3 Reasons Why Ron Paul Should Go 3rd Party
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, 3rd Party, Ron Paul
I like Ron Paul. I think he’s consistent, honest and has a very “American” message. When I talk about him here I rarely miss an opportunity to share my opinion about his 3rd party viability. Needless to say, I think it’s pretty damn good.
However, many of his supporters loathe that I share this view so often and with such conviction. They think I’m trying to subvert his candidacy. They think I don’t want him in the debate any longer. They think I don’t like him.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
And so, here’s the truth. There hasn’t been this much support for a politician who doesn’t fit neatly into either party’s ideological structure since Perot. Paul pulls from every demographic and from every party affiliation, and it’s all because of his freedom message. To have all that end because he didn’t win the GOP nomination wouldn’t be just a waste, it would also be irresponsible and stupid.
The simple fact of the matter is I’m trying to save his candidacy. That’s why I’ve come up with 3 reasons why he should go 3rd party:
- Ron Paul won’t win the GOP nomination and he knows it.
The only shot Ron Paul had was to become the dark horse and then ride that status to rack up wins in the first few primary states. That way he could compete with Giuliani and/or Romney in the later stages of the primary season.
Well, the GOPers have picked their wild card and his name is Mike Huckabee. Like it or not, that’s the reality.
Also, with a field of candidates as broad as this, the chance for an anti-war candidate to somehow gather enough delegates to win the nomination of an extremely pro-war party is gone. Paul’s message hasn’t caught on with the average GOP voter, and he knows it.
But wait, his supporters say, he’s raising a lot of money! Look at all the people at his meetups! What about the blimp?
Yes, he has passionate support within the Republican party, but there’s also a lot of support from democrats and independents too. He’s pulling people in who weren’t involved in politics before. The result is that he appears to have more Republican support than he actually does.
Also, let’s be frank here, the very reason he’s popular is because he wasn’t courting the GOP’s base. And whether you like it or not, you have to win those voters in order to win the nomination. Add to that this news that the surge is working and that Iraq is fixable and the GOP is now firmly against Paul’s anti-war POV.
Simply put, Paul can’t remake his party from the inside out. It has to come from the outside in.
How to do that? There’s only one way.
3rd party.
- Ron Paul can easily get on the ballot in all 50 states.
Remember Perot? Remember 1992? For all intents and purposes, the internet didn’t even exist. And yet, Perot was able to get on the ballot in all 50 states. So how did he pull off such an amazing feat? It was combination of two things: national support and money. Paul has both too.
But when asked about running on a 3rd party ticket, Paul often cites his largely ignored Libertarian run in ‘88 as a reason he wouldn’t be able to get traction. Well, if he’s being honest with that comparison, he can’t see the forest for the trees. Within 24 hours of him announcing a 3rd party run, his vast Meetup posses will be well on their way to getting him on the ballot in all 50 states. In fact, I bet he’ll get on all 50 ballots so quickly that the speed at which he accomplished that task will become a story in and of itself.
Plus, if he’s interested, he can try to harness Unity08’s organization for free access to get on the ballots. That’s why they exist. All he would have to do is pick a bi-partisan unity ticket and he’s off to the races.
And lastly, if Ralph Nader can do it, so can Paul.
Again, 3rd party.
- If Ross Perot almost won, Ron Paul can actually win.
2008 is the year of the “change” candidate. It’s prime time for a new political voice to emerge. If you don’t feel that by now, you’re not paying attention to the electorate. They voted in the anemic Dems because they’re desperate for any kind of change. What did they get? More of the same.
Again, I go back to Perot as an indicator for the electorate’s behavior. In June ‘92, he was polling at 39%, with Bush Sr. and Clinton taking 31% and 25% respectively. Why? Because people liked his ideas. They liked his honesty. They thought he could actually change things.
But then he dropped out in July. The reason? Republican operatives threatened his daughter’s wedding or something like that. He reemerged in September and got back into the race. What was the final result? He still got 19% of the popular vote. Had Perot stuck with his campaign he very well could have taken the Oval Office. But he was too flaky and people lost faith. Even so, “flaky” got 19,741,065 votes.
What about a non flaky candidate? What kind of support could he grab and from where? Well, here’s some more from Wikipedia about Perot’s base:
He adopted specific positions that had been abandoned by both parties — he was nationalistic and isolationist; he was conservative in social policy. He opposed free trade. He was above all a crusader for a balanced budget, as he warned of the horrors of the national debt.
A detailed analysis of the voting demographics revealed that Perot’s support drew heavily from across the political spectrum, with 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from self-described conservatives, and 53% coming from self-described moderates. Economically, however, the majority of Perot voters (57%) were middle class, earning between $15,000 and $49,000 annually, with the bulk of the remainder drawing from the upper middle class (29% earning over $50,000 annually).
That should sound familiar to a lot of people. Ross Perot’s base was America, not the elite.
Can you say the same about Ron Paul?
And so, 3rd party.
There you have them. Those are my three reasons. I have more, but I only have so much time in my day to devote to saving politicians from themselves.
Still, I would hazard a guess that if you asked his supporters what they thought about this post, they’ll probably say I’m trying to subvert his candidacy, that I don’t want him in the debate any longer, that I don’t like him.
You see, they’re a pretty stubborn group. And that’ll serve them well when they’re trying to convince the nation that a 3rd party candidate can actually win.
(Cross-posted at PoliGazette)
This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 12th, 2007 and is filed under 2008 Election, 3rd Party, Ron Paul. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
You make good points, but let’s take this one step at a time. With such a broad field of candidates and lonely Ron Paul the only one concerned about the deficit and our over-reaching military/foreign policies, I would not be too quick to give up on the Republican nomination. It takes far fewer votes to win the nomination than the general election.
With a two-way general election choice between Dr. Paul and Hilbamawards, Ron Paul would have a strong shot at winning overall. A three way race between Dr. Paul, Hilbamawards and Rudy McRomabee is probably not so clear cut since the R candidate will run to the right and draw default R voters from Dr. Paul.
So, if it comes to that, we could do no worse than having a third choice in Ron Paul. But let’s not lose sight of this achievable Republican nomination and improve the odds of a Paul presidency.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
I agree, Ron Paul should seek the Libertarian Party nomination as well as the Constitution Party nomination once he wins the Republican Party nomination.
Great idea.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
He often cites his libertarian run as a reason he doesn’t want to do it again. It’s not only the ballot thing, he always says “you spend all your money getting on ballots, and they won’t let you into the debates”. The debates is the main thing. That’s literally the only reason he has so much recognition today. Sure, he has his supporters, and no doubt would be raising some money without being in the debates. But without being let into the GOP debates, he would never, ever, ever have gotten so much traction.
If you can figure out a scenario where they let him into the general debates, then I might be able to buy your arguments. But if it’s just the 2 major parties, then no. He’d be just ignored by most of the media, as he is now. But at least being in the debates forces them (sometimes) to talk about his views and candidacy. Without being in the debates, he’d just be like the Nader, or Buchanan. 3rd party candidates with a bunch of name recognition, but no coverage.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
I agree with you. What I would like to see is him do well in Iowa and NH. Top three, and then announce a third party run. I’m in LA and although we work very hard to get his name out but there’s not enough time for him to get all the undecided and apathetic voters. I think with a Rudy v Hillary matchup, Ron Paul would have an excellent chance to get his message out there and get enough votes. I would just hate to see him waste the 20 million he’s going to get this quarter on the GOP when the Libertarian Party with a couple million voters is ready with money and support. By the way enjoyed the party last night at Cinespace.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
I agree with you totally, but I think we need to wait until after Super Tuesday to push the issue. If things look bad for his GOP run after that, I’ll be on the phone urging the campaign to go 3rd party.
I think you are absolutely right he could be bigger than Perot. He can even raise his own money, instead of just spending his own. He already has a grassroots army of almost 100,000 meetup members to do his bidding. I would love to see a Libertarian-Constitution Party, or even larger 3rd party coalition behind Paul. I think it the possibilities are great.
But first, I’ll be focusing on the GOP run until he wins or is mathematically eliminated.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Theoretically these are all reasons that have surely been discussed by many many supporters. I think it’s safe to to say that if Ron Paul does not get the GOP nomination, these ideas of an independent run can be discussed further. Until we see what happens in NH, Iowa, and SC, I believe it is not anything to consider. However, there will be, if things go poorly in those early primaries and caucuses. a time to consider this option. I agree with you Justin that America and Americans are ready for real change this next election. And that also leads me to believe that Hitlery won’t be the Dem nominee. This is not an American dynasty. This is The American Republic.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Huckabee is DOA.
