My analysis of why a LIBERTARIAN RUN is worth considering

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

LOL

Your enthusiasm is wonderful, but not fully accurate.
They issued a (long overdue) statement which invited him to compete for the nomination.

```
If you think 'real Libertarians' compromise, then you don't honestly know much about them.

The issues which will cause huge problems are:

* Immigration

Ron is not even close to being in tune with the LP on Immigration.
Post 911, the open borders policy is a tough sell, but you won't find many LP delegates willing to change their platform. (Still time to start looking into becoming a delegate? Perhaps you could help fight to change their stagnant, nearly lifeless party)


* Transition plans

In the real world, we need transition plans to make freedom acceptable.
'Pure' (large 'L') Libertarians do not support 'transitions', compromises, any taxes, or any deviation from the 'non-aggression' principle.

They will choose a broke, unknown candidate in order to avoid compromise.

One other issue = Sore loser laws

Ron can't get on the ballot in Texas as a Lib. if he runs on the Rep primary ballot this cycle.
This is an issue I'm not an expert on, but I think it is a huge problem.

``````````````````

Of course, Ron would have a very good chance at the nomination.
To say they were "begging him" is a bit much.

Well if the Libertarians want to reject millions of new members and tens of millions of dollars just so they can stick to open borders, I would be surprised.

Regarding sore loser laws, perhaps it is vital to not compete in those states right now in the GOP. If we drop out now, that would prevent these laws from hurting us later, right?

 

[Indy Vidual]

Well if the Libertarians want to reject millions of new members and tens of millions of dollars just so they can stick to open borders, I would be surprised.

Regarding sore loser laws, perhaps it is vital to not compete in those states right now in the GOP. If we drop out now, that would prevent these laws from hurting us later, right?

(I don't claim to know much about sore loser laws)

'Sore loser laws' are a pretty new concept.
Texas might be the only one(?), but it's also Ron's home state.

````
The LP might be a great match for Ron's political grand finale.
I'm just pointing out it is not as simple as "accepting their invite."

 

[DrNoZone]

Absolutely awesome post. You nailed it. I am switching my registration today to the Libertarian party.

All the old ideas about third party runs not having a chance are thrown out. The internet has changed everything. Can you imagine how fired up the Libertarian Party would be to have millions and millions of people flooding into their party, not to mention tens of millions of dollars??!!! We could easily raise another $50 million for the general election and be the one and only TRUE change candidate.

I left the LP 6 years ago and will NEVER go back, unless they reform their party.

 

[Mogwai]

I think he should run as an independent, because he got a lot of limitations running on a libertarian party ballot.

We should also keep in mind that when he is polling high enough, he might get invited for the debate. So instead of sharing airtime with 5-7 other candidates (GOP debates) he would share it with 2 other candidates (presidential debates). So he would have enough time to elaborate on his message/issues and people will remember his name.

 

[Chase]

I think he should run as an independent, because he got a lot of limitations running on a libertarian party ballot.

What do you mean about limitations, exactly? The advantage of the LP in a non-Republican run is that they are already on the ballot in most states. That's the biggest challenge to running for President as a non-two-party guy, already taken care of.

 

[Mogwai]

What do you mean about limitations, exactly? The advantage of the LP in a non-Republican run is that they are already on the ballot in most states. That's the biggest challenge to running for President as a non-two-party guy, already taken care of.

- The history and association people have with the libertarian party.
- Limitations for choosing a vice president, couldn't pick a democrat to create a bigger base.
- I don't know if the presidential nominee has full authority

I think when you have enough support to win the election, getting on the ballot wouldn't be difficult.

 

[Xonox]

I think a Libertarian run would be superior to an independant run. It would give him more ligitimacy, and perhaps bring to power (at least a bit of power) a whole knew party with him. And don't forget, the Republican party has changed significantly over time, and in the same way we can change the Libertarian party.
A better option in the long run that I've heard mentioned is the possibility of creating our own "Constitution Party", but that would leave many more dificulties than a Libertarian run as far as this election goes.

 

[juddpuds]

I am leaning towards the idea of a libertarian run. That would make us the fourth-party candidate, since Mike Bloomberg is surely going to run as an independent. To me the whole reason for RP to run libertarian though is to try to get some libertarian congressmen elected. He could be the spearhead of a push to elect legislators. I also think that it would be far, far better if in the general elect we ran a regional rather than national campaign. What if RP ran as a libertarian and poured all his resources into whatever are the friendliest 10 state ignoring the other 40? That is a recipe for potentially getting some electoral votes and increasing the likelihood that no candidate from any party would get a solid majority of electoral votes.

 

[Chase]

I don't know if 10/40 is the right ratio, but there is certainly an argument for focusing on certain large states like California, Texas, Florida...

 

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

I have always favored us starting a new party called the "Liberty Party" from scratch. We've got the money and people to do it.