Should we not run a presidential candidate in 2016?

[tangent4ronpaul]

It looks like we won't have a candidate for 2016 and lets face it - The president doesn't have that much power. Congress does.

I saw this tidbit in a thread about Romney's donors bailing on him:

smaller races tend to be cheaper and easier to sway.

The average cost of winning a seat in the House in 2008 was $1.1 million, and the average cost of a Senate win was $5.6 million. As it stands, the two presidential candidates have spent more than $700 million combined so far trying to win the presidency.

As Paul raised ~40 Million this cycle, not including PACs, if we could do that again, we could conceivably elect 40 house members or 8 Senators (or a mix) if we can raise that again.

What do people think?

-t

 

[asurfaholic]

Will be harder to get the enthusiasm to do that again with multiple candidates. Imagine the infighting and bickering over whether or not a candidate is perfect enough.

Plus, the president isnt really just one position, it is very influential, not just domestic, but even globally. Getting a liberty candidate in the white house will shift everything. Getting 40 congressmen will accomplish little.

 

[lakefx]

Chances are pretty good, Rand Paul will be running for President in 2016.

Rand will have the tentative backing of Teocons and and even some Huckabee/Santorum type conservatives out of the gate. I really, really like Rand's chances in 2016, he's played the game and played it well, Those of us who listen to his speeches and watch his votes rather than follow his "endorsements" will know where his loyalty truly lies. He's his father's son, and a statesmen that plays the game where Ron would refuse to tread.

My point is this...We may get the presidential candidate we want--with the help of the enemy and with the party structure we've layed in Ron's wake.

Its happening. Don't give up.

 

[Dick Chaney]

Good luck with the Rand Paul ticket, I guarantee you the establishment has already picked their 2016 candidate after Mitten Sach's loses to Barry in November, Marco Rubio.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

It looks like we won't have a candidate for 2016 and lets face it - The president doesn't have that much power. Congress does.

I saw this tidbit in a thread about Romney's donors bailing on him:



As Paul raised ~40 Million this cycle, not including PACs, if we could do that again, we could conceivably elect 40 house members or 8 Senators (or a mix) if we can raise that again.

What do people think?

-t

or 400 members of state legislatures.

 

[Athan]

Will be harder to get the enthusiasm to do that again with multiple candidates.
Imagine the infighting and bickering over whether or not a candidate is perfect enough.

!!

 

[GunnyFreedom]

!!

Yes, inasmuch as most folks here adamantly avoid lesser evils, many of us also seem to avoid lesser heroes too.

 

[bultza]

ronpaul2016

 

[supermario21]

The thing is though Rand is the anti-establishment candidate and that is who the tea party usually aligns with. Keep in mind you'll likely have Jeb or Christie throwing their hats in with the party backing. Rubio will want to defend his Senate seat and unlike Rand is in a tougher state to win.

 

[jbauer]

Mehh, Christie's likley to die of a heart attack. Rubio doesn't scare me. Ryan doesn't scare me. After Dumbo gets re-elected the GOP is going to have to do some soul searching to figure out exactly why it didn't work out. I just hope that we're able to pass the buck on the blame to someone else besides us.

 

[CaptUSA]

I thought Ron Paul had cured my apathy. In fact, it was only in remission.

I got on board with this movement because I saw a light turn on in millions of people. But it seems it may have been wishful thinking on my part. The light didn't really turn on for that many, they just wanted to give the finger to the establishment. While that's great and feels nice, it really doesn't do much to help my child to grow up free.

My hope is that someone will come along and be able to turn that light on again, but my fear is that it won't. I didn't join this movement because of Ron Paul, I joined because of you folks. But I see too many of these same people who were inspired by Ron Paul, factioning themselves off. As individuals, we are strong. As a bunch of collectives fighting eachother, we couldn't be weaker.

 

[KingNothing]

Good luck with the Rand Paul ticket, I guarantee you the establishment has already picked their 2016 candidate after Mitten Sach's loses to Barry in November, Marco Rubio.

No, it won't be Rubio's turn yet. It'll be someone older who has "paid his dues," or something.

 

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

No, we need someone to run in 2016, even if the impact isn't as great as Ron Paul's runs. Many movements have weakened and died when they abandoned the Presidential field to focus on local only races.

