the Democrat in the AK general seems pretty good. I hope we also have sone good candidates to field in any upcoming house and senate races where incumbent retires.

----------


## realtonygoodwin

Don't we have influence in the GOP in Louisiana and New Hampshire?

----------


## Smart3

> Don't we have influence in the GOP in Louisiana and New Hampshire?


Louisiana's Jungle primary means that the chances of a Liberty candidate winning a statewide race are nil. Remember that even if Jindal doesn't run, we have to keep Landrieu under 50% or she will win simply because the R vote was split. Landrieu's loss, even to Jindal would be a +1 for the country. 

Landrieu's odds are pretty good compared to Hagan, Begich, Pryor, etc.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Here is how each of the above states' incumbent Senator scored on the October 2012 "Freedom Index" It isn't a perfect metric, but it is a good starting point to see where they vote on liberty issues. In parentheses (sp?) is the score of the state's other Senator. This may be a good way to gauge how open the state may be to a more liberty-oriented Senator. The larger the gap between the two numbers, the more likely a strong liberty candidate could win, IMO. If the difference is a negative number, it may be more difficult.
> 
> Alaska - 18 (60)
> Colorado - 15 (13)
> Lousiana - 25 (79)
> Maine - 50 (56)
> Minnesota - 13 (8)
> New Hampshire - 15 (70)
> North Carolina - 20 (72)
> ...


sig

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...lections,_2014
> 
> The time is here to start looking at which races we should focus on in 2014 for the Senate. I think we should start with seats without an incumbent running, then start looking at who is vulnerable based on close previous elections (Primary and/or General). Once we order the list that way, then we should look at their ideology, and who would be a good challenger in that state. 
> 
> Just a quick glance at the above link indicates races in the following states may be good to start looking at.
> 
> Alaska
> Colorado
> Lousiana
> ...


I've been here for over a year and I still read your name as Reallygoodbotwin every single time. Weird.

Just thought I'd share that

----------


## Rocco

The top 2 priorities, IMO, must be Davis and Miller. Davis is an outstanding liberty candidate who has a great chance of knocking off perhaps THE worst senator in the nation, and Miller is by far our safest bet at winning another senate seat. Besides that, I am intrigued by the thought of Kent Sorenson in Iowa, Jim Forsythe in New Hampshire, and I think these 4 are probably our best shot IMO.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Woops, I meant to write Robert Paul if RP was not a possibility.
> 
> Robert would be capable of challenging Cornyn, even if he only got 30% of the vote. If Leppert got in the race as well, we could keep Cornyn below 50% and force a run-off.


I went to a YAL meeting at UNT to watch Robert speak.  He addressed calls for him to run and basically said that it ain't gonna happen.  He wants to spend time with his kids and is happy running his practice.  I jokingly asked him, "Can you at least run for a House seat?"  It would be nice, but it's nearly definite that it won't happen.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> Ron Paul wouldn't be able to win a statewide election in Texas, unfortunately.


I wonder if Steve Stockman could...and if he would be interested....

----------


## Uriah

> The top 2 priorities, IMO, must be Davis and Miller. Davis is an outstanding liberty candidate who has a great chance of knocking off perhaps THE worst senator in the nation, and Miller is by far our safest bet at winning another senate seat. Besides that, I am intrigued by the thought of Kent Sorenson in Iowa, Jim Forsythe in New Hampshire, and I think these 4 are probably our best shot IMO.


I'm not sure Sorenson is ready for the big big time yet. I'm also somewhat weary of him... Ron Paul endorsed Kent, then Kent endorsed Bachmann, and then he rescinds his endorsement and endorsed Paul days before the Iowa caucus. He also worked for Bachmann on her campaign.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> I wonder if Steve Stockman could...and if he would be interested....


Stockman came in second in the initial primary and has a somewhat questionable history.  He is a total socialcon and a neocon.  He is decent on fiscal policy which is I guess why Ron endorsed him, but he is mostly terrible.  I'm in Houston and I don't see the liberty community getting behind Stockman, at all.  Debra Medina?  Just have to get past the 9/11 truther attacks that are bound to come out.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

We really need someone like a Medina if we plan to primary Cornyn effectively.  He is about as bad as a legislator can be on every single issue except gun rights, but he is the minority whip and well entrenched.  We need someone way outside of the establishment.

----------


## AJ Antimony

First look at the states that generally vote Republican but have Democratic senators:

Alaska, Louisiana, maybe Arkansas.

Then look at the states that might swing GOP or have vulnerable incumbents:

Minnesota, Montana, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina

Then there are the states that aren't safe, but lean Democratic:

New Hampshire, Maine

If Gary Johnson wants to do something useful and run for senate in 2014 that would be nice.

Primarying Graham in SC would be nice.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> Stockman came in second in the initial primary and has a somewhat questionable history.  He is a total socialcon and a neocon.  He is decent on fiscal policy which is I guess why Ron endorsed him, but he is mostly terrible.  I'm in Houston and I don't see the liberty community getting behind Stockman, at all.  Debra Medina?  Just have to get past the 9/11 truther attacks that are bound to come out.


Have you really researched him. His fiscal/economic policies are outstanding. He is quasi-non interventionist, highly pro-national sovereignty, anti-Fed. Not a neocon in the slightest. Look up his history with the Constitution party(and with people like Howard Phillips and Chuck Baldwin) and liberty organizations.

Yes he is a social conservative. I agree with his views. He stated today on his facebook page he will introduce the Sanctity of Life Act now that Ron Paul is leaving. He first wrote it and introduced it himself.

I think if he re-establishes himself in Congress and gets into an open Senate primary he could win.

----------


## AJ Antimony

> Have you really researched him. His fiscal/economic policies are outstanding. He is quasi-non interventionist, highly pro-national sovereignty, anti-Fed. Not a neocon in the slightest. Look up his history with the Constitution party(and with people like Howard Phillips and Chuck Baldwin) and liberty organizations.
> 
> Yes he is a social conservative. I agree with his views. He stated today on his facebook page he will introduce the Sanctity of Life Act now that Ron Paul is leaving. He first wrote it and introduced it himself.
> 
> I think if he re-establishes himself in Congress and gets into an open Senate primary he could win.


I think Robert Paul would have a better shot at an open TX US Senate seat than Steve Stockman. 

Robert would just be like Rand, the perfect outsider/insider mold to run away with the nomination among an anti-establishment electorate.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> I think Robert Paul would have a better shot at an open TX US Senate seat than Steve Stockman. 
> 
> Robert would just be like Rand, the perfect outsider/insider mold to run away with the nomination among an anti-establishment electorate.


I'd definitely be interested in Robert Paul as well! However, I would prefer for him to get a House seat first. He could still be viewed as an outsider, and it gives him credibility.

----------


## AJ Antimony

> I'd definitely be interested in Robert Paul as well! However, I would prefer for him to get a House seat first. He could still be viewed as an outsider, and it gives him credibility.


Rand Paul didn't need a House seat!

And again, it'll make it even easier if it's just Paul vs. the establishment pick, like Dewhurst or something.

Challenging Cornyn would be a waste of time and money.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> Rand Paul didn't need a House seat!
> 
> And again, it'll make it even easier if it's just Paul vs. the establishment pick, like Dewhurst or something.
> 
> Challenging Cornyn would be a waste of time and money.


