Ron Paul 2016?

[John F Kennedy III]

I know- LET HIM ENJOY BEING RETIRED!

I think it would be interesting to discuss a Ron 2016 run though. Just have some fun with it please. I know he isn't going to run.

I would like this thread to discuss his odds, health/age factor, whether his numbers will snowball like they did from 2008-12, etc.

All in the hypothetical mind frame that Ron Paul runs in 2016.



*He would be campaigning at 80 and take office at 81. He would leave office at 85 assuming he only serves one term. A second term makes the numbers 84, 85 and 89. Ron is in way better shape than most 40 year olds. Just saying

 

[Paulistinian]

You know I'd be on board... but honestly, Rand is our only shot at this time... Who knows what will come in the next 3 years, but I wouldn't hold my breath to get Ron to run again... Someone posted a relevant Star Wars quote recently that I thought was fun... "He was our last hope." "No, there is another..."

 

[Origanalist]

I think he would be happier and more effective at this point just going around the country spreading the message of liberty.

 

[ropo]

It would be funny seeing him debate with his son.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Ron is going to be campaigning for Rand for the next 4 years. And then after Rand wins, Ron is going to be campaigning for Rand's re-election.

That's the great thing about having Rand run. We get to have Ron in the national spotlight for the next several years. This ALONE is why every anarcho-whatever should do everything they can to ensure a Rand run.

 

[fisharmor]

If Ron ran, and won, and then Rand ran, and won, you'd have a maximum of 16 years to try to find another horse to back.
If only Rand runs, and wins, then you have 8 years maximum.

Then again, if only Rand runs, then you have basically three years to try to convince some of us to come back on board.

Ron is a starting point. Rand is an ending point.

 

[Shane Harris]

Ron is going to be campaigning for Rand for the next 4 years. And then after Rand wins, Ron is going to be campaigning for Rand's re-election.

That's the great thing about having Rand run. We get to have Ron in the national spotlight for the next several years. This ALONE is why every anarcho-whatever should do everything they can to ensure a Rand run.

agreed. no one here appreciates just how much Ron sacrificed running for president at his age. To put him through that at age 80 would be cruel. It would also make our movement seem desperate and smaller than it is. Liek we only have one man to keep running. When in reality we have several options and we are a growing movement.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

It would be funny seeing him debate with his son.

That would be amazing!

 

[Origanalist]

It would be funny seeing him debate with his son.

I would pay to see that.

 

[Shane Harris]

If Ron ran, and won, and then Rand ran, and won, you'd have a maximum of 16 years to try to find another horse to back.
If only Rand runs, and wins, then you have 8 years maximum.

Then again, if only Rand runs, then you have basically three years to try to convince some of us to come back on board.

Ron is a starting point. Rand is an ending point.

Ron already was the starting point, 3 times. if he runs again, he loses again. There is no way that he wins, and the older he gets the less he will even want to win, not that he really expected to win much this time around either. We need to know when to move on and run different candidates, or else we end up being a laughing stock for running the same person every single election. the more times we run Ron, the more we will get pigeon-holed as a one-man cult. People will eventually tune him out, unless we run the same message through different messengers and move on. Pushing the same message through a new and different filter will reach people who weren't receptive to Ron's messaging. Its basic communication.

 

[erowe1]

I doubt that he'd be willing to run against his son.

 

[Victor Grey]

I want to win. Part of my principles, is winning. Carrying out the freedom ideals to practical extent.

Running Ron in '16 would make me feel good. Losing wouldn't.

I'm not interested this field of things, simply to sit in chatrooms discussing various philosophies and simply rub my ego. I worry more aren't.

Running Ron Paul in '16 wouldn't win, people are reasonably ageist on the idea of running an 80 year old person, and the convince-able constituency to pull a victory for Ron Paul isn't there. Probably still won't be in 16, with generous growth considered. Ron excels at producing zealots, but not winning soft supporters.

Ron was the best option in 08' when I wasn't involved, and in '12 where I was. In '16 for all things in sight, he won't be.


