.
Should Ron Paul launch a third party run if he doesn't win the Republican nomination?
November 21st, 2011
03:55 PM ET

Should Ron Paul launch a third party run if he doesn't win the Republican nomination?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Keep your eyes on Ron Paul...

Because the Texas Congressman could have a major effect on the 2012 presidential race - whether or not he's the nominee.

Paul - who probably has the most passionate supporters of all the Republican candidates - is not ruling out a third party run.

He says he has no intention of mounting a third party bid for the White House, but - and it's a big but - he's not ruling it out.

A recent poll shows Paul getting 18% of the vote in a three-way contest against President Obama and Mitt Romney. And most of Paul's support would come at the expense of Mitt Romney.

That's why some Republicans call it a "nightmare scenario." They worry that a Ron Paul run would benefit President Obama - maybe even securing him a second term.

We've seen it before: When Ross Perot ran as a third party candidate in 1992 - the conventional wisdom was he handed Bill Clinton the election. Without Perot in the race, President Bush would have likely won re-election. Ralph Nader has also made several third party runs.

Plus, it's worth pointing out that our electoral system is stacked against a third party ever winning the White House.

Meanwhile - don't count Ron Paul out of the race for the Republican nomination quite yet.

Some say he could be a real threat in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

One poll shows Paul in a virtual four-way tie for first place in Iowa... and he's polling in the top three in New Hampshire.

Some experts say they wouldn't be surprised if Paul wins the Iowa caucuses and then shakes up the race even further in New Hampshire.

Ron Paul has been talking sense for a long time.... with the country now circling the drain, maybe more people are ready to listen.

Here’s my question to you: Should Ron Paul launch a third party run if he doesn't win the Republican nomination?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Dave in Columbus, Ohio:
Absolutely. The man who predicted the economic collapse and the Iraq War's big problems, before they existed, should be able to challenge President Obama and Gov. Romney on these critical issues. Let's be honest, the 2012 election will likely shift the White House a little bit to the right or left, but Ron Paul is reshaping the political center in this country whether he wins or not.

Phil:
As a supporter of Ron Paul for the nomination, I take offense at the very question you are asking. It is another attempt by the media to make Ron Paul appear to be a candidate on the margins. He is making a real move in polling in Iowa and NH and with solid finishes there he is a real contender for the Republican nomination. With any other candidate, you would be talking about his surge in the polls and the potential of nomination – I, for one, am tired of the media telling me who to vote for based on your assumptions of who is electable.

Richard:
He definitely should! Even if you don’t agree with him on specific issues, you can't argue with the fact that he respects the Constitution and would bring the founding document back to the forefront of American politics - the way it was supposed to be.

Charles in Clarksville, Tennessee:
Of course he should! The country will have to take its bitter medicine sooner or later. The GOP will either wake up and get behind Dr. Paul or we will all suffer through another 4 years of President Obama. Everyone but the establishment GOP is waking up - and from now on, there will be a Ron Paul in every election.

Mary Ann in New Jersey:
If Ron Paul is not given a fair shake in the primaries, then I will not hold my nose and vote for the neo-con the main stream media presents to me. I pray he runs.

Tony:
Only if Ron Paul wants Obama to get four more years.

soundoff (263 Responses)
  1. Louis R Z

    That's nuts but then again so is the Republican party.

    November 21, 2011 at 12:50 pm |
  2. Larry -Denver

    Ron Paul=Ross Perot= third pary that can affect the outcome of 2012. There is not enough support for Paul howerver whatever he receives takes away from a Repulican candidate, not Obama.

    November 21, 2011 at 12:50 pm |
  3. Helen Emma

    Of course. Why would people not vote for a person who makes money from the medical field and who wants to do away with FEMA. I am sure if he got elected we would be instore for quite a few take aways from this man.

    November 21, 2011 at 12:52 pm |
  4. Micah Martin

    All this talk about him running for a 3rd party is just an attempt by the MSM to discount him as a contender in the Republican race. They want him to run as a third party because it will guarantee he will not be elected and the status quo will be kept in Washington whether it be a Democrat or Republican. However if he wins the Republican nomination he will most definitely be elected and it will disrupt the very core of the two-party system.

    November 21, 2011 at 12:53 pm |
  5. Natalie

    While I would love Ron Paul to run as an independent, he wouldn't have a chance. The media won't give him the time of day as it is. Even when he's polling good and taking in campaign contributions, he is treated as if he doesn't exist. If he went on an independent run, it would be more of the same, and I'm sure they'd find a way to ice him out of debates. Plus as Ron Paul has stated many times in the past, it's very difficult to get on the ballot in all 50 states as an independent. Nope, the U.S. wants the status quo, and so that's what the U.S. will get. It's rather ironic we stick our noses into other countries trying to spread democracy when our own country doesn't really know what that means.

    November 21, 2011 at 12:56 pm |
  6. lou

    I think most americans would love to have a third party option, but Ron Paul is not the guy. We're looking for a normal, common sense solution, not another wack-a-doodle. If an independent would run saying he/she would raise taxes on the rich but use the money strictly to pay down the debt, cut some bloated programs even if it hurts, and present some bills that limit the power of campaign money and lobbyists in Washington, I think that person would win in a landsilide. It's the only way we are ever going to get our government back into the hands of the people.

    November 21, 2011 at 12:57 pm |
  7. Emmett m. Smith

    Dear Jack,
    no, Ron Paul should not run as a third party candidate. If he did, he would be handing the election to the Democrats. The Republicans have enough internal divisiveness already.
    Emmett Smith
    Mobile, Alabama

    November 21, 2011 at 12:58 pm |
  8. Ed Hansen, Atlanta

    Ron Paul should run Independent only if he wants to help re-elect President Obama. His small-minded adhesion to Objectivism ensures his unelectability. But if it was my choice, it could make for the best debates ever. At least his sentences are individually rational. Jack, would you be down with six months more of entertaining prattle? Check to be sure Paul Brittian is in too, then there will be three of us. Cheers

    November 21, 2011 at 1:02 pm |
  9. Roman

    Should Mitt Romeny or Newt Gingrich run as a third party candidate?
    Both of them were behind Ron Paul in several recent Iowa polls.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:04 pm |
  10. DJ Ruden

    I don't care what party Ron Paul is listed as, I will vote for him even if I have to WRITE HIM IN!

    November 21, 2011 at 1:05 pm |
  11. Thavil Thailee from Minneapolis, MN

    Oh absolutely! The media pundits are talking about how Ron Paul's third party bid would result in Obama skating through to re-election. What they forget is the anti-war left's votes being carried away from Obama as well. I would expect congressmen like Dennis Kucinich to support Ron Paul, if they are really principled.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:07 pm |
  12. Bob D Iowa

    Ron Paul will NEVER get the Republicans to back him he is waisting his money. Yes I think it would be a great idea for Ron to start a third party run.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:07 pm |
  13. AJ

    Absolutely, he is the only serious candidate that is willing to cut spending and get America on the right track before it's too late. He predicted the bubbles and the crashes, he knows how to fix this Bi-Partisan MESS!

    November 21, 2011 at 1:07 pm |
  14. Russ

    Third party candidates can't win Jack. We all know that. If he is not the nominee, Obama will win the election, because Ron Paul's supporters are so committed to him that they will not vote for anyone else. So, ask the republicans this question Jack. Do they want to win the election bad enough to nominate Ron Paul?

    November 21, 2011 at 1:08 pm |
  15. Sanjay

    Third Party is an excellent idea. Romney is a bigger monster than Obama.

    Obama = Romney = Perry = Cain = Gingrich = different puppets, same federal reserve/bankster masters.

    Gingrich = endless wives, endless wars, freddie-mac 1.8 Million $, medical mandates, 3rd world amnesty/welfare, TARP/bailouts.

    Cain = Kansas Federal reserve thug, "libya swirling in my head", finger in panties, TARP/bailouts.

    Romney = commie medical care, racist quotas, bailouts, TARP, abortion, gun control, bloodthirsty war-lust, campaign funding by Banksters.

    Perry = Gardasil for little girls, free health/ education/house/food for 3rd world aliens, "niggerhead" on farm, "oops" in his brain, "bank-of-america helping him out".

    End the wars/empire, end the federal reserve/IMF/World Bank/BIS, end UN/WTO, end racist quotas, end unconstitutional departments, end TSA/DHS/ADL/SPLC and other crime syndicates.

    Ron Paul will restore Sound money, strong national defense, liberty, free enterprise, local government, strong traditional families, western civilization.

    We need third party. Immediately.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:17 pm |
  16. Ken from California

    No,and I don't understand why he is running at all. If true to his fashion he could not function as a Libertarian in the Presidency. It would be like Obama and No, but from both sides of the Congressional aisle. The candidate must be willing to go on stage that is Washington DC, and have all the strings attached as a puppet for the corporate puppeteers who run our country. Since the Supreme Court says money is free speech, wealth will have the last word.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:18 pm |
  17. David R Bebeau,Springfield Missouri

    God forbid NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!
    David

    November 21, 2011 at 1:19 pm |
  18. METALWORKER

    No! A whole bunch of reasons. Not enough time to get things going. A third party cand. connot win, they just become spoilers.
    Think back to FL., 2000 election. If there were no third party running, G. W. would not have gotten in. No court battle and above all, no hanging CHADS.

