but this also open opportunities as regular Dems may hold back and wait until 2016 or 2018
Ron Paul first ran for congress in 1974, a huge Democratic year, in a district that had not elected a Republican in 100 years. he lost, but it paved the way.
Should We Also Take Over the Democrats?
- Thread starter BSU kid
- Start date
but this also open opportunities as regular Dems may hold back and wait until 2016 or 2018
Ron Paul first ran for congress in 1974, a huge Democratic year, in a district that had not elected a Republican in 100 years. he lost, but it paved the way.
erowe1
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2007
- Messages
- 32,183
The GOP isn't a dying party.
They say that about a party every time they lose. But we have a 2-party system and a natural balance that shifts between them. When one wins too much and moves too far to its base the other shifts to the middle and starts winning again.
If some people don't want to work with the GOP because they don't fit in there, then it would be great for them to infiltrate the Dems. That would certainly accomplish more than the LP. But our bread and butter has to remain the Republican party for now.
They say that about a party every time they lose. But we have a 2-party system and a natural balance that shifts between them. When one wins too much and moves too far to its base the other shifts to the middle and starts winning again.
If some people don't want to work with the GOP because they don't fit in there, then it would be great for them to infiltrate the Dems. That would certainly accomplish more than the LP. But our bread and butter has to remain the Republican party for now.
in a Democratic primary one could play the race card (either way) and win with 35-40% of the vote.
also, some issues play better in a Dem primary (anti-war, anti-drug war, anti-police, anti-SOPA)
Victor Grey
Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2011
- Messages
- 554
Not related to an argument for or against the democrat strategy, but you could play the race card and gain a benefit in any party.
It's just what it is.
I don't have to like it, but it's the world we live in.
By all means, if there's a libertarian leaning non-white candidate and has a shot in an election, go for it.
People care about dumb novelties like that.
CTRattlesnake
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 1,240
Living in Connecticut, there is definitely a possibility for this to work. There a districts that will vote for anyone with a D in front of their name, so winning the primaries is key. We can take advantage of weak or retiring incumbents and then strike. Now, I would tend to favor running our liberty candidates in districts that are more urban and wealthy because there the anti war, civil liberties, social issues type voter will be attracted to us and they are found in their largest numbers in those type of regions.
I would also be intent on increasing our appeal to latino voters. Although demographic trends say that their immigration boom is over and their subsequent rate of growth will slow in the coming years, there are still a key area that we could win over.
I would also be intent on increasing our appeal to latino voters. Although demographic trends say that their immigration boom is over and their subsequent rate of growth will slow in the coming years, there are still a key area that we could win over.
Good analysis. Portland, ME has a whole bunch of Liberty Republicans who were just creamed in State House races. If they were wearing Democrat hats, Green hats, or even Independent hats, they might've broken 20%
If we don't have a candidate that we like for President on the Republican side in 2016, some could support an uncompromising antiwar Dem. Antiwar is mostly Dem. So, how do you get that? Antiwar protests. I don't enjoy them, but if there's an antiwar dem, well, they need some encouragement.
Is the media telling the "low turnout" story? Because Obama got fewer actual votes than he did in 2008 and fewer than Bush in 2004, and Romney got fewer than McCain and fewer than Kerry.
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
I wouldn't play any card I wouldn't want to live with having played.
Would we like Ron nearly as much if he did?
as long as the card you play is true I don't see a problem; running a black in a black district or a latino in a latino district is just good politics.
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
I don't really believe in 'just good politics' if it means 'playing the game', personally, but if your candidate in a black neighborhood is black, great. I didn't know what you meant by 'the race card' to be honest.
TheGrinch
Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2012
- Messages
- 3,995
Haven't had a chance to read this thread yet, but no, I don't think the Democratic route makes much sense in most cases.
IMO, the goal should be to gain the more moderate democrats and/or at least the ones who recognize the same important issues we do. I think it's too much of a contradiction of message to be on the side of explicit big government, entitlements, etc.
Yes, the republican party may be no different, but that really doesn't matter too much when it comes to effective rhetoric (and no I studied rhetoric, and it doesn't have to be bullshit, it's just used that way). That requires that your message cannot be in such great contradiction with the stated ideals and constituents you use.
Even if Romney had been genuine (purely hypothetical and for example), this was one of the reasons that Dr. Paul would never be the pick for vice-president. Him dropping truth bombs would have only undermined Romney's BS, and gotten them slaughtered by the well-oiled Obama rhetoric machine.
That's not to say that the republican route is necessarily the best or only way to spread the message of liberty, and of course it'd be great if there were more on that side of the aisle who at least recognize the really important issues we do, but for those of us who are small-government fiscal libertarains, I jsut don't think it's a good fit.
IMO, the goal should be to gain the more moderate democrats and/or at least the ones who recognize the same important issues we do. I think it's too much of a contradiction of message to be on the side of explicit big government, entitlements, etc.
Yes, the republican party may be no different, but that really doesn't matter too much when it comes to effective rhetoric (and no I studied rhetoric, and it doesn't have to be bullshit, it's just used that way). That requires that your message cannot be in such great contradiction with the stated ideals and constituents you use.
Even if Romney had been genuine (purely hypothetical and for example), this was one of the reasons that Dr. Paul would never be the pick for vice-president. Him dropping truth bombs would have only undermined Romney's BS, and gotten them slaughtered by the well-oiled Obama rhetoric machine.
That's not to say that the republican route is necessarily the best or only way to spread the message of liberty, and of course it'd be great if there were more on that side of the aisle who at least recognize the really important issues we do, but for those of us who are small-government fiscal libertarains, I jsut don't think it's a good fit.
If the opportunity presents itself sure but as an actual strategy it's a waste of time and money. Unless it's a place where the national party is unpopular there is no point and in that case you'd probably have better luck running as Republican. The Democrats won't just allow pro-liberty candidates to win primaries, anybody that goes against the national party will be labeled a racist plant from the vast right wing conspiracy.
The places you could sneak a candidate through the Democratic primary would likely be Republican leaning districts and just as you have some people that will always for the Democrat, you'll have just as many people who'll automatically pulls the lever for the candidate with the R next to their name too.
The places you could sneak a candidate through the Democratic primary would likely be Republican leaning districts and just as you have some people that will always for the Democrat, you'll have just as many people who'll automatically pulls the lever for the candidate with the R next to their name too.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 64,306
In areas where Democrats only win, we should run liberty Democrats. It's a no-brainer.
The idea isn't to jump over to the blue team. It is to run with the red team in areas where red team wins, run blue team where blue teams win. Litmus test candidates for certain things that will help in state legislatures and congress.
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 52,980
A) That was pretty good considering that Mark Clayton had to fight his own party just to say on the ballot after getting nominated by a landslide.
B) Had Mark run against Corker in the GOP primary he would have done even worse.
C) Considering how much national coverage he got, bank for the buck this was a great "educational" campaign.
B) Had Mark run against Corker in the GOP primary he would have done even worse.
C) Considering how much national coverage he got, bank for the buck this was a great "educational" campaign.
Anyone in TN with a D by their name will lose badly, unless it is for sometihng in Nashville, or possibly Memphis.
LOL just looked at the Senate results for 2012:
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 52,980
Or run blue team where the red team wins because it's easier to win the primary and vice versa. Running as a "libertarian democrat" will get you more press than running as a "libertarian". (And nothing against those who run libertarian.)
Good example of this is Wyoming, where you can when a democratic primary for U.S. House with only 17,000 votes. Thats an insanely small number, and means we could save our resources for other races like Amash or Kerry.
Similar threads
