Posted on 11/06/2011 6:56:37 PM PST by martosko
On this week’s edition of “Fox News Sunday,” Texas Rep. Ron Paul put rumors of a third-party presidential run to rest, saying he had no interest in running as a third party candidate. But that doesn’t mean he would support the eventual GOP nominee.
Speculation about that potential endgame has swirled since Rep. Paul first announced that he would not be running for re-election to Congress.
“Probably not unless I get to talk to them and find out what they believe in,” Paul said of whether he would support the Republican nominee — presuming it’s not him.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedc.com ...
Don’t most states have “sore loser” laws to prevent the loser of a primary from jumping to independent??
Those don’t apply for Presidential races.
Yes, I know several do, because I looked that up when they said that Hillary would go third party in 2008. However, I think that you can still write in, even without being on the ballot, just ask Murkowski (or however it’s spelled) in Alaska. He may think he can get on enough ballots, and written-in in enough states to be viable.
I did not know that, thanks for the clarification, this is from Wikipedia (I know, I know):
“In United States politics, a sore-loser law is a law which states that the loser in a primary election can’t then run as an independent in the general election.[1] These laws do not apply to presidential candidates. Many states accomplish the same requirement by having simultaneous registration dates for the primary and the general election; in fact only the states of Connecticut, Iowa, New York and Vermont don’t have either a sore-loser law or simultaneous registration deadlines.[2]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sore-loser_law
Ron Paul is the smartest pick for VP, as he’s bringing in a sizeable chunk of people who wouldn’t be voting Republican otherwise.
Mostly men 18-29.
mnehring appears to be right in post #4, as to not applying to Presidential Candidates (see my post at #6). But it looks like states still try to stamp that out by making registration dates, for the primary and general, the same.
Wasn’t the point that he WASN’T going to be running as a 3rd Party?
OK. I didn’t know that.
He does have a very devout base. I’m not sure he would be in the Presidential or Vice-Presidential slot. Libertarianism is just shy of Anarchy, and the fact is that we live in a country with laws. I like about 40% of what Paul says, can tolerate about 30%, and dislike very much 30%(I suppose “hate” might be appropriate). His performance in the early debates did him in for me, but I still acknowledge his following. I have long suspected we’d have a third party candidate with a major following this election. We need to have many parties, not just 3, but I think that Ron Paul is wrong on too many issues to be that “special someone.”
Ron Paul would turn off a sizable chunk of the GOP base too
He said initially that he wouldn’t run third party (or so I heard, I don’t listen to, or follow him outside of reading on FR). But Rick Perry, for example, said he wouldn’t even run and promised that if voted in for Governor, he would stay for his entire term, so take a politician’s word with a grain of salt.
“Ron Paul would turn off a sizable chunk of the GOP base too”
+1
Well, Rick Perry is a bad example. Most politicians are full of bs, but Rick Perry is completely full of bs. He’s the only one I wouldn’t vote for in Nov 12. I’d go 3p or stay home.
That’s true. But the question becomes, especially as VP, if people would rather vote for Obama, or an acceptable Republican, if an unacceptable Ron Paul was the VP.
If the GOP candidate is appealing, almost nobody would care who the VP is. Ron Paul would bring in his people, and that would dwarf the number of people who wouldn’t vote for the Rs based on the VP.
If you look at the polls, you definitely do see the “I don’t like Ron Paul” factor. It shows up in head to heads - Obama v Paul. Typically you see large numbers of Republican Undecideds in a Obama v Paul matchup. What you don’t see a lot of is Republicans saying they’ll vote for Obama in a Paul v Obama head to head.
I suspect that the people who don’t like Ron Paul, at least likely RPV, really really don’t like Obama.
There are several parties are on the ballot, depending on the State you live in - about 20 or so, as I recall. What we need are two strong parties, one representing true Conservative Constitutionally sound principles, and the other arty could be called the Big Tent Party that contains all the factions & special interests who believe that we don’t need the Constitution any more and can make it all up as we go along (Democracy - majority rules not the rule of Law). Which one Americans would go for after 3 years of Barry and the Boys showing us what the latter looks like.
“What we need are two strong parties, one representing true Conservative Constitutionally”
Well, right now, we have two strong Socialist parties, and tens of millions of Independents who don’t want to be affiliated with either.
Ditto. I’m going to vote for the person I think will most be able to bring this country into an era of freedom and prosperity again. I’m not voting for any more “Big hat, no cattle” candidates, no matter what party they are in. That includes Perry, Romney, Santorum, and Huntsman.
His best hope is to run on the Dem ticket.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.