    So no he cannot win. He is to radical. Lets for a moment look at his big draw, no income tax. No tax, no gov.. Sound good? only to a really really slow person. People flying on planes held togeather with duct tape. No inspection of Med, meat, veggies, no standards, no police or army, cowboy justice rules again.
    Be very carefull what you wish for, you may get it. METALWORKER in IL

    November 21, 2011 at 1:20 pm |
  19. s in fl

    It doesn't really matter either way, Jack. Everyone's ignoring 65-70% of voters that want taxes paid fairly again. The GOP is in direct opposition to that and will lose whether Ron Paul splits off or not. Besides, Grover Norquist seems to be his own 3rd party and is apparently running the country at this point. I say we impeach HIM.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:21 pm |
  20. John from Alabama

    Jack: Yes, Ron Paul should start a third party. It would split the Republicans, and President Obama could remain the leader of the free world. Ron Paul has the brains and administrative skills to get on all the ballots in all 50 states and territories. I believe even some democratics might even support Ron Paul so President Obama would have clear sailing.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:24 pm |
  21. Kyle Haney

    If he doesn't win the Republican nomination? I find it impossible to answer a question with a qualifier that marginalizes a primary frontrunner.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:24 pm |
  22. Gary Blee, New York, NY

    Doesn't matter. If he doesn't run 3rd party, I'll just write in 'Ron Paul'.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:25 pm |
  23. roc from selkirk

    Yes. He should start right now, since the media has tried to sweep him under the rug right along. He will do much better to distance himself from the republicans, because his ideas do not belong there. The republicans are mired in a mentality of war mongering and aiding the rich.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:26 pm |
  24. Nupe

    Hooray for the "Gotcha" question!

    My answer would be, it doesn't matter either way. Even if Ron Paul doesn't run 3rd party, you can bet someone will. The Libertarian Party is seeking full recognition as a 3 party, forcing a 3 party election norm. Of the front runners, Ron Paul is the only proven "anti-establishment" candidate. Even with some claiming this role, their records speak differently.

    If Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination and he runs 3rd party, the vote will be split and Obama will win. If he doesn't run 3rd party, someone with a proven anti-establishment record (or no establishment record) will come in and likely take a large portion of Ron Paul's support. The rest will write in Ron Paul's name. The vote will still be split and Obama will still win.

    Whether anyone is willing to admit it, Ron Paul will be the only chance of getting Obama out.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:29 pm |
  25. Ken in Victoria BC

    Hello Jack. The answer is yes. As Mr. Paul has a faithful following, they should be allowed to vote for him. Otherwise they may not vote at all. The same would apply to Mr Nader or others that had a national profile. The more ideas placed to the American people the better.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:32 pm |
  26. Leon

    If Ron Paul does very well in the primaries and gets cheated out of the nomination by the GOP, he should definitely run on a third party ticket. Ron Paul 2012.
    Leon, Delft / The Netherlands.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:36 pm |
  27. Chris from Tampa

    Jack,
    The same question should be asked about the other candidates.
    After all, Ron Paul's positions are traditionally more Republican that any of others.
    The Republican party has simply lost its way, not Congressman Paul.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:39 pm |
  28. Tom Dybowski

    Romney and Cain should run on a third party ticket after Ron Paul wins every state in a landslide.
    I even have a name for the party:
    Romney/Cain Banksters Bailout Party 2012

    Tom from Toronto Canada

    November 21, 2011 at 1:39 pm |
  29. Jam Holmes

    Jack, you might already know that the two party duopoly got scared of an outsider getting elected when Ross Perot ran in 1992. The debates were run by the League of Women Voters but the establishment(both parties) now controls them. So the 3rd party will be excluded and ignored, as the media has been trying to do to Ron Paul. Not to mention it is purposely hard for a 3rd party candidate to get on each states ballots.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:39 pm |
  30. Chris from Tampa

    Jack,
    The same question should be asked about the other candidates.
    After all, Ron Paul's positions are traditionally more Republican than any of the others.
    The Republican party has simply lost its way, not Congressman Paul.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:39 pm |
  31. Mike T

    Yes. Assuming if Paul does not win that Romney will win the nomination, the American public will be faced with a choice between 2 candidates who offer nothing substantively different policy wise and that is unacceptable in today's world where significant change is needed. Paul expands the debate. He's been right on nearly all his prognostications over the years. The GOP has been selectively picking away at his platform and ideas and pawning them off as their own. He pulls a tremendous amount of support from ultra conservatives to the most progressive liberals and would be a true contender, not just a spoiler. And for the first time in decades, we finally have an intellectually honest, principled man running for our highest office with unmatched integrity and unimpeachable character who actually takes his oath of office seriously. The American public would be wise to elect such a man to represent this country.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:40 pm |
  32. Pat

    Why does this question continue to come up? Ron Paul is 1st or 2nd in most early primary states, he is winning straw polls left and right and he has a timely message. The question should be "What color curtains should Ron Paul pick out for the Oval Office?" because Obama couldn't debate him with 100 teleprompters.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:41 pm |
  33. Matt O

    No, he should not launch a third party bid. He should stick to his message and win the Republican nomination because a third party does not get the attention and respect they should in this so called democracy. I have been a Republican all my life and come from a family of Republicans and we will all be voting for Ron Paul this election. We are fed up with concern for power and want a candidate with real significant plans to fix the failure we have in Washington and Ron Paul is the only one serious about fixing anything.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:42 pm |
  34. Taylor in Milwaukee, WI

    If the Republican voters are smart, they will give Paul the nomination so we won't need to ask this question. Paul is the only candidate in this race who possesses true honesty and consistency and provides a real contrast to President Obama in a general election.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:42 pm |
  35. Dr. Steve Parent

    Jack, even though Ron states he has no intention of running as a 3rd party, if he doesn't win the nomination he should run as a 3rd party it would serve them right for him to run as a third party if he doesn't win the republican nomination, the republicans treat him like he doesn't exist, the republicans and democrats are mostly the same they just pretend to be against each other. Politicians are the only people in the world that create the problems we have then campaign against those problems they created in the first place.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:42 pm |
  36. TM

    Ron Paul should win the Republican nomination.

    Cambridge, Mass.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:44 pm |
  37. Ernest

    The question should be "What is Obama going to do when Ron Paul wins the nomination?".

    November 21, 2011 at 1:44 pm |
  38. JD in NH

    Absolutely! And Sarah Palin should run, too. The more the merrier.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:44 pm |
  39. Michael

    Absolutely! Of all of the politicians with a "D" or "R" by their name, Dr. Paul is the only one wih integrity. Opponents attempt to label him as an isolationalist because they are not intelligent enough to distinguish between nonintervention and isolation.
    Dr. Paul is the only politician who will not promote partisanship and bitter attacks as we have seen from both camps over the past 2 decades. The American people better hope he gets elected. If not, expect more of the same continued downward spiral with a D or R at the helm.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:45 pm |
  40. ken, atlantic city, nj

    No the voters are still too stupid to vote for him. They would rather watch wall street hedge fund managers make billions speculating in the 600 trillion dollar tax free derivatives market, watch the federal reserve give out 0% loans to big banks, million dollar bonuses to greedy wall street gamblers, and let the military industrial complex spend 1 trillion dollars a year invading, occupying, terrorizing, assassinating, and bombing people in other countries.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:47 pm |
  41. Annie, Atlanta

    Most definitely, please.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:48 pm |
  42. jenreality

    Jack,

    Ron Paul should definately run as a third party candidate. Regardless if people vote for Paul or not, most Americans are open to a credible third party as they want other options than current candidates whom are all entirely of establishment. Paul has a legion of followers that do not accept status quo of DNC/GOP, hence this base is not going anywhere as did the following of Perot and Nader. Most agree that even if you do not agree with Paul, his positions are useful to throw into a debate. As Juan Williams has said repeatedly, this is the Age of Ron Paul.

    Although some fear a third party run would give Obama another term, noone has criticized Americaselect.org which has $20 million for large corporate interests of swaying an election away from the Republicans. Also, I strongly believe that it is Romney who will give Obama a second term. Most regard Romney's character as untrustworthy and his track record of Romneycare does not give him credibility to get into a debate with Obama on Obamacare.

    Regardless of Paul winning a presidential election, it is time to offer an alternative to Americans who are disillusioned with their government. Both establishment parties have equally brought American to this decline.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:50 pm |
  43. RPF

    Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN Congressman and running for the REPUBLICAN ticket.

    He should campaign for the REPUBLICAN ticket.

    Why does the liberal media keep trying to assert that Ron Paul should run as a 3rd party candidate and not pose the question to any of the other GOP candidates?

    Romney has already proven that he can't get the nomination. Mitt the Flip will not win. Should he seek a 3rd party ticket if he doesn't get the nomination?

    November 21, 2011 at 1:50 pm |
  44. Pete from Georgia

    I think Paul would be the perfect first candidate for the all new "Pee Wee Herman" party.

    Tailor made !!!

    November 21, 2011 at 1:52 pm |
  45. Russell (ex-pat) from Toronto

    No Paul should not launch a third party bid.
    That said a third party, like the Libertarian party, or the Constitution party should vie for a Paul candidacy should he not get the Republican nod

    November 21, 2011 at 1:53 pm |
  46. Dennis Metcalfe

    He will win,showing that Big Banks,Wall Street is not a control factor in ability to run this country with Morals and a degree of Honesty that we have not seen in along time. But it also in the best interest of the main stream media to do fair reporting.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:54 pm |
  47. Richard Texas

    Why? The guy has run for president every time for the last 12 years and always comes up short. It is not his ideas that cost him a nomination. It is his whiney voice. It is very hard to take him seriously when he sounds like Mr. Haney from Green Acres. Who would his running mate be Eb Dawson?

