MN Patriot
Member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,705
It will take years. The revolution isn't over on November 5, it will have just begun.
http://www.lp.org
Indpt Run! Indpt Run! We Have The Money! We Have The Message!
- Thread starter nicehairmitt
- Start date
It will take years. The revolution isn't over on November 5, it will have just begun.
http://www.lp.org
Drknows
Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,977
Then we must pray HILLARY and MCCAIN win only if Ron Paul runs third party.
I would hate to see either of them win if he drops out.
Gadsdenfly
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 111
While I want to see Ron Paul continue his run for teh Republican nomnation at least through Suer Tuesday if it becaomes necesary I agree with those who would like to see RP run on the Libertarian ticket. The LP has establihsed 50 state national organization and ballot access. While in the past third parties and independent runs get no media coverage I think that the groundwork has been laid by RP running as a Republican, getting into the televised debates, and pulling 10% of the vote so far! He already has done more than any third party run ever has accomplished so he will be starting with a huge head start.
RonPauledbyYoutube
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Messages
- 472
I think Ron Paul is very wise. He entered the race as a Republican to get exposure. 3rd parties get no exposure.
He knew that he wouldn't get the nomination because obviously not in the "mainstream" republican (though he is the true one).
He then generates enough support to force the MSM coverage on the 3rd party candidacy. People will demand from the MSM coverage or else threaten boycotts all over the US.
Very wise man. Indeed.
With his positions, he will get even more attention from the 3 candidate debates. That why we are winning on 10%, you'll see it skyrocket in general election campaining.
What do you think?
He knew that he wouldn't get the nomination because obviously not in the "mainstream" republican (though he is the true one).
He then generates enough support to force the MSM coverage on the 3rd party candidacy. People will demand from the MSM coverage or else threaten boycotts all over the US.
Very wise man. Indeed.
With his positions, he will get even more attention from the 3 candidate debates. That why we are winning on 10%, you'll see it skyrocket in general election campaining.
What do you think?
ronpaulitician
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2007
- Messages
- 2,942
When I joined this movement, I didn't really think Paul would win the GOP ticket. 30% of Americans still supported Bush (and I believe 30% still do). I doubt many of those were Democrats.
Paul could be just the thing our system needs to give the people at least a chance to, however temporarily, break the two party system.
If Paul can get 10% of the GOP vote with as little attentions as he's gotten, can gather tens of millions of contributions with as much ridicule as he's gotten, then he can surely make an impact as an independent.
Of course, he needs to ride the GOP for a month or two more, so let's keep this under wraps
Paul could be just the thing our system needs to give the people at least a chance to, however temporarily, break the two party system.
If Paul can get 10% of the GOP vote with as little attentions as he's gotten, can gather tens of millions of contributions with as much ridicule as he's gotten, then he can surely make an impact as an independent.
Of course, he needs to ride the GOP for a month or two more, so let's keep this under wraps
PlzPeopleWakeUp
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2007
- Messages
- 842
nt
Last edited:
Minuteman
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 351
The LP doesnt have enough money or political clout to make them a threat, and its their own damn fault. Instead of building their base, fundraising, and establishing themselves as a credible party, they just lift their heads out of the mud occasionally and toss someone to the wolves, then moan and cry win they lose about how unfair everything is, then stick their heads back into a hole.
louisiana4liberty
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 505
Great ideas and rationale for a 3rd party run on this thread. I'm all for supporting RP in a 3rd party run.
LastoftheMohicans
Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 490
Let me preface my opinion by stating that he should go through the primaries first before a 3rd party run is even considered. Hypothetically, if he were to run 3rd party or independent his strategy should be to focus the campaign on some more freedom friendly states. Montana, NH (notwithstanding their recent voting for big government candidates), Vermont (at least their pro-gun and somewhat decentralist minded), Arizona, Nevada, Alaska, and others. If he could win one or more of those states, it might rub off on other states.
Cunningham
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 182
Obama has to lose the democrat nomination for any third party run to have a chance. McCain or Guilianni has to win the republican also. By august I suspect we'll be in a full blown economic crisis and I think people might actually listen to what Ron Paul has to say.
I've been saying this to my friends for years that continue to vote for big government. When the government is broke and the economy tanks, all this big government stuff comes to an end. I will win my arguement either way. I'd prefer we did it the easy way but in the end I'll get what I want. The market can only be cheated for so long and it will balance things in the end.
I've been saying this to my friends for years that continue to vote for big government. When the government is broke and the economy tanks, all this big government stuff comes to an end. I will win my arguement either way. I'd prefer we did it the easy way but in the end I'll get what I want. The market can only be cheated for so long and it will balance things in the end.
abstrusezincate
Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2007
- Messages
- 384
If a third party run is going to be launched, I believe it should be done as an independent and sooner rather than later. There are pros and cons to the idea, but I want to explain why I believe now would be a better time.
Realistically, it seems likely that Ron's numbers will only decrease in forthcoming states. If he continues to finish in fourth and fifth place in all these states, it will only decrease his legitimacy. Waiting until Super Tuesday, if he has not won a state, will bring to question his viability, dampen the supporter base, and be a poor use of limited financial resources.
