Ron is committed to a brokered convention, GOOD OR BAD??

[MN Patriot]

According to wikipedia:

A brokered convention refers to a situation in United States politics where there are not enough delegates obtained during the presidential primary and caucus process for a single candidate to obtain a majority for the presidential nominating convention. Since no candidates receive enough votes on the first ballot to win the nomination, the convention is brokered through political horse-trading and multiple ballots.

Background
Before the era of presidential primaries, conventions were routinely brokered. Adlai Stevenson in 1952 for the Democratic Party and Thomas Dewey in 1948 for the Republican Party were the last two candidates selected through a brokered convention. The last seriously contested convention was the 1976 Republican convention, where Gerald Ford beat Ronald Reagan on the first ballot without obtaining a majority of delegates through the primary and caucus process.

Since then, there have been many years where brokered conventions were projected, but did not come to pass. In 1988, a brokered convention was predicted for the Democrats since multiple candidates won the Super Tuesday primaries that year.[1]

2008
In the 2008 election cycle, the possibility of a brokered convention remains for both parties. On the Republican side, although some states award delegates using the winner take all system, many large states are dividing their delegation by congressional district, which will result in easier splitting of delegates. [2] Pundits argue that with the lack of a front runner in the Republican field and the number of competitive candidates, voters will not coalesce around one or two candidates and a brokered convention could result.[3] On the Democratic side, the current split of support for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and the announcement by John Edwards that he will remain in the race until the convention could result in a 3-way race where no candidate receives a majority of delegates on the first ballot.[4]

Several factors encourage decision in the primary process. First, candidates tend to get momentum as they go through the process, due to the bandwagon effect. Thus, one or two candidates will be seen by the media and voters as the front runner due to their placement in the first primaries and caucuses, and as also-ran candidates drop out, their supporters will tend to vote for the leaders. [5] Theorists have identified two types of political momentum, piecemeal and all-at-once, with different impacts on front-runners and those right behind them. [6] Secondly, political parties wish to avoid the negative publicity from a brokered convention, which has turned the nominating conventions from the rough-and-tumble affairs to the infomercial-type occasions they are today.[7] Thus, a candidate nominated from the brokered convention will be seen as weak and must climb additional hurdles to gain election.

Ron mentions in his latest letter that he is committed to staying in the race up to a brokered convention: " Yet soon the race will be down to four candidates-Romney, McCain, Huckabee, and me, and there is no stopping us, as Tim Russert grudgingly pointed out the other night. Thanks to you, we are in this all the way through a brokered convention."

Ron certainly has the credentials to be the Republican nominee, he is the only true conservative (/libertarian) in the whole bunch. But the Establishment absolutely doesn't want Ron to even be in the race.

#1) Ron needs 180,000 precinct captains, he only has 9,000 now. Obviously he won't get enough by Super Tuesday to really saturate the country.

#2) Right now he has 6 delegates. He needs 1191 to win the nomination. So, do you think we can get enough delegates to change their minds between now and September?

#3) Do you think Ron's campaign people are up to the task of pulling this off? I see a lot of complaints, although I have no direct experiences myself to say one way or another.

#4) The wikipedia article mentions that a nominee from a brokered convention is viewed as a weak candidate, presumably because many would-be supporters aren't that enthusiastic about the candidate.

Third Party?
Or if Ron keeps getting 3rd, 4th, 5th places on Super Tuesday, would it be better to run as a Libertarian? Get his grassroots supporters to stay with him and make waves as a third party candidate? I think it would be worth this route because the LP could have a congressional candidate in every district, repeating the same revolutionary anti-Establishment ideas, running on Ron's name recognition. He probably still wouldn't win (but if he gets 34% of the vote, he would!), but could build the foundations of a new pro-liberty party that could start winning future elections.

Either way, if Ron gets the Republican nomination the Establishment certainly won't want him to win. Hillary or Obama would then be our next president. Ron's revolution would quickly come to an end. If Ron runs as a Libertarian ( or independent, but that woul be even more difficult) the Establishment still wouldn't support him, but he could attract a following of even more dis-illusioned Americans. He would likely take enough votes away from the Republicans and Hillary/Obama would still win.