    November 21, 2011 at 1:55 pm |
  48. Dave Pryce - Columbus, Ohio

    Absolutely. The man who predicted the economic collapse and the Iraq War's big problems, before they existed, should be able to challenge President Obama and Gov. Romney on these critical issues.

    Let's be honest, the 2012 election will likely shift the White House a little bit to the right or left, but Ron Paul is reshaping the political center in this country whether he wins or not.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:55 pm |
  49. Jesse

    Absolutely. Republicans seem to be complaining that Paul is not a true Republican because he doesn't show party loyalty. Yet this same party's leadership has been actively changing the caucus rules in various states specifically to slow down Paul's momentum. Loyalty only means something to the established Republican power structure if it means support for their selected candidate. Truth is, 4 years of Romney will look nearly identical to another 4 years of Obama. Sure, the rhetoric will change, but the policy will be the same. Such a ballot would leave all the choice of the 2004 Kerry/Bush election, which was really no choice at all. I don't know if Paul could pull off a win as a thrid party candidate, but he'll have my vote, as well as the vote of millions of other independent minds, if he runs. A lot of Americans are tired of the broken 2 party monopoly that serves the wealthiest's interests from both sides of the aisle.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:57 pm |
  50. Jared

    Hopefully Ron Paul will win the REPUBLICAN nomination, as other GOP supporters realize that a Paul third party run would rule out any win for the Republican nomination. This is your chance to beat Obama, take it or leave it. I would be happy to have Paul run as either republican or third party, as party affiliation means very little (see Newt Gingrich's voting record)🙂

    November 21, 2011 at 1:57 pm |
  51. Ernest

    Hey CNN, will any of the other candidates be running under a third party? Seems like Ron Paul has a better chance at winning the nomination based on recent polls.

    November 21, 2011 at 1:59 pm |
  52. Jason

    Yes. If the people in power continue to believe in Keynesian economics, the economy will likely be so bad by this time next year, that Ron Paul will win in a landslide. When are we going to start listening to the people who predicted this would happen, instead of the idiots who caused it???

    November 21, 2011 at 1:59 pm |
  53. Larry

    Yes, because he is the only one we can all trust to do what he says and give it to us straight. This country needs a shake up and we have the perfect candidate who can do it. Honest Smart, and Principled!

    November 21, 2011 at 2:00 pm |
  54. Ryan Rabalais

    No, Ron Paul should not run 3rd party under any circumstances. Dr. Paul learned from his 1988 bid for the Presidency as a Libertarian that 3rd parties have no chance to win due to the duopoly of electoral control by the two major parties. A candidate must go through the machinery of one or the other in order to actually win. Furthermore, even the mere mention of a 3rd party bid undermines the purpose of seeking the bid of the Republican Party. Since Ron Paul is now considered a frontrunner even by the mainstream media, why should he even consider going 3rd party, and why aren't the other candidates for the nomination asked the same question? Lastly, as Ron Paul is well aware, many of the states have laws in place that preclude a candidate from appearing on the ballot in the event that they have already lost the nomination running for another party.

    Ryan Rabalais
    Houston, Texas

    November 21, 2011 at 2:02 pm |
  55. Nikki L.

    If he doesn't win the nomination, most if not all of his supporters will write him in. We are tired of voting the lesser of two evils, and demand that our voices be heard. If it means we get Obama for another four years, then so be it. To vote for any of the other candidates IS voting for Obama. I am appalled that anyone would consider any of the other candidates capable of being any different a POTUS than what we already have. People need to start doing their research and quit letting the media dictate their choices for them. If he does a third-party run...he has our votes, either way.

    November 21, 2011 at 2:03 pm |
  56. Peace Soundmoney

    A Ron Paul third-party candidacy would be devastating to the GOP, and as a registered Republican, I say "good for him".
    Both parties share in the blame for our current economic problems, both are largely statist parties, and if one can be exposed for what they are, and destroyed in the process, giving future Americans a real, distinct choice with their vote, then so be it. My vote for Ron Paul is as much for my grandchildren as it is for my wife and me.

    November 21, 2011 at 2:06 pm |
  57. Jeff In Minnesota

    Why not? He should garner about as many votes as Ralph Nader does.

    November 21, 2011 at 2:09 pm |
  58. Drew

    He should get the republican nomination. He's the only candidate that could actually beat Obama. If however they don't, he should definetly run on the tea party ticket.

    He's the strongest candidate out there. Strong enough to establish a third party... Which this country desperately needs!

    Both the republicans (now neo-cons) and democrats (now socialists) have lost their way. Neither of them represent their respective party any longer. They represent the banks and corporations that own them. They should be forced to wear jumpsuits like NASCAR drivers so we know who their sponsers are.

    Ron Paul (and Dennis Kucinich) seem to be all that's left of the true servants of the people. I will pencil Ron Paul's name in if I have to...

    November 21, 2011 at 2:09 pm |
  59. Frank Beam

    The answer is yes. In America we are supposed to have a choice. Without a small government liberty minded canidate on the ballot we will have they same choice we had in 2008 Big or Bigger Government.

    November 21, 2011 at 2:09 pm |
  60. Tom Bulger, Canandaigua, NY

    Ron Paul is intelligent, principled, respectable and respectful. That's bound to disqualify him from the Republican nomination. Even Ann Coulter isn't so whacked out as to think Romney could beat Obama, so maybe as a third party candidate Paul could provide Obama some competition.

    November 21, 2011 at 2:10 pm |
  61. Jenna Roseville CA

    Should Ron Paul launch a third party run if he doesn't win the Republican nomination?

    Yes, PLEASE, Ron Paul should either start his own 3rd party or become and Independent and run alone.

    We welcome a spoiler for the GOP.

    Jenna
    Roseville CA

    November 21, 2011 at 2:11 pm |
  62. Loren

    Sure, and split the Republican vote so we get four more years of empty Hope.

    November 21, 2011 at 2:11 pm |
  63. HJ - Saint Paul, MN

    Absolutely if he wants Obama to win. Ron Paul is probably the best candidate for the Republicans but he still frightens me. This guy thinks the market will place tighter restrictions on products than the government currently does. Errr, wrong.

    November 21, 2011 at 2:12 pm |
  64. Kevin in CA

    Yes of sorts ... he should go to the Libertarian party and be their candidate. He is after all, a Libertarian in Republican drag.

    November 21, 2011 at 2:12 pm |
  65. David in Tampa

    It makes no difference to me one way or the other. If he runs he will split the far right vote some depending on the party nominee. What would be his platform? Surely not the same lame Libertarian ideas that have garnered him single digits so far. I don't know many people that want to live in the 19th century. We seem totally incapable of dealing with problems of this time and space rationally. I don't want to see Obama with a second term but would like to see some wing nut from the right in office even less. I guess I have no one to vote for again.

    November 21, 2011 at 2:16 pm |
  66. Evinia Bruce

    NO..NO..No..!!!..at least NOT Ron Paul ..i don't think people realize when they are crying for a third party ..THAT party ..can hold the power..by casting their vote in any direction they want ..they can pass a resolution with only a handful of representatives ...here in Canada we have at least four parties ..and the third party can wield more power than the other two .especially in a close election..
    .evinia BC Canada

    November 21, 2011 at 2:16 pm |
  67. Ryan Belk

    Ron Paul Is polling 1st and 2nd in Iowa and New Hampshire. He will not get the nomination as long as the establishment media continues to pretend to write him off and ignore him. It would be American and patriotic for our media to allow an honest debate and not decide who are nominee is. So yes, Ron Paul should run as a 3rd party candidate assuming the media blackout against him continues.

    November 21, 2011 at 2:16 pm |
  68. Brad, Portland, OR

    Yes, I think he should make a 3rd party run.

    He almost certainly won't get the Republican nomination, but since he's slightly less crazy than the other Republican candidates, he'll actually have a lot of appeal to some Republicans and some independents.

    Maybe even enough to win a plurality in a 3-person race.

    In any case, if we can get another party off the ground in the US so we're not stuck with the old Republican-Democratic duopoly, that would be a good thing for democracy.

    November 21, 2011 at 2:16 pm |
  69. Jim

    It doesn't matter, for NO Ron Paul supporter will ever vote the lesser of two evils again. What I can say is we will ,vote as a block for a third party if Ron is not the nominee, no matter what. Therefore it doesn't matter if Ron Paul runs third party. Our vote is for Ron, the status quo Republicans and Democrats can eat dirt.

    Republicans must decide if they want Obama again or will they open their eyes to the truth. No more pablum of party again. I personally can not wait until both parties fail.

    November 21, 2011 at 2:17 pm |
  70. Kim, Dodge City, Ks

    Third parties in this country don't do squat. They can't, because the two party system is the perfect model for corruption, and that is what drives our government. Ron Paul would do best if he denounced the Republican Party altogether and became the founder of a common sense party, that is something that would make a difference.

    November 21, 2011 at 2:20 pm |
  71. Mel - Houston

    As a democratic leaning independant sure he should run on third party ticket. He would split the Republican vote and all their gerrymandering will not matter.

    November 21, 2011 at 2:22 pm |
  72. Bruce Morton

    Ron Paul's poll numbers in early primary states now show that he is a top tier candidate. His organization on the ground in those states are yielding tangible results. His chances of winning the nomination are getting better every day. As the voters give each of the candidates a test drive, they are discovering that their records do not match their rhetoric. Ron Paul is different. He has been consistently on message for decades. He predicted the mess we are in and offers the bold solutions to get this country back on track. Jack, your question is becoming less relevant every day. It would be more appropriate to ask this of a candidate who has falling poll numbers , (Bachman, Perry, Cain, Romney) rather than one who has rising numbers. -Bruce Morton, Lake Stevens, WA

    November 21, 2011 at 2:24 pm |
  73. Noel Sivetrson New mexico

    Most definitely YES! That would probably mean Obama would win the election but it would give the tea partiers a place to go and normal Republicans could get their party back.

    November 21, 2011 at 2:25 pm |
  74. Jordan Crow

    Jack there will be no need for Ron Paul to run 3rd party. As an Iowan who is going door-to-door for Dr. Paul, I can tell you he will take the state by storm which will only be the first of several high place finishes for Dr. Paul in the primaries and caucuses. With his appeal among independents and the youth, I frankly don't see how Obama would stand a chance.

    Thanks Jack!
    Jordan Crow
    Council Bluffs, Iowa

    November 21, 2011 at 2:27 pm |
  75. Jeff Lineberry

    Absolutely! Congressman Paul would pull as many votes from President Obama as he would from the Republican nominee. People are tired of the dollar losing money, endless wars and political power over what's best for America. Maybe we could finally get the "change" we were promised. Besides, he will win the GOP primary so he doesn't need to consider a third party run.

    November 21, 2011 at 2:29 pm |
  76. James Fox

    Ron Paul doesn't need to win twice but if he is cheated from a GOP victory, yes he should run 3rd party and win the 2nd time. And if he's cheated from a 3rd party win, there will be Ron Paul Conventions in every major city across America showing that he has the support to become president in 2012. Ron Paul has the support to win. All we need is to enforce a fair counting at the polls. The depth of his support is spreading, brushfire to brushfire until the entire land is aflame with comprehensive support for Ron Paul 2012.

    November 21, 2011 at 2:31 pm |
  77. Dr. Michael Bennett, Nashville TN

    Yes, Ron Paul should run third party if he does not get the Republican nomination. There are a growing number of Americans who no longer want to carry the water for the two corrupt major parties, both of whom do not offer candidates that differ in their desires to bail our bankers and support defense industry welfare via needless foreign wars. Mr. Paul uniquely stands alone in his convictions of individual liberty, responsibility and integrity, both for our elected officials and our nation in general, and serves the interests of Republicans, Democrats and the nation as a whole as a true unifying voice of decency and common sense.
    Dr. J. Michael Bennett, Nashville, TN

    November 21, 2011 at 2:33 pm |
  78. MNResident

    Since the media wouldn't pay him any attention anyway (Like they don't really now), the ONLY purpose in your suggesting that move is to try and drive a split in President Obama's opposition. Nicew try, but I don't think it will work....

    November 21, 2011 at 2:34 pm |
  79. david

    Why would Ron Paul run third party when he is winning the GOP primary? Newsflash: Ron Paul is a viable Republican candidate.

    November 21, 2011 at 2:35 pm |
  80. Bob Prescott

    Why isn't this question being asked of any of the other candidates? It appears that a concentrated effort is being launched to portray Dr. Paul as a disloyal spoiler to the rank and file Republican's. I suppose this is to be expected, once the good Dr. began to gain traction in the polls the status quo gang began to pull out all the stops. There is much at stake in this election, more than most realize, and the only individual offering real change and solid proposals in a sincere attempt to salvage this nation is Dr. Paul. I'd much rather vote for a consistent and honest individual whom I disagree with than someone that will agree with me to just to gain my vote or support.

    November 21, 2011 at 2:35 pm |
  81. Rick McDaniel

    Not if he really is a Republican. To do so......would insure that Obama gets re-elected, and that would insure the financial destruction of the country, by 2016.

    November 21, 2011 at 2:36 pm |
  82. Jamie Murphy

    Well if it is going to be an alternative to the Republicans and the Democrats, then I think he might be a winner... but don't cut into corners just yet...

    November 21, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
  83. Jaret

    Absolutely! He is the only candidate who can garner Republican, Libertarian, Tea Party, Occupy Wall St, Independent, and disaffected Democrat votes. The Republican party should embrace his broad appeal and the fact that he is the only person attracting young people (or anyone else, for that matter) to the party. If he does not win the nomination, the GOP should prepare for the largest mass exodus in the party's history and the Libertarian party should welcome him as their first POTUS.

    November 21, 2011 at 3:48 pm |
  84. Mark Hipshire

    Ron Paul himself should not launch a third party run, however; the Libertarian Party should be clearing the decks for that eventuality. They should move their convention until after the Republican primaries, and then they should draft a resolution that should Dr. Paul not receive the Republican nomination that they will draft him as their candidate. Then they should proceed as usual on attaining 50 state ballot access for the LP. Heck, while they are at it, the LP should just go ahead and draft another resolution that they will not field any candidate if Ron Paul becomes the Republican nominee.

    November 21, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
  85. David, Portland, Oregon

    YES, splitting the votes of the Party of NO is the best idea I've heard since I don't know when. But, please, for the love of all that is good and holy, nobody tell Ralph Nader this. As we all know by now, the Nader loves nothing more than to play spoiler to a clear Democratic win.

    November 21, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
  86. Dale Jackson

    From LaGrange GA
    I believe if he continues to get blacked out by the media then YES. What the republicans need to understand is that if he doesn't get the nomination then they will lose anyway. They can not counter his 10% by simply saying VOTE AGAINST OBAMA. We will no longer vote for just another republican!

    November 21, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
  87. Matt Lorence

    If Dr. Paul doesn't get the GOP nomination he most certainly should run third party. He has started a constitutional libertarian movement throughout the country. It is very possible that a non Paul GOP nomination would spark major dis-ownership from the GOP by voters. Possibly leading to the Libertarian Party replacing the GOP as the main conservative party against the Democrats. People have found a genuine candidate in Ron Paul with real solutions and won't sit back to not have him lead this country. No more lesser of the two evils.

    November 21, 2011 at 3:50 pm |
  88. Joe

    I'm voting for him whether he gets the nomination or not. Either I'll write him in or he can run as an independent and I can push a button. Either way, he's got my vote.

    Joe
    New Jersey

    November 21, 2011 at 3:51 pm |
  89. Linda

    If Ron Paul is not given the nomination when he should be given it, if there are clear signs that the votes or delegate process has been tampered with and he has the support then I think he absolutely should run on a 3rd party ticket.

    I'm sick and tired of the elitists in media and government spinning and shutting out candidates. We have the right to elect the candidates of OUR choosing without interference or other shenanigan’s.

    November 21, 2011 at 3:51 pm |
  90. Reber

    Hwe doesnt have to. His supporters will write him in. If Dr. Paul doesnt win the nomination then Obama will assuredly win a 2nd term. Only Dr. Paul can take away enough liberal and independent votes to beat Obama.

    November 21, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
  91. Lars

    Looks like Ron Paul may win the Republican nomination now. I don't think it is possible to win as a third party but he could run just to keep educating the people.

    November 21, 2011 at 3:53 pm |
  92. @charlesgarrison

    From Clarksville, TN... Of course he should! The country will have to take its bitter medicine sooner or later. The GOP will either wake up and get behind Dr. Paul or we will all suffer through another 4 years of President Obama. Everyone but the establishment GOP is waking up and from now on there will be a Ron Paul in every election. We will elect leaders who promote liberty and follow the rule of law in this country, which is the Constitution. Undeclared war is unconstitutional. Passing federal law on marraige is unconstitutional. Delegating congressional responsibility to unelected bureaucrats is unconstitutional. The list goes on and on and liberty-loving Americans have had enough!

    November 21, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
  93. Ed from Texas

    Ross Perot's attempt to form a third party in 1992 was unsuccessful because it turned out he was crazy. A Ron Paul attempt to form a third party will fail for the exact same reason.

    November 21, 2011 at 3:55 pm |
  94. richard benjumea

    He definitely should! Even if you dont agree with him on specific issues, you can't argue with the fact that he respects the constitution and would bring the founding document back to the forefront of American politics...the way it was supposed to be. He is not a wacko like most republicans, he is rational and has ideas that will help the country, no
    t advance his distorted ideological agenda.

    November 21, 2011 at 3:58 pm |
  95. Garrett Coon

    The GOP has a major problem on their hands because Ron Paul is calling them on their bluff of supposedly standing for limited, Constitutional government. Anyone other than Dr. Paul would just be a perpetuation of the status quo. If he is not the GOP candidate, We the People will DEMAND that he run independent, this country need him!

    November 21, 2011 at 3:59 pm |
  96. Kirk (Apple Valley, MN)

    Are you kidding me!? Ron Paul is a major danger to the United States of America! His "plans" would do more to destroy this country than those of any of the other so called GOP candidates!

    November 21, 2011 at 4:00 pm |
  97. Rob B

    Hell yes he should run third party. Paul needs to be in the remainder of the debates, and on every general election ballot.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:00 pm |
  98. Gordon NJ

    Yes. Like many Americans, I think think the Second Coming of Jesus only awaits a leader who has the courage to close down the Federal Reserve while letting the invisible hand of the market heal the sick.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:01 pm |
  99. Bud S.

    The Republicans could absolutely not afford to have him do that....as it would be Obama for sure in 2012.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:02 pm |
  100. Jason Yazzie

    Nope, hes obvious the only man for the job, considering his record and all that he's done over the years. I would be shocked to see a corporate "puppet" politician like cain, romney and that other guy..what...what...oh dept of energy to make it in the office.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
  101. Kenny Carcaterra

    If Ron Paul does not get the Republican nomination, he should ABSOLUTELY run 3rd party. The 3rd parties he supported in 2008 could now support him. Plus, there are are enough disenchanted Democrats and Republicans who see through Obama and Romney/Perry/Cain/Gingrich, and who want to vote for and honest, decent man. Ron Paul is the only serious candidate who recognizes the severity of our predicament...and offers valid solutions. Americans need to wake up and grow up. In 2012, it's Ron Paul or bust.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:03 pm |
  102. Marc Clair

    It's good to know people are fearful of Ron Paul running 3rd party. The real fear isn't that he would cost the GOP the election...b ut that he would win. He is the only political threat to the current establishment and his presence will create change one way or another. Based on the numbers coming out of Iowa and NH, it looks like that just may be as the Republican nominee for President.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
  103. Ken

    I don't think that's a necessary question. Better off asking if Romney or Newt will run third party after Ron wins Iowa. It's funny that only Ron gets asked this kind of question. Liberty and personal freedom appeals to all spectrums.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:05 pm |
  104. Ed from MD

    It doesn't matter. I don't think he would win running in a third party; and any Ron Paul supporter worth their salt simply wouldn't vote if they had to vote for Obama, Hillary or Romney.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
  105. Kenny Carcaterra

    If Ron Paul does not get the Republican nomination, he should ABSOLUTELY run 3rd party. The 3rd parties he supported in 2008 could now support him. Plus, there are are enough disenchanted Democrats and Republicans who see through Obama and Romney/Perry/Cain/​Gingrich, and who want to vote for an honest, decent man. Ron Paul is the only serious candidate who recognizes the severity of our predicament...and offers valid solutions. Americans need to wake up and grow up. In 2012, it's Ron Paul or bust.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
  106. Teej

    Absolutely YES!. I don't think he has any chance of winning if he runs as an Independent (Libertarian). But, I think the GOP knows he'll take enough of their votes with him, that they'll seriously consider giving him the Republican nomination if they know that he's going to run 3rd party.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:07 pm |
  107. Gigi Oregon

    Yes, I know a lot of young adults who are tired of wars and want a cleaner and simple government. The countries two top parties have run the united states into debt and poverty. But we need to clean up congress. And get rid of insider trading and the bribes (lobbying) from corporate America and our churches. How would he clean up that can of worms?

    November 21, 2011 at 4:08 pm |
  108. JT

    And just why do people rule out voting for Ron Paul over Obama entirely and has to speak of him as some third party threat in Obama's favor? can Ron Paul really be worse off with his no-favor approach, versus the current corrupt system where wall street and smaller interest groups, some well within the confines of the '99%', each competing for favors on a shrinking economic pie? how about his no-nonsense approach of everybody hands-off? do the 99% really think they can out-compete and out-smart wall-street'ers? how about just stop this losing game of corruption entirely? Ron Paul 2012.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
  109. Sandstone.

    "Yes, and by all means! He seems a pretty nice guy, and his brain is still working faster than most of his age. He needs some new faces behind him, and some gimick??"

    November 21, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
  110. Parke Nicholson

    No. Ron Paul should be treated equally by the media and given the fair exposure that he has earned. He has won nearly every state straw poll in America, twice a winner at CPAC and won SRLC this year. His numbers have continued to rise while every other candidate enjoys a rollercoaster. His unwavering of principle and brutal honesty is exactly what America and the world needs. Just because Paul would follow the rules does not make him weak. In my eyes it makes him the strongest of all leaders. Any country that threatened us would be dealt with swiftly and absolutely. Once Congress did its job of declaring war.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
  111. Jordan

    No, Dr. Paul is a true Republican. Look up the definition to what a Republican really means. Then, look at all of the republican candidate's records. Then see which candidates fit the definition. You find that Ron Paul is the only one that fits the definition. You are not part of the Republican party if you support or vote for unconstitutional bills that violate the constitution, because you are ruining our republic. Ron Paul has worked to keep the republic in store, where all the other republicans have either voted or supported an illegal act that have hurt our freedoms and violated constitutional law.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
  112. Jose Figueroa

    I am for a 3rd party run for Paul as this would show the difference between someone who cares for there country and 2 who just care about the rich! It's time business as usual is not business as usual, and we take our country back from the tyrants that have occupied the whitehouse for the last 19 years!

    November 21, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
  113. Dave, Orlando, FL

    He will not win any Republican nomination, ever, even if he was the last Republican on Earth – thanks to the media’s marginalizing him. So yes, he should, and he should have John Huntsman or Dennis Kucinich as a running mate. They, and Clinton, are the only people in DC that are making any sense. Even though Paul drank the tea party Kool-Aid over the last year, he only sipped a small amount from his cup; he still has not completely jumped the tracks of sanity.

    Imagine a Paul – Clinton race.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:13 pm |
  114. Brian from Des Moines

    Jack, many conservatives are tired of voting for the lesser of evils, the ones who fall far short of our platform but still call themselves a Republican.
    Only Ron Paul can garner enough votes from independents and disappointed Democrats to win the general. A vote for anyone but Ron Paul hands victory to Obama. Republican Party nominee, 3rd Party, or write-in, this Iowan's vote will be for Ron Paul with a clear conscience.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
  115. Randy

    No, he should disregard the republican nomination altogether and launch an independent run with Dennis kucinich as his running mate. If the system has shown itself rotten to the core, we need people willing to destroy the system and start all over again. The placebo democrat and placebo republican show we get every four years is laughable if not for it being so tragic.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
  116. Harold from West Monroe, Louisiana

    Yes, that would help split the Republican vote.
    the GOP has become a medly of devisive clowns and misanthropes.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
  117. rex in oregon

    I am not sure which danger to the party of the first part that Mr. Paul presents. If he is the nominee of the party of the first part, the party of the first part will surely go down in defeat to the party of the second part. If he forms a party of the third part he will take away the support of the nominee of the party of the first part in such numbers that the party of the first part shall go down in defeat to the party of the second part. If he does not form a party of the third part and is not the nominee of the party of the first part his supporters will be angry at the party of the first part and the party of the first part shall go down in defeat to the party of the second part.

    The party of the second part is grateful to Ron Paul. Long live the Dixiecrats!

    November 21, 2011 at 4:14 pm |
  118. David of Alexandria VA

    Only if he really wants Obama to win and doesn't want the GOP to have a snowball's chance. He needs to find a voice within the GOP candidate just as the GOP needs to find it's discordant voices within an electable candidate. Otherwise, it's going to be four more years of what we have, which none of them want. Maybe scant few of us want, either.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:18 pm |
  119. Jon @ GiveJonaDollar.com

    Yes, he should run. However, the media never asks if any of the other candidates will run 3rd party. Why does this question keep coming to Ron Paul? It seems the conservatives do it to marginalize him as a Republican and the liberals love it because it bodes better for Obama.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
  120. Robert from Canada

    Yes, since the two existing parties have become nonfunctional and can not work together. You need a third choice to vote for.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
  121. Paul - North Carolina

    Excuse me. Did you just say Ron Paul has been making sense? How could I have missed that? He sounds somewhat sane when he first starts talking but a few sentences into his spiel it's like watching a remake of Alice in Wonderland. The last thing this country needs is the so-called "fair" Tax, eliminating the Fed and at least 5 cabinet departments, gutting the federal budget and a "let 'em all die" health care plan. The only thing Ron Paul is missing is a tin foil hat. But I do hope he makes a third party run which would ensure that neither Mitt nor any of the other seven dwarfs has any chance of winning.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
  122. Henry Williamson

    If the republicans reject Ron Paul, the only Republican with a chance of beating President Obama, then yes by all means he should run a third party candidacy. He will steal as many conservative votes from the the Republicans as he will progressive votes from Obama. Add in the independents and the new youth voters and he will have the greatest third party run in American history and Paul might just win. – Winston Salem, North Carolina

    November 21, 2011 at 4:23 pm |
  123. Bill Gillingham

    Paul's supporters won't give up on Paul winning the nomination. The majority of Paul's supporters will _refuse_ to support another candidate (in the same way Paul wouldn't endorse the other candidates he is so at odds with).

    From what I have read, the nomination will be different this cycle because many states will be dividing delegates differently (not winner take all). This will keep many candidates in the race longer since they will accumulate delegates. I believe it will all come down to the convention. Paul is wise to hold onto the 3rd party possibility. It can and should be used as leverage. If shenanigans rule the day at the convention, Paul may go third party. Paul absolutely puts country before party.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
  124. Jordan Wamhoff

    Recently, both parties have been for runaway debt, deficit spending, permanent militerism around the world and a steady erosion of our personal liberties. If Ron Paul doesn't become president, it's going to be status quo no matter who it is.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
  125. Jim from Rhode Island

    Ron Paul is the GOP's one key to a bigger tent yet his presence has been fought tooth and nail by the establishment. If he does run third party, it should be under a completely new banner with broad lasting effects. Something his son Rand, and other disaffected Senators and Congressman could embrace. Think about it.....a third party with sitting members and a huge voting base.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
  126. Jimmy Obeid

    From: Patterson, California

    I don't think he should, because he doesn't need to. Paul's poll numbers have shown a steady growth which other campaigns cannot claim. His message of free markets, and his constitutionally conservative foreign policy is gaining traction among republicans.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:25 pm |
  127. Calvin

    As it stands Ron Paul would pull mostly from the Republican voters. However many of his supporters would not vote otherwise. I would like to see a Libertarian/Progressive ticket (Paul/Nader?) Together they might be able to siphon enough voters from either side to win.
    Calvin
    Madison, WI

    November 21, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
  128. Dwayne Schmidt

    Yes, Dr. Paul should run as a third party candidate if he is not the GOP nominee. The GOP will lose the elections anyway even if Dr. Paul does not run as a third party as most of his supporters will not vote for the lesser of evils. The GOP needs to take a hard look at Dr. Paul and decide if they really want to allow Obama another 4 years.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
  129. bgeibel

    I think so. He is the most honest and pragmatic of all the candidates on the Republican side.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
  130. mjw

    I'm voting for Ron Paul or no one. Not only is Obama losing my vote, i'll try to convince the dozen or so people I convinced to vote for him in 2008, not to vote for Obama again. Obama governs like Dick cheney while rapping like JFK.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
  131. Venkat Narayn from Highland Park, NJ

    I would love to see Dr. Paul on stage alongside constitutional law professor Barack Obama and lecture him on his unconstitutional decisions like ObamaCare, Libya and his Wall-Street-fundraising lobbyist "bundlers".