Fair enough.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Have you really researched him. His fiscal/economic policies are outstanding. He is quasi-non interventionist, highly pro-national sovereignty, anti-Fed. Not a neocon in the slightest. Look up his history with the Constitution party(and with people like Howard Phillips and Chuck Baldwin) and liberty organizations.
> 
> Yes he is a social conservative. I agree with his views. He stated today on his facebook page he will introduce the Sanctity of Life Act now that Ron Paul is leaving. He first wrote it and introduced it himself.
> 
> I think if he re-establishes himself in Congress and gets into an open Senate primary he could win.


He is pro death penalty and "tough on crime" in that he promoted a plan to cut social spending to build more prisons and get tougher on enforcement.
He is very tough on his anti immigration stance and treatment of illegal immigrants already in the country (this won't play well in Texas, even though its a defensible position).
He advocates and voted for DOMA.

On fiscal policy he is not terrific.  He voted in favor of almost every appropriation that was military or omnibus.  He voted for appropriations to the treasury, post office, department of labor, department of education, FEMA, etc, etc.  He voted for budgets with massive deficits.  He voted for farm subsidies.  He voted to raise the minimum wage.  The list goes on and on.  Terrific?  I don't believe so.

On foreign policy he has spent too much time pushing for symbolic measures that show he is pro-AIPAC pro-Israel.  He voted for funding for the invasion of Bosnia.  He voted for sanctions on Cuba and vocally promoted sanctions against anyone who did business with Cuba.  He votes for every military spending bill and against amendments and measures to limit the DOD budget.

I'm glad you agree with his social policy.  The liberty movement down here won't and they also won't get behind him or be excited about his candidacy.  I don't think it would be a smart play

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> I think Robert Paul would have a better shot at an open TX US Senate seat than Steve Stockman. 
> 
> Robert would just be like Rand, the perfect outsider/insider mold to run away with the nomination among an anti-establishment electorate.


I hate to repost, but you guys won't get off of it:

I went to a YAL meeting at UNT to watch Robert speak. He addressed calls for him to run and basically said that it ain't gonna happen. He wants to spend time with his kids and is happy running his practice. I jokingly asked him, "Can you at least run for a House seat?" It would be nice, but it's nearly definite that it won't happen.

He made it quite clear that he has no interest in running and is not going to.  He wasn't ambiguous about it.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> He is pro death penalty and "tough on crime" in that he promoted a plan to cut social spending to build more prisons and get tougher on enforcement.
> He is very tough on his anti immigration stance and treatment of illegal immigrants already in the country (this won't play well in Texas, even though its a defensible position).
> He advocates and voted for DOMA.


I prefer government to spend on stopping crime and not social programs myself. As for DOMA, its not my preferred solution but also not a big deal.



> On fiscal policy he is not terrific.  He voted in favor of almost every appropriation that was military or omnibus.  He voted for appropriations to the treasury, post office, department of labor, department of education, FEMA, etc, etc.  He voted for budgets with massive deficits.  He voted for farm subsidies.  He voted to raise the minimum wage.  The list goes on and on.  Terrific?  I don't believe so.


I won't defend every single vote. 

In general though, he has been very good. See this list: http://www.voteview.com/is_john_kerry_a_liberal.htm

It ranks Ron Paul as the most conservative member from 1937-2002, and Stockman ranks 5th. He seems to be even more conservative now.




> On foreign policy he has spent too much time pushing for symbolic measures that show he is pro-AIPAC pro-Israel.  He voted for funding for the invasion of Bosnia.  He voted for sanctions on Cuba and vocally promoted sanctions against anyone who did business with Cuba.  He votes for every military spending bill and against amendments and measures to limit the DOD budget.


He also generally doesn't like involvement around the world and is anti-nwo organizations.

He isn't perfect, but should be among the top 5. I don't consider him "terrible" at all. But let's see how he does his second time around, then we can assess him better.

----------


## compromise

> He is very tough on his anti immigration stance and treatment of illegal immigrants already in the country (this won't play well in Texas, even though its a defensible position).
> He advocates and voted for DOMA.


Immigration in Texas: I think it'll go down well among whites and well-established immigrants. Look at Cruz's immigration stance.
DOMA: Ron Paul and Amash both said they would have voted for DOMA.

----------


## AJ Antimony

> I hate to repost, but you guys won't get off of it:
> 
> I went to a YAL meeting at UNT to watch Robert speak. He addressed calls for him to run and basically said that it ain't gonna happen. He wants to spend time with his kids and is happy running his practice. I jokingly asked him, "Can you at least run for a House seat?" It would be nice, but it's nearly definite that it won't happen.
> 
> He made it quite clear that he has no interest in running and is not going to.  He wasn't ambiguous about it.


I'm sorry, I just didn't see your post.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger



----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

I was seeing if McCain was up for reelection but he isn't. It would be cool to have Goldwater Jr. primary him, and Barry is two years younger(74).

edit-shouldn't have assumed he is from Arizona, he is actually from California. There goes that.

----------


## Eric21ND

Robert just wants to be a doctor, he has no political ambitions.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

Ron said he misunderstood DOMA and that he would not have, in fact, voted for it.  I don't care if Amash and Ron support it though, it's wrong.  You know who the guest speaker was at Liberty on the Rocks in Houston was this week?  Zach Wahls, the two moms kid who spoke at the DNC.  Most of us were to the left of him on LGBT issues.

Those prisons and tougher enforcement are just cash cows where we throw the non-violent drug offenders.  We already have 25% of the world's incarcerated population, I don't think building more prisons is the answer.

You don't have to take my word for it, but Stockman will not receive the support of the liberty folks in Texas.  His ties to militia movements and his letter in Guns & Ammo about Waco being an excuse for gun grabbing make him an easy target to the uneducated voter.

----------


## AJ Antimony

> I was seeing if McCain was up for reelection but he isn't. It would be cool to have Goldwater Jr. primary him, and Barry is two years younger(74).
> 
> edit-shouldn't have assumed he is from Arizona, he is actually from California. There goes that.


McCain was up in 2010. He was challenged in the primary by former US Rep. JD Hayworth. 

Goldwater Jr. was a US Rep from CA, but I think he lives in AZ now.

----------


## clint4liberty

I think we should pour all of our efforts into just two US Senate races.  We need to get Lindsay Graham of South Carolina out with Tom Davis in and elect Joe Miller in Alaska.  Other races we focus on should be US House, State Senate, State House, but only two US Senator races.

----------


## Smart3

> I think we should pour all of our efforts into just two US Senate races.  We need to get Lindsay Graham of South Carolina out with Tom Davis in and elect Joe Miller in Alaska.  Other races we focus on should be US House, State Senate, State House, but only two US Senator races.


How about 3? SC/NC/AK? 

We can probably gain no more than 5-7 U.S. House seats, and most of those gains will be from retirements (KY-1, MN-2, etc)

----------


## realtonygoodwin

Do we think South Carolina is winnable for Tom Davis? Look at how South Carolina treated Ron Paul during the primary and the debates... 

Agreed on Alaska and North Carolina. I think New Hampshire is a possibility, there must be a decent candidate up there. 

We also need to see what races won't have an incumbent running. If we can win a primary, we will be in a good spot to win the state.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Do we think South Carolina is winnable for Tom Davis? Look at how South Carolina treated Ron Paul during the primary and the debates... 
> 
> Agreed on Alaska and North Carolina. I think New Hampshire is a possibility, there must be a decent candidate up there. 
> 
> We also need to see what races won't have an incumbent running. If we can win a primary, we will be in a good spot to win the state.


South Carolina loves Tom Davis.  Don't forget that most people don't even perceive the message, and scarcely look deeper than the clothes that the messenger is wearing.

