If no republican nomination for Ron Paul: should he run independently?
Filed under: News, Politics | By: Daniel
Posted on: January 13, 2008 | 25 Comments
Ron Paul still has every chance of getting the Republican nomination, but what if he did not get it for one reason or another.
He is nick named “Ron Paul President of the web” because he seems to be the most popular online, now if he is stopped running for US President because of no Republican nomination…what next?
Should Ron Paul then run independently?
If you add the costs of both Republican and Democratic campaigns together for the political conventions, general election and Presidential primary election… wikipedia reports that it could be a $1 billion election in 2008.
They also said “a candidate will need to raise at least $100 million by the end of 2007, to be taken seriously”.
Should Ron Paul decide to run as an independent if he does not win the Republican nomination?
What would you do to see Ron Paul as US President?
CLICK HERE to keep updated with the latest news, share a comment or problems with products and services. Follow us on twitter or read more news.
Ron Paul should not consider running as an Independent unless he comes out of GOP primary process in the number two slot. Assuming he does not win or come in second, the cause of the RPR would be best served by Dr. Paul bringing national attention to the RPR candidates running in the 2008 election. This moves the RPR focus to the local level where organizational strength can be built for 2012. By 2012 the Democrats will have made as big a mess of domestic policy as Bush has made of foreign policy, setting up 2012 for $40 million campaign quarters.
Ron Paul should definitely run as an independent if he fails to get the nomination. He has great ideas and if he has more chances to get his message out I’m sure that more people will support him. He seems to be a very good man, and different from everyone else and therefore has a lot to offer! Go Ron Paul!
When you compete in an event, whether it be a sports event or a primary election campaign, you have an obligation to accept the results even if they’re not in your favor - provided that the organizers and other participants play ‘fair’. What is ‘fair’ however is relative. The refusal by Fox to let Paul participate in the debate, some uncounted votes in the NH primary, etc., might already have provided enough of an excuse for Paul. Moreover, the way the economy is going right now, running as a Republican this year might not have any advantage over an independent campaign. Indeed the ‘mainstream’ Republicans might do well to nominate Paul so they can blame him when they lose. And Paul might do well to reject the nomination even if they give to him.
Ron Paul is this trying to win, but the goal is to spread the message of liberty. As long as we, his followers, keep fueling his ability to spread the message he should do so.
He will also teach the GOP a valuable lesson about principles in the process.
Dr. Paul shoud absolutely run as an independent or Libertarian. The GOP lost its way years ago.
I am campaigning for Ron Paul, and a lot of people don’t even want to hear his platform.
“No more Republicans, thanks,” they tell me.
“If no republican nomination for Ron Paul: should he run independently?”
ABSOLUTELY! We’ve been just using the republican party as a vehicle and we always planned to ride it until the wheel fell off (republican convention). Anyone who had the notion that the establishment would allow us to win the republican nomination has a problem recognizing reality.
I can’t wait to wash this republican filth off of me and get to the “real” campaign. Anybody who is saying Ron Paul should not run as an independent is not on the side on freedom, rather an opponent of it.
Just a side note. I’ve been working 8 hours a day, for a year, to get Ron Paul the republican nomination, and I’ve never thought for a moment that he would win it. When his independent run becomes official, I’m quitting my day job and working for RP my every waking hour - for free. And I’m not alone. So sit back, watch the republican party die slow, and watch the independent campaign of Ron Paul grow exponentially of what the current campaign is.
Ron Paul would garner much more support in 2012 where his fundraising would be huge from the start (ie 15/20 million quarters).
However by that time Paul would be 76, anyone know of an older presidential candidate?
If you look at elections back to JFK, in many respects, it’s as if the parties have tried unsuccessfully to swap platforms. The Democrats say they are against the war but, they continue to fund it. They also have taken the opportunity to personally profit from the war. The Republicans say they are for limited government spending and limited government but they have spent more and grown the government more than the Democrats. Both parties continue to limit American freedom through legislation. Both parties ignore the wishes of the American people. Both parties support the military industrial complex. Both parties ignore the Constitution. Neither choice makes a difference.
It’s not what you say. It’s what you do. If Ron Paul is unsuccessful in restoring the GOP to its traditional conservative values, we need another party in order to give the people a choice.
Given a choice of doubling the number of congressman who share Ron Paul’s outlook or watching the main stream media sabatoge an independent run, there is no question that the congressional choice will serve the interests of freedom the best. The resources of the RPR are finite.
You can argue that both would be better, but that choice is up to Dr. Paul.
Absolutely. The republican party is in shambles and has lost its way. They have lost credibility. Dr. Paul is being censored , especially by FAUX news, who is right wing biased. The republicans hate Ron Paul. He is basically “in their face” pointing out how they are faiing and how they are not even republicans. He cannot get a fair shake as a republican because he is against this war.