Ron Paul, maybe. But I doubt it. He wouldn’t get much attention, and no chance of being invited to the debates.
Sarah Palin, not a chance. She would have to spend money to run for president, not make money. And it’s too much work, and she’d piss off a lot of very important people.
I think it’s more likely an Occupy candidate will try to field himself, although I don’t see him getting many votes.
I believe that Gingrich is mentally unbalanced and would put nothing past his colossal ego. If he gets his nose bloodied enough by Romney, who he’s developing a deep hatred of, and mainstream Reps continue to badmouth him, he might decide to be a spoiler just to screw the GOP in the general election.
[quote=“bienville, post:1, topic:611181”]
who here thinks we’ll see:[LIST]
[li]Third Party Candidate with support similar to Nader in 2000?[/li][li]Third Party Candidate with support similar to Buchanan in 2000?[/li][/QUOTE]
In 2000, Nader got 2.7% of the vote and Buchanan got 0.4%. I have little doubt that a third-party candidate will exceed 0.4% of the vote this year. I would be somewhat surprised, but not very, if a candidate this year had a similar showing as Nader in 2000. Nader’s run only became “significant” because of Florida silliness. If not for that, his campaign would be remembered as not being a big deal.
I see five possibilities for a significant third party candidacy, but I wouldn’t call any of them likely:
Americans Elect. I think they’re a bit of a wild card because they have significant money behind them, and the novelty of their internet-based convention may capture the public’s attention. But this party still has no face, we have no idea who’s running, or what their policies will be. (Apart from hints that Buddy Roemer may run.) They may very well turn out to be a big fat nothing.
Justice Party, Rocky Anderson. This is the closest thing to an “occupy candidacy” we’ll have. I’d give him significant odds of being like Nader in 2000, but that’s a ceiling.
Libertarian Party, Gary Johnson. As a two-term governor, Johnson is of pretty significant stature, at least on paper. But the Libertarians have been around forever and it’s hard to imagine this is suddenly their year.
Green Party. They’ve been around a while too, and have their fans. Their probable candidate, Laura Wells, is a bit of a nobody. There is the outside chance she could strike a chord with people but she’s probably going nowhere.
A Tea Party candidacy. The problem is, there is no registered “Tea Party” (well, maybe in a couple states there is), so any such candidate would have to run as an independent and qualify for the ballot with their own resources. Also, no one has announced such a run as yet. But, I can’t completely discount the possibility of a sour grapes, vanity campaign.
Couldn’t the Libertarian candidate just as easily be Ron Paul? He’s got a large personal following, and a lot of people seem to think he’s a libertarian.
Ron Paul is gearing up for more Republican primary/caucus contests. He’s not dropping out anytime soon. It’ll likely be too late for him to run as a Libertarian.
Between Libertarians and Tea drinkers (which overlap a lot), he could make a significant, but losing run for the Presidency. Many people believe he is being cautious to protect his son’s political career. If Newt gets the nod (highly unlikely) he might go third party to show he could garner is many votes as Newt in the general. But he is running for a reason, knowing he won’t get enough delegates to win outright. Possibly he will be someone’s (Romney) choice for VP. Romney/Paul could be a formidable ticket.
[aside] Good God, I dearly love politics. Football? Basketball? Nope. Politics. [/aside]
Maybe, but I would bet the Paul in question would be more likely to be Rand than Ron. I suggested it in another thread and it isn’t completely outside the realm of possibility. I doubt Ron Paul will mount a third party run. He has indicated he realizes he won’t win the nomination, he just wants to keep spreading his message. Frankly, he may be hoping for some inside track in a Romney administration. I don’t know that Veep would have any appeal for Dr. Paul but it could be seen as a good way to raise his son’s profile.
I agree 100% with this. IF there is a serious third party effort, I fully expect it to be Newt. I could easily see him sabotaging Romney and throwing the election to Obama purely out of spite.
Ron would be the preferred choice to balance Romney, but Rand would do. And as I mentioned, Ron is watching out for his son. If he could use his delegates to buy Rand the VP slot, I’d think he would do it. I don’t know if Ron even wants to be president as much as to spread hes message as you say, and he might reject a spot in a Romney administration to avoid becoming a Washington insider. One reason Rand is a better candidate for VP is his lack of a record. Ron has a lot of anti-Republican ideology statements to go back to. I don’t think he’s the ‘fall in line’ type of Republican either. If he doesn’t like the GOP candidate, he won’t really support him.
Rand is a fucking idiot. Ron is stupid, but it skips a generation.
Then I take it you are in full agreement Rand is a likely choice as Romney’s VP?
Newt Gingrich is far too lazy to run as an independent. He never expected to get this far, he just ran for president as a way to raise his profile and get on TV more and sell more books and get better “consulting” fees. There is no way in hell he’ll run as an independent, his ego is way to fragile for that. That’s the mistake people make about Newt. He doesn’t have a big ego, he has a tiny ego and he needs validation. Look at his performance in debates where people aren’t allowed to scream and clap for him.