----------


## Smart3

> Do we think South Carolina is winnable for Tom Davis? Look at how South Carolina treated Ron Paul during the primary and the debates... 
> 
> Agreed on Alaska and North Carolina. I think New Hampshire is a possibility, there must be a decent candidate up there. 
> 
> We also need to see what races won't have an incumbent running. If we can win a primary, we will be in a good spot to win the state.


I can't imagine Forsythe beating a self-funder, so I'd say NH is about as likely as Maine right now.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

What about Ronnie Paul?

----------


## Smart3

> What about Ronnie Paul?


I floated Ronnie before, but I think Robert is much more likely.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> I floated Ronnie before, but I think Robert is much more likely.


And it seems Robert isn't going to run for anything. What about Wayne? 




Hmmmm. William Paul is 18...

----------


## itshappening

Davis will need money to challenge GRAHAM but he can run a good campaign and tap into the conservative frustration with Lindsey who has been censured by county parties and who supported bailouts, cap and trade etc.  

Can he beat him i dont know? he needs a few million to get his name out there, run the campaign, be on tv and radio and then see what happens.

This is why it should be our focus as I doubt we can raise significant funds for multiple candidates in senate races.

----------


## AJ Antimony

> Davis will need money to challenge GRAHAM but he can run a good campaign and tap into the conservative frustration with Lindsey who has been censured by county parties and who supported bailouts, cap and trade etc.  
> 
> Can he beat him i dont know? he needs a few million to get his name out there, run the campaign, be on tv and radio and then see what happens.
> 
> This is why it should be our focus as I doubt we can raise significant funds for multiple candidates in senate races.


If Graham is truly as unpopular in the SCGOP as we think he is, and if Glen is right that Davis is very popular in the SCGOP, then Davis should have no trouble fundraising in that state. Generally, in-state fundraising tells the whole story about whether one has a chance to win or not.

If Davis can at least establish that he will be able to make a serious challenge, I'd expect outside groups to enter the race, like Club for Growth and FreedomWorks.

----------


## Odin

> Do we think South Carolina is winnable for Tom Davis? Look at how South Carolina treated Ron Paul during the primary and the debates... 
> 
> Agreed on Alaska and North Carolina. I think New Hampshire is a possibility, there must be a decent candidate up there. 
> 
> We also need to see what races won't have an incumbent running. If we can win a primary, we will be in a good spot to win the state.


According to this PPP poll I'm looking at, among 'very' conservative voters Graham's approve-disapprove is 42-42. For DeMint it is 75-10. 

For 'somewhat conservative', Graham has 53-29, and 'moderate' he has 35-36. 


A good candidate I think could beat him but it would be a tough fight.

----------


## eleganz

Iowa, NH, or SC (Tom Davis) for benefits in 2016 as well.

Other than that, we need to strengthen in states where we are already very strong in the GOP: Iowa, Nevada, Louisiana, Maine, NH, MN, Oregon, etc...

----------


## realtonygoodwin

> According to this PPP poll I'm looking at, among 'very' conservative voters Graham's approve-disapprove is 42-42. For DeMint it is 75-10. 
> 
> For 'somewhat conservative', Graham has 53-29, and 'moderate' he has 35-36. 
> 
> 
> A good candidate I think could beat him but it would be a tough fight.


Do you have the link handy for this?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Davis will need money to challenge GRAHAM but he can run a good campaign and tap into the conservative frustration with Lindsey who has been censured by county parties and who supported bailouts, cap and trade etc.  
> 
> Can he beat him i dont know? he needs a few million to get his name out there, run the campaign, be on tv and radio and then see what happens.
> 
> This is why it should be our focus as I doubt we can raise significant funds for multiple candidates in senate races.


$2 million? $4? $6? $10?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

If a candidate loses in 2014 can they run for that state's OTHER senate seat in 2016? We could end up snowballing some of our candidates in.

----------


## Smart3

> If a candidate loses in 2014 can they run for that state's OTHER senate seat in 2016? We could end up snowballing some of our candidates in.


Most of the states up in 2014 have another seat up in 2016. An open DeMint seat in 2016 is our only guarantee Davis is SC's next Senator.

----------


## Adrock

I am pretty sure DeMint will stick to his word about retiring in 2016.

Helping Davis in 2014 is a win-win.

Either he beats Graham and it helps our presidential candidate in 2016.

Or he at least gets his name recognition up in 2014, making it much easier for him to win the seat in 2016.

----------


## musicmax

> Here is how each of the above states' incumbent Senator scored on the October 2012 "Freedom Index" It isn't a perfect metric, but it is a good starting point to see where they vote on liberty issues. In parentheses (sp?) is the score of the state's other Senator. This may be a good way to gauge how open the state may be to a more liberty-oriented Senator. The larger the gap between the two numbers, the more likely a strong liberty candidate could win, IMO. If the difference is a negative number, it may be more difficult.
> 
> South Carolina - 73 (85)


A "Liberty Index" that scores Graham a 73 is fatally flawed.

----------


## musicmax

> Most of the states up in 2014 have another seat up in 2016. An open DeMint seat in 2016 is our only guarantee Davis is SC's next Senator.


SC has five Republican House members.  If Demint doesn't run there will be an "establishment" pick anointed from those five (Mulvaney, Scott, etc.) with a pile of PAC money to go against Davis.

----------


## Smart3

> SC has five Republican House members.  If Demint doesn't run there will be an "establishment" pick anointed from those five (Mulvaney, Scott, etc.) with a pile of PAC money to go against Davis.


According to Gunny, Davis is best-buddies with those guys, so they'd actually back him if he ran a second time.

----------


## TCE

The Liberty Community can barely handle two Senate races, three is absolutely out of the question. Where we get ourselves into trouble is we bite off way more than we can chew as opposed to focusing on winnable races. Jim Forsythe should try for the U.S. House, where he will have a great chance as it is projected to be a Republican Wave year. The primary will be the toughest part. He won't be able to beat a strong incumbent in Shaheen. If one checks out her Wikipedia, she is very, very well connected. Best to stay away from her for now. The House Seats, however, should prove to be easier and less expensive to win. The FSP will have a few hundred more members by then as well. 

Graham will not go down easily. The best bet there is for Davis to position himself as the Conservative alternative and begin talking to FreedomWorks, Club For Growth, and Erick Erickson and getting their support. It will be tricky for Rand or DeMint to get involved unless it looks like Davis has a real shot.

----------


## Odin

> Do you have the link handy for this?


Sure, it's from September 2011: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/p...SC_0902925.pdf

----------


## AJ Antimony

> The Liberty Community can barely handle two Senate races, three is absolutely out of the question. Where we get ourselves into trouble is we bite off way more than we can chew as opposed to focusing on winnable races. Jim Forsythe should try for the U.S. House, where he will have a great chance as it is projected to be a Republican Wave year. The primary will be the toughest part. He won't be able to beat a strong incumbent in Shaheen. If one checks out her Wikipedia, she is very, very well connected. Best to stay away from her for now. The House Seats, however, should prove to be easier and less expensive to win. The FSP will have a few hundred more members by then as well. 
> 
> Graham will not go down easily. The best bet there is for Davis to position himself as the Conservative alternative and begin talking to FreedomWorks, Club For Growth, and Erick Erickson and getting their support. It will be tricky for Rand or DeMint to get involved unless it looks like Davis has a real shot.


Handle? Or do you mean 'exclusively donate to'?

If Davis is really as popular in SC as people say he is, then he will easily be able to 'handle' is own campaign and to raise money in SC.