He is a liberal of Kucinich or Gravel’s magnitude on so many issues that he has no chance at winning as soon as the attack ads come. Ron Paul can do it, because besides foreign policy he is a huge conservative he just has to keep get his name out.
Ron Paul’s wildcard is his passionate supporters especially compared to the tepid acceptance of the other guys, and the fact that it’s “nobody but Ron Paul” on his side, very few people will defect ranks. Especially a bunch of people who have seen a dream candidate that may never appear.
Also, you have to remember he also has additional wildcards up his sleeves, including New Hampshire’s independent vote, Nevada’s huge (compared to the rest of America at least) Libertarian (big L) base. The fact that in Michigan, Democrats can (R) vote too (Democrats were penalized by the party and get no delegates, also, only Hillary bothered to get on the ballot, so the antiwar vote goes straight to Paul). The fact that Democrats can vote in South Carolina for the GOP, AND that the extremely popular Governor of SC, Mark Sanford is a good friend and had Ron Paul as his mentor (he’s waiting for a strategic moment to endorse Paul)…
Also, most likely the Iowa caucuses are going to be held on a snowy January 3rd, during some football thing, in which, Paul’s passionate support may give him a strong 3rd place in Iowa.
You severely underestimate Ron Paul as a campaigner, he’s no Ross Perot or Pat Buchanon who were political newbies, Ron Paul is a ten term Republican congressman and has been around the block, and he’s NEVER been supported by the GOP but has won anyways.
I wouldn’t bet against him.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
I’d say that pursuing a 3rd party now is quitting before the race has even started. Wait until he’s actually failed to secure the GOP nomination! America HATES the GOP right now. The fact that they didn’t want him, if in fact they didn’t (and don’t judge the GOP base by the active base at the moment, either; there was nobody like Paul in the 2004 elections) would be a boost in and of itself.
But it’s premature to pursue a 3rd party nomination. It’d make him a quitter. Let him run a good GOP primary race, then shift to 3rd party then, if indeed he fails. I’m not convinced that he’s going to. Better yet, what happens if he gets a respectable number of delegates for the GOP nomination and then shifts to 3rd party? He’s perceived as a popular candidate, not a GOP candidate, and it actually helps his election chances in November when he sucks a good chunk of the GOP voters away, as well as snagging a healthy number of liberal Dems and almost all the independents.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Perot got in the debates. How? He had money and he had poll numbers. He could not be ignored.
Ron Paul could certainly achieve the same thing. As much as I hope he pulls off the upset GOP nomination, I hope even more that his campaign is already organizing for a PLAN B 3rd Party strategy.
If the Ron Paul Nation grassroots can make ballot access a non-issue, I can envision him being persuaded to stay in the fight to the finish….
December 11th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I too like Ron Paul.
And, like Ron Paul, I disagree with you, oh faint of heart.
Folks are elected by ballots, not special interest polls.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
If he does not get the republican nomination, which will be known by Feb 5th, he will run on the libertarian ticket. But I think you are incorrect when you say that he will definitely not get the RP nomination. He has a real chance. And, for him to say now, that he intends to run on the libertarian ticket would make him less credible. Notice how he words it….”I have no intention” He is leaving his options open. I trust in what he is doing and will most likely be our next president. The party is irrelevant.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
I am a supporter of what Ron Paul say’s and what he stands for. If the GOP was smart they would look at the support Ron Paul has from disenchanted Republicans and Democrats, Young voters, independents and parlay it into there favor by providing a supportive party for these folks.
As a past Libertarian candidate in District 91 in Florida I can assure you that Ron Paul has even a less of a chance as a 3rd party candidate due to the huge obstacles that the two-party system has in place to keep others out.
Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate that will get Democratic voters and will certainly get most of the Independent votes of all the other candidates, perhaps this is where our strength lay along with almost over 11 million dollars in support this quarter too…
December 11th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
1. Ron Paul will get the nomination he’s already earned.
2. Ron Paul will win the ‘08 election with a record landslide.
3. Ron Paul will win the ‘12 election breaking his own record.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
This video explains very well why I think he WILL win.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f_YFMfottY
It’s hard to argue with those facts.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
lol, Im really confused as to how it is everyone seems so certain that Ron Paul absolutely cant win the Republican nomination. All anyone has to defend such a claim are opinion polls that are surveying 6.6% of registered Republicans…the same 6.6% who actually voted for Bush a second time.
Even funnier than that is the pipe dream that ANYONE- be they Ron Paul or Superman- could actually make a legitimate run for President on a third party. Think Ron Paul losing the GOP nomination (if he does) will reduce his whole campaign to a flash in the pan? lol A run at the GOP nomination strikes the vast majority of people out there- granted- risky and extremely ambitious yet intriguing; a run as a Constitutionalist, Libertarian, Unity, etc. would simply strike everyone as somewhat amusing.
Do I think- as a Paul SUPPORTER (some seriously dont seem to know what this means in a campaign season)- that Ron Paul’s chances at gaining national attention, starting a country-wide dialogue about these ideas, and possibly winning the whole damn thing are good? No not really.
Do I think his chances of accomplishing the above would be somehow better and would be likely to attract more attention/get more people talking as a Green, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, Mickey Mouse party nomination? HELL no.
I know you started this article off with a disclaimer, but you still really did overlook the fallacies of this proposal- not to mention adding to the mindless and sheepish major media mantra that their polls are the irrefutable word of god and according to these (and not much else that I can see) Ron Paul is doomed…despite every other indication screaming that he absolutely isnt.
Whatever Ron Paul runs as, I’ll vote for him. That being said Im going to support him as a REPUBLICAN (what he is running as) and not suggest every two days that he dump what interest he’s garnered so far as a major party candidate and launch the most heavily-funded tweedle-dee ticket in history…the majority of people out there are too biased and will simply turn their nose up once they see he’s not a Repub or Dem. The interesting thing right now is that the media wants to call Ron Paul “not a serious candidate,” with nearly ALL evidence not only pointing to the contrary but pointing to a phenomenon in the making. The worst thing he could do is take this embarrassing pressure off the media, prove their constant insinuation (that he isnt even one of the Repub. candidates) correct, and throw away his major-party strong showing to run literally under the “not serious” ticket.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
3rd party, are you nuts. Its never fair for 3rd party runners.
http://ronpaulchat.50webs.com
December 11th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Landslide for GOP nomination.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
I agree with Julian above who pokes the most obvious hole in your logic, Justin. It’s currently even more unrealistic to run a winning 3rd party campaign then it is to win the Republican nomination. First you note Perot’s self-destructive, flaky pull-out then you advocate a self-destructive, flaky pull-out for Paul? It makes no sense to abandon the Republican nomination at this point. Heck, Paul has a reasonable shot at the Republican nomination. After Super-Tuesday Paul supporters will know if they even need to start a discussion of what to do next. But the good Dr. seems fully aware of how counter-productive an early discussion would be.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
I strongly suspect there is something structural in the US electoral system that makes two and only two centrist parties emerge. A powerful third party is probably not a stable situation.
What I hope we are seeing is a tectonic shift in the stance of the two parties. Instead of a declared left/right distinction, we may finally see a statist/liberty distinction. The liberty party will probably be a strange mix of Republican and Democrat old boys that know how to work a political machine to win elections and Libertarian ideology that can bring in voters. We won’t get immediate utopia, but we will be in a far better position than we are now.
I can promote this vision by fully supporting Ron Paul for a Republican nomination. If the Republican Party can’t get behind him, I will change my strategy at that stage. I suspect, though, that by rejecting Ron Paul they will have alienated their (small “l”) libertarian wing to the extent that it goes looking for a new political home. The tipping point will have been passed…
December 11th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
If he runs 3rd party he will lose his seat in the Congress where he can make an impact. Good points. and I like Unity 08. He says he has no PLANS to do that…. He also had no PLANS to run for president either if you asked him that question last year. PLANS or not he has to lead the revolution
December 11th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Golly Justin, what a bunch of nonsense. You state:
“Simply put, Paul can’t remake his party from the inside out. It has to come from the outside in.”
What do you think all of us in the Ron Paul Revolution are doing? We are taking over the Republican party from the Neo-Con Fascists that hijacked it.
I am sure that you realize that Ron Paul has the same positions 2007 that he did in 1977. Those views were very Republican then and they are now. They party has left Ron Paul and there is no reason for him to leave the party. It would be better for America to return the Republican party to the non fascist faction and that is what will happen.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
I appreciate your article and ideas on the 3rd party subject but I am sure Dr. Paul has thought of that already. I think its premature to start thinking about 3rd party, when if that time comes I am sure RP will do what he wants to do.
