Question about RP "legacy."

[Subfallen]

Let's say Paul outperforms all reasonable expectation in this election (clearly it appears impossible for him to win.) Is there someone waiting in the wings that will be there to "fan the flames" and keep his AC-ish constituent base moving forward with a second, better legitimized campaign in '12? He's soooo old himself it's hard to imagine him running again.

It just seems that by not ideologically differentiating enough from the Republican party, Paul risks making his effort, no matter how valiant or overachieving, a one-time thing. Any sort of real change in American politics will require perpetuation of an emergent new paradigm emphasizing the AC-ish platform. There has to be a plan to conserve and build momentum 8 and 12 years down the road.

[AlexM]

Outperforming "all reasonable expectations" would mean him getting the Republican nod... but to answer the question you want answered... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Personally, if he doesn't get the Republican nod, I'd love to see him run as Libertarian again, and I'm sure he'd get the nomination easy. That should get some of the people who've back Ron Paul that have never associated with the LP on board with them.

It would actually be better IMO for the libertarians to try and take over the Republican part, but I suspect they're too stubborn for that.

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, if he doesn't get the Republican nod, I'd love to see him run as Libertarian again, and I'm sure he'd get the nomination easy. That should get some of the people who've back Ron Paul that have never associated with the LP on board with them.

It would actually be better IMO for the libertarians to try and take over the Republican part, but I suspect they're too stubborn for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this situation, RP doesn't even have to win to effect change. If Paul could get 15%-20% of the polular vote as a 3rd party candidate, it would shock the "establishment" so much that I believe we would begin to see change on both sides of the aisle.

[MiloMinderbinder]

[ QUOTE ]
It would actually be better IMO for the libertarians to try and take over the Republican part, but I suspect they're too stubborn for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's ironic that ACers admit that the GOP is as close to home as anywhere else (LP excluded). But don't call you far right-wing or you'll claim to be off the scale and have far-left anarchist roots. Yeah, okay.

[Scary_Tiger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would actually be better IMO for the libertarians to try and take over the Republican part, but I suspect they're too stubborn for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's ironic that ACers admit that the GOP is as close to home as anywhere else (LP excluded). But don't call you far right-wing or you'll claim to be off the scale and have far-left anarchist roots. Yeah, okay.

[/ QUOTE ]

They're fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It's not hard to get.

Mark Sanford is a logical candidate to hold up the Ron Paul wing of the Republican party going forward, and if he runs as Rudy's VP this year he might have some real legitimacy going into 2012.

[MiloMinderbinder]

[ QUOTE ]
In this situation, RP doesn't even have to win to effect change. If Paul could get 15%-20% of the polular vote as a 3rd party candidate, it would shock the "establishment" so much that I believe we would begin to see change on both sides of the aisle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a reminder: Perot got 19% in 1992 and then he and his party both fell off the cliff to irrelevance and nothing at all changed.

I hope things turn out differently this time around should it happen again.

[MiloMinderbinder]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would actually be better IMO for the libertarians to try and take over the Republican part, but I suspect they're too stubborn for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's ironic that ACers admit that the GOP is as close to home as anywhere else (LP excluded). But don't call you far right-wing or you'll claim to be off the scale and have far-left anarchist roots. Yeah, okay.

[/ QUOTE ]

They're fiscally conservative and socially liberal. It's not hard to get.

[/ QUOTE ]

They worship at the altar of capitalism. Which is as far from left roots as you can get.

[fifield]

People are responding to the message as well as the man, so when Paul's successor is elected in 2016, the person will need to have integrity, but the message will be the primary force behind the movement.

Someone from the Chicago meetup group sent out an e'mail warning of military plots to destroy Ron Paul, for instance, which would mean we'd need a successor somewhat sooner than nine years from now, but I thought that threat unimportant, as this movement is more than Ron Paul.

They may kill the man, but, in an abstract sense, I AM RON PAUL; and there are millions more, all who are Ron Paul.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In this situation, RP doesn't even have to win to effect change. If Paul could get 15%-20% of the polular vote as a 3rd party candidate, it would shock the "establishment" so much that I believe we would begin to see change on both sides of the aisle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a reminder: Perot got 19% in 1992 and then he and his party both fell off the cliff to irrelevance and nothing at all changed.

I hope things turn out differently this time around should it happen again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I don't even have the cultural literacy to have made this analogy in the OP, but this is exactly what I'm asking about.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would actually be better IMO for the libertarians to try and take over the Republican part, but I suspect they're too stubborn for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's ironic that ACers admit that the GOP is as close to home as anywhere else (LP excluded).

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhm, that's a pretty radical interpretation of what I said. I think it would be just as good to do it with the Democrats, but the Republican party is where Ron Paul happens to be, and this is about Ron Paul.