Should We Also Take Over the Democrats?

[mport1]

I think so. From what I've seen, I think we have more in common with Democrats. Republicans favor even bigger government in addition to more war and an even greater crackdown on civil liberties.

 

[fj45lvr]

good luck taking anything "over".....

 

[parocks]

I'd say push the constitution. Yes anti war but I think there is a huge following for getting rid of NDAA and the police state.

yeah, both.

 

[CPUd]

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.

I think Corker would get all of East TN no matter who runs against him. Unless someone can take the suburbs in the counties around Nashville, he's got the seat as long as he wants it.

 

[Crystallas]

Well, if we had better local strategies, then why not? If the area is dominated by Democrats, and we have a liberty challenger that can take the seat, then in some situations it will be wiser to run as a Democrat.

 

[TCE]

At the state and local level, we can win as Democrats. Most Democrats locally don't differ much from Republicans. At the local level, it is all about allocating funds and simple tax stuff, so it shouldn't be too difficult to jump in there. Attempting to win a U.S. House seat as a Democrat? That's difficult. Start lower down the totem pole. We don't have very many people in the Democratic Party right now, but all it would take is a few trailblazers. You would be surprised how some Democrats, when they think you're on their side, actually agree with you. Most Democrats on the ground like privacy and aren't the biggest fans of war. Play up to that.

 

[jmdrake]

I think Corker would get all of East TN no matter who runs against him. Unless someone can take the suburbs in the counties around Nashville, he's got the seat as long as he wants it.

You're missing the point. If you want cheap national exposure for your platform of ideas, winning the nomination for someone against Corker is an easy way to do it. Ron basically ran two educational campaigns. Not every campaign is meant to "win". Clayton got a lot more press (and a lot more votes) than Crowell. If he's able to network with the right black preachers to help him squelch the "bigot" charge (as most of them fit the new democratic party term for "bigot" as well) he could manuver into a position where Corker at least had to debate him.

 

[devil21]

Sounds like a one party system. That's not a republic either.

 

[enoch150]

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.

The GOP is absolutely dying, in some areas. As a percentage of registered voters, the Republican party constituted 30.5% of the electorate in Connecticut in 1959. It was down to 20.3%, as of 2012. There has been no back and forth, just a five decade and counting gradual erosion of Republican influence and ability to achieve positions of power. Using the Republican party as a vehicle for most areas of Connecticut is pointless.

A registered libertarian just got elected to a Board of Finance position in one Connecticut town as a Democrat. It will be interesting to see how he is received over the next two years and if he is able to advance.

....................................

Why was the new thread put in hot topics and locked? It's a legitimate topic that's been discussed before.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?432619-We-need-to-start-infiltrating-the-Democrat-Party

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

If you're a libertarian of the Bleeding Heart or even Robert Sarvis persuasion, why not go into the democratic party and see if you can get elected, especially in heavily blue districts?

I could also see this working in districts that are heavily red. If a left-libertarian or libertarian who would be willing to put on a Bleeding Heart coat worked in a solidly red district as the democratic nominee, that candidate might be able to do damage as well.

 

[RM918]

Nope. The main driving force for the Blue Team is to take as much money from the rich as possible and give it to themselves. All the other common issues we have with them aren't nearly as important to them as that, and that is one thing we can't tone down.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

If you're a libertarian of the Bleeding Heart or even Robert Sarvis persuasion, why not go into the democratic party and see if you can get elected, especially in heavily blue districts?

I could also see this working in districts that are heavily red. If a left-libertarian or libertarian who would be willing to put on a Bleeding Heart coat worked in a solidly red district as the democratic nominee, that candidate might be able to do damage as well.

It's a novel idea, but my question is what happens if they get elected? Say a libertarian Democrat gets elected to the House, he's going to be put into a coat closet. If he changes parties after being elected, he'll likely lose the seat the next election.

Personally, I think the best course of action is to focus on the GOP and continue to grow our presence there. First we need a majority, then we need to completely chase all the progressives out of the party, and then we can start chipping away at the Dems.

 

[TheTyke]

The GOP should be our priority because that's where we've made the biggest gains. We need all possible hands on deck to secure that advantage.

That said, I would love to see a day when BOTH parties' nominees are liberty-leaning and we win either way. It's what our enemies have done to us for 100 years. Maybe those folks who simply can't stand the GOP it could try getting a foothold in the Dem party - and we can each be supportive of the others' approaches.

 

[enoch150]

It's a novel idea, but my question is what happens if they get elected? Say a libertarian Democrat gets elected to the House, he's going to be put into a coat closet. If he changes parties after being elected, he'll likely lose the seat the next election.

Personally, I think the best course of action is to focus on the GOP and continue to grow our presence there. First we need a majority, then we need to completely chase all the progressives out of the party, and then we can start chipping away at the Dems.