No sense in talking about a “maybe” when its so early in the game.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
“I agree, Ron Paul should seek the Libertarian Party nomination as well as the Constitution Party nomination once he wins the Republican Party nomination.”
Could Ron Paul run for President as the candidate from TWO parties? If so, that might be an idea worth looking in to. I like his chances in this situation:
Hillary Clinton - Candidate, Democratic Party
Rudy Giuliani - Candidate, Republican Party
Ron Paul - Candidate, Libertarian/Constitution Party
December 11th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
“Can’t win.” “Can’t win.” Baah, the bleating of sheep. baah! Can win. Will win. Has won; the hearts of Americans.
The donkey is dead. The elephant is extinct. Long live the good doctor.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Try reporting one of these days, you cheap pundit. I’m not a Ron Paul supporter, but I’m tired of the media picking winners, and quite frankly, your almost always wrong. Everyone said Huckabee didn’t have a chance a few months ago, now where is he at. Just stop, you don’t know what will happen, neither do we, so just stop predicting and start reporting the news.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Great perspective. I am a very loyal Ron Paul follower, and I can defiantly see how the voice of reason can sometimes be drown out by the voice of passion. Don’t give up on this message. Although I would like to see Dr. Paul continue on for a strong push for the GOP nomination, if that doesn’t work out I just pray that he will make the right decision to run in a 3rd party.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
I sense from your numerous posts on the subject that you think Ron Paul should switch to third party now, rather than after Feb 5. Is there some strategic reason why you think he should do that before Feb 5th? If so, please share it with us.
If not, then you must believe him when he says he has no INTENTION of running third party. What do you expect him to say? Vote for me as the Republican nominee, but if I lose I plan to bail on the Republican Party and run Libertarian? Not a very good way to curry favor with primary voters.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Your three reasons sound logical but is there a better way? I think there is.
1) earnestly seek the Republican nomination keeping in mind it is not over until it is over. - this is a battle for the heart and soul of the republican party.
2) When and if (1) fails launch a nonprofit foundation to promote the wisdom of Ron Paul through speeches, infomercials and the Internet so that the man and his message are well known.
3) Continue the grassroots revolution by launching a write in campaign Keeping in mind that 435 house seats and 35 senate seats are up for grabs - A write in campaign by-passes the entire corrupt election system. In my opinion this is better strategy than running as a third party candidate.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
The people who are pushing for a Ron Paul 3rd party are GOP insiders. DON’T BE FOOLED PEOPLE! The GOP knows that whoever they elect besides Paul is going to lose big time to Hillary. They need Paul to run 3rd party so they can have a scapegoat. Forget it - the 3 “points” mentioned in the article are not facts, they are baseless opinion.
The Libertarian Party needs to take a hike. They are trying to exploit Ron Paul’s success and ruin it for everyone. Forget it - if Dr. Paul runs 3rd party, he and his supporters will instantaneously be marginalized and he’ll lose a ton of credibility after promising his wife that he would not run 3rd party.
Now’s the time for the Libertarian Party to work within the GOP and promote change and purge the party of RINO hacks such as Specter, Snow, etc. and big government socons such as Huckabee. Move the GOP back to its true roots, that’s what Paul is doing, and running 3rd party won’t help.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
AGAIN PEOPLE - THINK ABOUT IT. IF RON PAUL HAS “NO CHANCE,” WHY IS HE BEING PUSHED TO A 3RD PARTY OR INDEPENDENT RUN? These are GOP flunkies talking here, they’re scared s–tless of Paul winning the nomination so they have to throw the 3rd party crock out there & hope his supporters take the bait. Trust me, none of the GOP candidates besides Paul are exciting the grassroots and even the registered Republican base.
Ron Paul should hold a press conference and blunty state that he WILL NOT run 3rd party. I don’t want Paul running 3rd party, I want him to remain in the GOP and have a legitimate shot at becoming it’s nominee.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
How many presidents have been elected as the nominees of a third party?
December 11th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
A strong showing in the Repub primary will be a great launch pad for an independent bid. Let’s see what he can do in the primaries first before talking about 3rd party. I’ll say this though… I’ve never seen so many people this excited for a candidate in my entire life.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
He’s run on a 3rd party ticket before. He knows that it’s impossible to win on a 3rd party.
