Regarding 3rd Party

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I posted a thread about this yesterday and it went over like a lead balloon.

All I said, and what I'm saying now, is if Paul DOES go third party, he should do it sooner rather than later. That's all. I'm not advocating it. But unless he does the libertarian thing, ballot access in many states will be a hard thing and waiting till May to announce it would really hurt. Plus there is no sense spending money on the republican nomination if he's going to do this. Money is the biggest reason why third party and independent candidates rarely ever even get 5%. Paul has that and could get more I guess though.

I think Paul's money and newly-gotten name ID could get him the needed 10% to get into the debates. And if it's Romney-Clinton, he would be the only small government and only anti-war candidate running and in said debates.

 

[Akus]

I posted a thread about this yesterday and it went over like a lead balloon.

All I said, and what I'm saying now, is if Paul DOES go third party, he should do it sooner rather than later. That's all. I'm not advocating it. But unless he does the libertarian thing, ballot access in many states will be a hard thing and waiting till May to announce it would really hurt. Plus there is no sense spending money on the republican nomination if he's going to do this. Money is the biggest reason why third party and independent candidates rarely ever even get 5%. Paul has that and could get more I guess though.

I think Paul's money and newly-gotten name ID could get him the needed 10% to get into the debates. And if it's Romney-Clinton, he would be the only small government and only anti-war candidate running and in said debates.

I'd do it, but only if him winnig the GOP is completely 100% out of the question. Switching parties right in the middle of race will do to him what withdrawing from race and then suddenly running again did to another RP back a decade and a half ago.

 

[VoteForRonPaul]

I think there are MANY good reasons why a third party run gives us a greater chance at the presidency than a brokered convention.

1. We are losing voters to registration deadlines
2. If Hillary gets the nod for the Democrats, I'm sure we can convince Obama supporters to come to us (They hate Hillary).
3. We don't have to be demoralized by working within the Republican Party corrupted system controlled by the nWo lackies (who will never allow Ron to get the nod anyway)
4. If McCain (It will be him or Romney) gets the nod then we could attract a lot of conservative Republicans who hate him with a passion but are not yet aware of Ron because they are fixated on Romney and the MSM.

Of course the bad thing is that the 2 major parties have worked together to shut out 3rd parties with outrageous rules for getting on the ballot etc...It's fucking fascism. It's CFR V CFR with the Dems and GOP, then you look elsewherre and you find nothing, because they have shut 3rd parties out. Pisses me off so much.

edit: O Yeah....and it will be FUN AS HELL!!!

If this revolution(the supporters)do not turn into something after this election, then forget any hope in any change, say into the next one hundred years.
If the supporters are going to be abandoned, very soon after this election they would be forgotten and their efforts would turn into nothing, that is exactly what the big heads want to see happening, and I hope we would not give them what they want.
But now we have to do our best in all the next states because the grassroots need to grow more and more, so giving up early and waiting until after may would be the most bad decision ever because it would shrink our movement, we have to continue into this like we are the winners.
And later in may it has to turn into something either wining the nominee, 3RD Party or whatever
Cannot wait to share in the first boycott, we have really to crack on those gangs and expose them to the public, and I believe hand in hand we can do this!

 

[Joe3113]

I think Paul's money and newly-gotten name ID could get him the needed 10% to get into the debates.

They'll fake the polls anyway. We need to take our own polls.

 

[CorkyAgain]

A RP [third party candidacy] would virtually guarantee a Democratic victory in November.

I don't think this is true. Dr Paul would draw more voters away from the Democrat than he would from the any of the other Republicans, whose constituencies are adamantly pro-war.

We all know that Dr Paul is Hillary's worst nightmare, because he can outflank her on the issue of the war. The other Democrats have the same weakness.

I've suggested this in another thread, but I want to say it here too. The pro-war Republicans know that the majority of the country opposes the war. I.e., they know they're in the minority position. So how do they plan to win the general election? One obvious strategy is to divide the opposition --- and that's why they keep prodding Dr Paul to run on a third party ticket. They don't think he can win, but they do think he can help them win.

 

[nate895]

It takes 15% in the polls and have a mathematical chance at winning (be able to receive 270 electoral votes). It would be easy to get in the debates.

 

[Joe3113]

If this revolution(the supporters)do not turn into something after this election, then forget any hope in any change, say into the next one hundred years.
If the supporters are going to be abandoned, very soon after this election they would be forgotten and their efforts would turn into nothing, that is exactly what the big heads want to see happening, and I hope we would not give them what they want.
But now we have to do our best in all the next states because the grassroots need to grow more and more, so giving up early and waiting until after may would be the most bad decision ever because it would shrink our movement, we have to continue into this like we are the winners.
And later in may it has to turn into something either wining the nominee, 3RD Party or whatever
Cannot wait to share in the first boycott, we have really to crack on those gangs and expose them to the public, and I believe hand in hand we can do this!

Yep. I like it.

 

[Joe3113]

I don't think this is true. Dr Paul would draw more voters away from the Democrat than he would from the any of the other Republicans, whose constituencies are adamantly pro-war.

We all know that Dr Paul is Hillary's worst nightmare, because he can outflank her on the issue of the war. The other Democrats have the same weakness.

I've suggested this in another thread, but I want to say it here too. The pro-war Republicans know that the majority of the country opposes the war. I.e., they know they're in the minority position. So how do they plan to win the general election? One obvious strategy is to divide the opposition --- and that's why they keep prodding Dr Paul to run on a third party ticket. They don't think he can win, but they do think he can help them win.

I think you might be right. Not that it matters who wins if RP doesn't. All nWo CFR anyway.

 

[VoteForRonPaul]

All I said, and what I'm saying now, is if Paul DOES go third party, he should do it sooner rather than later..

