Before everyone blasts me, I want to say a few quick things. First, I was one of the many who was heavily critical of anyone making even the slightest murmur of a third party or independent presidential run. Second, I ask that this thread be seen as an opportunity for an exchange of ideas and not seen as someone whining about Iowa and New Hampshire and conceding defeat.
So where do we stand? We have some name recognition, $20 million dollars and a bunch of die-hard supporters.
Where does everyone else stand? The country is hungry and thirsty for real change. As Olbermann (a pundit I hate) aptly pointed out, both parties have failed America. We went into Iraq on false pretenses with the overwhelming support of both parties. We got all the new Constitutional shredding legislation (Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, etc.) with the overwhelming support of BOTH PARTIES. Neither party seems ready to do what it is really going to take to quickly get us out of Iraq.
What are we up against, trying to get the Republican nomation for Ron? We have an entire field of candidates that are all pro-war bushies that steal Ron Paul's talking points as their own, then viciously cut him off before he has even 30 seconds to explain why his views are right in any debate. So much of the party leadership is trying to shut Ron down. The remaining Republicans are mostly the die-hard Republican base. These are people that are probably okay with the idea of 100 years in Iraq, new wars, more spending and less liberty. Do we really want to tie our victory to converting these people -- the most difficult people in the country to convert?
Sure, we can try to recruit new voters to the Republican party in order to support Ron. But time is running out... deadlines are looming, and defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire (even if they are only 2 of 50 states) don't do much to encourage people we can be successful in the Republican party. There are also a lot of people that are distrustful of the Ron Paul campaign simply because he's a Republican and part of a party they don't trust. Republican has become a dirty word in some circles!
How much money does the Libertarian Party normally spend on a Presidential run? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing that $20 million might be a little more than they're used to.
There's some crossover between Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters, but not all Ron Paul supporters back the Libertarians and not all Libertarians support Ron Paul. So why not UNITE THE CLANS? Make the story not just about Ron Paul's surging support, but the Libertarian Party's surging support?
If the Libertarian Party is ever going to be successful in getting elected for a "big job" now is the kind of prime opportunity they need. The entire country is pissed off at both parties.
Imagine if we started a Libertarian run now. We'd have some time to get a real head start on running for the GENERAL election on a National level. We could do some huge advertising blitzes painting Ron as the guy he truly is - an answer to a corrupt two party system that has FAILED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. With so many Americans hungry for CHANGE, we could have a good shot at getting the MESSAGE out. And we might have a real chance of setting history and winning the election! Ron can set fundraising history... maybe we can set election history as well.
I can just imagine the advertising. "It's time for a THIRD PARTY to address the three things Americans need addressing the most. WAR, the ECONOMY and LIBERTY. Seize the opportunity to vote for REAL CHANGE and bring crushing defeat to the two-party system that has failed America. Vote Ron Paul, Libertarian candidate for President."
So how about it? We have some strong allies, a lot of money and a huge base of supporters. And if Hillary actually wins the Democratic nomination (which looked impossible after Iowa but once again possible after New Hampshire), the negatives against her and the negatives against the Republicans would leave us open to lots of votes from people otherwise disgusted.
So where do we stand? We have some name recognition, $20 million dollars and a bunch of die-hard supporters.
Where does everyone else stand? The country is hungry and thirsty for real change. As Olbermann (a pundit I hate) aptly pointed out, both parties have failed America. We went into Iraq on false pretenses with the overwhelming support of both parties. We got all the new Constitutional shredding legislation (Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, etc.) with the overwhelming support of BOTH PARTIES. Neither party seems ready to do what it is really going to take to quickly get us out of Iraq.
What are we up against, trying to get the Republican nomation for Ron? We have an entire field of candidates that are all pro-war bushies that steal Ron Paul's talking points as their own, then viciously cut him off before he has even 30 seconds to explain why his views are right in any debate. So much of the party leadership is trying to shut Ron down. The remaining Republicans are mostly the die-hard Republican base. These are people that are probably okay with the idea of 100 years in Iraq, new wars, more spending and less liberty. Do we really want to tie our victory to converting these people -- the most difficult people in the country to convert?
Sure, we can try to recruit new voters to the Republican party in order to support Ron. But time is running out... deadlines are looming, and defeats in Iowa and New Hampshire (even if they are only 2 of 50 states) don't do much to encourage people we can be successful in the Republican party. There are also a lot of people that are distrustful of the Ron Paul campaign simply because he's a Republican and part of a party they don't trust. Republican has become a dirty word in some circles!
How much money does the Libertarian Party normally spend on a Presidential run? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing that $20 million might be a little more than they're used to.
There's some crossover between Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters, but not all Ron Paul supporters back the Libertarians and not all Libertarians support Ron Paul. So why not UNITE THE CLANS? Make the story not just about Ron Paul's surging support, but the Libertarian Party's surging support?
If the Libertarian Party is ever going to be successful in getting elected for a "big job" now is the kind of prime opportunity they need. The entire country is pissed off at both parties.
Imagine if we started a Libertarian run now. We'd have some time to get a real head start on running for the GENERAL election on a National level. We could do some huge advertising blitzes painting Ron as the guy he truly is - an answer to a corrupt two party system that has FAILED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. With so many Americans hungry for CHANGE, we could have a good shot at getting the MESSAGE out. And we might have a real chance of setting history and winning the election! Ron can set fundraising history... maybe we can set election history as well.
I can just imagine the advertising. "It's time for a THIRD PARTY to address the three things Americans need addressing the most. WAR, the ECONOMY and LIBERTY. Seize the opportunity to vote for REAL CHANGE and bring crushing defeat to the two-party system that has failed America. Vote Ron Paul, Libertarian candidate for President."
So how about it? We have some strong allies, a lot of money and a huge base of supporters. And if Hillary actually wins the Democratic nomination (which looked impossible after Iowa but once again possible after New Hampshire), the negatives against her and the negatives against the Republicans would leave us open to lots of votes from people otherwise disgusted.
Last edited:
