Image via CrunchBase
Some bloggers have already posted written or You Tube warnings to Ron Paul not to run as a third-party candidate. They profess fear that a Ron Paul candidacy will cost the eventual GOP nominee the election. In contrast, I am encouraging Ron Paul to run if he decides he should. Barack is going to be re-elected regardless, and a Ron Paul candidacy will be a convenient scapegoat for the GOP to blame.
Some arguers against a third-party candidate cite 1992 when Bill Clinton won with less than 50% of the vote. Others go back to 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt split the GOP vote and Taft, the incumbent, finished third behind Wilson and TR. I enjoy pointing out that the GOP was a third-party candidate in 1856 when the Whigs were a fading power. The 1860 campaign was a 4-party race. I do honestly believe that the GOP will be replaced as a major party in the near future if they do not start supporting the 99% instead of the 1%.
As Lincoln said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.“
Please see 3 scenarios for 2012
Related articles
- Bill Kristol: The GOP would be better off if Ron Paul left (hotair.com)
- Ron Paul As A Third-Party Candidate (andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com)
- Seriously, Ron Paul Is Not Going To Run As A Third Party Candidate (businessinsider.com)
