7 votes

Is a vote for Gary Johnson 2012 a vote for Ron Paul 2016?

With the encouraging talk coming from Doug Wead - (See: Doug Wead says Ron Paul could STILL run in 2016) - wouldn't it be nice if the Libertarian Party were considered a major party in 2016 and Dr. Paul didn't have to traverse the Establishment hurdles of the GOP nomination process again? We all know that the Republican oligarchy would throw everything they had at the good doctor, once again.

Well, this is an achievable goal. All that has to happen is that the Libertarian Party get 5% of the vote in the general election against the two Establishment candidates. With enough participation, the amount of vote-flipping necessary could be made impossible.

Interested in making that happen?

I say - "This ain't 1988!"

Ron Paul is not alone like he was then. He has Us, now.

Ron Paul LP POTUS 2016!

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Doug Wead has been leading us on for months...

I respect the man but I think he has a history of telling people what they want to hear, not following through on it, and not meaning what he says.
Ron Paul is going to retire. He's out for 2016 and we all know it.

I believe you are correct.

I believe you are correct. I'm betting Ron won't be running again. Let him do whatever he wants.

'Major Party Status' alters the whole battle field!

Achieving major party status puts a load of new pressure on the RNC and the DNC - pressure that they've managed to avoid for decades by working together to monopolize the electoral process. Not only would they face competition from another party, but the uncertainty would force them to to compete with each other again!

Controlling over 5% of the vote is an important goal we can still accomplish in the 2012 election! It means the FEC has to split the "matching funds" 3 ways in 2016, rather than 2, cutting funds to the RNC & DNC, and giving some to the Libertarian party!

I realize that the matching funds presents a dilema in that it comes from taxpayers, but if the money will be spent regardless, is it not similar to an earmark? We can deprive the RNC and the DNC of the full 20+ millions dollars they will otherwise take and designate that it be spent somewhere a little less offensive.

Read about the 5% mark and matching funds: http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml


who are the competitors?

I already switched from GOP to LP. But that was just for starters, now I'm considering seriously switching almost immediately to the American Constitution Party ... ( is that the same as "Constitution Party"? )

I'd sure like to see a map comparing state ballot access of the various third parties if I were Paul & Ventura 2012 campaign grassroots liaison ...

So I'm walking through the

So I'm walking through the campground this morning in Cody, Wyoming and I come across an RV with New Mexico license plates. The owner happened to come outside. I asked him if he has lived in New Mexico very long. He replied 83 years. I asked him what he thought about Gary Johnson when he was governor. He said Johnson was pretty good. He told me that Johnson was running for president. He said that Johnson had a couple of strange ideas like making marijuana legal. I said I was still researching him and didn't know who I would vote for.

A couple of hours later, I walked by and he came outside and said he decided he was going to write Johnson in. I told him that Johnson was on the ballot in all 50 states. He smiled and said that's who he was voting for this November.


maybe all New Mexico will follow suit!

What is the 5% for?

What do we get for that?

For one thing 5% qualifies for "matching funds"

Would be much more difficult for the media /duopoly to marginalize candidates that qualify for matching funds according to FEC rules. Unfairly changing this rule won't be as simple as having the party boss wave his hand!

"Partial public funding is available to Presidential primary candidates in the form of federal matching payments. Candidates seeking their party’s nomination to the Presidency can qualify to receive matching funds by raising at least $5,000 in each of 20 states… "(much more at link below)

"The Presidential nominee of each major party may become eligible for a public grant of $20,000,000... With the exception of... Obama, every major party nominee has accepted the general election grant since the program's inception in 1976.

"Since no third party candidate received 5% of the vote in 2008, only the Republican and Democratic parties are eligible for 2012 convention grants, and only their nominees may receive grants for the general election when they are nominated. Third-party candidates could qualify for retroactive public funds if they receive 5% or more of the vote in the general election."



...just like the Republicans moved the goal posts for floor nomination on Ron Paul after he won plenty of states, the Dems and Repubs would get together and change the requirements for matching funds for 2016 if the Libertarian Party did at least 5% this election to ensure the LP wouldn't qualify, anyway.

Of course they will try that...

But it won't be as easy to change FEC rules, as it is for the party leaders to just change rules on the spur of the moment, or to simply ignore rules and votes! The FEC is a government entity, not just a big "club". It would absolutely change the battle!


Major party status...

Read the information at the following link. Essentially, the R's and D's have gamed the system to give themselves up to $91.2 million dollars in taxpayer matching funds. 5% puts the LP on the same footing.

If an LP candidate can get elected, we could have election law reform to eliminate the matching funds altogether. Infiltrate and disassemble. No party deserves these lavish benefits. It's making the taxpayers donate to candidates many of them don't like.

Here is the link: http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml

Yeah - that addressed my next question

which was - do we even want matching funds? It would be tough to take them - and tough to pass them by.

If it causes an Obama win,

If it causes an Obama win, rand is more likely to run as R in 2016

Hi DW!

I started a new Post. I really am trying to figure out what to do come Nomember. If you have the time and inclination, I would appreciate any insite you have here: http://www.dailypaul.com/253758/is-goode-any-good-requesting...

DW, I am pro-life and that keeps me from voting Johnson unoless I am not understanding GJ correctly. I will either not vote, write RP's name in or if you could add any insite to my above post I would appreciate it because I might vote Constitution Party. (I am not slamming GJ, I am only stating MY personal desire in a candidate.) Thanks!


GJ wants the states to decide on this issue just as RP does and GJ said he would appoint pro-life Judge Napolitano to SCOTUS.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15


Plus I will leave a comment in the other thread.