It’s much easier for him to win the Republican nomination. There is huge support for him, and if you don’t believe it, drive around your hometown and see how many signs are up for Paul versus ANY other politician.
I don’t think he should run 3rd party. He should run on the Republican ticket. That’s where I’m registered to vote, and that’s how I’m voting for him.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
The Republican party is sick… and so is the Democratic party… but lets start with the Republican party… Dr. Paul has the cure. The corruption piled on top of lies piled on top of emergency measures has made them sick. We dont just need to win. We need to heal the America society. Many of us dont care who has power as long as the government is honest and honestly sticks to the Constitution. We need to heal the Republicans and then the Democrats next… hell maybe making the Democratic elites watch many of their supporters vote for Ron Paul just might straighten them up at the same time.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
1) Perot had a net worth in the billions of dollars, and poured a high percentage of that into his 1992 campaign. Ron Paul’s current funding, even with the moneybomb(s), is a mere drop in the bucket compared to what Perot had available.
2) It is much harder to run as a third party today than it was in 92.
3) Paul has said he wouldn’t run, in almost entirely “no” terms, on multiple occasions.
I think that Paul remaining in Congress, should he lose the republican nomination, would be the best thing for the country and the movement he’s awakened. Remember that the Boston Tea party took place a full 3 years before the actual American Revolution.
Only when the suffering increases to intolerable levels will actual change be feasible. Let there be rolling blackouts, a currency collapse, more torturing liberals, and then and only then, could new blood rise to the top of either party or a third.
In the meantime, trying to take back the Republican party from within strikes me as the best short term and long term strategy.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Ron Paul is going to have an overwhelming money advantage going into Super Tuesday on FEB 5. To suggest he can’t win is ludicrous.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
I agree with your last two points: ballot access would not be difficult, and Ron Paul would have a chance to win as a third party candidate.
I strongly disagree with your first point. Ron Paul doesn’t need the Republican base, if he draws new people into voting in the Republican primaries. Winning is all about voter turnout, not fitting some existing mold.
There is still no clear Republican front-runner. There are still 6 viable candidates, including Ron Paul. It will probably take only 30% of the vote to win the nomination. With many states being winner-take-all, a candidate with 30% of the vote might earn a majority of the delegates. 30% of Republicans want out of Iraq. Ron Paul is more conservative than McCain and Giuliani on every other issue. He is more fiscally conservative than Huckabee, by a long shot. Fred Thompson isn’t creating 1/10th the excitement that Ron Paul is.
Ron Paul does not need to depend on surprise victories in the early primaries. He has enough cash to contest the race through February 5th, and beyond if necessary. He has more volunteers than the other candidates put together, and is one of the few candidates capable of competing in all 50 states. Only Mitt and Rudy have enough cash to hang with him if it becomes a drawn out race.
Your observations about his viability as a third party candidate are spot on, but it’s much too early to give up the easier route — winning the Republican nomination.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Surely RP’s campaign managers have a fine strategy. Instead of second guessing I’ll just continue to contribute, speak of Ron Paul’s excellent message at every opportunity, and VOTE when the time comes.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Number two is wrong. “Sore loser laws” in many states prohibit a candidate from running for the same office under another party once they have lost in the primaries. I know Texas is one of them.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=18555
December 11th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Since Ron Paul has run as both a Republican and a third party candidacy, I think he may have a bit more insight into where his best chances lie than you are crediting him with. The real issue is that he won’t get into the debates, which was not a problem Perot had to face.
Secondly, while I can appreciate your many points, it does not appear clear that you understand that running as a Republican in the primaries, even to the very end does not preclude a 3rd party ticket. So, what you say, even if 100% fact does not mean he has to quit a mainstream party right now or even any time soon. Besides, I happen to think he will win the primaries, as his support is already larger than the % that typically vote in primaries, so even if NONE of the usual suspect vote for him, he still has a majority.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
The reason he HAS to win the GOP ticket in the USA is simple. Election rigging is so bad, and voter disenfranchisement is so bad, that the only way to even have a chance is to run on a big-Party ticket. PERIOD.
We have no democracy anymore. Russia, Iraq, Venezuela and Mexico, run fair-er elections than the USA does.