    November 21, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
  132. Jaret

    Yes! If the Republican party isn't willing to embrace its standard-bearer then let the party go down in flames. Paul will mop the floor with Obama and any GOP nominee in a 3-person debate. He should run as a Libertarian and lead the rise of their party. Americans are sick and tired of the Republicrats! They keep switching back-and-forth and nothing changes.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
  133. deborah ballweg Seibert, co

    If you will remembetr, that is exactly how we got Clinton. A third party will only insure the elction of Obama. No he should not run.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:29 pm |
  134. Renee Peoria,Ill

    Our system is only stacked against a third party because it's not commonplace here. It is in England and other countries. I hope Paul, and others in subsequent elections, do start following Perot's example. If we could open the race beyond just the Democrat and Republican parties, those who think their jobs in congress are secure might find that they actually have to start doing their jobs and working for their constituents if they want to keep their jobs. We need third, and maybe even fourth parties, to start playing bigger roles in all elections, not just the presidential election.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
  135. Jordan Wamhoff

    Recently, both parties have been for runaway debt, deficit spending, permanent militerism around the world and a steady erosion of our personal liberties. If Ron Paul doesn't become president, it's going to be status quo no matter who it is.

    Fresno, CA

    November 21, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
  136. Joe

    Ron Paul is the only candidate that I will vote for...even if I have to write his name on the ballot.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:33 pm |
  137. Larry

    There will be no need as he will take the nomination and White House in a land slide. Only the RINO's and Neo-cons call it a nightmare scenario as they are about to loose power to the people, where the power belongs. We will not vote party over principal any longer, until each American is a free individual and government is forced back into its constitutional box. Remember Jack, It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men, and we will not give up, we will not rest, we will not surrender our freedom until every American is free from the bonds of our corrupt government and the banker pimps that own them.

    Knoxville, TN

    November 21, 2011 at 4:33 pm |
  138. Steve

    Absolutely, if I'm stuck between a criminal republicrat vs a criminal republicrat I'll be writing in Ron Paul anyways. Ron polls higher than any other GOP candidate and Obama with independent voters, maybe he can win.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
  139. John from California

    Jack

    Yes, he should! I plan on voting for him, even if I have to write him in.

    I am sick and tired of voting between what is bad for this country and what is worse for this country. Both corrupt parties have done their fair share to destroy this country and I refuse to continue to vote in people who will just continue that destruction.

    Ron Paul is the only candidate on either side who is honest and seems to really care more about the country and less about his own personal wealth or out of date party loyalty or ideology. We need a candidate that will put America and American citizens first. Right now, Ron Paul is the only one out there even coming close.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:35 pm |
  140. dave in nashville

    Yes he should, and then immediately and publicly ask the GOP nominee to be his running mate....that would shake the system. Better yet, ask a solid democrat to run with him once the nominee refuses. Bipartisanship is long overdue.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
  141. Scott Stodden

    No, No, No Jack And I'll Say It Again NO,NO,NO!!!! Ron Paul Is So Out Of Touch With The American People, He Has No Clue As To What To Do Or How To Run The Country!!! All Ron Paul Wants To Do Is Return This Country To The Days Of WWII And We'll Enact Slavery Again And All The Poor And Middle Class Can Just Fall Off The Face Of The Earth And Just Die Cuz That's What Ron Paul Wants To Do! Hey Jack I Betcha He Would Nominate His Son Rand Paul As His Vice Presidential Nominee To!!!

    Scott Stodden (Freeport, Illinois)

    November 21, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
  142. Kurtis Araki

    Kurtis from Boise, ID

    What most political pundits fail to emphasize is that should Ron Paul fall short of the GOP nomination, most of his supporters will never support the nominee - especially if it is Mitt Romney. This is regardless of whether he runs as a third party candidate or not.

    In an ironic twist, the GOP primary boils down to Paul versus Obama. The GOP electorate needs to realize soon that every other candidate will lose the Ron Paul vote in the general election. If they care most about unseating Obama in 2012, the GOP must support Ron Paul.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
  143. Lene, IL

    The RNC better start embracing Ron Paul as a serious candidate if they want a Republican in the White House. He is the only Republican candidate who has true Conservative GOP priciples. He is the only one who saw the writing on the wall years ago and has never waivered about what is the cause and what needs to be done. Isn't it ironic that he was laughed at in 2008 by his fellow Republicans and now they are stealing platform and claiming it as their own. He is not a flip flopper and tells it like it is, not what he thinks will win him elections. I am afraid the Republicans are going to foolishly keep shutting him out and we will end up with a polarizing Candidate unable to appeal to moderate voters. As Conservative as Ron Paul is, he has something that everyone can agree with on both sides. He lives by his convictions and believes in our great Constitution and restoring the Republic to "WE THE PEOPLE". The other clowns are just telling us what we want to hear so they can get elected. Ron Paul seems to mean what he says and has a track record to prove it. If he runs independently he will no doubt keep his supporters and they will write him in regardless and that could mean a re-election for Obama. If he runs independently the bought and owned media won't give him fair exposure. I still think with the right strategy though he could possibly win.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
  144. Michael Rosato

    Ron Paul should definitely run Third Party if the GOP doesn't wake up and nominate him. Why not? As a supporter of Ron Paul I have absolutely no love for either major party. A Third Party Ron Paul would give those of us truly wanting Sound Money, who are Pro-Peace, Pro-Liberty, Pro-National Defense and Pro-Civil Liberties an actual candidate on the ballot who expresses ANY of those views. A vote for any other person running is a vote for Corporatism and Militarism along with Bailouts and War. Wake up Democrats and Independents! Obama IS in bed with Bankers, Big business and the War Industry.
    If you really want to change the game you have your opportunity now! If you like the status quo from the last 3 decades then vote for one of the other ones and shut up about expecting anything to change ! Ron Paul 2012
    Michael Rosato
    New Orleans LA

    November 21, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
  145. Kenny

    I would like to see him win as a republican, but he has my vote no matter what.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
  146. Gary

    Washington, D.C.

    Yes, Doctor and Congressman Ron Paul should continue to compete in the 2012 Presidential race if he does not receive the Republican nomination. He has until May to decide and plus we will know prior to that date if he is even being considered in the top tier of Republican nominees. The way things are going, Cain will continue to fall back to where he belongs as well as the new flavor of the month Newt "Global Carbon Tax" Gingrich. Therefore, we will have Romney and Paul as the top two Republican contenders. I already know my choice for the Anti-Romney/Obama and that is Ron Paul. Be careful though, looks like they may try to interject Donald Trump at the last minute if "HE" calls down on us like Moses and decides to run. God help us.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
  147. Travis Pahl

    The better question is should Romney run third party when he fails to secure the GOP nomination? The answer, no, we already have a big government candidate in Obama.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
  148. Clinton Daniel

    As the only principled candidate running, it would be a shame if he wasnt on the ballot in November regardless if theres an "R" next to his name or not.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
  149. Peggy Hart

    RON PAUL is the only candidate who can change our path. He has integrity and has been trying to tell us this day
    would come. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!

    November 21, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
  150. Santiago

    Why should he? He has a 1/3 chance of becomming the Republican nominee and that means he will probably get to set a lot of ideas into the party planks. Moreover, he forces the other two front runners (Romney, and Flavor of the Month) to make a deal just to keep him from stealing the convention.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
  151. Brent

    I think the question is rather silly since he's going to win the Republican nomination, but on the off chance he doesn't, he should run third party. The two parties need to have their feathers ruffled so they remember who the real leaders of this country are, "The American People!"

    November 21, 2011 at 4:44 pm |
  152. Brian Samuels (Chicago)

    Sure Jack! I would rather see the President moonwalk into a second term. I would personally send a thank you letter to Ron Paul to thank him for making my life as a Democrat easier.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:44 pm |
  153. William Brown

    I don't hear people asking if Cain or Perry will run as a third party candidate. Why is it that 90% of what I hear out of the news is why he cant win the Republican nomination or if he will run as a third party candidate. He as said for years why he runs as a Republican and that he hopes the Republicans see things his way.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
  154. tony h

    This is not the time or the place to be asking this question. Ron Paul is the best shot against actually defeating Obama – because both democrats and republicans will vote for him. You should be asking if Ron Paul can win the nomination, and that answer is yes!