But there are districts where Republicans can't get elected. There are cities in Connecticut which have guaranteed minority representation for the city council. There is a maximum allowable limit of 6 from one party and the next 3 slots are given to the highest vote getters from any party other than the one which took the first 6 spots. There are cities where the Republicans don't even have those 3 guaranteed minority representation spots. The Working Families Party gets more votes and wins those seats.

To put it in terms you'll appreciate, the electoral success of Republicans in those districts is equaled by that of Libertarians.

Even at the federal level, the 1st and 3rd Congressional districts (basically Hartford and New Haven Counties) have such a monstrously overwhelming Democratic advantage that some Republican candidates for Congress in those districts have literally raised $0.00 for their campaigns because everyone knows the outcome before the campaign season even begins.

 

[compromise]

I think so. From what I've seen, I think we have more in common with Democrats. Republicans favor even bigger government in addition to more war and an even greater crackdown on civil liberties.

And the Democrats don't?

As shown by the attempted Syria intervention and NSA scandal, it's much easier to bring Tea Party Republicans over on these issues than Democrats on core fiscal issues.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Nope. The main driving force for the Blue Team is to take as much money from the rich as possible and give it to themselves. All the other common issues we have with them aren't nearly as important to them as that, and that is one thing we can't tone down.

This is correct.

 

[erowe1]

I think so. From what I've seen, I think we have more in common with Democrats. Republicans favor even bigger government in addition to more war and an even greater crackdown on civil liberties.

Which part of what you said about Republicans isn't true of Democrats?

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

But there are districts where Republicans can't get elected. There are cities in Connecticut which have guaranteed minority representation for the city council. There is a maximum allowable limit of 6 from one party and the next 3 slots are given to the highest vote getters from any party other than the one which took the first 6 spots. There are cities where the Republicans don't even have those 3 guaranteed minority representation spots. The Working Families Party gets more votes and wins those seats.

To put it in terms you'll appreciate, the electoral success of Republicans in those districts is equaled by that of Libertarians.

Even at the federal level, the 1st and 3rd Congressional districts (basically Hartford and New Haven Counties) have such a monstrously overwhelming Democratic advantage that some Republican candidates for Congress in those districts have literally raised $0.00 for their campaigns because everyone knows the outcome before the campaign season even begins.

Understood, and I agree totally. But are these districts, and there are many across the country, dominated by the Dems because of party label or because of ideology of the voters? I tend to think in the large majority of cases it is ideology. You mentioned the Working Families Party that gets seats in CT towns - that is a progressive party, from what I can see, and they look to be to the left of the Dems. The point being that a libertarian cannot win in these districts because of the views that they would hold to, not because of any party label they may have.

 

[MelissaWV]

I think so. From what I've seen, I think we have more in common with Democrats. Republicans favor even bigger government in addition to more war and an even greater crackdown on civil liberties.

That is the method being used, yes, but fundamentally the party line is supposed to be something totally different.

On the other side, you could easily say Democrats favor even bigger government in addition to more war and an even greater crackdown on civil liberties.

When I put it most simply to people who won't give up their left/right paradigm, I point out that essentially the R's want to take your money and wage wars and crush your freedoms in the name of security, while the D's want to take your money and redistribute it to those individuals and causes they feel are more important than anything you'd spend it on, and crush your freedoms in the name of fairness.

In other words, I don't particularly think there's much merit in thinking one side is way better than the other, but I do think infiltrating the GOP is more possible because the battleground is generally an economic one. On the Democrat side it's going to come down to how anyone that doesn't support massive welfare and "humanitarian intervention" overseas is obviously a heartless libertarian monster.

 

[acptulsa]

Why was the new thread put in hot topics and locked? It's a legitimate topic that's been discussed before.

Bryan's stated reason was that he considered the word 'infiltrate' in the title of the new thread too inflammatory. But I suspect that the ease with which you found a worthwhile discussion of the same topic from the past on which to build has something to do with it, too...

That is the method being used, yes, but fundamentally the party line is supposed to be something totally different.

On the other side, you could easily say Democrats favor even bigger government in addition to more war and an even greater crackdown on civil liberties.

When I put it most simply to people who won't give up their left/right paradigm, I point out that essentially the R's want to take your money and wage wars and crush your freedoms in the name of security, while the D's want to take your money and redistribute it to those individuals and causes they feel are more important than anything you'd spend it on, and crush your freedoms in the name of fairness.

In other words, I don't particularly think there's much merit in thinking one side is way better than the other...

Of course, the reality is that both want to take your money and spend it on wars and death, and redistribute it to other individuals (many of whom are richer than you are) whom they consider more important than anyone or anything you'd spend it on, while crushing your liberties in the name of security and fairness.

But you're right. Those who are still stuck in the mud of the false left/right dichotomy generally can't see these facts for their blinders. And would rather fight than take those blinders off...