What's the best a 3rd party candidate has done?

[trey4sports]

He's right, sore loswer law wouldn't effect his run, and he does have a very reasonable chance.

- He could win his congressional seat hands down as independant if he had to so that isn't really a concern, he's too popular in his ditrict to lose. I fyou know anything about his electoral history that seat ain't going nowhere.

- although maybe focusing on an indpendant run would be counter productive to focus on getting people in congress, thoguh keeping RP in the spotlight might help fuel new receuits to get the votes we need to build up the congress.

I mean we'll know what we need to do after tomrrow

nope, your wrong on this one bud.
the sore loser law would apply in Texas and a couple other states. I watched a video of Rand Paul talking about the subject. He for sure couldnt get on Texas ballot as an indy and a couple others but 1 or 2 of the states sore loser laws could be contested

 

[fuzzybekool]

I remember perot also. We were so excited cuz we had a real 3rd choice, then all of a sudden, Perot disappeared like he was black-mailed or something to keep quiet. I dunno. it was wierd. But Perot got like 20% of the vote. Best ever for an independent in history.

 

[mysticgeek]

Jesse Ventura won the Governor mansion for 4 years here in MN!!!!

 

[Ron Paul Fan]

I was talking to Ron Paul Fan, he has been negative since Iowa didn't deliver, and I'm really sick of it.

It's not negative, it's just realistic. You seem to think that Paul can get 40-45% as a 3rd party and win the general election. I'm sorry, but that's just wishful thinking and I'm very skeptical that he would even crack 10% as a 3rd party candidate. Yes, I'm very skeptical that he'll win a state tomorrow. I gave you two examples of people who ran 3rd party or independent and didn't do much despite being more popular and having more money than Paul. You think Teddy had a disadvantage, just think of what Paul will be facing.

 

[nate895]

As big a disadvantage as the big government Woodrow Wilson who won the election? Taft was a great President and I wouldn't make fun of him like that. I will not go away just because you don't like my view. If you want to argue that it's wrong, then do it. The fact is that you guys say Paul is being blacked out by the media, then you say that he'll miraculously get all of this coverage from a book tour and running as a 3rd party. If he can't get enough people to vote for him running as a Republican and being in debates, then he's not going to do it as a 3rd party. How do you think Paul even got into Congress? He joined the Republican Party. He's said before that many in his district would vote Republican no matter who was running and that only magnifies in the general election. How can you not see this?

You have no understanding of that election: Wilson won because he was able to have a united front against a Republican party that was fighting for its heart and soul, this is the reason why our campaign could be so successful.

The Republican party will be fighting for its heart and soul in November if McCain wins the nomination, we can get the people who distaste McCain so much that they'd rather vote for Clinton, but we'd be there for them. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh hop on board the RP boat, possibly Hannity and Savage. this could well be 20-30% of the vote. We could then take advantage of a split in the Democratic Party, probably closer to 10% of the vote, if Clinton wins, which I think is likely. We could also pick up many Independents who dislike the war, but remember the 8 years of Clinton. If I had enough money ($100M) and Ron Paul, I could win the election, I can guarantee you that.

 

[nate895]

nope, your wrong on this one bud.
the sore loser law would apply in Texas and a couple other states. I watched a video of Rand Paul talking about the subject. He for sure couldnt get on Texas ballot as an indy and a couple others but 1 or 2 of the states sore loser laws could be contested

Those laws were successfully challenged in 1980, and we could just put our elector slate on the ballot saying "Ron Paul 4 President Plank"

 

[Ron Paul Fan]

You have no understanding of that election: Wilson won because he was able to have a united front against a Republican party that was fighting for its heart and soul, this is the reason why our campaign could be so successful.

The Republican party will be fighting for its heart and soul in November if McCain wins the nomination, we can get the people who distaste McCain so much that they'd rather vote for Clinton, but we'd be there for them. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh hop on board the RP boat, possibly Hannity and Savage. this could well be 20-30% of the vote. We could then take advantage of a split in the Democratic Party, probably closer to 10% of the vote, if Clinton wins, which I think is likely. We could also pick up many Independents who dislike the war, but remember the 8 years of Clinton. If I had enough money ($100M) and Ron Paul, I could win the election, I can guarantee you that.

Except Wilson was a nominee of one of the major parties, Paul won't be. It seems to me that if you're arguing the Republican Party is in shambles, that would lead to an easy victory for Clinton or Obama. You're arguing that Paul is going to get twice the % he's getting in Republican primaries. He wouldn't take anything close to 10% from the democrats. People rally around their party nominee. It happens every single year.