Think:
2000 - had bad irregularities
2004 - had a Diebold CEO, Walden Odell, promise bush the Ohio votes in Aug 2003, and he did. Kerry because he works for Bush, didnt challenge the irregularities in Ohio
Christine Gregoire stole an election in plain daylight in King County in Washington State.
etc.
In fact, last election here in California, I had to vote with a Spanish libertarian polling card because they didnt have libertarian-english poll cards!
- You have no visibility into the election.
- Vote fraud is real.
- Pollsters rig the polls to help prepare the poor abused public to accept a rigged election
- You no longer control this country. As STALIN said, “its not who votes, its who counts the votes.”
- Primaries are closed up and rigged to keep unwanted voters from spoiling a rigged election.
So Ron Paul has to run for GOP ticket to not be frauded out of the election. Its a fact:
ELECTIONS IN THE USA ARE FAKE AND YOU HAVE BEEN AND ARE BEING LIED TO.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Justin,
I respect your thoughts… As you have mentioned you have offered a 3rd party political scenario often.
Though I write with a humble hand I must question your authentic understanding of our “Two Party System”? For sure if a candidate has an endless source of cash a third party run may offer an authentic protest vote. But until our policies benefit easier inclusion into the political system a 3rd party message and opportunity to win is limited.
Ross Perrot was unique in his time but the opportunity for a 3rd party to obtain the nomination and debate the winning nominated candidates from all parties will not happen.
Besides I think Dr. Paul has made if clear he will not be running as a 3rd party candidate when he has the opportunity to win the nomination.
If you haven’t noticed a recent Zobgy poll has Paul winning by nearly 18% when counting “L’, “C”, “R” and “D”.
Personally I think it’s time to effect change with Dr. Paul’s message right now and use the same grass roots support and begin to call every congress member of every district to support many of his bills. Once it passes then turn right around and send letters and call our senate members. I think we could be extremely productive in the political process “RIGHT NOW.”
I have been a GOP member for over 20 years and while at one time I trusted my party leadership I ended my trust nearly three years ago. Regardless of my lack of trust I can assure you of a few basic facts which the Ron Paul revolution is already having within the GOP. Sure, the GOP is very quit about it nationally but locally it’s easy to notice. What is it? Well, over the years prior to elections cycles our local GOP meetings usually gather 30-40 for a party meet. But since April I have noticed a tremendous increase within the GOP. Here are the facts…. Our 2nd qtr meeting had 62 voters who attended. I was able to ask a few questions of those who attended if they were new to the area or if a single candidate provided the increase in the GOP. At that time we had 17 new folks in attendance and they were Paul supporters, Mitt had only one new supporter in the room as did Rudy. In our area the die hard GOP is supporting McCain even though he broke ranks and supports amnesty.
During our 3rd qtr meeting we had 119 who attended and they were all new Paul supporters… No other candidate grew it’s support….. What is even stranger is that even though Mike Huckabee is rising in the polls he had only four supporters. The local GOP are still scratching there heads wondering what is going on. We call it the Ron Paul Revolution.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Ross Perot didn’t try to run under a major party and then switch. Texas specifically has a law that prevents anyone who does this from getting on the ballot so if he did he COULD NOT GET ON THE BALLOT IN ALL 50 STATES. He would not be on the ballot in his OWN state! At least for President.
Ron Paul has made his choice to run for the party to which he belongs and been a elected member of for 20 years. He has rejected the libertarian offer. SO FORGET IT. The only Choice the GOP has now is to nominate Ron Paul or LOSE the major election with any other candidate because most people that would vote RP (even from the other party) would not vote for any other candidate. Thats the GOP base’s choice now Choose RP and victory or Loose to Hillery.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:49 am
The only chance Ron Paul has is to get the Republican nomination. If he is able to do that he’ll have enough money and press coverage to get his message to the masses. It’s a real longshot though, and I think most people know it. I’m definitely a Ron Paul supporter, but without the money and the press you can only do so much in a Presidential race.
If Ron Paul were to make a third-party run he would have no real chance of winning unless he had Ross Perot money. The idea that Ron Paul should make a non-Republican run is interesting but not really realistic.
December 13th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Please Protect Us from Ron Paul!
http://www.nolanchart.com/article428.html
December 13th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Poor Donklephant has succumed to the brainwashing propaganda perpetuated by the MSM.
Ron Paul CAN win as a Republican, In fact, that is the only way he can win. Anyone who wants him to run third party wants him to lose.