There are pro's and con's either way. Many variables to take into consideration. What do you think?

 

[FreeTraveler]

If Dr. Paul's going to be our next president, it will have to be as a Republican. If we had a couple of extra years, he might make it third-party, but not with the time we have now.

There are lots of delegates still available after Super Tuesday, and Dr. Paul's working harder in the caucus and split-delegate states than in the "media darling" states like Florida.

More people every day learn about the good doctor and his background in economics and fiscal policy. The economy's only going to get worse between now and the convention. All signs point to more and more of Dr. Paul's positions being recognized as valid by the time of the convention.

Dr. Paul is known for his rope-a-dope approach to political campaigns. He's won WAY more campaigns than any of us have.

I think he's playing it the best possible way he can, given that he's considered an insurgent by the party and an underdog by the general public. The more he can sell the message, the better the end result at the convention.

WE need to do all we can to spread that message (PRECINCT LEADERS NEEDED) and provide funds to others to spread the message (HQ, Grassroots projects). Let Dr. Paul set the overall strategy, he's been at this game a long time.

 

[RPisGr8]

Although many of the things in Pauls platform are Libertarian, the Libertarian party is completely at odds many conseratives (many of whom - like myself want RP to win.) It would be better for everyone - (including the Libertarian party) for Paul to take up the more neutral mantle of the Constitution Party (which although is not as well known - is larger than the Libertarian Party)

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

 

[ambiguousscion]

The fact is that we don't know if his official campaign can or can't do the task... time will tell. We need to work hard for his campaign and get the word out.

 

[PaleoForPaul]

There are pro's and con's either way. Many variables to take into consideration. What do you think?

I think his best chance of getting elected president would be to run third party. Yes I do think we could get him ballot access in every state. Most people here just don't want to do that, and Paul has ruled it out himself. A third party run would have been the best thing for the future of the freedom movement, as it would have given us a true home.

I don't think we can win a brokered convention for obvious reasons. At most he'll be able to bargain his way into some kind of position in the party.

 

[seeker5]

Although many of the things in Pauls platform are Libertarian, the Libertarian party is completely at odds many conseratives (many of whom - like myself want RP to win.) It would be better for everyone - (including the Libertarian party) for Paul to take up the more neutral mantle of the Constitution Party (which although is not as well known - is larger than the Libertarian Party)

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

How do you make this claim that the constitution party is larger then the libertarian party? By what basis?

ps. I agree though, I don't want to see Ron Paul mount a 3rd party campaign. He wouldn't win and it would take away any power he may have within the republican party in congress.

 

[stevedasbach]

Although many of the things in Pauls platform are Libertarian, the Libertarian party is completely at odds many conseratives (many of whom - like myself want RP to win.) It would be better for everyone - (including the Libertarian party) for Paul to take up the more neutral mantle of the Constitution Party (which although is not as well known - is larger than the Libertarian Party)

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

The only measure where the Constitution party is "larger" than the LP is in registered voters -- and that's because of several affiliates that are have "Independent" in their name. The LP receives more votes, has more elected officials, ballot access in more states, raises more money, etc.

Also, just as many conservative have problems with parts of the LP platform, many libertarians have problems with parts of the CP platform that are as theocratic as Mike Huckabee's campaign.

However, I suspect that most of us would vote for Ron Paul irrespective of party affiliation.

FYI: the LP deleted most of its platform at its 2006 convention and will probably adopt a new platform at the 2008 convention. Don't know if the new platform will have broader appeal than the old one.

 

[mudburn]

I think Dr. Paul's statement is a way of simply saying, "I'm in it to the end." He'll hang on through the primary process. This is good.