----------


## TCE

> Handle? Or do you mean 'exclusively donate to'?
> 
> If Davis is really as popular in SC as people say he is, then he will easily be able to 'handle' is own campaign and to raise money in SC.


Campaigns where they are largely supported by us and there is not a close second.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

Davis has posted pictures with him alongside Scott, Mulvaney, and DeMint. I don't think that crowd will try to block him.

----------


## itshappening

Does Davis have two legitimate shots? 

If he lost to Graham but kept it friendly I dont think he would do damage to himself.

We really need to make sure he gets the funds he needs though.  

Taking on Lindsey will attact alot of donations and get him attention outside of this forum.

----------


## itshappening

> Davis has posted pictures with him alongside Scott, Mulvaney, and DeMint. I don't think that crowd will try to block him.


Senate GOP Plans to Play Bigger Role in Party Primaries
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

It's possible that they might recruit a congressman or some other favored pick for DeMint's seat in 2016.

2014 is a good idea because there's not much they can do to stop us.  Graham has all the money he needs, it will be a straight 50/50 if Tom can raise $2 million and up to the GOP electorate.  

2016 primary might have 3-4 candidates vying for the seat like in Missouri where Akin prevailed in a 3 way race.

I also agree his name recognition will be up big time if he lost and that can also be a positive.  The problem is if it became a bitter fight which im sure Lindsey would want it to be as he will go down in flames and fighting with smears and lies.

----------


## itshappening

> If Graham is truly as unpopular in the SCGOP as we think he is, and if Glen is right that Davis is very popular in the SCGOP, then Davis should have no trouble fundraising in that state. Generally, in-state fundraising tells the whole story about whether one has a chance to win or not.
> 
> If Davis can at least establish that he will be able to make a serious challenge, I'd expect outside groups to enter the race, like Club for Growth and FreedomWorks.


Most of the money would have to come from out of state, it's impossible to raise the amounts in state.  

Rand raised most of his online and at fundraisers in Texas and other places.  He managed to raise adequate funds to run a statewide race and keep himself on tv which is incredibly important.  

Tom would need $2m from non-special interest folks like US! Also, if he ran in 2014 it might attract donations from traditional conservatives who don't like Graham.

I expect the PACs will come on board once Davis is up and running.  I have no doubt about that.  

Liberty for All (Ramsey) was willing to spend hundreds of thousands into congressional races so I can't imagine how much he would invest in a Senate race.  $500k TV buy goes a long way in SC.

Rand won't be able to help him and neither will DeMint. 

Ron Paul might be able to give him help and he will need it.  

Ron hosting fundraisers and sending emails is absolutely necessary so I suggest Tom meets the good doctor and asks for his help.

----------


## Adrock

We need to keep an eye on Louisiana and Arkansas too. The Democrat incumbents there look like they may in a very weak position in those states.

----------


## Smart3

> We need to keep an eye on Louisiana and Arkansas too. The Democrat incumbents there look like they may in a very weak position in those states.


The R nomination in AR goes to Cotton or Griffin. There's really no doubting that. 

As for Louisiana, since there is no primary, you could end up with this result:
42% Dardenne
41% Landrieu
9% Liberty candidate
8% Others

Runoff: Landrieu v Dardenne. She would be likely to win that, just look at her 2008 numbers.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

I'd like to give you all a little intel on Tom Davis, which should help us access his chances.

First, Davis is very popular in his home district (the 46th).  He won his last race with 60% of the vote.  What also benefits him is that the district he represents has a large population of retirees, thus the turnout in this district is typically much higher than the state averages.  People will turn out for Davis from his home district.  

Davis also has some strong allies in the State Senate which will likely support him in his race.  The three most notable are Kevin Bryant, Lee Bright and Danny Verdin.  All three are in very safe districts, so "going out on a limb" and endorsing a challenger to Graham will not be political suicide for any of these three.  These three also bring to Davis a geographical advantage, as they are positioned in various sections of the state.  

Four of SC's six GOP Congressmen are Tea Party Caucus members:  Duncan, Mulvaney, Scott and Wilson.  All four are in safe CD's, the "weakest" of the three being Mulvaney who won this year 55/44.  And of course, we also have DeMint who has nothing to lose, and everything to gain with an endorsement.  If the narrative for 2014 is that the year will be another Tea Party wave a la 2010, we may see many of these Congressmen jump on board with the challenge, particularly if Graham does something to shoot himself in the foot between now and then.

All in all, I think the prospects for Davis are excellent.  He is no stranger to challenging an incumbent in the primary and winning. And in the worst case scenario, that he loses the primary race, it gets him enough exposure that he is a virtual shoe-in for 2016.

----------


## compromise

> Senate GOP Plans to Play Bigger Role in Party Primaries
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories
> 
> It's possible that they might recruit a congressman or some other favored pick for DeMint's seat in 2016.
> 
> 2014 is a good idea because there's not much they can do to stop us.  Graham has all the money he needs, it will be a straight 50/50 if Tom can raise $2 million and up to the GOP electorate.  
> 
> 2016 primary might have 3-4 candidates vying for the seat like in Missouri where Akin prevailed in a 3 way race.
> 
> I also agree his name recognition will be up big time if he lost and that can also be a positive.  The problem is if it became a bitter fight which im sure Lindsey would want it to be as he will go down in flames and fighting with smears and lies.


I wouldn't worry about Cruz and Moran supporting Graham over Davis. Davis doesn't seem like a guy who'd say anything stupid.
Mulvaney and Scott are also Tea Party guys and friendly with Davis, I don't see them endorsing Graham.

----------


## itshappening

Graham doesn't need endorsements, no sitting R congressman or senator will support a primary opponent.  

Graham has 4.4 million of lobbyist cash in the bank, that's all he needs. 

Davis will have to work to overcome the cash advantage and the lack of help from GOP figures.

It will be up to us and conservatives who don't like GRAHAM to fill the coffers and get the word out. 

Graham is vulnerable within the party, look at his PPP numbers compared to DeMint (who has high approvals)

----------


## compromise

> Graham doesn't need endorsements, no sitting R congressman or senator will support a primary opponent.  
> 
> Graham has 4.4 million of lobbyist cash in the bank, that's all he needs. 
> 
> Davis will have to work to overcome the cash advantage and the lack of help from GOP figures.
> 
> It will be up to us and conservatives who don't like GRAHAM to fill the coffers and get the word out. 
> 
> Graham is vulnerable within the party, look at his PPP numbers compared to DeMint (who has high approvals)


Mourdock and Lee both successfully beat the incumbent in the primaries. Should Davis run, I see out of state members of Congress like Amash and Rand Paul, who don't really care about Graham, endorsing him in the primary stage, with most of his support coming from groups like Freedomworks, Club for Growth and Tea Party Express and possibly some talk show hosts and political commentators like Alex Jones, Peter Schiff and maybe even Beck, Levin, Malkin, Cupp and the like (although this is probably unlikely). Once the primary is over, SC natives like DeMint, Scott and Mulvaney will probably endorse him.

----------


## AJ Antimony

> Most of the money would have to come from out of state, it's impossible to raise the amounts in state.


It's impossible to raise money in-state when you are an unknown Ron Paul supporter running out of nowhere. This is why Rand, Amash, and Schiff needed help. They never held elected office before, and they were never before involved in local party politics. They had nobody to ask for money other than Ron Paul Nation. Davis is different. He wasn't recruited by Ron Paul to run for his first office. He's not a nobody running for U.S. Senate. According to what I've read here (taken with a grain of salt of course), Davis is well known in South Carolina, and clearly has experience working in SC political circles. If he is truly as popular in the SCGOP as some of you say he is, and if Graham is as unpopular in the SCGOP as some of you say he is, then that means he will be able to raise money (from big donors) in SC. Period.