What I think the liberty movement needs right now is political sway. People are slow to consider new ideas. They will be much more willing to listen to the philosophies and discussion if there are a few dozen elected officials in congress and a number across the nation who are friendly to it. It's part of human nature.

Successful education, and political standing build upon each other. We need a lot more of the political part as of now. Education and conversion potential is easy, people gnaw the bit for that part. They need to see the viewpoint as respectable. Then there can be a turning point.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Ron already was the starting point, 3 times. if he runs again, he loses again. There is no way that he wins, and the older he gets the less he will even want to win, not that he really expected to win much this time around either. We need to know when to move on and run different candidates, or else we end up being a laughing stock for running the same person every single election. the more times we run Ron, the more we will get pigeon-holed as a one-man cult. People will eventually tune him out, unless we run the same message through different messengers and move on. Pushing the same message through a new and different filter will reach people who weren't receptive to Ron's messaging. Its basic communication.

This isn't really the direction I was hoping the thread would go. As I made clear in the OP.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

I want to win. Part of my principles, is winning. Carrying out the freedom ideals to practical extent.

Running Ron in '16 would make me feel good. Losing wouldn't.

I'm not interested this field of things, simply to sit in chatrooms discussing various philosophies and simply rub my ego. I worry more aren't.

Running Ron Paul in '16 wouldn't win, people are reasonably ageist on the idea of running an 80 year old person, and the convince-able constituency to pull a victory for Ron Paul isn't there. Probably still won't be in 16, with generous growth considered. Ron excels at producing zealots, but not winning soft supporters.

Ron was the best option in 08' when I wasn't involved, and in '12 where I was. In '16 for all things in sight, he won't be.


What I think the liberty movement needs right now is political sway. People are slow to consider new ideas. They will be much more willing to listen to the philosophies and discussion if there are a few dozen elected officials in congress and a number across the nation who are friendly to it. It's part of human nature.

Successful education, and political standing build upon each other. We need a lot more of the political part as of now. Education and conversion potential is easy, people gnaw the bit for that part. They need to see the viewpoint as respectable. Then there can be a turning point.

Why are you wasting your (and our) time posting in this thread?

 

[Andyc3020]

I don't know if 4 years is long enough to turn the msm on his side. Rand isn't portrayed as crazy. Yet...

 

[erowe1]

Why are you wasting your (and our) time posting in this thread?

We really need to nip any Ron Paul 2016 talk in the bud here.

Once the topic picks up any steam, SA will get behind it and then ban everyone who doesn't parrot back to her all the reasons it's supposed to be a great idea. And then when Ron Paul himself comes out and says he won't do it, her zeal will only increase.

 

[QWDC]

Sad Ron had to start running so late in his life. It would be funny if he ran against Rand, maybe it would make Rand look more like a compromising moderate by comparison (ex Gurley Martin)

It would be pretty interesting to see what Ron could do though, I still think CNN stole Iowa from him. Win that, Santorum drops out, and Ron at the minimum would win a handful of rural states. I fear voters might be tired of him by now, though.

 

[NoOneButPaul]

Ron won't run but i'm willing to bet anything he'd have a significant role in a Rand administration.

If these justices can just hold on 4 more years Rand could end up picking an entirely new supreme court.

2016 is HUGE.

 

[RickyJ]

It would be funny seeing him debate with his son.

Yeah, that would be a real riot. I think Ron Paul is going to be even more active for the cause of liberty outside of politics than he was in it. He has 4 years to do nothing but spread the message of liberty and then possibly run one more time. If this country is still around and he really believes he can win it then I think he will run. That is a lot of ifs though, so it is unlikely, but nevertheless still a possibility.

 

[RickyJ]

If Ron ran, and won, and then Rand ran, and won, you'd have a maximum of 16 years to try to find another horse to back.
If only Rand runs, and wins, then you have 8 years maximum.

Then again, if only Rand runs, then you have basically three years to try to convince some of us to come back on board.

Ron is a starting point. Rand is an ending point.

Very smart thinking. I think Ron will be perfectly capably physically and mentally of being president in 2016 but that won't stop the press form saying he is too old. That unfortunately would cost him some votes, but by then he could be so popular it wouldn't matter and he would win anyway.