Also worth noting is that if he intends to run outside the parties, the earliest states (I believe Texas is first) have their process begin in March. We would need to reorganize, reorient, and recalibrate the message altogether.
That said, I think such a campaign, whether successful or not, if run with vision, boldness, and optimism, could succeed. The campaign would need to show something a hell of a lot more inspirational. The grassroots would need to curb its worst excesses and run to win instead of running for fun. And they would have to work together seamlessly, bringing the message of liberty and freedom (not all the little side issues) to the people.
If you do that, you could change everything.
I don't know if it would be won. But, it would be worth fighting. And honestly, since we've already had comments pissing off every major constituency within the GOP, it might not be a bad time to consider moving on. Take a step back. Let them fight. Save their resources, and get ready to run.
Lastly, I think Ron should take a note from Washington's Farewell Address, blaming the problems of our country on the corrupt parties, and perhaps use that as a means to galvanize support amongst independents, which would be our bloc.
Realistically, it seems likely that Ron's numbers will only decrease in forthcoming states. If he continues to finish in fourth and fifth place in all these states, it will only decrease his legitimacy. Waiting until Super Tuesday, if he has not won a state, will bring to question his viability, dampen the supporter base, and be a poor use of limited financial resources.
Also worth noting is that if he intends to run outside the parties, the earliest states (I believe Texas is first) have their process begin in March. We would need to reorganize, reorient, and recalibrate the message altogether.
That said, I think such a campaign, whether successful or not, if run with vision, boldness, and optimism, could succeed. The campaign would need to show something a hell of a lot more inspirational. The grassroots would need to curb its worst excesses and run to win instead of running for fun. And they would have to work together seamlessly, bringing the message of liberty and freedom (not all the little side issues) to the people.
If you do that, you could change everything.
I don't know if it would be won. But, it would be worth fighting. And honestly, since we've already had comments pissing off every major constituency within the GOP, it might not be a bad time to consider moving on. Take a step back. Let them fight. Save their resources, and get ready to run.
Lastly, I think Ron should take a note from Washington's Farewell Address, blaming the problems of our country on the corrupt parties, and perhaps use that as a means to galvanize support amongst independents, which would be our bloc.
LastoftheMohicans
Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 490
If I can add to what I said. Another benefit of picking smaller states (in area, population, and media markets) is that he will have them all to himself. The Dem. and Republ. candidates will be focusing on Texas, California, Florida, NY and a few others because that's where the electoral votes are. Traditionally, places like the Dakotas, upper New England, parts of the South, and Alaska are ignored. Forgot Hawaii, they are hopelessly socialist. Basically, it's a hit 'em where they ain't strategy.
Before we all go to the third-party idea, let's think about it a little more critically first.
The main question that has to be asked is what is the purpose of this movement? Only to get Ron Paul elected president or to get Ron Paul's ideas back into the government?
Obviously if the main and only goal is to get Ron Paul elected, then if he doesn't get the Republican nod then the only possibility to satisfy our goal (though almost completely unlikely) is to have him run third-party.
However, if the goal is more about bringing back the traditional libertarian Republican ideals into Washington, I believe we should seriously think twice (if not three times) before mounting a third-party run.
I strongly advise anyone who feels the latter is more important than the former to read the following article:
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/...credits_its_candidates_and_their_ideas?page=1
It's a bit long and I don't agree with all of it, but it has a lot of good points. Think about how much more credibility and sway Paul will have in congress if he comes back from a (albeit failed) Republican presidential bid with ~10% of the Republican voters support! People will be starved to know how they too can pull in the cash Paul pulls in and still be able to maintain their GOP support. People will feel more comfortable voting in a more libertarian Republican manner! If we are truly interested in seeing Ron Paul's ideas get put in place in Washington, to get our civil liberties back and restore the constitution to our country, I sincerely believe a third-party bid is against our interests, and I hope you'll come to that conclusion as well.
The main question that has to be asked is what is the purpose of this movement? Only to get Ron Paul elected president or to get Ron Paul's ideas back into the government?
Obviously if the main and only goal is to get Ron Paul elected, then if he doesn't get the Republican nod then the only possibility to satisfy our goal (though almost completely unlikely) is to have him run third-party.
However, if the goal is more about bringing back the traditional libertarian Republican ideals into Washington, I believe we should seriously think twice (if not three times) before mounting a third-party run.
I strongly advise anyone who feels the latter is more important than the former to read the following article:
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/...credits_its_candidates_and_their_ideas?page=1
It's a bit long and I don't agree with all of it, but it has a lot of good points. Think about how much more credibility and sway Paul will have in congress if he comes back from a (albeit failed) Republican presidential bid with ~10% of the Republican voters support! People will be starved to know how they too can pull in the cash Paul pulls in and still be able to maintain their GOP support. People will feel more comfortable voting in a more libertarian Republican manner! If we are truly interested in seeing Ron Paul's ideas get put in place in Washington, to get our civil liberties back and restore the constitution to our country, I sincerely believe a third-party bid is against our interests, and I hope you'll come to that conclusion as well.