> Rand raised most of his online and at fundraisers in Texas and other places.  He managed to raise adequate funds to run a statewide race and keep himself on tv which is incredibly important.


Yes, most of Rand's money came from out of state. Again, this is because he never ran for office before thus he had very little political connections in Kentucky. But the connections (eventually) were made because at the end of the race, 33% of Rand's money came from the state of Kentucky. his top metro areas were:

CINCINNATI, OH-KY-IN	  $265,765
LOUISVILLE, KY-IN	  $260,307
LEXINGTON	                  $166,911
NEW YORK	                  $118,670
HOUSTON	                  $112,182

Source: http://www.opensecrets.org/races/geo...e=2010&id=KYS2




> Tom would need $2m from non-special interest folks like US! Also, if he ran in 2014 it might attract donations from traditional conservatives who don't like Graham.
> 
> I expect the PACs will come on board once Davis is up and running.  I have no doubt about that.  
> 
> Liberty for All (Ramsey) was willing to spend hundreds of thousands into congressional races so I can't imagine how much he would invest in a Senate race.  $500k TV buy goes a long way in SC.


Again, if what we hear about Davis and Graham is completely true, there shouldn't be any problems raising 1 or 2 million. This isn't counting outside spending. Yes, if Davis can establish himself as a competitive challenger to Graham, the outside money will pour in. Club for Growth, FreedomWorks, Liberty for All, etc.




> Rand won't be able to help him and neither will DeMint.


This isn't entirely true. DeMint raises money through the Senate Conservatives Fund. They can spend money on the race. Rand also has his own pac, RandPac I believe, and they were spending money in the 2012 general election airing 1 minute long TV ads attacking Democratic incumbents on their foreign aid votes.

The only thing that might stop them from getting involved is decorum. Usually, incumbents of any party do not attack each other. Rand going after incumbent Democrats was considered distasteful. I'd imagine him going after an incumbent Republican would be very, very distasteful. Imagine if Graham won, they would never work together again. And Graham might then spend money to attack Rand in his future elections. So we will see.




> Ron Paul might be able to give him help and he will need it.
> 
> Ron hosting fundraisers and sending emails is absolutely necessary so I suggest Tom meets the good doctor and asks for his help.


Not sure what he can do other than send out fundraising emails. Remember, Ron isn't exactly the most popular guy in GOP circles. The Davis campaign won't use him or ask for his help if it will actually hurt their image among GOP voters. And also remember, as a member of Congress, Ron made a deal to never 'campaign' against Republican incumbents. Even though he's not elected anymore, it still might be distasteful and unpopular to get involved.

And I guarantee they met before the Rally in Tampa. They probably met before the SC presidential primary.

----------


## itshappening

> Not sure what he can do other than send out fundraising emails. Remember, Ron isn't exactly the most popular guy in GOP circles. The Davis campaign won't use him or ask for his help if it will actually hurt their image among GOP voters. And also remember, as a member of Congress, Ron made a deal to never 'campaign' against Republican incumbents. Even though he's not elected anymore, it still might be distasteful and unpopular to get involved.
> 
> And I guarantee they met before the Rally in Tampa. They probably met before the SC presidential primary.


sending out emails and holding fundraisers is what Ron can do for Davis, it was incredibly important for Rand Paul and Amash

----------


## AJ Antimony

> I'd like to give you all a little intel on Tom Davis, which should help us access his chances.
> 
> First, Davis is very popular in his home district (the 46th).  He won his last race with 60% of the vote.  What also benefits him is that the district he represents has a large population of retirees, thus the turnout in this district is typically much higher than the state averages.  People will turn out for Davis from his home district.  
> 
> Davis also has some strong allies in the State Senate which will likely support him in his race.  The three most notable are Kevin Bryant, Lee Bright and Danny Verdin.  All three are in very safe districts, so "going out on a limb" and endorsing a challenger to Graham will not be political suicide for any of these three.  These three also bring to Davis a geographical advantage, as they are positioned in various sections of the state.  
> 
> Four of SC's six GOP Congressmen are Tea Party Caucus members:  Duncan, Mulvaney, Scott and Wilson.  All four are in safe CD's, the "weakest" of the three being Mulvaney who won this year 55/44.  And of course, we also have DeMint who has nothing to lose, and everything to gain with an endorsement.  If the narrative for 2014 is that the year will be another Tea Party wave a la 2010, we may see many of these Congressmen jump on board with the challenge, particularly if Graham does something to shoot himself in the foot between now and then.
> 
> All in all, I think the prospects for Davis are excellent.  He is no stranger to challenging an incumbent in the primary and winning. And in the worst case scenario, that he loses the primary race, it gets him enough exposure that he is a virtual shoe-in for 2016.


Now I feel worse about his chances because to me it sounds like you're describing a typical, respected state legislator. Nothing in your descriptions sounds exceptional.

* He won re-election with 60%? That doesn't mean he's very popular, that means he's representing a standard, 60/40 gerrymandered GOP district. I'd imagine most other SC senators were reelected by a similar margin.

* He has retirees in his district? Every district does, especially the GOP districts. Again, I guarantee every other safe GOP legislator has a large number of retirees in their districts.

* People would turn out for Davis in his home district? Yeah, you'd hope so, but I get the feeling you really don't know if this is true or not, and I don't now either. For all we know, the people in his district really like Davis as a state senator, and also really like Graham as a US Senator. Furthermore, this will be a midterm election. Turn out is worse in the midterm elections, especially the primaries. But yes, you'd think a district would support their own guy for higher office.

* Davis has allies in the State Senate? So does every other GOP member of the legislature. And you name 3. How many can Graham name? I suspect more.

* Davis's allies represent different districts? Yes, anyone can say that. 

* SC has 4 Tea Party congressmen and they would be willing to endorse a Graham primary challenger if it was politically feasible? Then why won't one of them want to challenge Graham? A Congressman is in better position to run for senate than a state legislator. Their bigger office means they have more voters, allies, and donors available to them than a guy from a relatively small legislative district.

----------


## compromise

> It's impossible to raise money in-state when you are an unknown Ron Paul supporter running out of nowhere. This is why Rand, Amash, and Schiff needed help. They never held elected office before, and they were never before involved in local party politics. They had nobody to ask for money other than Ron Paul Nation. Davis is different. He wasn't recruited by Ron Paul to run for his first office.


Amash was in the Michigan House of Representatives for two year prior to running for US Congress. His vote explanations had made him quite popular among Republicans in his district.

----------


## realtonygoodwin

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84001.html

According to this, the GOP establishment may be getting more involved in the primaries. 

Of note:




> And South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, the tea party leader, said in an interview that he won’t target GOP incumbents who could face primary challenges, including his home-state colleague, Lindsey Graham and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

----------


## itshappening

> * SC has 4 Tea Party congressmen and they would be willing to endorse a Graham primary challenger if it was politically feasible? Then why won't one of them want to challenge Graham? A Congressman is in better position to run for senate than a state legislator. Their bigger office means they have more voters, allies, and donors available to them than a guy from a relatively small legislative district.


none of them will run against Graham because they're not really tea partiers just go along to get along Republicans. 