Actually the sooner the worst, That is what they are trying to push Dr.Paul to do!
This primary is the biggest chance to build a national grassroots, and they want us to lose this chance. So let us not give it to them!

 

[John P Slevin]

precedent for both

It has to be an independent run, not a libertarian run.

www.ronpaulwhitehouse.com <-get started there.

Actually, the logical way to go is BOTH independent and third party (and maybe more than one third party).

The precedent is John Anderson's run as an independent after he was in about 15 (or more) Republican primaries, and split to run as an independent.

Ballot access laws are different in each state. In some states, it is more logical for him to run as an independent. In many states, certain third parties already have ballot access, so accepting one or more third party nominations gives Paul status in those states, probably far more than half of the states right off the bat just by accepting the nomination of the LP and maybe that of the Constitution Party as well.

The main battle would be in the courts, as one or both parties would challenge Paul's right to be on the ballot.

 

[Man from La Mancha]

I wil keep giving $100 a month no matter what to Ron.

.

 

[crazyfingers]

I don't think this is true. Dr Paul would draw more voters away from the Democrat than he would from the any of the other Republicans, whose constituencies are adamantly pro-war.

We all know that Dr Paul is Hillary's worst nightmare, because he can outflank her on the issue of the war. The other Democrats have the same weakness.

I've suggested this in another thread, but I want to say it here too. The pro-war Republicans know that the majority of the country opposes the war. I.e., they know they're in the minority position. So how do they plan to win the general election? One obvious strategy is to divide the opposition --- and that's why they keep prodding Dr Paul to run on a third party ticket. They don't think he can win, but they do think he can help them win.

Despite the war issue I'm fairly certain libertarian leaning politicians take away more votes from the GOP than the Democrats. Of course there's no way to know for sure. Regardless Dr. Paul has already ruled out the possibility of a 3rd party run, per that link I've already posted several times in this thread.

 

[VoteForRonPaul]

I wil keep giving $100 a month no matter what to Ron.
.

 

[jeffhenderson]

There are enormous barriers to getting on the ballot. It would take a LOT of money and a lot of signatures from every single state. Even then, the media blackout will continue.

 

[Ben Elliott]

If Ron Paul ran an independent campaign that would give the grassroots the most amount of time and ability to expand the grassroots tenfold. Secretly, I kind of hope we go into a third party run. It would give us a few more months to make an impact.

 

[Paul4Prez]

Ron Paul's chances in a brokered convention are not very good, unless he goes in with more than 40% of the delegates. Everyone else will gang up to defeat him -- count on it.

If he's going to win the nomination, it will have to be by winning a lot of primaries between now and June.

I think his chances as a third party candidate are better than his chances of winning the nomination in a brokered convention. A big money bomb right after February 5th might be what it takes to convince Ron Paul to go third party -- how about President's Day, Feb. 18th?

No one should use the third party option as an excuse not to go all out in the Republican primaries, though -- the better Ron Paul does in them, the stronger his position will be to start a third-party campaign. If he does really well, he won't have to. If he does poorly in most of the remaining primaries, the excitement of a third party run would go right out the window.

 

[Paul4Prez]

Not really

There are enormous barriers to getting on the ballot. It would take a LOT of money and a lot of signatures from every single state. Even then, the media blackout will continue.

Getting on the ballot isn't as hard or as expensive as people make it out to be. It's not easy, but the Libertarian Party usually gets on in 48+ states, and they have about one fourth as many members as the Ron Paul Meetup groups do. The cost is high, but not prohibitively so -- a single good-sized money bomb would probably cover it. With so many volunteers, we might not even have to hire that many paid petitioners.

The media blackout would continue, but they couldn't treat him like a typical Libertarian or Constitution Party candidate, if he was raising tens of millions per quarter, advertising nationally, and had 200,000 volunteers or so.

 

[Joe3113]

Getting on the ballot isn't as hard or as expensive as people make it out to be. It's not easy, but the Libertarian Party usually gets on in 48+ states, and they have about one fourth as many members as the Ron Paul Meetup groups do. The cost is high, but not prohibitively so -- a single good-sized money bomb would probably cover it. With so many volunteers, we might not even have to hire that many paid petitioners.

The media blackout would continue, but they couldn't treat him like a typical Libertarian or Constitution Party candidate, if he was raising tens of millions per quarter, advertising nationally, and had 200,000 volunteers or so.

I think going third-party is the best option for expanding the movement also. When you say 'Republican' it puts a bad taste in peoples mouth.

 

[Eponym_mi]

Ron Paul's chances in a brokered convention are not very good, unless he goes in with more than 40% of the delegates. Everyone else will gang up to defeat him -- count on it.

If he's going to win the nomination, it will have to be by winning a lot of primaries between now and June.

I think his chances as a third party candidate are better than his chances of winning the nomination in a brokered convention. A big money bomb right after February 5th might be what it takes to convince Ron Paul to go third party -- how about President's Day, Feb. 18th?

No one should use the third party option as an excuse not to go all out in the Republican primaries, though -- the better Ron Paul does in them, the stronger his position will be to start a third-party campaign. If he does really well, he won't have to. If he does poorly in most of the remaining primaries, the excitement of a third party run would go right out the window.

I disagree. He might need 15% of the delegates...just enough to be a threat if he were to bolt from the party and run independent. The neocons will try to neogiate something, he'll stick to his guns, and they'll cave. They can't win without us.

 

[Joe3113]

I disagree. He might need 15% of the delegates...just enough to be a threat if he were to bolt from the party and run independent. The neocons will try to neogiate something, he'll stick to his guns, and they'll cave. They can't win without us.

The nWo higher-ups WILL NEVER ALLOW HIM TO GET THE GOP NOMINATION. There will be no deal made.