Ron Paul's Other Option

Ron Paul as strong third party candidate? Really? Might work, actually. Ross Douthat is probably right that:

As the Libertarian Party's nominee for President, Ron Paul would be as formidable as any fringe-ish third party candidate could hope to be; depending on the general election matchup, he might be able to match Ralph Nader's 2000 influence, or even slightly exceed it. If Giuliani's the GOP nominee, Paul can woo the hard-core civil libertarians, the hard-core anti-immigration types, and the hard-core pro-lifers; if Hillary's the Democratic nominee, he can pick up some Nader voters who think she's insufficiently anti-war.

Chris Caldwell's profile did do a pretty good job describing the sheer range of political ideologies drawn to Paul's candidacy (all linked by a common anti-war sentiment). Considering that, one has to wonder who Paul would take more votes from. If Barack Obama is the nominee, for example, would the anti-war left be sufficiently satisfied not to cast a Paul protest vote? Are there any GOP contenders sufficiently small government and pro-life to save that side's votes? And what about the deeply socially conservative Republicans who have grown sick of the war? Could some of them, too, defect to Paul?

Comments

[Rich Paul]

I want to see us mobilize the Network "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" vote.

[Right on]

I was pessimistic that Ron Paul could do much as a 3rd party candidate, considering so many people are still stuck on the Democrat/Republican labels. However, he may be able to pull in traditional non-voters, who see that he is different from the usual flimflam. But to pull it off in the millions is still a hell of a lot of work.

[NH]

LP is going nowhere and are a bunch of deadheads. Forget it. Ron will NOT run as a libertarian.

The LP doesn't even have the brains to support him NOW -- what will they do then? Support some loser like Phillies? Geesh.

Libertarian party = losers.