Davis if he's funded will be the only viable candidate and they won't expect it, we can turn it into a straight 50/50 fight hopefully

I agree he would have a lot of work to do to convince people to dump the senior senator, even he loses though it might work out for him in 2016

DeMint, Rand Paul and no elected official (through their PACs or otherwise) will support Davis if he took on Graham, no way. so people need to get that out of their heads.  It will be up to us to donate, create moneybombs, get attention etc..

----------


## AJ Antimony

> Amash was in the Michigan House of Representatives for two year prior to running for US Congress. His vote explanations had made him quite popular among Republicans in his district.


And was he involved in local party politics before 2008? How much of his own money did he put into that initial campaign? I'll agree that Amash may not be the best examples. Rand and Schiff are much better examples of the point I was making.

However, in 2010, Amash won the congressional GOP primary by plurality. 41% - 26% - 24% over his two main opponents. Would he have won if he had 2 establishment opponents rather than two? Maybe, maybe not.

----------


## AJ Antimony

> DeMint, Rand Paul and no elected official (through their PACs or otherwise) will support Davis if he took on Graham, no way. so people need to get that out of their heads.  It will be up to us to donate, create moneybombs, get attention etc..


I think you're right... but superpacs like Liberty for All are a different story.

----------


## mz10

> none of them will run against Graham because they're not really tea partiers just go along to get along Republicans.


Gowdy and Mulvaney, Mulvaney in particular, are very good, DeMint-style legislators. But I agree that they won't run against Graham.

----------


## ProvincialPeasant

I agree that DeMint will not endorse since he got hammered when he battled incumbents. Now he only endorses in primaries. This is in line with Senatorial custom. I'm not sure about Rand or Lee, though. But that's not important. What IS important is that Davis become the front running challenger to Lindsey Graham and attack him as ESTABLISHMENT, RINO, FLIP-FLOPPER and attack him hard on ECONOMICS. Just repeat the same formula as Rubio v Crist, Lee v Bennett, Liljenquist v Hatch, Cruz v Dewhurst, etc. This way Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and other national conservative organisations will endorse and throw money in, plus the conservative and Tea Party grassroots (including Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Malkin, Levin and others) will throw their support in.

This won't be too difficult because Graham has a $#@! relationship with everyone in the GOP except single-issue war hawks and K Street. He has made no efforts to move to the right since 2010 either. Also, he does not have sympathy like McCain does (who was the nominee once and a war hero and who will probably retire anyway).

----------


## trey4sports

CFG has said they will consider challenging graham.

----------


## realtonygoodwin

Great stuff everyone . 

I think we all agree that we can focus on South Carolina and make it a priority, assuming Tom Davis wants to run. Any disagreement? 

Next, do we focus on Alaska, North Carolina, other, or none?

----------


## Smart3

> Great stuff everyone . 
> 
> I think we all agree that we can focus on South Carolina and make it a priority, assuming Tom Davis wants to run. Any disagreement? 
> 
> Next, do we focus on Alaska, North Carolina, other, or none?


Our shot at Alaska assumes Gov Parnell does not run. I don't think Miller would lose to anyone other than Palin or Parnell. In the event neither of them do, Miller would most likely not require our help. He also won't need our help in the general, since Begich is universally considered vulnerable. 

It's way too early to speculate on NC, IA, etc.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

While DeMint said he wouldn't go after incumbents in 2014, Rand and his RANDPAC never made that statement.

So we could potentially have RANDPAC, Liberty For All, Club For Growth, and FreedomWorks all going after Graham.

----------


## itshappening

Please get this out of your heads, no GOP elected official will oppose Graham, yes that means RAND and RANDPAC will not oppose Graham and neither will any of the congressmen. 

Neither will any neocon talking heads like Limbaugh, Levin or Hannity.  Davis will have ZERO help from anyone if he tries to take down Graham.  The purge will rely on hard work in the state and donations from us.  Bob Bennett and Dick Lugar were never opposed by anyone, Lee and Mourdock had to work hard in the state to convince the GOP electorate to dump them and so will Davis.

The good news is the establishment will be caught by surprise and can't really do much to save Graham once the momentum gets going.  Graham has all the money he needs to run a campaign (lets hope he is complacent and runs a lousy one) so the Senate GOP will not be looking to spend money on his behalf and it wont be on their radar at all...

----------


## mz10

> Please get this out of your heads, no GOP elected official will oppose Graham, yes that means RAND and RANDPAC will not oppose Graham and neither will any of the congressmen. 
> 
> Neither will any neocon talking heads like Limbaugh, Levin or Hannity.  Davis will have ZERO help from anyone if he tries to take down Graham.  The purge will rely on hard work in the state and donations from us.  Bob Bennett and Dick Lugar were never opposed by anyone, Lee and Mourdock had to work hard in the state to convince the GOP electorate to dump them and so will Davis.


FreedomWorks and Club for Growth may help out, since they don't have to worry about being hurt politically.

----------


## itshappening

Yes CFG and Freedomworks might but dont be so sure.  

Freedomworks didn't get involved in the KY primary with Rand until very late in the day.  

Rand had no PACs supporting him, he had to raise 2 million to win an open primary so that gives you an idea of what Davis needs to do..  he needs our donations and he needs Ron Paul helping him raise money.   The rest will fall into place.

----------


## itshappening

One thing im pretty sure about is if we held dump Lindsey moneybombs and spread it on freerepublic and other conservative bastion sites, we'd get a lot of interest and pledges from grassroots conservatives outside the liberty community who don't like him.  that's the kind of thing we need to do...

----------


## AJ Antimony

> Bob Bennett and Dick Lugar were never opposed by anyone


This isn't true. The reason they lost their primaries is that there were many local Republicans who didn't like them anymore. This is especially clear in Bennett's case, where he was soundly voted down by the state convention delegates. In Lugar's case, when Murdock announced his challenge, [he] "released a list of 12 Republican state central committee members and 67 GOP county chairs who endorsed him." (wiki) And then he obviously was able to hire an intelligent campaign manager, staff members, and consultants. 

You need local support in order to win.

----------


## realtonygoodwin

How about Colorado then?

----------


## Confederate

> FreedomWorks and Club for Growth may help out, since they don't have to worry about being hurt politically.


Good chance of Club for Growth getting involved:




> *Club for Growth Puts Sen. Lindsey Graham in Its Cross Hairs
> Conservative Club for Growth says it wants Graham knocked off in 2014 primary*
> _September 20, 2012_
> 
> In the 2012 election season, the powerful, conservative Super PAC Club for Growth was on the winning end of a slew of critical primaries.
> 
> And the group's president Chris Chocola says its never too early to start identifying 2014's targets.
> 
> Club for Growth supports economically conservative candidates, keeps score on who is supporting its pro-growth policies on the hill, and zeroes in on those Republicans who stray from conservative dogma.
> ...

----------


## T.hill

Robert Paul did make it clear he was not going to run for any senate seat in 2012, but he left the future ambiguous.

 Read more: politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/04/22/robert-paul-says-texas-senate-bid-unlikely#ixzz2D2HQmlKu

----------


## T.hill

> I'm never going to say I won't ever run for office, but I think running for Senate probably is not going to happen this time,


 Paul told the group at UNT.

----------


## Adrock

> How about Colorado then?


Funny you mention it. I was reading on a conservative site on how they thought their only shot was if they ran a libertarian Republican. The shift with some in the GOP since Romney was beat is pretty significant.

----------


## Adrock

> FreedomWorks and Club for Growth may help out, since they don't have to worry about being hurt politically.


Don't forget about Liberty for All PAC too.