 

[Karsten]

How many 3rd party candidates start out with 11% in a hypothetical matchup? RON PAUL DOES!!!

 

[JAlli41]

the issue that is important here, is that Perot's legacy of being anti-Nafta lived on even to today, whether he won or not, and whether Nafta was put in place or not, anyone who thinks challenging the status quo because it might be too difficult, or we might not win is buying into the media's hype. the reason we talk about third party cadidates with the disgust we do is because the media uses them as a scapegoat to explain Bill Clinton, and George W Bush's election. More democracy should be a priority for everyone and saying no third party run because it will hurt the the cause isnt seeing the forest for the trees. if Dr. Paul can get onto the stages at the debates there is not reason we cant pull in a TON of voted from people who hated the Republican white house and hate the Democratic legislature. Plus, a third party run that garners people's votes would help us get more attention to our causes and issues, not less. The one issue I would have would be a run on the Libertarian or Constitution party tickets, I think the better choice would be Pat Buchanan's Reform Party.

 

[nate895]

Except Wilson was a nominee of one of the major parties, Paul won't be. It seems to me that if you're arguing the Republican Party is in shambles, that would lead to an easy victory for Clinton or Obama. You're arguing that Paul is going to get twice the % he's getting in Republican primaries. He wouldn't take anything close to 10% from the democrats. People rally around their party nominee. It happens every single year.

You see, those years are different fundamentally. There are fundamental issues the Republicans disagree with McCain on (i.e. immigration, tax cuts, campaign finance reform, etc.), and the Clintons are seen as power hungry warmongers by the smart Democrats who have three brain cells. Also, every other year there is virtually no challenge to the two party system, it is vote for the candidates that you've heard of, or vote for some guy named Badnarik who comes from TX. The only problem in independent bids is the lack of money, which we won't lack.

 

[Flash]

If RP runs independent then is it still possible for him to run as a congressman?

 

[nate895]

the issue that is important here, is that Perot's legacy of being anti-Nafta lived on even to today, whether he won or not, and whether Nafta was put in place or not, anyone who thinks challenging the status quo because it might be too difficult, or we might not win is buying into the media's hype. the reason we talk about third party cadidates with the disgust we do is because the media uses them as a scapegoat to explain Bill Clinton, and George W Bush's election. More democracy should be a priority for everyone and saying no third party run because it will hurt the the cause isnt seeing the forest for the trees. if Dr. Paul can get onto the stages at the debates there is not reason we cant pull in a TON of voted from people who hated the Republican white house and hate the Democratic legislature. Plus, a third party run that garners people's votes would help us get more attention to our causes and issues, not less. The one issue I would have would be a run on the Libertarian or Constitution party tickets, I think the better choice would be Pat Buchanan's Reform Party.

How about all of them? Conservative third parties, unite.

 

[Todd]

damn...we were so close to destroying the two party system...

I hated Perot...but this is the best point that was ever made about his candidacy. I was too young to pay attention and understand how important it was then.

 

[nate895]

If RP runs independent then is it still possible for him to run as a congressman?

Not as a Republican.

 

[constitutional]

Yes, we want to destroy this two party system.... badly. It seems we are getting closer to that objective every year.

 

[nate895]

Yes, we want to destroy this two party system.... badly. It seems we are getting closer to that objective every year.

If the Republicans nominate McCain, and someone like him in 2012, the party will be dead by 2020.

 

[blaumittwoch]

Yes, but those candidates had little money, we could raise 100 million for the general if we really wanted to.

Why aren't we raising $100m now? Do we not want to? What about an independent run will get us more money than we've ever raised, ever? It's not like the media will start covering Ron Paul just because he quit the GOP race. In fact, we'd probably get less coverage than we are now.

 

[nate895]

Why aren't we raising $100m now? Do we not want to? What about an independent run will get us more money than we've ever raised, ever? It's not like the media will start covering Ron Paul just because he quit the GOP race. In fact, we'd probably get less coverage than we are now.

If we can get the over 250000 donors to this campaign to donate $100 every month on average, we could get 100M by June, and 175M by October. We currently average $140> per donor.

 

[freedom-maniac]

That must have been an even worse campaign than Giuliani's. Drop out with 40%, come on.

It's guess his running mate was an idiot.

 

[nate895]

Apparently Ron Paul Fan has taken my advice, or now agrees we have a chance.