Should we not run a presidential candidate in 2016?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

It looks like we won't have a candidate for 2016

Just because you don't like Rand Paul doesn't mean he does not exist.

 

[Matt Collins]

How can bottom-up work, if we stay focused on top-down?

Both are necessecary.

 

[Matt Collins]

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.

Very true, but the federal races build excitement and draw people together, not to mention build lists.

 

[Matt Collins]

Other than that we can't raise shit for liberty candidates, people won't put their money up.

Which is why we need liberty candidates like Rand, who package and market their message to be more Republican/conservative friendly. If Rand had talked like Ron during his race, he would've lost.

 

[Matt Collins]

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

Careful though, sometimes crap floats too.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

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.

Here's where your logic fails: assuming that people are going to donate $40,000,000 to a bunch of obscure candidates for the state legislature or U.S. House, many of whom are probably of the no-hoper variety (gerrymandered districts; challenging incumbents in party primaries; etc.)

We couldn't get Hightower $10,000 in one day. Ron Paul got a lot of donations from people who really are not plugged into politics.

 

[sailingaway]

Which is why we need liberty candidates like Rand, who package and market their message to be more Republican/conservative friendly. If Rand had talked like Ron during his race, he would've lost.

If Ron hadn't talked like RON during Ron's race, RAND would have lost.

 

[Matt Collins]

If Ron hadn't talked like RON during Ron's race, RAND would have lost.

Very true.

 

[jcannon98188]

Which is why we need liberty candidates like Rand, who package and market their message to be more Republican/conservative friendly. If Rand had talked like Ron during his race, he would've lost.

Why do we need to package or market anything? Ron Paul gathered us all here because he didn't package and market his message to anyone. He told the truth. The blunt truth. I sure as hell wouldn't have joined his campaign had he had different rhetoric. We don't need someone to tell the Republicans what they want to hear. We need someone to tell them what they NEED to hear.

 

[jmdrake]

or 400 members of state legislatures.

Word! And why even worry about 2016, when there's still 2014? If this movement does what it needs to do in 2014, we'll be in the drivers seat and liberty presidential candidates can "come out of the closet" so to speak.

 

[jmdrake]

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.

Hang in there Gunny! Here's the problem. Most people (myself included) haven't adequately addressed our personal finances. We give to the high profile races. Then we get a zillion requests (many from the C4L) to fund this initiative or that project. "Do you support Audit the Fed? Great! Can we count on you to mail a petition? Great! Can we count on you for $50 to fund the effort to tell other people to sign the petition?" The Christian conservative movement solved their own personal finance issue (Amway) then became a powerful (though fully co-opted at this point) force.

So two things need to happen. We need to become a movement that helps people gain disposable income. (If 100,000 people are making an extra $25 dollars a month that they can "throw away" on candidates that may or may not win, we become unstoppable). We need an organization that is focused on helping candidates fundraise as opposed to focusing on "issue fundraising". Sadly, I don't think the C4L's structure as a 527 allows it to do either.

 

[KEEF]

Careful though, sometimes crap floats too.

Crap only floats if there are alot of lipids in your diet...OH SHIT!!! That means the establishment is going to run Christie!

 

[singe22]

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.

Its not counterproductive. Rand hasnt done enough for me to lock a solid vote for me if he ever does run as of right now. I have that right and i'm not on here or any other site spreading negative propaganda about rand paul. I"m sorry but endorsing someone just to play along loses major points with me. I'm spoiled by Ron Paul statesmanship.

The difference between us and the sheep that are still sleep are, they live for the headlines of the moment and forget them in the future until their sleezy new anchor tells them its relevent again.

When Romney Loses we will get the blame, after a year they will be "going along" long enough to pander some of your votes when they see the wreck the party is in.

 

[Carson]

Should we not run a presidential candidate in 2016?

The way we've not been able to run a candidate for decades?

I don't think we have any more say in the matter than England, France, Spain, or any one of the other countries that have a central bank tied in with the global network of central banks, have.

We are left with voting for whom they allow us to vote for...

Kang or Kodos


It will take more than an act of Congress to restore order now. It will take an act by "We The People".

Maybe they will wake up and a miracle will happen in

2012

Ron Paul​

 

[Ivash]

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.

The 'establishment' is already going at each other for who should be the 2016 candidate. The 'establishment' really isn't as unified as you guys tend to think (too many people looking out for their own self and ideological interests), and there will be so many people running in 2016... well, its going to get bloody.

I wouldn't bet on Rand Paul, however. I'm not so sure if his father's support will transfer over to him, and there are other candidates beloved by the other wings of the Republican party.

 

[DylanWaco]

Which is why we need liberty candidates like Rand, who package and market their message to be more Republican/conservative friendly. If Rand had talked like Ron during his race, he would've lost.

This may be true.

But if Rand's last name was Smith or Jones or Cooper he wouldn't have won either.

I will never vote for Rand for President for a lot of reasons, some of which are strategic

 

[Luieburger]

Gary Johnson 2016? He's got some momentum going right now. Keep it up?

 

[Smart3]

Support Jesse Ventura for President.
Support 15 Liberty Republicans for House
Support Tom Davis if he fails to oust Graham
Support 50 new Liberty Republicans in state legislatures.

 

[Jumbo Shrimp]

RAND PAUL 2016

 

[mport1]

Other - Run a VERY principled libertarian under a major party banner and invest all other resources in outside the system activism to educate the public. Do not spend time/money on other politics unless it is for local government in New Hampshire.