----------


## realtonygoodwin

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...176.html?hp=l1

Looks like Sen Chambliss is begging to be primaried in Georgia.

In 2008, he had no primary challenger, and barely won the general election.

----------


## realtonygoodwin

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articl...le_663836.html




> Backing a moderate might make sense in a few states, but not in the five red states with Democratic senators up in 2014. All five are vulnerable: Mark Pryor in Arkansas, Tim Johnson in South Dakota, Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, Mark Begich in Alaska, and Kay Hagan in North Carolina. And if 2014 turns out to be a prosperous year for Republicans, Democrat Jeanne Shaheen will be beatable in New Hampshire (red in 2010, blue in 2012).


We can definitely at least try to field primary candidates in the listed races.

----------


## itshappening

Ken Buck might run in CO again though I can't believe he lost to Bennett in 2010. 

He got hammered on abortion and CO women don't like abortion involved in a campaign.  

Advice to candidates: shut up about abortion, dont fall for the left's trick of engaging in this conversation, change the subject to the economy.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Ken Buck might run in CO again though I can't believe he lost to Bennett in 2010. 
> 
> He got hammered on abortion and CO women don't like abortion involved in a campaign.  
> 
> Advice to candidates: shut up about abortion, dont fall for the left's trick of engaging in this conversation, change the subject to the economy.


Yes.  #1 important to remember:  DO _NOT_ LET THE OPPOSITION FRAME THE DEBATE!!

That's the only way they can win.

----------


## itshappening

> http://www.weeklystandard.com/articl...le_663836.html
> 
> 
> 
> We can definitely at least try to field primary candidates in the listed races.


It's impossible to support multiple senate candidates.  senate races cost millions, even the primaries.  Most of these states don't have viable liberty candidates.  

Focus on getting rid of Lindsey Graham, that will unite lots of conservatives and we have a great candidate in Tom Davis.

Joe Miller and Ken Buck are possibles for Alaska and Colorado but neither are pure liberty candidates.  Miller probably closer to us though and has a better chance in a small state that will be surely trending Republican in 2014

----------


## realtonygoodwin

We wouldn't have to be the exclusive supporters, if we support candidates that have a more widespread appeal than just the liberty movement. That way, we could support more than one race.

----------


## itshappening

> Yes.  #1 important to remember:  DO _NOT_ LET THE OPPOSITION FRAME THE DEBATE!!
> 
> That's the only way they can win.


Buck would have won that race if it wasn't for abortion.  He blew it.  Still, it was close I seem to remember.  It wasn't an epic fail...

However that seat was open and he should have won.  Disappointing.  It will be harder in 2014 but if the economy sucks and he shuts up about abortion then he has a great chance.

----------


## itshappening

> We wouldn't have to be the exclusive supporters, if we support candidates that have a more widespread appeal than just the liberty movement.


We want more people like Rand in the Senate..  Pure liberty candidates are the only ones worth supporting.  I want someone in the senate to fillibuster and make trouble not roll over.  Many of the candidates in several states will just roll over. 

If the FreeRepublic/HotAir/Redstate crowd want to get rid of Chambliss or anyone else then let them do it but there aint anyone viable in those states who will stand up for liberty in the U.S Senate like Rand Paul, the default alternative will be a congressman or some other statist riding a wave.  Tom Davis is the real deal and a race we should get involved in..

----------


## Smart3

Our top priority should remain Davis/SC, Brannon/NC and Miller/AK. It's already going to be hard to win in the primary for all 3, I can't imagine Hagan losing to Brannon if he emerges out of a bloody primary. Miller too, would possibly lose to Begich if Miller only barely wins again in the primary. 

Dems have their eyes on ME and KY as pickups, and possibly a long-shot in GA.

----------


## Brett85

> Ken Buck might run in CO again though I can't believe he lost to Bennett in 2010. 
> 
> He got hammered on abortion and CO women don't like abortion involved in a campaign.  
> 
> Advice to candidates: shut up about abortion, dont fall for the left's trick of engaging in this conversation, change the subject to the economy.


I don't think very many Republicans intentionally bring up the abortion issue.  They just get asked about it by the media, and they have to answer the question.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> It's impossible to support multiple senate candidates.  senate races cost millions, even the primaries.  Most of these states don't have viable liberty candidates.  
> 
> Focus on getting rid of Lindsey Graham, that will unite lots of conservatives and we have a great candidate in Tom Davis.
> 
> Joe Miller and Ken Buck are possibles for Alaska and Colorado but neither are pure liberty candidates.  Miller probably closer to us though and has a better chance in a small state that will be surely trending Republican in 2014


I'm not saying we can financially support all of them, but we should have a Liberty candidate in every race.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> We want more people like Rand in the Senate..  Pure liberty candidates are the only ones worth supporting.  I want someone in the senate to fillibuster and make trouble not roll over.  Many of the candidates in several states will just roll over. 
> 
> If the FreeRepublic/HotAir/Redstate crowd want to get rid of Chambliss or anyone else then let them do it but there aint anyone viable in those states who will stand up for liberty in the U.S Senate like Rand Paul, the default alternative will be a congressman or some other statist riding a wave.  Tom Davis is the real deal and a race we should get involved in..


We will never get anywhere if we don't compromise. Improving a little at a time is better than rapidly declining.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> I don't think very many Republicans intentionally bring up the abortion issue.  They just get asked about it by the media, and they have to answer the question.


Do they really have to answer it?

----------


## realtonygoodwin

> We want more people like Rand in the Senate..  Pure liberty candidates are the only ones worth supporting.  I want someone in the senate to fillibuster and make trouble not roll over.  Many of the candidates in several states will just roll over. 
> 
> If the FreeRepublic/HotAir/Redstate crowd want to get rid of Chambliss or anyone else then let them do it but there aint anyone viable in those states who will stand up for liberty in the U.S Senate like Rand Paul, the default alternative will be a congressman or some other statist riding a wave.  Tom Davis is the real deal and a race we should get involved in..


Yes, more Senators like Rand would be ideal. But if we could replace a Saxby Chambliss or a Kay Hagan or an Olympia Snowe with a Ted Cruz or Pat Toomey or a Jeff Flake, it would be a huge improvement. Even better if it was a Mark Udall or a Jeff Merkley being replaced.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the very good.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Yes, more Senators like Rand would be ideal. But if we could replace a Saxby Chambliss or a Kay Hagan or an Olympia Snowe with a Ted Cruz or Pat Toomey or a Jeff Flake, it would be a huge improvement. Even better if it was a Mark Udall or a Jeff Merkley being replaced.
> 
> Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the very good.


Exactly. +rep

----------


## AJ Antimony

> I don't think very many Republicans intentionally bring up the abortion issue.  They just get asked about it by the media, and they have to answer the question.


LOL This is politics, candidates never have to answer the question. You know one reason why "mainstream" candidates win and third party candidates lose? The "mainstream" candidates know how to be candidates--how to frame answers, how to dodge questions, how to stay on message. The third party candidates always give their 100% pure answers and thus always blow their chances at being attractive candidates.

----------


## Eric21ND

> It's impossible to support multiple senate candidates.  senate races cost millions, even the primaries.  Most of these states don't have viable liberty candidates.  
> 
> Focus on getting rid of Lindsey Graham, that will unite lots of conservatives and we have a great candidate in Tom Davis.
> 
> Joe Miller and Ken Buck are possibles for Alaska and Colorado but neither are pure liberty candidates.  Miller probably closer to us though and has a better chance in a small state that will be surely trending Republican in 2014


Ken Buck is pro drug war.