In an interview with a news program in Nevada (can't find the thread with the link right now), RP made the most direct statement about not running as an independent I've yet heard. He said, "It's not going to happen."

dp

 

[Peace&Freedom]

As I wrote on another thread yesterday:

Paul should be working at developing the best case he can to be the 'unifier' of healer candidate at a brokered convention. The grassroots should supply Paul with monthly money bombs into the summer so that he has $25 million on him going into September. Paul should also commission polls showing how well he would do in the election vs Hillary/Obama (I suspect it will be much better than McCain et al). The grassroots should prepare to travel en masse to Minnesota in a "Million Paul Pilgrimage" to ENCAMP themselves around the convention center, to influence the convention to choose Paul.

Finally, he should consider accepting the Libertarian and/or Constitution Party endorsement. Getting himself on the November ballot via 3rd party automatically makes the other Republican candidates unelectable, by dividing the conservative vote, and so neutralizes that argument against him. Being on the other line while asking for the GOP nomination also makes Paul look like the unifier, the 'total package' who brings in 3rd party independents, has tens of millions, and clobbers Hillary in the polls. If the delegates don't choose Paul under these circumstances, it's on THEM for losing the election to Hillary.

 

[Indy Vidual]

Theocracy alert!!

Although many of the things in Pauls platform are Libertarian, the Libertarian party is completely at odds many conseratives (many of whom - like myself want RP to win.) It would be better for everyone - (including the Libertarian party) for Paul to take up the more neutral mantle of the Constitution Party (which although is not as well known - is larger than the Libertarian Party)

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

Theocracy alert!!

The CP wants "God" to run your personal life.

One example:

Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country.


Just say NO to Theocracy!!!

 

[Taco John]

What a silly question... Of course it's good.

 

[MN Patriot]

This is from RealClearPolitics at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2007/12/a_primer_on_momentum_part_2.html about building momentum:

Let's start our investigation with piecemeal momentum. Researchers have found it does exist - some candidates do build momentum slowly over time, victory-by-victory. However, Arizona's Barbara Norrander has found that this type of momentum more usually characterizes also-rans rather than nominees. Norrander tracked election returns in all fifty states between 1976 and 1988, and found that those who eventually lost nominations - like Reagan in 1976 or Hart in 1984 - often made use of this momentum. The eventual nominees usually did not; rather, their state-by-state performances were more frequently conditioned by how much money they spent. The exception was George H.W. Bush, who enjoyed the "Big Mo" in 1988 (even though he thought he had it in 1980!). While Norrander's study is somewhat dated, my intuition is that the pattern still holds. Bush '92, Clinton '92, Bush '00, and Kerry '04 did not win by slowly building momentum.

So, can Ron build up enough momentum from now until Super Tuesday? This is why it is important to get precinct captains and feet on the ground getting the word out about Ron. And the precinct captains have to actually DO something.

Primaries and caucuses continue until June 3, but the main ones will be completed by the middle of May. So there are 4 months to go to see how things turn out. If Ron decides to go the third party route, it would be the middle of May, before the Libertarian Party convention at the end of May. Until then, we should keep focused on the primaries. He hasn't completely absolutely ruled out a third party run, it would be too much of a distraction to seriously talk about it at this time. Keep attracting supporters, precinct captains, donors for the next 4 months, then re-evaluate the situation.

 

[Churchill2004]

To even be considered as a candidate at a brokered convention, you have to win (as in 1st place) five states in the primary process. Plus there's the whole "How the hell do you intend to get Rudy/Romney/McCain partisans to vote for us?" question.

 

[MN Patriot]

As I wrote on another thread yesterday:

Paul should be working at developing the best case he can to be the 'unifier' of healer candidate at a brokered convention. The grassroots should supply Paul with monthly money bombs into the summer so that he has $25 million on him going into September. Paul should also commission polls showing how well he would do in the election vs Hillary/Obama (I suspect it will be much better than McCain et al). The grassroots should prepare to travel en masse to Minnesota in a "Million Paul Pilgrimage" to ENCAMP themselves around the convention center, to influence the convention to choose Paul.

