Message to Republicans: Do you want to keep the House and Senate? Concede the presidency.

[Elwar]

Whether you are writing in Ron Paul or voting for Gary Johnson, you will also have the choice for other offices.

Republicans may as well get used to the fact that we are not going to help Romney win. They now need to make the
case for us voting for their candidates for lower offices.

We all know that it is almost impossible to get incumbents out of office. Considering most of the house candidates that won their
primaries this year were chosen by those same idiots who chose Mitt Romney, it is likely that they are not big supporters of liberty.

So, why should we support Republicans in the House and Senate this year when we can run better candidates in 2014 against non-sitting Republicans?

If the Anyone But Obama crowd wants our help in at least keeping control of the House and possibly taking the Senate, they need to drop this whole Romney thing and push for our support of their House and Senate candidates or lose it all.

As it stands now. Backing Romney as fraudster in chief only solidifies the notion that you support the same thing up and down the party line. So what makes you think I should support those down the chain if they have that same backing?

 

[mz10]

The only Republican nominee I am not voting for this November is Romney. I am still a Republican and generally support Republican candidates, but Mitt is a horrendous standard-bearer for the party.

 

[Elwar]

Perhaps a trade like some people did in past campaigns.

I will vote for the Senate Republican candidate instead of the Senate Libertarian candidate if someone who was going to vote for Romney instead votes for Johnson or writes in Ron Paul where it counts.

 

[Keith and stuff]

I tend to vote for the most pro-liberty candidate running. Maybe in a really close election I would vote for an anti-liberty Republican to prevent an even more anti-liberty Democrat from winning. I haven't even been in that situation.

I recommend people vote for the liberty candidates in their area. After that, vote for the lesser of 2 evils.

 

[jbauer]

Either that or we could research our candidates ourselves and vote for the most liberty loving one. I could care less which party it comes from.

 

[mz10]

I tend to vote for the most pro-liberty candidate running.

But think of the problems with that strategy. Amash has a libertarian candidate running against him. Would you vote for that candidate over Justin Amash if you lived in the district? Voting strategically is not an inherently bad thing.

 

[Keith and stuff]

But think of the problems with that strategy. Amash has a libertarian candidate running against him. Would you vote for that candidate over Justin Amash if you lived in the district? Voting strategically is not an inherently bad thing.

It depends. Which candidate is more pro-liberty? I'd vote for that candidate unless the election was really close, then I would reevaluate.

In New Hampshire, some of the Libertarian Party folks may not be as pro-liberty as the Republican nominees. I don't know MI that well. Also, Amash is a libertarian candidate so I'm not even sure what you mean. Perhaps you meant to say a Libertarian candidate was running against Amash?

 

[nobody's_hero]

Well, in my district in Georgia, the person who made it out of the 2nd District U.S. Rep. Primary is John House, and he's on the hawkish side. Here's a bit from his campaign webpage:

Iran

Iran is a grave threat to stability in the Middle East and the world. We should impose economic sanctions to pressure them to cease their nuclear program. If they continue, we should consider military action to prevent their economic interaction with the rest of the world. If Iran attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz or impede the flow of products of any kind through the Gulf, we should use military force to open that passage.

Guantanamo Bay

Guantanamo Bay is the right place to hold terrorists. Terrorists are unlawful combatants and not entitled to the protection of the U.S. civilian court system. Holding enemy combatants of any kind in Guantanamo Bay is fine. Wartime combatants come under military control and not the civilian court system. Military tribunals are the best way to address questions of punishment for such detainees.

If you live in a district with GOP candidates worth voting for, I encourage you to do so. But for example, trading one warmonger in the White House for 435+100 warmongers in the legislative branch (though, to be fair, we already have plenty of those, so I guess you couldn't really call it a "trade"), just because you feel like the GOP might be more forgiving to us about losing the presidential race, doesn't seem to me to do much good.

Plus our republican supermajority here in Georgia has led to a strong sense of arrogance at the state level. I'm seriously considering jumping the ship here and moving to S.C. so I can help Tom Davis take on Lindsey Graham in 2014.

 

[mz10]

It depends. Which candidate is more pro-liberty? I'd vote for that candidate unless the election was really close, then I would reevaluate.

In New Hampshire, some of the Libertarian Party folks may not be as pro-liberty as the Republican nominees. I don't know MI that well. Also, Amash is a libertarian candidate so I'm not even sure what you mean. Perhaps you meant to say a Libertarian candidate was running against Amash?

It's tough to be more pro-liberty than Amash, but say the LP candidate was slightly more. Would you really endanger one of the hugest advocates we have in Congress because Joe Schmoe on the LP ticket is more "pure" by your standards? Obviously a hypothetical question but an important one nonetheless.

 

[Keith and stuff]

It's tough to be more pro-liberty than Amash, but say the LP candidate was slightly more. Would you really endanger one of the hugest advocates we have in Congress because Joe Schmoe on the LP ticket is more "pure" by your standards? Obviously a hypothetical question but an important one nonetheless.

I think you misunderstood both of my posts

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-presidency.&p=4662545&viewfull=1#post4662545

I tend to vote for the most pro-liberty candidate running. Maybe in a really close election I would vote for an anti-liberty Republican to prevent an even more anti-liberty Democrat from winning. I haven't even been in that situation.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-presidency.&p=4662597&viewfull=1#post4662597

Which candidate is more pro-liberty? I'd vote for that candidate unless the election was really close, then I would reevaluate.

 

[mz10]

If I misinterpreted you, that's my bad. I just get frustrated with people who reject incremental change in the hopes that everyone will suddenly decide to vote for the LP candidate or whoever.

 

[Lucille]

...

I'm too cynical today.

 

[Athan]

Republicans may as well get used to the fact that we are not going to help Romney win. They now need to make the
case for us voting for their candidates for lower offices.

Don't worry about it. People are going to vote for who they want. All you'll do is get out the vote inadverently for Romney as people will go to the polls and check Romney's name anyway. Get independents who DON'T vote for a particular party or like Romney to the polls for that particular liberty candidate. It is them we need to sway.

 

[EBounding]

The OP's point really shows what a missed opportunity the GOP had. They could have said

"We welcome the new people to the party! We know many of you are disappointed with our presidential nominee, but that's ok! We hope you'll support Mitt, but even if you don't, we think there are a lot of other candidates you'll be excited to support and we look forward to your help."

Instead we get

"STFU N00BS. Now vote Mitt!"


So they're clearly scared of the message and probably still don't understand our intentions. Either way, they really missed out and it's going to cost them.

 

[CPUd]

Not a bad message to put out there- Presidents usually hang around 50% in the polls, but Congress is < 20%, who should be getting the most scrutiny during the elections?

 

[Smart3]

The LP candidate is always more pro-liberty than the Repub. I'd only vote Repub if there was no LP nominee, and I would probably vote for the Green if there was one in the race instead.

 

[dbill27]

But think of the problems with that strategy. Amash has a libertarian candidate running against him. Would you vote for that candidate over Justin Amash if you lived in the district? Voting strategically is not an inherently bad thing.

A libertarian is running against amash? I wonder why that party never wins anything, they spend their money and resources so strategically.

 

[sonofshamwow]

A libertarian is running against amash? I wonder why that party never wins anything, they spend their money and resources so strategically.

There's no question that Amash is more pro-liberty than the LP candidate in his general. The only thing that guy will accomplish is to hurt Amash's chances at re-election. Brilliant move.

 

[anaconda]

The only Republican nominee I am not voting for this November is Romney. I am still a Republican and generally support Republican candidates, but Mitt is a horrendous standard-bearer for the party.

I check all of the Libertarian boxes for other offices.