Should we not run a presidential candidate in 2016?

[GeorgiaAvenger]

I will support Rand Paul.

I think we need to work on Senate races that are winnable. That means a red state, where we can either run somebody who can win an open primary or we have the support of the Tea Party to challenge somebody. Kurt Bills and Barry Hinckley are not examples of this model, though I respect them and like them. Senate races are very expensive, and that is why we can only focus on winnable ones.

We don't need to choose between state house/senate vs. federal house. The plan should be this: If there is an avenue to run a state house/senate candidate, run that person and then they have a route to Congress. If the state openings are not available, but a winnable House seat is, run a candidate for that race, and that person should be the kingmaker for all encompassing state and local elections.

The problem I see now, is that our hardcore and quasi-liberty candidates do not appear to be connected whatsoever. We need a true liberty caucus, not the "liberty caucus" we currently have in the House. Yes, there are some good members(Paul, Duncan, Flake, Jones, Garrett) but they have people like Trent Franks, Denny Rehberg, and Roscoe Bartlett. And I don't see Justin Amash, nor Raul Labrador, nor Paul Broun, etc.

No. 1 priority for Ron Paul should be to get our people currently in office in sync and connected before he leaves!

 

[DylanWaco]

The problem with working only in Red State's is that the Red State's tend to have GOP's overridden with those who think mass murder overseas is the sole function of government and any and all costs incurred to further the Empire are necessary and cannot be questioned.

I live in SC but could never vote for Demint because I don't think killing Muslim babies is a moral imperative. And Demint is constantly pointed to as a guy we can work with,if not someone who is outright on our side.

 

[Anti-Neocon]

I'll support Rand and if for some reason he doesn't want to run or his campaign fails, I hope Jesse Ventura goes 3rd party.

 

[Jumbo Shrimp]

I will support Rand Paul.

I think we need to work on Senate races that are winnable. That means a red state, where we can either run somebody who can win an open primary or we have the support of the Tea Party to challenge somebody. Kurt Bills and Barry Hinckley are not examples of this model, though I respect them and like them. Senate races are very expensive, and that is why we can only focus on winnable ones.

We don't need to choose between state house/senate vs. federal house. The plan should be this: If there is an avenue to run a state house/senate candidate, run that person and then they have a route to Congress. If the state openings are not available, but a winnable House seat is, run a candidate for that race, and that person should be the kingmaker for all encompassing state and local elections.

The problem I see now, is that our hardcore and quasi-liberty candidates do not appear to be connected whatsoever. We need a true liberty caucus, not the "liberty caucus" we currently have in the House. Yes, there are some good members(Paul, Duncan, Flake, Jones, Garrett) but they have people like Trent Franks, Denny Rehberg, and Roscoe Bartlett. And I don't see Justin Amash, nor Raul Labrador, nor Paul Broun, etc.

No. 1 priority for Ron Paul should be to get our people currently in office in sync and connected before he leaves!

2014 possible senate races:

Alaska - Joe Miller
New Hampshire - FSP, smallish, one-term Democratic incumbent
South Dakota - Small (= cheap), relatively red state, Democratic incumbent
Montana - small, has some libertarian leanings, red state, SIX-term Democratic incumbent
Wyoming - least likely out of list, red state, 3-term GOP incumbent

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

The problem with working only in Red State's is that the Red State's tend to have GOP's overridden with those who think mass murder overseas is the sole function of government and any and all costs incurred to further the Empire are necessary and cannot be questioned.

I live in SC but could never vote for Demint because I don't think killing Muslim babies is a moral imperative. And Demint is constantly pointed to as a guy we can work with,if not someone who is outright on our side.

You are using strawmen. I LIVE among standard Republicans. They don't want mass murder; they don't want to kill Muslims even.

They have been fooled into believing that the only way they will remain safe, is by Middle East occupation. Most don't even know what goes on over there.

Republicans naturally are more receptive to liberty. I can now convince Republicans that we should modify our foreign policy to be less interventionist for our national security, get rid of foreign aid, and get rid of waste in the military. No, its not full blown Ron Paul but it is an improvement. Democrats on the other hand, are naturally receptive to big government, and that is a non-starter for Ron Paul candidates.

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

2014 possible senate races:

Alaska - Joe Miller
New Hampshire - FSP, smallish, one-term Democratic incumbent
South Dakota - Small (= cheap), relatively red state, Democratic incumbent
Montana - small, has some libertarian leanings, red state, SIX-term Democratic incumbent
Wyoming - least likely out of list, red state, 3-term GOP incumbent

Good choices.

 

[DylanWaco]

You are using strawmen. I LIVE among standard Republicans. They don't want mass murder; they don't want to kill Muslims even.

They have been fooled into believing that the only way they will remain safe, is by Middle East occupation. Most don't even know what goes on over there.

Republicans naturally are more receptive to liberty. I can now convince Republicans that we should modify our foreign policy to be less interventionist for our national security, get rid of foreign aid, and get rid of waste in the military. No, its not full blown Ron Paul but it is an improvement. Democrats on the other hand, are naturally receptive to big government, and that is a non-starter for Ron Paul candidates.

The fuck I am.