    November 21, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
  155. Fitz

    Absolutely. I don't want Obama to win, but both him and Romney stand for the same thing. They both want big goverment and the status quo. Neither would have major impact on our growing debt, unsustainable entitlement systems, our secretive and unfair monetary system, or the downright evil and costly expansion of foreign wars. Choosing between Obama and Romney is choosing between socialism and fascism.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
  156. Adam Pearlstein

    Yes Jack, but if the republican party knows whats good for them, they'll make him their nominee. My message to the republican party is, give us Ron Paul or we'll give you Obama.
    Tiburon, CA

    November 21, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
  157. Shawn G

    Yes he should because I wont vote for ANYONE other than Ron Paul cirrently in the republican field.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:46 pm |
  158. Shawn G

    Yes he should because I wont vote for ANYONE other than Ron Paul currently in the republican field.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:47 pm |
  159. Tom Johnson

    This country needs Ron Paul in the white house. Ron Paul is the only politician with real solutions to our out of control spending. However he gets there is up to the people of this country.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:47 pm |
  160. jodi

    It doesn't matter how Ron Paul runs, his supporters will be there for him just like he is for us!!! Ron Paul 2012!

    November 21, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
  161. Erek

    Absolutely! Dr. Paul supporters will not vote for anyone else. No other candidate represents our views on the role of government, foreign policy, or civil liberties. Its Ron Paul or nobody as far as we're concerned! Ron Paul 2012

    November 21, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
  162. Khaled Al-zibdeh

    He definitely should. This is his last chance and Congressman Paul would do better to be the man who stood for his values and his country, and not the man who stepped aside for a party.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
  163. patricia, Detroit

    Yes, if Ron Paul is not on the ballot, I will write in his name. I am sick of meaningless wars and financial corruption.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
  164. Fitz

    Ron Paul is running on peace and freedom. What better platform could you have?

    November 21, 2011 at 4:50 pm |
  165. Brain Cutler

    If the Republican party wants to avoid this "nightmare scenario" then they'd better nominate the right man. Ron Paul...or not at all.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:50 pm |
  166. Andrew Delano

    America is in the middle of a financial crisis; a crisis that Ron Paul warned of decades ago. He has always focused on monetary policy even while the American media and general public have not. Now while the US government faces the largest debt crisis in its history Ron Paul is still saying the same thing, "Restore sound money!"

    November 21, 2011 at 4:51 pm |
  167. Ronald Sisson

    With most candidates, the more you learn, the dirtier you feel.
    With Ron Paul, the more you learn, the more hopeful you become...
    Other networks run positive stories on him, not just negative spin.
    Too much editorial control at Cable News.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
  168. PJ

    He should run as a third party if he doesnt win the Republican nomination. I personally think he can win the nomination though. But if for some reason he doesnt win it, he should run third party just to screw the republicans for screwing him. I think he can win either way though.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
  169. Jay

    No, he shouldn't run on a third party, but he should use the possibility as leverage against the Republican establishment. He should make Republicans aware that if he is not nominated, his supporters will write him in anyway, thus giving Obama a second term. Then we'll see how much they really want "anyone but Obama."

    November 21, 2011 at 4:52 pm |
  170. Rob from NY

    I hope he wins the Republican Nomination. But if Republicans are stupid enough not to elect this man, then I hope he runs 3rd Party. In an age where the Democrats are in bed with the labor unions and the Republicans in bed with Corporations it's about time we have a politician willing to do whats best for the American People. Ron Paul is refreshingly honest, a man of integrity and principle. We may not agree with him on everything but I am always certain of where his heart lies; squarely with the American People

    November 21, 2011 at 4:53 pm |
  171. Ronald Sisson

    Ron Paul gets better with every new thing I read, the others get dirtier the more I learn.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:53 pm |
  172. Todd

    Absolutely. Believing the other Republican candidates will be any different from Obama is Einstein's definition of insanity. I think the Republicans have only one clear choice. If it isn't Ron Paul then it doesn't really matter who wins next November. Paul's biggest obstacle is his own party sabotaging him. They can't seem to grasp the reality that he is a true conservative who walks the talk. How is there even a competition? Ron Paul is the only who has principles and doesn't engage in demagoguery under ridicule and scrutiny. A one of a kind.

    Todd
    Omaha, NE

    November 21, 2011 at 4:53 pm |
  173. Wo

    Why don't they ask all the other candidates if they would run as a third party candidate in every interview?

    November 21, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
  174. Raf

    I am a Ron Paul supporter and I think he's doing pretty well in the GOP.

    November 21, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
  175. Crystal

    If he is nowhere on my ballot, he will be my write in!

    November 21, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  176. Tim Smith

    absolutely, He should run. If only to refocus the two parties on the fact that they can be replaced.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  177. 111

    if one comes to the conclusion that the two party is the same, especially when it comes to Obama and Romney, both supports obamney care, bailouts, more wars, more searches, more tsa etc.. then it makes no sense to vote for either. So Ron Paul has to run for the sake of all the people fed up with the government, and he will take all the independent votes, as well as a lot of the votes from both parties, and should be able to easily win the election comfortably!!

    November 21, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  178. Jonathan

    I think our country is waking up. Ron Paul is the only consistent voice of sanity that I see in all of our government. NO he should not run as a third party!! If the other GOP candidates truly love their country they will step aside and let him help turn our country around, get the corruption out of government and restore our country!!!

    November 21, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
  179. Jack Beslanwitch

    I and a lot of democrats would be delighted if he came is a third party candidate. The one way that he would be truly scary is if the gop actually opted to make him their standard bearer in the next election. As a third party candidate he would assure President Obama's election.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  180. Merhawe Haile

    I am starting to assume he should.. Ron Paul has been ignored for far too long now and has even been labeled the insane one.. I think it's about time we should see some insane ideas come to play as our economy is in an insane situation.. At least give him a chance to speak.. As far as i'm concerned, he is the only one who is a real Republican and isn't bought by anyone.. That's why I assume he is ignored by those I believe are the insane ones.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  181. Philip Cabibi

    Yes. I'd vote for him. His ideas are the only rational approach to solving this nation's debt crisis. It's a shame that it's taken up until we're actually mired in this crisis for people to listen and give serious consideration to his proposals. I just hope that the American people are smart enough to realize his proposed solutions are the only plausible option before this crisis extends itself into an outright catastrophe.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  182. Mike

    Ron Paul will not have to run as a third party candidate. He can and will win the Republican Nomination and the Presidency because Dr. Paul's policies are exactly what this country needs.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  183. CG

    Absolutely Paul should run as a 3dr Party candidate, especially if Gingrich is the nominee. He will lose but his presence will make both parties change, for the better I hope. He will keep both sides honest.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  184. Harry

    Jack, I am an Economics major living in California. I have listened to all the candidates and I find Ron Paul to be the ONLY candidate with a great knowledge in Economics. He should continue to run for the Republican nomination because his views are in sync with what Classical Economics is: less government leads to a more efficient society.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  185. Brad Harris

    In one corner I have Dr. Ron Paul, who is the only person I have ever *wanted* to be my president, and in the other corner I have the question (are the other candidates less harmful to America than Obama). I hate the "lesser-of-two-evils" scenario. I also think Ron Paul's final campaign is a once in a life-time type of thing. It's very hard for me to say it, but I think 'yes' is my answer.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  186. Say it ain't so

    Yes he should. He's the only one with definite ideas, who offers a plan to get out of this economic mess & who seems to have the popular vote way before elections.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  187. chris

    Yes, he is the only one who has the right direction. Out of all the crooked politicians out there, he speaks the most truth. Fundamentalist libertarians are just as dangerous as liberal and conservative fundamentalists, but they fight for your liberties not profit or power. they only thing we need answered about Ron is if he is a corporate libertarian, and what is he going to do about social programs? He is unclear on these two very important and potentially negative subjects.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  188. Shawn Jones

    Yes. Ron Paul should run so that the American people have a candidate in the race that is looking out for them, not the special interests like Obama and Romney. I hate it when people say that all Dr. Paul would do is guarantee an Obama victory. First, we don't know that for sure. Second, people should vote for who they agree with the most. NOT who the media tells us is our 2 choices. Not voting for someone because you think they can't win RUINS the entire process.
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama

    November 21, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  189. Richard Cundy

    Yes, we need more choices to change the politics of America...the 2 party (often I don't like either choice) is too limited for our democracy. If we really want change, Paul offers a much different choice for Americans....DO IT!

    November 21, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  190. Jay

    Yes. The crazy republicans cannot have any chance at all of further ruining the country. Not that they need Paul's help because as it is, they can't speak intelligibly or hold their own thoughts–let alone govern or lead effectively.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  191. Jim Krushka

    Ron Paul 2012 supporters will not be giving our vote and our consent to rule to anyone other than him in 2012. They are not Romney's or Obama's votes. They are our votes. On that note, Run Ron Run!

    November 21, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  192. Rudy Padgett

    Yes. Would be nice to vote for someone that isn't Democrat or Republican. We will never vote Democrat or Republican ever again.

    Rudy
    Roanoke, Va.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  193. Luis Miguel Rivera

    For a lot of Ron Paul supporters, like myself, Ron Paul is the only candidate I will support. I would gladly step over broken glass with my head held high get my vote in for him, while others will hold their nose, and vote for whoever is convenient that week...

    November 21, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  194. Patrick Manders

    Run, Ron, Run
    A three-ring circus?
    How's that any different from what's on now?