This September will be really interesting in Minnesota. The "progessives" had a number of bicycle protests last summer, probably to practice for the GOP convention. http://wcco.com/topstories/minneapolis.police.arrested.2.369970.html
Hope someone invents a hover car by then, the streets will be a mess.

Finally, he should consider accepting the Libertarian and/or Constitution Party endorsement. Getting himself on the November ballot via 3rd party automatically makes the other Republican candidates unelectable, by dividing the conservative vote, and so neutralizes that argument against him. Being on the other line while asking for the GOP nomination also makes Paul look like the unifier, the 'total package' who brings in 3rd party independents, has tens of millions, and clobbers Hillary in the polls. If the delegates don't choose Paul under these circumstances, it's on THEM for losing the election to Hillary.

Good point. But the Libertarian nominating convention is in May, too early for the GOP convention in September. The LP needs all summer to get their candidate on the ballots in all states. So the GOP needs to understand this possiblity now, and select their delegates accordingly this spring. Another source of leverage for Ron Paul.

 

[jsgolfman]

One thing to consider is that if he runs in a primary in some states as a republican, he is not eligible to run as a candiate for any other party for president. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure there are some states that have this rule.

 

[jemartinsen81]

I think it'd be better for him to run on the Constitution Party ticket. As far as I know they're larger and more respected than the Libertarians, who have plenty of hippie and anarchist members.

 

[MN Patriot]

One thing to consider is that if he runs in a primary in some states as a republican, he is not eligible to run as a candiate for any other party for president. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure there are some states that have this rule.

Sore loser laws aren't really a major factor. Ohio and Texas are the biggest states to consider, but perhaps some law suits could solve that problem. Or be a write in candidate in those states. Ron Paul is a pretty easy name to write in. Here is some infor from Ballet Access News: http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/01/12/sore-loser-laws-dont-generally-apply-to-presidential-candidates/

If Paul fails to win the Republican presidential nomination, he could then seek the Libertarian nomination (which he would be virtually certain to obtain) and run in November as the Libertarian nominee. John Anderson established the precedent in most states that “sore loser” laws do not apply to presidential candidates. John Anderson ran in two-thirds of the 1980 Republican presidential primaries, and he also won a place on the November 1980 ballots as an independent candidate in all 50 states.
...
Only four states maintain that their “sore loser” laws apply to president: South Dakota, Mississippi, Ohio and Texas.

 

[joelfarm]

Agreed

The fact is that we don't know if his official campaign can or can't do the task... time will tell. We need to work hard for his campaign and get the word out.

Wow, the 2nd post of yours today, that I've felt compelled to back with a post. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING of any consequence or substance that has occured in this movement has been generated by the 'grassroots'. I hesitate to even mention it, but I am beginning to fear that HQ really is not as committed to winning as we are. Maybe wrong, but I sure have not seen any pasion from them and for sure no direction.
If we can keep Dr. Paul in the race until the convention we do have a chance, as they will not be able to censor him as completly as they are now. If enough true patriotic Americans only get a chance to see and hear this great Statesman, we can change hearts and minds!!

 

[MN Patriot]

I think it'd be better for him to run on the Constitution Party ticket. As far as I know they're larger and more respected than the Libertarians, who have plenty of hippie and anarchist members.

Maybe the hippies and anarchists would help draw in the leftie libertarians.

 

[EvilNight]

The Libertarian Party is becoming the centrist party we've needed. They dropped most of their crazy platform two years ago and their platform now sounds almost identical to Ron Paul in every respect. Even Paul's view on Abortion, though not the party line, is shared by a lot of Libertarian Party members.

If Ron runs 3rd party, it'll be Libertarian without a doubt. Instantly he has ballot access in 36 states. Only Ohio and Texas matter with respect to sore loser laws, and they just haven't been challenged in court yet. I bet Texas at least would make a change for Ron. The LP already flat out stated they'll take Ron.

However, that's LATER. concentrate on the Republican work now. One step at a time, and 3rd party only if necessary.