POLL: Draft Ron Paul, indy run? I got 140 signatures today...

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

Bump.

Looks like pro-independent position is holding steady at about 2/3 support.

 

[Kludge]

We're definitely going to accomplish something with nearly 2/3 the support we have now!

>.>

 

[SteveMartin]

(Borrowed from another poster

To those out there that believe we have to work on taking over the GOP, you all are looking at a very long term goal. I don't see how supporting a Ron Paul Indy run for the next 8 months will ruin your future plans for the GOP takeover, which is going to take you people years to do by the way.

We have one shot for Ron Paul and it's in 2008. No guarantees for 2012. You can always resume your GOP ambitions after November. Just something for yall to think about.

 

[SteveMartin]

Well, maybe this will convince some of you people we need to do this:

(CNN) -- A spokesman for Ron Paul's presidential campaign said Friday that the Texas congressman is ending his run for the White House.
art.paul.gi.jpg

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988.

"We are acknowledging that Ron will not be the nominee and that we are winding down the campaign," said Jesse Benton, the Paul campaign's communication manager.

Paul hinted the end was near in a video to supporters posted on YouTube on Thursday.

"Though victory in the conventional political sense is not available in the presidential race, many victories have been achieved due to your hard work and enthusiasm," Paul said in the video.

His comments came two days after Sen. John McCain became the presumptive GOP nominee.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, announced Tuesday he was quitting the race after McCain victories in Tuesday's primaries, leaving Paul as his only opponent.

Benton said the campaign encourages supporters to continue to take part in primary process and that Paul would honor requests from supporters to speak.

"We still think we can influence the debate and build an organization moving forward that brings the GOP back to its roots," Benton said.

Paul, who ran for president as a Libertarian in 1988, is the sole Republican candidate to call for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. He is a distant fourth in the GOP delegate count, behind McCain, Huckabee and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts," Paul said. "Revolutions are long-term projects."

Paul's "Hope for America" campaign has been a grassroots effort, focusing on a "limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies," according to his Web site.

"But even with the past year's achievements, we're still the early stages of bringing about the changes that this revolution is all about."

 

[libertarian4321]

join us in supporting an indy run:

= 33

Okay, folks, time for an adult to step into the room and hit you upside the head with a dose of cold, hard reality.

Lets assume for the sake of argument that Ron Paul is willing to throw away his seat in congress for a Quixotic run as an "independent" (not a chance in HELL that it will happen, but just for the sake of argument).

As an independent, Ron Paul is already TOO LATE to make the ballot in many states, even if he started today. On top of that, to obtain ballot access in most of the remaining states, you have to have millions of dollars or millions of volunteers. It ain't easy to get those thousands of signatures, folks- those signatures have to be from people WHO DID NOT VOTE IN THE DEM OR REP primaries, and given the closely contested races this year, it will be harder than ever to get those signatures (if you think its easy, ask the Libertarians- they spend so much money on ballot access that they rarely have much left for actually campaigning- and as an established party, they have automatic ballot access in some states).

An "Independent" run doesn't have a chance in Hell. At best, if you had some very rich donors help with ballot access, he might get on the ballot in 30 states if he STARTED TODAY. He'd be lucky to pull 0.5% of the vote in the General Election.

Running as a Libertarian would be his best chance to get votes (they, at least, have ballot access in most states). But he wouldn't be running to "win", he'd be running as a spoiler. With the full support of the Libertarian and Constitution Parties, and with full support of whats left of his following from the Republican primary run, Ron Paul might pull 3-5% (and thats a VERY optimistic estimate)- 1 or 2% is probably more realistic.

There is no Santa Claus, there is no tooth fairy, and Ron Paul isn't going to get elected President in 2008. Sorry to rain on the fantasy parade, folks.

Of course, this is all just silly speculation, because he's NOT GOING TO GIVE UP HIS SEAT IN CONGRESS TO TILT AT WINDMILLS!

If he was going to run as a third party or an independent, he wouldn't have spent so much time and money holding his congressional seat. Ron Paul isn't stupid, kids, he realized weeks ago that he wasn't going to win the Republican primary (whatever small hope there was ended when Romney dropped out). If he was going to run "indy" or third party, he would have started WEEKS AGO!

About all we can do now is continue to work to change the debate- whether you choose to do that inside the Republican Party or from the outside as a Libertarian is up to you.