Sadly, it doesn't work. Presidential races are what excite people enough to draw in new converts. In a perfect world this wouldn't be in the case, but you gotta accept it and work with it. I would be surprised if there are 1/10 of the supporters who were active in RP's campaign now actively working on these House/Senate/local candidates. It just doesn't draw the enthusiasm of a Presidential candidate and you are far less likely to win new people over to your movement.

 

[VBRonPaulFan]

It looks like we won't have a candidate for 2016 and lets face it - The president doesn't have that much power. Congress does.

are you joking me? one of the biggest reasons I was so invested into getting Ron elected (as well as probably many others), was because he would of had the power to IMMEDIATELY bring the troops home, close a ton of bases, put more troops on our borders, end the drug war, etc, etc. the president has a huge amount of power as commander in chief, and can directly dictate policy to several various government departments.

presidents are incredibly powerful now - more than ever. it's been a consistent consolidation of power over the last couple of hundred years.

however, I do think it would be very wise to try to get as many liberty candidates into the house... as that's probably the most bang for the buck. if you get enough in there, republicans wouldn't be able to get things passed without getting the liberty folks on board, at least.

 

[BSU kid]

When the GOP losses expect them to do something desperate by 2016, they will realize their neo-con base is dying so I fully expect them to run a minority ideologue as their establishment pick...Tim Scott (SC), Mia Love (UT), Nikki Hailey (SC), Bobby Jindal (LA), Marco Rubio (FL). They will do this to show that they are just as inclusive as the democrats, this could go horrible for them and end up like a 2004 Alan Keyes vs. Obama scenario i.e. a compete blowout loss.

Meanwhile the democrats, will also pick a minority...a woman, a hispanic or a combination thereof to show how progressive they are. This is what I foresee happening.

 

[Neil Desmond]

Mehh, Christie's likley to die of a heart attack. Rubio doesn't scare me. Ryan doesn't scare me. After Dumbo gets re-elected the GOP is going to have to do some soul searching to figure out exactly why it didn't work out.

The GOP has a soul? If there is a soul it's just one dark soul that controls both political party wings. It's the torso of the hideous beast between those two wings.

Seriously, why would the GOP want to do any "soul" searching just because they lost an election? They go back and forth between winning and losing elections all the time. It would be nice if motivation to do soul searching could happen, but to me it just looks like it would be a desire for an unrealistic fantasy to come true.

I just hope that we're able to pass the buck on the blame to someone else besides us.

They can never be entitled to blame us; that would be like saying "the customer is wrong."

 

[mello]

If Romney loses I could see Rand running in 2016. It would be a good idea to get as many liberty-supporters in local government positions & the State party in order to minimize the chances of getting screwed over in caucuses by those nimrods that flagrantly violated Robert's Rules of Order.

 

[sailingaway]

It is 2012. Why on earth do we need to make this decision today?

 

[sailingaway]

No, we need someone to run in 2016, even if the impact isn't as great as Ron Paul's runs. Many movements have weakened and died when they abandoned the Presidential field to focus on local only races.

Sadly, it doesn't work. Presidential races are what excite people enough to draw in new converts. In a perfect world this wouldn't be in the case, but you gotta accept it and work with it. I would be surprised if there are 1/10 of the supporters who were active in RP's campaign now actively working on these House/Senate/local candidates. It just doesn't draw the enthusiasm of a Presidential candidate and you are far less likely to win new people over to your movement.

We need a standard bearer, that is why it is so dead NOW imho. Ron has gone into the woodwork and no one else rallies people up the same way, to interest them in races ACROSS THE COUNTRY. But a poor standard bearer would be worse than none, imho -- for exhibit A I give you the Libertarian party. That's for sure why it doesn't interest me. In my head I know they have a bunch of good local candidates and if one runs IN MY DISTRICT I will look at them. But their best known candidates, setting the 'tone' for outsiders, are their presidential candidates, and since I've been really paying attention to them, that is Barr and Johnson. Better to keep the standard and not run for that office, than water down the standard, imho.

 

[Matt Collins]

Chances are pretty good, Rand Paul will be running for President in 2016.

Those of us who listen to his speeches and watch his votes rather than follow his "endorsements" will know where his loyalty truly lies. He's his father's son, and a statesmen that plays the game where Ron would refuse to tread.

Excatly. Our people need to read between the lines a bit and think through things to see what's going on here.