Ron Paul's bid for the Republican nomination to be president has generated a lot of enthusiasm over the past few months. The amount of donations Paul's campaign has received has rivaled that of his opponents. Paul's campaign also can claim to have a lot more grassroots volunteers than any other campaign.
Unfortunately, despite the fact that Ron Paul has made some considerable progress in the polls recently, winning the nomination is still an uphill battle. He's still below 10% in Iowa and New Hampshire, and their primary elections are less than a month away.
Ron Paul's best shot at winning the White House would be for him to run on the Libertarian Party ticket. It is rare for a third party candidate to win, but Ron Paul has a lot of things going for him that other third party candidates didn't.
1. Money
Think back to '92. Ross Perot was able to get 19% of the popular vote. Why? Because he had a lot of money. So does Ron Paul. (And he'll get a lot more by tomorrow.)
2. Message
In my view, the reason why Perot didn't win the election was that he didn't have a strong message. He had broad stances on things which many people agreed with, but he didn't seem knowledgeable of the issues, nor did he have a consistent philosophy. Ron Paul has both. I would even say he is inspiring. How rare for a politician!
3. Disaffection
This is probably true for every election, but the people are sick of the two party system and having to choose the lesser of two evils. If the election comes down to Hillary v. Rudy, then the voter doesn't have a real choice. I mean, is there any real difference between the two?
4. Broad Appeal
Ron Paul gets almost as much support from liberals as he does from conservatives. His stances transcend the political spectrum. A lot of voters have libertarian views, but are frustrated because there are no viable candidates that can represent those views. Ron Paul would be such a candidate.
Regardless of all of this, Ron Paul himself needs to be convinced to run. So far, he's nearly ruled out a third party candidacy. Although if he does lose the nomination, I'm sure there will be a huge push to get him to run. I hope it's successful because he's the only chance this country has at being the land of the free again.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Sorry, I think running 3rd party is not a good choice. For one thing, with the "sore looser" laws, he couldn't even be on all the ballets.
if he doesn;t get the nom, I am hoping that he has somone already lined up that will run third party that shares his message and he will throw his support behind.
The difference between the "Giant Douche" and the "Turd Sandwich" is one will raise taxes to increase the size of government whereas the other will reduce taxes but borrow huge sums of money and increase the national debt to increase the size of government. Otherwise, the party platforms will be almost identical (perhaps with exception of abortion).
On the other hand, I think if Ron doesn't get the GOP nomination then he will still fail as a 3rd party candidate. Once you step outside the 2 party rank-and-file you become highly marginalized and of course you miss thos e 'enlightened' voters that vote straight tickets. It is scary how many of those people exist.
I will write in Ron Paul if I have to.
I believe Ron Paul has a better chance at educating the public about the benefits of liberty and the Constitution as the GOP candidate. He can win the GOP nomination. Read President Ron Paul – Could He Really Win?
Learn how outside economic and foreign policy events just might elect Ron Paul.
http://www.ronaldholland.com/presidentronpaul.htm in a two part article on how current events outside the political process could elect Ron Paul as President.
If you want 3rd parties to have a chance of wining in this country, we need to do away with our antiquated method of conducting elections. Our system was designed before political parties came into existence, and cannot handle more than two parties due to the "spoiler" effect. The way to correct this flaw is simple -- use IRV (instant run-off voting). In such a system, a candidate would have to receive a MAJORITY of votes in the "run-off" in order to win. People would no longer be scared away from alternative voices by the fear that their vote would be wasted (which is why nobody in the media ever discusses this voting method. They prefer to use this flaw in order to herd people to the major parties)
If you want IRV, you need to change your state’s voting laws. So start writing letters today!
you're right that a plurality election system favors two parties, but that doesn't mean that a new party can't come along to unseat and replace one of the current parties. This hasn't before in US history, Republicans replaced the Whigs in the 19th Century, e.g..
I will vote for Ron Paul for President whether he wins a nomination or not. Even if he does not run as an independent I will write his name in.
Post a Comment