2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBallot evidence suggests Ron Paul planning to run as third party candidate
August 17, 2012 by Beatweek
Mitt Romney will not be on the ballot in Washington State, if a lawsuit from the Libertarian party succeeds. Citing a legal technicality which disqualifies the republican party from being considered a major party due to its failure to get a senate candidate on the ballot in 2010, libertarians appear to have the law on their side which would disqualify the republican party from being able to place its candidate on state ballots in November. That would remove Romney from the ballot, which would still allow his supporters to write in his name but would likely suppress the number of votes he would receive. Such ballot shenanigans are nothing new, as the republican party is working to rig voting hours in Ohio so that only percents which traditionally vote republican can show up early. But this isnt Obama or the democratic party trying to get Romney removed from Washington ballots. Its the libertarian party, which is far more closely allied with the republican party. In fact, while Ron Paul routinely runs for president as a republican candidate, hes a libertarian who simply prefers to try to change the republican party from within (or prefers the greater spotlight provided by a major party) rather than trying to run as a third party candidate. Except now the libertarian party is attempting to suppress the Romney vote, even though most libertarians would rather see a republican win than a democrat if it were a two-man race. The bizarre yet very real explanation, then, is that Ron Paul is indeed planning to run as a third party candidate
In past presidential elections, after Ron Paul failed to win the republican nomination, he stepped aside entirely. But 2012 may be different in that Mitt Romney is behind in every national poll and continues to fall, even as his brewing tax scandal threatens to implode his entire campaign. The best evidence of Romneys lack of momentum is that when he chose ultra-conservative hero Paul Ryan as his vice presidential running mate, it made no positive impact on the polls whatsoever a historical rarity which suggests hes out of gas. This may have given Ron Paul second thoughts about running as a third candidate after all, and the sudden libertarian attempt to get Romney removed from the ballot may be the strongest clue yet
http://www.beatweek.com/blog/12956-libertarians-romney-ballot-is-ron-paul-going-to-run/
Seems dubious to me, but it would sure throw an interesting monkey wrench into the works.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)If Rmoney somehow gets disqualified, it may be because of Ron Paul. He has more to win by exposing Rmoney and his possible felony tax evasion.
This is getting good.
If Ron Paul gets in, he will be the only one to debate Obama. Rmoney is going to be too afraid to debate with or without Ron Paul.
Booster
(10,021 posts)If Ron Paul ends up taking the R nom, he'll look too nutty to beat Obama.
Interesting, though, that there is a closeness in names: Ron Paul - Paul Ryan.
I wonder if some GOPers would get confused.
Ron Paul - Paul Ryan.
I wonder if some GOPers would get confused.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)At first I thought it strange but then decided it was just a coincidence ant that my mind was playing tricks on me.
Maybe not.
I hope he picks his son as his VP. How funny would that be?
AlinPA
(15,071 posts)Ruby the Liberal
(26,664 posts)How would they slot Paul in there?
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)and they'd bust up against a bunch of state laws if they tried to change that now.
But, ya never know... maybe he thinks there's a place for him in the Conservative Party.
Maybe he thinks the Tea Party is a real one.
Doubt he thinks much at all, though.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)And I don't see Johnson stepping aside for Paul. Paul could have dropped out or suspended his campaign as early as February and still tried to run on the Libertarian ticket. The problem is he was betting on A) The establishment not getting behind Romney and B) Coming up with the majority of delegates in enough states to be listed on a ballot at the convention and C) A contested convention. Paul did a very bad job of reading the odds and lost on all three counts. When you make a bet on something and it doesn't pan out, then you have to live with it.
Blue Owl
(59,084 posts)Marzupialis
(398 posts)I see none in that "beatweek.com" article.
Fozzledick
(3,921 posts)But when did Ron Paul ever care about evidence?
Third Doctor
(1,574 posts)If we can get you on enough ballots you can take some votes from Mitt. With Johnson in the mix it may work out well.
Response to Fozzledick (Original post)
Post removed
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)"fuck Ron Paul" response.
But if he can hurt Mittens in any way, I am for that.
Pisces
(6,234 posts)WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)it isn't automatic he wouldn't hurt Obama as much as he would hurt Romney. A lot of people on the left, particularly young people, like his anti-war stands.
Anyway, he won't run as an independent.
Maeve
(43,456 posts)TroyD
(4,551 posts)Not as cutting too much, but not cutting enough!
Still, as always, the one thing I like about Ron Paul is he is the one Republican who understands that the massive amount of money spent on the war machine and military-industrial complex is a big part of the reason there isn't enough money to pay for other things.
http://investorcentric.blogs.nuwireinvestor.com/2012/08/ron-paul-slams-paul-ryans-budget-plan.html