Feel free to flame me or bitch and moan, but I'm giving it to you straight...

 

[SteveMartin]

There is no "throwing away a seat in Congress"...so there is no need to read the rest of your rant.

 

[SteveMartin]

An Independent run would seek AND GET the endorsements of BOTH the CP (currently on the ballot in 48 states) AND the LP (currently on the ballot in 38 states.)

No petitioning necessary.

next....?

 

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

I almost stopped reading when you said Ron Paul would throw his seat away, as if there is actually some kind of threat to it. And then I did when you mentioned ballot access. You obviously don't realize that the earliest deadline isn't even until around May.

Even Nader has barely begun collecting signatures, and with his tiny group of supporters, he was able to make it onto over 30 state ballots in 2004. He would've made it onto even more if the Democrat's lawyers hadn't used lawsuits to keep him off in several states. Ron Paul has a far larger base and would gain the endorsements of both the Libertarians, the Constitution Party, and others. He should easily be able to make it on in all 50 states.

 

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

Damn, we need more people to vote in this poll the next few hours. It always seems like we have 150-200 people viewing the Grassroots Central forum at any given time during the day. Don't enough of these people have accounts to vote in the poll?

 

[libertarian4321]

There is no "throwing away a seat in Congress"...so there is no need to read the rest of your rant.

Wrong.

If Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian/Independent/whatever for President, he would NOT be allowed to run as a Republican in Texas for his seat in Congress.

Hence, he would have to give up his seat in congress for any quixotic "third party " run at President.

 

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

Wrong.

If Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian/Independent/whatever for President, he would NOT be allowed to run as a Republican in Texas for his seat in Congress.

Hence, he would have to give up his seat in congress for any quixotic "third party " run at President.

Not true. This has been discussed many times. As long as he's an independent in Texas, there is an exception to this law (if your interpretation is even correct, of which I have some doubt). Independent is not an organized party.

As for the "sore loser" laws in Texas and elsewhere, they can probably be overturned. For lower level offices, they always have been stopped as unconstitutional.

For the last time: there is NO threat to Ron Paul's House seat in the case of an independent run. There are no opponents, the GOP can't kick him out of Congress, and there is no law that will force him to give it up.

 

[libertarian4321]

Even Nader has barely begun collecting signatures, and with his tiny group of supporters, he was able to make it onto over 30 state ballots in 2004. He would've made it onto even more if the Democrat's lawyers hadn't used lawsuits to keep him off in several states. Ron Paul has a far larger base and would gain the endorsements of both the Libertarians, the Constitution Party, and others. He should easily be able to make it on in all 50 states.

Yeah, and Nader got 0.3% of the vote in his last run. That fell about 49.5% short of what he needed to win, as I recall.

Sure, the Constitution Party (normally gets about 0.1-0.2% of the vote in every Presidential election) and the Libertarian Party (normally gets 0.3-0.5% of the vote) would PROBABLY back Ron Paul (it isn't guaranteed- there are others seeking the LP nomination).

Great, so Ron could probably count on the 0.6% the Constitution and Libertarian Parties combined would normally get. Lets say EVERYONE who voted for Ron Paul in the Republican Primaries also stuck with him in the general election. Depending on voter turnout, that would likely net him another 2% or so, maybe a little less. Even if we assume no overlap between these two groups (and, of course, there would be PLENTY of overlap), we have roughly 2.6% of the votes.

While 2.6% would be the best (by far) the Libertarians ever did, I'm pretty sure it won't get you enough electoral votes to win.

Lest you think Ron would be able to suddenly "gain traction" running as a Libertarian, let me point out that the kind of "ignored" Ron experienced as an unconventional candidate running in the GOP is NOTHING compared to the utter black out he will experience running as a Libertarian. Libertarian Party Presidential candidates are so ignored they show up on the back of milk cartons. I know, I've been a Libertarian for a long time, and about the only way a Libertarian Presidential candidate will get significant national exposure is if he runs out into the street and gets run over by a truck (and then only because the media loves blood)...

 

[libertarian4321]

Not true. This has been discussed many times. As long as he's an independent in Texas, there is an exception to this law (if your interpretation is even correct, of which I have some doubt). Independent is not an organized party.

As for the "sore loser" laws in Texas and elsewhere, they can probably be overturned. For lower level offices, they always have been stopped as unconstitutional.

