Libertarians May Co-Nominate Rand Paul in 2016

[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 ...