Should we not run a presidential candidate in 2016?

[Matt Collins]

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

Because running for President isn't something you do 1 year beforehand. Every Republican nominee had been working for years beforehand.

 

[sailingaway]

Because running for President isn't something you do 1 year beforehand. Every Republican nominee had been working for years beforehand.

I'm not saying the candidates who are interested shouldn't be making moves, but right now if I had to pick who I want for President in 2016 I'd say Ron Paul. I'm willing to let someone become more interesting to me, over the intervening time.

 

[Matt Collins]

I'm not saying the candidates who are interested shouldn't be making moves, but right now if I had to pick who I want for President in 2016 I'd say Ron Paul. I'm willing to let someone become more interesting to me, over the intervening time.

Ron is NOT running for President again. What he said on Leno was just a joke.

 

[sailingaway]

Ron is NOT running for President again. What he said on Leno was just a joke.

That doesn't change my opinion.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'd bet money that Rand will be running and I will do everything in my power to help him. Just like I tried to do with Ron.

 

[July]

It's a catch 22. You can't win a presidential race without local party infrastructure--that was the lesson we learned this time around. The local GOP committee men and women matter. We've also seen what one senator alone can do, and what more could be done if he had more backup there. Unfortunately it's true that it is the big presidential races that excites people most, and fewer people stick around to focus on local and congressional races without that big goal of winning the presidency as motivation. A standard bearer is needed to run. They don't need to win it, but they must be capable of motivating, and must encourage supporters to get involved, and to keep running for office, etc... Create a cycle that will keep feeding and growing, and snowballing.

 

[Crystallas]

How can bottom-up work, if we stay focused on top-down? I agree, it must be local, unless of course, we have someone come forward that is as good as Ron is, and there is nobody that good, not his family, not anyone in other parties, nobody. Not to say that it isn't possible.

 

[Uriah]

To have a chance at the presidency we need someone that will inspire people like Ron did. Or have a big name such as Rand Paul run. Anything less then these two options won't cut it. Ideally we would have a candidate with huge name recognition and the ability to inspire people like Ron did. With that said we should totally run a presidential candidate and where possible attempt to get constitutional liberty candidates elected to the House & Senate.

All out!

 

[Barrex]

Be realistic. Non-alcoholic beer is a beer as much grape juice is a wine .

I dont see people raising 40 Million for local candidates. It simply doesnt work that way. People will not be motivated without someone touching their hearts. Sure some will donate but not nearly enough to get to 40 Million mark. If local candidates want to get elected they will have to do it on their own. They must move the masses and not the other way around.


Another useless Idea:
Create a PAC now for liberty candidate (Rand or someone else) in presidential election in 2016.... Dont keep money in FED paper. Keep it in gold and silver..... People could donate few dollars a month... How much on value would it lose/gain? It would be pretty interesting statement.... use your imagination...


Here is another one: call people who call barley/malted wheat juice beer.... cal them morons.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I have been screaming since 2007 that the state level races (and particularly the state legislatures) are several orders of magnitude more important than any Federal races whatsoever. I find the entire debate in this thread unbearably depressing.

 

[mz10]

I cannot fathom that people aren't lining up behind Rand. For heaven's sake, what else does the man have to do?

 

[gjdavis60]

The GOP presidential primary has been a great vehicle for reaching the masses with our message. You could not raise enough money to buy the exposure that our positions received through Ron's participation in the GOP primaries. That's where I learned about him. I hope we have someone in 2016 to continue the country's education.

 

[eleganz]

We shouldn't even be asking this question, Rand Paul IS running.

We won't be able to raise nearly enough money for Rand as we did for Ron (although Rand does have an audience outside of the remnant).

Other than that we can't raise shit for liberty candidates, people won't put their money up. The only reason we did it for Ron was because so many people believed in him and there was a time urgency given the state of this nation and his age.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I support this, though, as someone else mentioned, the president does have a lot of power to do things like call the troops home and tell Congress to STFU about it.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, we've shown our hand when it comes to presidential races. The GOP wasn't prepared for the non-apathetic droves of us to show up at caucuses to vote and county conventions to become delegates. The establishment was accustomed to telling GOP voters who to vote for and getting their way by doing so. Had Ron Paul people not showed up to my county convention here in Georgia, the list of delegates would have been filled by names who didn't bother to attend the convention (at least in Georgia, it is allowable to fill vacancies with names of people absent as long as preference goes to people who actually show up in person for the convention). This was the way they had always done it, with one or two people showing up to a desolate convention and nominating their friends to fill slots. We, the revolution, totally threw a wrench in that by having just 4 Ron Paul supporters show up, in person, to the county convention.

I predict that the RNC rules changes will stand, and it will become much harder to get involved and try to have any meaningful influence on presidential picks. I don't want to give up, but, yeah, it's hard to win the jackpot when other players at the table know what cards you're holding.

I think Senate and especially House races are important. But you're not going to see as much money. As it is now, we're having to pool our resources and donate to people in other states to try to get them into house seats. I have no problem with that, but my funds are limited, so when it comes to supporting people in my district when (if) they step up, we're going to see just how far we as a movement can stretch a dollar. Do I support someone in another state or do I support the guy I can vote for? At least with a presidency, there is one unifying umbrella to pool funds into. Something to think about, I guess.

 

[scrosnoe]

I have been screaming since 2007 that the state level races (and particularly the state legislatures) are several orders of magnitude more important than any Federal races whatsoever. I find the entire debate in this thread unbearably depressing.

+rep

all politics is local! build the base and the cream will rise to the top -- naturally!

 

[sailingaway]

We shouldn't even be asking this question, Rand Paul IS running.

We won't be able to raise nearly enough money for Rand as we did for Ron (although Rand does have an audience outside of the remnant).

Other than that we can't raise shit for liberty candidates, people won't put their money up. The only reason we did it for Ron was because so many people believed in him and there was a time urgency given the state of this nation and his age.

Believing in Ron made people donate to Rand, and believing in Ron will get people to donate to Davis, unless he somehow blows up between now and 2014. I think Ron needs to be front and center carrying our banner and making people CARE about politics.

 

[singe22]

Only way i would ever consider Rand is if Ron is active in his campaign speaking at events in support. And not some this is my son speech , but backing his views of liberty and a true constitutional Republic.

 

[July]

Believing in Ron made people donate to Rand, and believing in Ron will get people to donate to Davis, unless he somehow blows up between now and 2014. I think Ron needs to be front and center carrying our banner and making people CARE about politics.

I think he will still have a presence giving speeches and writing and stuff like that. But I don't think he is going to say or do much right now, until after the dust settles with the election. Once that is done and over with, I bet we hear more from him.

 

[sailingaway]

I think he will still have a presence giving speeches and writing and stuff like that. But I don't think he is going to say or do much right now, until after the dust settles with the election. Once that is done and over with, I bet we hear more from him.

Why do you think he would lay low until after the election? He has potential for a high profile NOW.

 

[Matt Collins]

Only way i would ever consider Rand is if Ron is active in his campaign speaking at events in support.

That would be counterproductive. The reason that Rand is popular with Republican / conservatives is that he markets and packages his message in a way that doesn't offend them. Ron doesn't do this, and thus has a hard time getting their votes.