For the last time: there is NO threat to Ron Paul's House seat in the case of an independent run. There are no opponents, the GOP can't kick him out of Congress, and there is no law that will force him to give it up.

You live in fantasy land if you think he's going to run as an independent. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get ballot access? He'd be lucky to get on the ballot in 30-40 states.

Even if you are correct regarding the being able to run as a Republican for one race and an independent for another (I'm pretty sure you aren't), what makes you think Ron Paul is going to make a Quixotic and pointless run at President as an Indy when he knows he wouldn't crack 2%?

I'll make a bet with you. If Ron runs as an independent, I'll send him $2,300 on day one. If he doesn't, you send $2,300 to the charity of my choice.

That'd be the easiest money I ever raised for charity...

 

[SteveMartin]

Ballot access already acheived. Do you read, or just whine?

Look, I don't mind people making valid points and having their objections, but to spout the same nonsense more than once in inexcusable.

 

[IDefendThePlatform]

Yeah, and Nader got 0.3% of the vote in his last run. That fell about 49.5% short of what he needed to win, as I recall.

Sure, the Constitution Party (normally gets about 0.1-0.2% of the vote in every Presidential election) and the Libertarian Party (normally gets 0.3-0.5% of the vote) would PROBABLY back Ron Paul (it isn't guaranteed- there are others seeking the LP nomination).

Great, so Ron could probably count on the 0.6% the Constitution and Libertarian Parties combined would normally get. Lets say EVERYONE who voted for Ron Paul in the Republican Primaries also stuck with him in the general election. Depending on voter turnout, that would likely net him another 2% or so, maybe a little less. Even if we assume no overlap between these two groups (and, of course, there would be PLENTY of overlap), we have roughly 2.6% of the votes.

While 2.6% would be the best (by far) the Libertarians ever did, I'm pretty sure it won't get you enough electoral votes to win.

Lest you think Ron would be able to suddenly "gain traction" running as a Libertarian, let me point out that the kind of "ignored" Ron experienced as an unconventional candidate running in the GOP is NOTHING compared to the utter black out he will experience running as a Libertarian. Libertarian Party Presidential candidates are so ignored they show up on the back of milk cartons. I know, I've been a Libertarian for a long time, and about the only way a Libertarian Presidential candidate will get significant national exposure is if he runs out into the street and gets run over by a truck (and then only because the media loves blood)...

Paul starts at 11% as an independent candidate:

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_...rg_ron_paul_run_third_party_campaigns_in_2008

Its only one poll but its certainly more reliable than your own personal estimates.

 

[SteveMartin]

Ron Paul has already PROVEN he is has a minimum of 5% of the Republican vote. I bet he has double that among Independents right now--before announcing he is running as one of them.

How many dems that are upset their nominee's lost to the other would we get--especially given RP is the most legitimately anti-war of ALL the candidates for any party?

Our donations would skyrocket the minute the announcement were made.

We have a real shot at winning as an Independent ticket.

We have NO shot of doing anything but participating in some quixotic notion of "rescuing the war party" by staying with the neocons and playing with their toys.

 

[IDefendThePlatform]

RP should:

1) announce an independent candidacy within the next few weeks

2) accept the Constitution party's nomination at their convention this spring

3) accept the Libertarian party's nomination at their convention this May(?)

starting out at 10-11% as independent, plus the bounce from accepting both nominations would be huge. Both parties have already asked him to be their candidate, as a former libertarian member I would love to see him accept both. Someone please tell me this is possible?

 

[Highland]

need a choice that says.."No because Dr. Paul refuses to run third party"

 

[SteveMartin]

Of course it is!!!

I wonder how many who voted "no" above will come our way once they wake up and see that he really is done chasing Republican windmills.

 

[Maltheus]

I used to think that a 3rd party/independent run was necessary and could have had real traction. But now I feel like too much momentum has been lost. The only way he could do it is if he shook things up in his campaign team. If he simply announced a switch to an independent run, without any other major changes, I'd support him with my time, but not my money. I still think it's better than staying in the Republican party though. When the party is over, it's time to go home.

But the question is moot since that mail he sent to us, saying that he wouldn't. Unlike previous denials, that one was concrete. I think he's still trying to figure out how to keep this movement going, as are many other people. But I don't think there's really much left to rally around if Paul is only half-in the race on the Republican ticket. It seems like we're just going through the motions until someone else viable steps up with a similar platform. That'll take years though.