----------


## Adrock

I wish we could find good liberty candidates that don't scare the pants off of the GOP regulars. It would be much easier to fund candidates using their money.

----------


## Confederate

> Ken Buck is pro drug war.


He's pro-10th amendment, though. He believes it should be up to the state to determine it's drug policy.

----------


## itshappening

> Yes, more Senators like Rand would be ideal. But if we could replace a Saxby Chambliss or a Kay Hagan or an Olympia Snowe with a Ted Cruz or Pat Toomey or a Jeff Flake, it would be a huge improvement. Even better if it was a Mark Udall or a Jeff Merkley being replaced.
> 
> Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the very good.



And who are Cruz, Toomey and Flake? 2 of them have been in Washington forever, they will do very little to stop anything unconstitutional and when Mitch McConnell and the leadership demand their votes they will go along with it. 

We need to focus on real liberty candidates, don't waste your time with people like Flake and Toomey, Hotair/redstate/freerepublic have enough funds and resources to support that type of candidate.

----------


## itshappening

> I don't think very many Republicans intentionally bring up the abortion issue.  They just get asked about it by the media, and they have to answer the question.


Republicans asked about abortion should change the subject and be evasive.  That's the bottom line. 

Buck lost his race because Bennet scared enough CO women about his positions on abortion and whenever he was shown on TV or the news the reporter was asking him about abortion and he was happy to talk at length about it.  Big mistake.  Voters do not want to see that, especially women and suburban moms.

A candidate's answer to his position on abortion is simple: "This election isn't about abortion, it's about the 8% unemployment rate, it's about how we bring jobs to this state and keep hard working families taxes low and that's what I intend to do when I'm elected" and keep talking until the reporter gets bored or runs out of time.

----------


## AJ Antimony

> I wish we could find good liberty candidates that don't scare the pants off of the GOP regulars. It would be much easier to fund candidates using their money.


Who typically runs for US House? State legislators. Why? Because they already have shown that they are capable of raising money, organizing, and being 'electable' candidates. Why are the regulars typically scared of outsiders who've never held office before? Because there is no evidence that those candidates can raise the money, recruit the volunteers, and 'speak' correctly in order to win. In other words, the regulars fear that the inexperienced, outsider candidates will always pull Todd Akins, and say something stupid, and throw the election to the Democrats.

Rand Paul is a great example of how an outsider can actually be embraced by the regulars. True, he hadn't ever held office before or even ran before, but he's from a political family and could tap a national network of donors and volunteers. Even though it was his first race, he wasn't a noob. He didn't scare any regulars despite being the son of Ron Paul.

If we want an easier time finding candidates to run for Congress, then we have to elect them to state legislatures first.

----------


## Adrock

> Who typically runs for US House? State legislators. Why? Because they already have shown that they are capable of raising money, organizing, and being 'electable' candidates. Why are the regulars typically scared of outsiders who've never held office before? Because there is no evidence that those candidates can raise the money, recruit the volunteers, and 'speak' correctly in order to win. In other words, the regulars fear that the inexperienced, outsider candidates will always pull Todd Akins, and say something stupid, and throw the election to the Democrats.
> 
> Rand Paul is a great example of how an outsider can actually be embraced by the regulars. True, he hadn't ever held office before or even ran before, but he's from a political family and could tap a national network of donors and volunteers. Even though it was his first race, he wasn't a noob. He didn't scare any regulars despite being the son of Ron Paul.
> 
> If we want an easier time finding candidates to run for Congress, then we have to elect them to state legislatures first.


Agreed. The establishment regulars are mostly worried about winning. Part of why Rand was accepted was that he did a good job fundraising and didn't have any Akin like gaffes. We need quality liberty candidates at all levels. Having people in the local county and state level leadership positions is important too.

----------


## AJ Antimony

> And who are Cruz, Toomey and Flake? 2 of them have been in Washington forever, they will do very little to stop anything unconstitutional and when Mitch McConnell and the leadership demand their votes they will go along with it. 
> 
> We need to focus on real liberty candidates, don't waste your time with people like Flake and Toomey, Hotair/redstate/freerepublic have enough funds and resources to support that type of candidate.


You really should research these people before bashing them. It makes you look stupid.

Toomey and Flake have been in Washington forever? Really? Toomey was a Congressman from 1999-2005. Yep, 3 terms is just awfully long. Flake has been in DC from 2001-present. Yep, 6 terms is even worse. They've been in Congress longer than John McCain and Robert Byrd combined!

Then you really go off the deep end by claiming that Toomey and especially Flake will just go along with leadership on any and every vote that McConnell wants. Someone else can defend Toomey on this issue who knows more about his record than I do, but claiming Flake always votes with leadership is just entirely ignorant of his 12 year voting record. Even though some people on these boards don't like him--we've discussed his voting record ad nauseum--he has voted against plenty of Bush's big government bills. See my post in that thread for a quick summary. Hell, I'd say in the last 12 years, only ONE member of all of Congress has voted AGAINST Democrats and Republicans more than Jeff Flake and that's Ron Paul.

So yes, there are definitely people more libertarian than Jeff Flake and Pat Toomey, but to speak of them so negatively without knowing anything about them is just silly.

----------


## AJ Antimony

> Agreed. The establishment regulars are mostly worried about winning. Part of why Rand was accepted was that he did a good job fundraising and didn't have any Akin like gaffes. We need quality liberty candidates at all levels. Having people in the local county and state level leadership positions is important too.


The establishment regulars are ONLY worried about winning IMHO. Or, at least, that's their #1 priority. I mean look at Rand... did the entire GOP ditch him after he won his primary? Were they 100% opposed to the 'nutjob' son of 'nutjob' Ron Paul? Would they rather see the big government Democrat rather than another Ron Paul? NOPE. They *united* around Rand and helped him take a landslide general election victory, and he has high approval ratings back home as a senator.

Too many people on these boards believe that our candidates are opposed in the primary solely for ideological reasons. I don't think this is true at all. Even though some people here don't like him, I think the liberty movement can learn *a lot* from the 2012 Jeff Flake senate election. Here's a guy who, like Ron, voted no alllllllll the time. Every attack ad on him, especially in the general, was about his voting record. The Democrats claimed Flake was against veterans, women, and puppies because of some of his no votes. Ouch! Yet despite this, Flake won his primary by 50% and then won the general over one of the strongest Democratic candidates they have ever ran in AZ. Here a candidate was embraced by the GOP and elected senator *despite* staunch opposition to his own party.

We can make our lives so much easier by learning from some of these supposedly 'insider' campaigns.

----------


## Adrock

I remember the ads. I thought Flake was in trouble for awhile. I really hope Rand rubs off on him in the Senate, especially on civil liberties.

The big difference between Flake and someone like Akin is that he wasn't inflicting wounds on himself. Viable liberty candidates are key.

----------


## Adrock

duplicate

----------


## Smart3

There will always be Flakes and Toomeys.

There will not always be Pauls.

I do agree we should help Flakes/Toomeys through their primaries, but we should focus on general election candidates who actually share our values.

----------


## realtonygoodwin

Fair enough.

----------


## realtonygoodwin

http://www.senateconservatives.com/s...5670ffaab649e8

The Senate Conservatives Group sent out an email to their list asking for recommendations for Senate Candidates. I sent them some info about Tom Davis.

----------


## RonPaul25

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/1...567.html?hp=f2

HAR MAN CAINNNNN

----------


## realtonygoodwin

So, Tom Davis isn't going to run. And it looks like Paul Broun will run in GA. Do we get behind him?

----------

