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

[Flash]

Bloomberg has a slight chance at winning as a 3rd party. Ralph Nader and Ron Paul don't.

Plan B to ressurect GoldWater Conservatism is to get Ron Paul and Ron Paul-like politicians into the Senate and the Congress.

 

[AlexMerced]

Bloomberg has a slight chance at winning as a 3rd party. Ralph Nader and Ron Paul don't.

Plan B to ressurect GoldWater Conservatism is to get Ron Paul and Ron Paul-like politicians into the Senate and the Congress.

I don't know, I think either these guys might have chance this year... November is gonna be really really odd...

everyone knows the system is screwed up, so they are more open to unlikey alternatives

always happens during economic downturn during elections, except this one is more present in people mind due to the internet

 

[Join The Paul Side]

If Perot was that close in 1992 then I don't see why people doubt Ron Paul could do better in an Indy/3rd party run.

Perot got 20% of the vote. In a 3 way race one would only need 34% to win. That's only 14% more than what Perot did. With the power of the Internet today I would say it's very very possible Dr. Paul could win Indy or 3rd party.

 

[Ron Paul Fan]

3rd party means no debates and even less coverage than you get as a major party candidate. Teddy Roosevelt was a popular former President, and he couldn't do it. Ross Perot had billions to put infomercials out nationwide and get into the debates, and he didn't win a state. What makes you think Paul would even be relevant to the conversation as these two were? He doesn't have anywhere near the notoriety Teddy had and he certainly doesn't have billions of dollars to throw around. The internet has certainly changed things, but then Paul should be doing better in the primaries if it's such a big factor.

 

[AlexMerced]

3rd party means no debates and even less coverage than you get as a major party candidate. Teddy Roosevelt was a popular former President, and he couldn't do it. Ross Perot had billions to put infomercials out nationwide and get into the debates, and he didn't win a state. What makes you think Paul would even be relevant to the conversation as these two were? He doesn't have anywhere near the notoriety Teddy had and he certainly doesn't have billions of dollars to throw around. The internet has certainly changed things, but then Paul should be doing better in the primaries if it's such a big factor.

The book will get him a fair share of press, and his growing base will eventually gorw to the point they can't ignore it too much

I'm not saying it's a good chance, I but I wouldn't say no chance.

 

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

So what happened? I read somewhere (unconfirmed, going by memory) that his family threatened. Establishment shenanigans??

He claimed the Republicans were trying to sabotage his daughter's wedding with "dirty tricks" confused... he was nuts. It's absolutely stunning that he still pulled in 20 million votes after such a meltdown, and after literally dropping out of the race.

Perot spent 60 million on his race, not "billions." Ron could raise more than Perot spent.

 

[kyleAF]

Just remember these words:

"Sore Loser Laws"

Further hamstrung from day one.

 

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

The book will get him a fair share of press, and his growing base will eventually grow to the point they can't ignore it too much

I'm not saying it's a good chance, I but I wouldn't say no chance.

The fact is, that he's got an actual CHANCE. The book tour will come at just the right time to get him on all the TV and radio shows for an independent run!

 

[MayTheRonBeWithYou]

Just remember these words:

"Sore Loser Laws"

Wrong. No sore loser laws will not effect Ron. That's a myth. Those laws do not apply to presidential candidates.

 

[TonySutton]

Perot bought Prime Time TV slots to pitch his ideas to America, complete with charts! I was one of the 19 million plus votes.

 

[nate895]

3rd party means no debates and even less coverage than you get as a major party candidate. Teddy Roosevelt was a popular former President, and he couldn't do it. Ross Perot had billions to put infomercials out nationwide and get into the debates, and he didn't win a state. What makes you think Paul would even be relevant to the conversation as these two were? He doesn't have anywhere near the notoriety Teddy had and he certainly doesn't have billions of dollars to throw around. The internet has certainly changed things, but then Paul should be doing better in the primaries if it's such a big factor.

Go away and stop posting in the indy threads.

Teddy Roosevelt had a huge disadvantage: he was as big government as George W. Bush and our wing of the party would've rather voted for the fat slob Taft, who followed that stupid little thing called the Constitution.

 

[MozoVote]

Perot was self-financed, so that's kind of an oddity. A better example of an independent politician would be John Anderson (1980, 6.6% of the vote and no states) or Strom Thurmond (1948, 2.4% and 4 states).

George Wallace did pretty well in 1968, he got 13.5% of the vote and 5 states.

 

[Flash]

Heres my complaint though:

If we can't even get number 1 in a few primary states then how can we ever win the presidency? The Republicans will all back Mccain and Democrats will back Hillary. And the media will totally ignore Paul's independent run just like they're ignoring Mike Gravel's.

Go away and stop posting in the indy threads.

I'm not against the idea of a 3rd party run. But I'm just not too sure he can win that way.

 

[nate895]

Perot was self-financed, so that's kind of an oddity. A better example of an independent politician would be John Anderson (1980, 6.6% of the vote and no states) or Strom Thurmond (1948, 2.4% and 4 states).

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

 

[AlexMerced]

Wrong. No sore loser laws will not effect Ron. That's a myth. Those laws do not apply to presidential candidates.

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

 

[nate895]

Heres my complaint though:

If we can't even get number 1 in a few primary states then how can we ever win the presidency? The Republicans will all back Mccain and Democrats will back Hillary. And the media will totally ignore Paul's independent run just like they're ignoring Mike Gravel's.

Wrong: Paul gets 11% of the vote in a four way race with McCain, Obama, and Bloomberg. A 1/4 of Republicans will never, I repeat, never, vote for McLame.

 

[nate895]

Heres my complaint though:

If we can't even get number 1 in a few primary states then how can we ever win the presidency? The Republicans will all back Mccain and Democrats will back Hillary. And the media will totally ignore Paul's independent run just like they're ignoring Mike Gravel's.



I'm not against the idea of a 3rd party run. But I'm just not too sure he can win that way.

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

 

[Mogwai]

The best I could find was George Wallace in 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1968) . After losing in the democratic primaries in 1960, he ran on the independent party ballot in 1968 and won 5 states. I think the reason he was popular was the opposition against the civil rights for blacks and law and order.

Actually, the opposition against civil rights for blacks is the 'same' position Ron Paul takes. It's about the individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and not what we see today as collective rights (black rights, gay rights, handicap rights, etc.). The constitution sees everybody as equals and there is no purpose for collective rights. George Wallace wanted to use education, uplift and time to eliminate racism.

 

[Ron Paul Fan]

Go away and stop posting in the indy threads.

Teddy Roosevelt had a huge disadvantage: he was as big government as George W. Bush and our wing of the party would've rather voted for the fat slob Taft, who followed that stupid little thing called the Constitution.

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?

 

[hawks4ronpaul]

The most successful 3rd party is the Republican Party (GOP), in case you want to know what 3rd parties do when they get power.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/