I LIVE among standard Republicans and have worked with them in a close capacity for years. The one deal breaker for these people is an unwillingness to commit mass murder overseas. You can be in favor of any government program and they will generally support you so long as you are a "hawk." If you oppose the warfare state, no matter how much you hedge it, you are a soft appeaser at best, at worst an open enemy of the United States. Hell I have had a Congressman (one of whom was supported by many liberty folks) and a county chair all but say that to my face (actually the words they used were arguably more disturbing than my alleged "strawman").

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Nice, a whopping 14 brave souls decided to go back to sitting on their thumbs and spin. They'll come around when the Rand hype starts infecting like a virus in 2.5 years. I support the broadest approach to electing liberty candidates that we can muster. Whenever it's plausible for a win, we get in on it. Also, running a top of the ticket in '16 is a must as it ignites the liberty base to get involved en masse. Now that Ron is winding down this season, it appears that some have toned down their activism despite us having plenty of state and federal candidates to support.

 

[VictorB]

I'm on the Rand Paul bandwagon. On the eve of tonight's debate, I spent the day watching Rand Paul videos from his own YouTube channel. Listen to what he says and how he votes. He is a great speaker and knows his stuff. People are going to flock to him in 2016.

Also, when things get worse, people are going to start saying..."Ron Paul was right". That will give Rand Paul a big boost.

 

[The Dude]

2016 will be insanely difficult as far as a Presidential election goes for someone like Rand, it would be much more beneficial to focus on House and Senate.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

or. state. legislatures.

if ONE vs 169 can have as much of an impact as we have seen in NC the last 2 years, imagine what 10 will do in a single state? With $50 Million, you can literally BUY ten State legislator seats in every state in the union.

 

[Smart3]

or. state. legislatures.

if ONE vs 169 can have as much of an impact as we have seen in NC the last 2 years, imagine what 10 will do in a single state? With $50 Million, you can literally BUY ten State legislator seats in every state in the union.

You'd need 10million to just get one seat in California. Let's get at least one guy in each legislature (except California), and see how much he/she accomplishes. Then in the next cycle we can determine where to invest.

 

[sailingaway]

You'd need 10million to just get one seat in California. Let's get at least one guy in each legislature (except California), and see how much he/she accomplishes. Then in the next cycle we can determine where to invest.

There are seats in Northern California that can be had for a lot cheaper than that.

The question is where do the great candidates and the seat opportunities match up, not getting a 'balance' across the nation, imho.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

You'd need 10million to just get one seat in California. Let's get at least one guy in each legislature (except California), and see how much he/she accomplishes. Then in the next cycle we can determine where to invest.

A California State House race costs $10 Mil ??

 

[GunnyFreedom]

There are seats in Northern California that can be had for a lot cheaper than that.

The question is where do the great candidates and the seat opportunities match up, not getting a 'balance' across the nation, imho.

This, the "10 seats in every state" was not a strategy, just an example. After all, in some states we may want 20, or 30. ;-)

 

[sailingaway]

This, the "10 seats in every state" was not a strategy, just an example. After all, in some states we may want 20, or 30. ;-)

Yeah. It will be a lot easier to support our more local candidates when we don't have a presidential race, I think we should make our 'moves' in 2014, so in 2016 we are doing reelections of incumbents wherever possible, in case we ARE pushing a presidential candidate in 2016.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

1) Rand will be running in '16, whether we like it or not, and we will get to see how his more strategic-minded rhetorical approach fares. Hopefully, Ron will be involved, or will run (or at least threaten to) on a 3rd party line to help shake the 'electable' aura off the next establishment GOP frontrunner. This should protect Rand's race for the Republican nomination.

2) Focusing on open seat situations in ether safe GOP or safe Democratic areas is still better than a GOP-only focus. Concentrating on these races will improve the probability of more liberty victories, more than spreading our energies thinly running low-percentage campaigns against entrenched incumbents.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

1) Rand will be running in '16, whether we like it or not, and we will get to see how his more strategic-minded rhetorical approach fares. Hopefully, Ron will be involved, or will run (or at least threaten to) on a 3rd party line to help shake the 'electable' aura off the next establishment GOP frontrunner. This should protect Rand's race for the Republican nomination.

2) Focusing on open seat situations in ether safe GOP or safe Democratic areas is still better than a GOP-only focus. Concentrating on these races will improve the probability of more liberty victories, more than spreading our energies thinly running low-percentage campaigns against entrenched incumbents.

If you look at NC CD1 and the legislative districts within it, you will find that the area is literally begging for a Ron Paul Democrat.

 

[Smart3]

There are seats in Northern California that can be had for a lot cheaper than that.

The question is where do the great candidates and the seat opportunities match up, not getting a 'balance' across the nation, imho.

Doesn't seem to be the case, but sure let's try.

A California State House race costs $10 Mil ??

Year Number of candidates Total contributions
2010 275 $77,405,341
2008 236 $84,386,698
2006 285 $91,726,959
2004 264 $94,287,806
2002 279 $73,822,064

It costs close to a mil in the races we could win, 10 mil in other races. Of course this assumes we would ever want to try that. We'd probably target the smaller districts in the North and East, and that would still set us back at least 300k. (more than we're used to raising)

10 mil was an obvious exaggeration, to add emphasis.

 

[jkob]

I'm open to supporting Rand provided he votes the right way. He'll be more than tested by 2016 so we'll should know.

If Romney wins, it would probably be better not to put all our eggs in the presidential race tho. Running against an incumbent is almost impossible. However if Obama wins, it's going to be an seat with no incumbent after 8 years of Democrat rule. Maybe America will be ready by then?