Will the Libertarian Party Field A Candidate Against Presidential Candidate Rand Paul?

[mad cow]

I think that the CPD says you must have 15% of the vote to be accepted to the Presidential debates.

Maybe we should let the LP vote percentage accumulate,they would now have ~5% after 11 elections and in another 80 years they might have enough to make the debates.

At that rate,the sky's the limit.Who knows,in three hundred years or so we might get a Libertarian Party President.

 

[eduardo89]

So even Justin Amash is too big government for the Libertarians?

They just run because they have absolutely nothing better to do with their time.

 

[GregSarnowski]

Not buying it, sorry. 40 years of failure is enough. The LP has NEVER done the hard work it takes to build from the ground up. They are nothing more than a complete and utter waste of time and money.

I am not just talking about the LP. I am talking about all alternatives. Did Ross Perot deserve to be in the debates? Why, because he had money? He certainly didn't have any national network he built from the ground up and he almost won it all. Should the people who voted for him not have had that choice? And most importantly, since that "near miss", why has the Commission on Presidential Debates - run by the former heads of the DNC and RNC - not allowed any other independent or third parties the opportunity? I think the answer is obvious.

Also, I like and support Rand Paul, but when he has the nomination stolen from him and the American people are once again presented with two terrible choices don't be surprised.

 

[BamaAla]

They'd be finished if they ran someone against a Paul. The average anarchist would love it tho.

When did they get started?

 

[GregSarnowski]

I think that the CPD says you must have 15% of the vote to be accepted to the Presidential debates.

Maybe we should let the LP vote percentage accumulate,they would now have ~5% after 11 elections and in another 80 years they might have enough to make the debates.

At that rate,the sky's the limit.Who knows,in three hundred years or so we might get a Libertarian Party President.

The CPD's criteria for inclusion in the debates is completely unreasonable and self-serving.

 

[jmdrake]

Thoughts? I say yes. They may go after him hard too. I could see the dems getting in on the action too.

If they did, wouldn't anybody other than us know it? I doubt it. Rachel Madcow might run the story so a few dozen other people would know as well.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

I am not just talking about the LP. I am talking about all alternatives. Did Ross Perot deserve to be in the debates? Why, because he had money? He certainly didn't have any national network he built from the ground up and he almost won after all. Should the people who voted for him not have had that choice? And most importantly, since that "near miss", why has the Commission on Presidential Debates - run by the former heads of the DNC and RNC - not allowed any other independent or third parties the opportunity? I think the answer is obvious.

Perot got in because he was leading in some of the polling in 92. Has an LP candidate ever come close to leading in a poll? No. Why? Because with the exception of GJ they run obscure candidates. Why are they obscure? Because the LP has never bothered to build from the ground up. Can you name one elected official that began his career in the LP and stayed in the LP for his entire career in office?

 

[mad cow]

The CPD's criteria for inclusion in the debates is completely unreasonable and self-serving.

1972.they have had a Presidential candidate in every election since and including 1972.

Oops,quoted the wrong post.Meant to quote this post by BamaAla:

When did they get started?

 

[GregSarnowski]

Perot got in because he was leading in some of the polling in 92. Has an LP candidate ever come close to leading in a poll? No. Why? Because with the exception of GJ they run obscure candidates. Why are they obscure? Because the LP has never bothered to build from the ground up. Can you name one elected official that began his career in the LP and stayed in the LP for his entire career in office?

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don't expect anything to change. There will be two candidates on the general election debate stage in 2016, and they will both be the same.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Yes.

 

[GregSarnowski]

1972.they have had a Presidential candidate in every election since and including 1972.

I am not defending the LP but I prefer to reserve my disdain for the establishment. I think they deserve inclusion just by virtue of completing the herculean task of getting on enough ballots to conceivably win. There are maybe 3 alternative parties in the country that can accomplish that.

 

[cajuncocoa]

What difference does it make? You're not worried, are you?

 

[jtstellar]

What difference does it make? You're not worried, are you?

"what difference, at this point, does it make???"

 

[compromise]

"what difference, at this point, does it make???"

They are birds of a feather.

 

[cajuncocoa]

"what difference, at this point, does it make???"

They are birds of a feather.

so now everyone who ever asks if something makes a difference is Hillary Clinton? Juvenile.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don't expect anything to change. There will be two candidates on the general election debate stage in 2016, and they will both be the same.

It will change if they (or for that matter any other minor party) does the hard work that it takes to establish themselves. But they likely won't. Minor parties are made up of a combination of the naive, the delusional, opportunists and outcasts. They don't have what it takes to be successful.

 

[FrankRep]

What difference does it make? You're not worried, are you?

I'll be worried that a Libertarian candidate will split the Rand Paul vote allow the Democrat to win.

 

[Christian Liberty]

They'd be finished if they ran someone against a Paul. The average anarchist would love it tho.

Wouldn't they have to pick their candidate before RP's win was guaranteed?

Is he? Rand is definitely better fiscally than Gary.

True.

Gary Johnson is worse than Rand on a few issues.

At least.

He's worse than Rand across the board. Johnson is not a libertarian at all. He's a soft statist.

Yeah, pretty much. Johnson wasn't terrible but he doesn't stand up to Rand on basically any issue I can think of.

Of course they will. Hell Ron Paul could run on the R ticket and Judge Nap on the Dems and they would still field a candidate. They need money coming in to keep up their sham of a political party and recruit some more suckers to make up for the ones that they lose along the way.

If they did that, they'd be stupid, but I don't know that they would. Heck, Ron ran as the LP candidate before.

It irks me every time the media refer to Rand as a "libertarian" and he accepts this label. Not only it goes at odds with his political strategy, he dilutes the meaning of libertarianism in the process.

Rand's mission in the Republican party should be reforming Conservatism, not Libertarianism.

I agree.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I'll be worried that a Libertarian candidate will split the Rand Paul vote allow the Democrat to win.

Nothing to worry about...the LP doesn't get enough votes to effect the outcome.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Nothing to worry about...the LP doesn't get enough votes to effect the outcome.

So vote the lesser of two evils, because it doesn't matter anyway

/sarc. HEAVY sarc.

The LP candidate will honestly be irrelevant to me if Rand wins. As long as Rand doesn't slip into Ted Cruz type foreign policy, he'll have my vote. And if he does, he won't. Regardless of the LP candidate.