    November 21, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  195. nick

    He should absolutely run! He has ideas that aren't necessarily in line with mine all the time, but they are consistent. He doesn't believe hands off the rich and hands on everyone else. He is consistently hands off. I'm much more leftist than he is but I respect his views and believe wholeheartedly that they could very well work. If we do what we've always done we get what we've always got. Lets try something new.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
  196. Ed Koch

    The RNC and the mainstream media should concede. Ron Paul is the obvious frontrunner and rightfully so. I was just researchnig the CNN/ORC poll stating he has less than 10%. What a joke.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  197. Melissa from Reno

    Ron Paul should absolutely make a third party run! Doing so would split the Republican vote, deteriorating that party even further, and all but assuring Obama a second term. As a registered Democrat, I'll work hard to see that he's on every ballot!

    November 21, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  198. Luis Miguel Rivera

    *to get my vote in for him,

    November 21, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  199. Jason C in Canada

    Thanx Jack for showing CNN what real journalism is about. Doesn't matter which party he represents as long as his name is on the ballot of all 50 States. There is NOONE that can get us out of this mess without pain, but Dr. Paul will reduce the length of that pain when elected. NWO look out! We're coming!!

    November 21, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  200. Chris Katcher

    I believe that is exactly what this country needs at this point. We need a new way of looking at our political paradigm.
    A third party can bring a balance that we are lacking. It seems Dr. Paul has always tried to do what is best for this country, so I hope he agrees that a drastically different third party would be beneficial to all.

    Chris Katcher

    November 21, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  201. Jeff, Pennsylvania

    Why not? The GOP doesn't have a chance either way.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  202. Michael in Albuquerque, NM

    Ron Paul should run a third party because the republican party is DEAD. The GOP is an empty shell devoid of principle or leadership. They are "a wholly owned subsidiary of the corporations" via the Koch brothers and Grover Norquist. The right needs somebody with unwavering integrity founded on his oath to the constitution. That man is Ron Paul.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  203. Marc Clair

    The real question, Jack, is will Mitt Romney run 3rd party once the Ron Paul Revolution sweeps through the Republican primary?

    November 21, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  204. Mike Twombly

    Ron Paul should run as a third party candidate if he doesn't get the Republican nomination. He's been warning us of the dangers this government poses against our prosperity and liberty for decades. He has integrity unlike the other 99% of "statesmen" from both parties who only want war, crony capitalism & American's individual liberties. RON PAUL 2012!!

    November 21, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  205. Brandon Cullison from Hanover, PA

    I do think that if Ron Paul does not win the Republican nomination that it would be great for all of his supporters to get another chance at getting him elected. When considering elections of the past, it is very difficult for a third-party candidate to win the White House. However, I do think that if he gets his very radical message out there, many Americans will find it hard to not vote for him-as he represents real change.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  206. Al Web

    Ron Paul shouldn't run as a third party candidate. It's too late in the race, with too little time to raise money.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  207. John

    I will vote Ron Paul regardless of who the Republicans Nominate; as will most other Ron Paul supporters. The Republican Party will ignore Ron Paul at its own peril, as they could easily wind up with a situation like they had in 1992 where Perot split the vote against George Herbert Walker Bush.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
  208. Mike Miller

    I voted for President Obama in 2008, and regardless of who receives the Republican nomination I will be writing in Ron Paul in 2012.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  209. Jay from MI

    Should Ron Paul launch a third party run if he doesn't win the Republican nomination? YES! The Republicans and Democrats alike have alienated many of their base. Add to that the fact neither party can win without the Independents, who are also disgusted with both parties, he has a real shot of winning even as a 3rd party candidate. Republican or 3rd party, he has my vote.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  210. Raul

    Republican nomination or not, Third party or not....Next year i will be wrting this man in for President. I refuse to settle for any one these party nominated establishment picks.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  211. Marcos from Yonkers, N.Y

    Yes jack, Ron Paul should run on a third party ticket. He is the only one that seen all our countries problems before they happened and actually has solutions to fixing the problems we are facing in America. Unfortunately, he is a die hard republican and I know he won't run on another party which is sad.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  212. Michael

    Ron Paul is already in the lead for Americans Elect's nominee in the pre voting/online convention/primary contest.
    So it is very possible he can be a third candidate.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  213. janis lanham, NC

    I have watched Ron Paul for several years and YES YES YES he should form a third party if he doesn't get the nomination. I am a Democrat but however he runs he has my vote. One of the most sensible men speaking...the Republicans are fishing at the bottom of the barrel except for Ron Paul.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  214. stephanie boxell, Indianapolis, IN

    Of course he should run. His point of view clearly resonates with a large percentage of this County. He disagrees with the status quo. Strongly. And while I may not agree with every thing he stands for, his platform is starkly different from that of every other major politician currently in the picture. Why should he have to sit down and shut up just because he is not the mainstream majority? Occupy Wallstreet, the Tea Party... anyone?

    November 21, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
  215. Ryan, New Brunswick, Canada

    Although public polls show that a majority of Republican voters want to bring all of our troops home, as Ron Paul proposes, this is not the narrative of the Republican Party; therefore, Ron Paul's only option is a 3rd party. I don't see this as a lost cause, however, because so many Democrats openly admit they would vote for Ron Paul. A 3rd party run, led by Ron Paul, would be a threat to BOTH parties–and this is a good thing.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  216. Anthony

    If Ron Paul does not win the Republican Primary, then yes he should run a third-party campaign. This is probably Mr. Paul's last hoo-rah in the presidential race, and he should take any measure he can to win. He is the best Republican candidate we have, certainly the most honest, and if it were not for the lack of coverage he receives, he would be the number one candidate. Will it take away votes from Republican candidates? Absolutely. Maybe if these "Republican" candidates were more qualified, they would receive more votes. Sorry, that's the nature of politics.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  217. Steve

    Both the Republican and Democratic leadership have let the taxpayers down. We the American people want small government because as individuals, we want the freedom to manage our own money. We don't want to give corrupt politicians 1/3rd of our salary just so they can bail out failing companies. Ron Paul seems to be the only consistent opponent of big government. If he runs as an independent, he has my vote. My loyalty to the GOP is only as strong as their loyalty to we the people !

    November 21, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  218. f"ayes Texas

    Yes of course, let Ron Paul run as a Libertarian and let the rest of them run on their own private lable. Not one of the GOP candidates are Presidential material. When and if Ron Paul moves up to the flavor of the Month status, people will start to look at him a bit closer and they will find that he is really a supporter of the John Birch Society. He addressed that group in October proving that he is still a wacko.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  219. Kelly Rice

    Yes Ron Paul Should launch a third party run if he doesn't win the Republican nomination. He will get my vote either way. All the others (republican and democrat alike) are two sides of the same coin

    November 21, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  220. San O.

    Ron Paul believes in the philosophy of Ayn Rand. The philosophy that Greenspan followed and lead this country over
    the cliff. Which he later conceded was wrong. Ron Paul sees the world in Black and White, the actual colors, like a five year old. That's why young adults connect with him. They do not understand the complexities of life. It would be a disaster to have Ron Paul in the White House.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  221. Jimmy

    Will Mitt Romney or Obama consider a third party run if they do not get the nomination?

    November 21, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  222. Clay Adams

    I think it would be GREAT if Ron Paul ran as a third party. It would be FUN to watch, and would split the GOP vote (not that I think Pres Obama even needs the help).

    November 21, 2011 at 5:23 pm |
  223. Diane - MO

    No matter what he decides to do, I say:

    Vote for Paul OR not at all!

    November 21, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  224. Mike in CT

    Yes. As a Republican I am amazed the only candidates with common sense (Paul & Huntsman) don't seem to have a shot. We appear to be at the point of people choosing based on the lesser of the evils. Also, a third party may mitigate the Rep-Dem gridlock.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  225. Angel Bernardo

    Yes! Ron Paul is the only TRUTH teller in the bunch. I would rather be poor and living truly free, then falsely economically secure, under the control of a central banking system controlled by an elite few. I want a President who doesn't lie to "We The People!" from Burnham, Maine

    November 21, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  226. Mike Fawcett

    I believe Ron Paul has a serious chance for the GOP nomination(much more serious than the media covers). That being said, I think that if he failed in his bid for nominee and another republican cookie-cutter-candidate were put forward we would have a race between the same old establishment candidates. And if he failed in his bid for the GOP nominee, Ron Paul should run under a 3rd party ticket just to continue pushing the issues ignored by the establishment and to show the american public there is an incorruptible politician out there they can look to.

    Stop thinking in terms of the left-right paradigm.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  227. Chuck Wright, Georgia

    Although Paul is better than the rest, he too cuts up America into groups that he would ignore. We need a classic middle of the roader with an open mind and a desire to elevate those individuals (about 40% that have been left behind) into the national category of the Nation. It will require those that Have basic needs to sacrifice what it takes to raise the others such that we all have access to basic needs through out our life and also meet our responsibilities for ALL.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:24 pm |
  228. Ron from OHIO

    As a Democrat, Obama has not fulfilled most of his promises and the Republicans are running The Six Stooges, so only Ron Paul has been the true visionary forecasting these current problems years before they happened, and has some of the best answers. He is the best of the lot. Ron Paul should run as a 3rd Party,

    November 21, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  229. Joshua K.

    Yes,

    He is a smart man and too smart for the Republican party, especially the way the other candidates have been performing in the debates recently. Plus it would send an important message that this country needs to back-off the two party system that it has been running on. Our neighbors to the north (Canada) have over 20 political parties with currently elected people in power!

    November 21, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  230. JP from Camarillo,CA

    Of course he should launch a 3rd party, the AIO (All Incumbents Out). What a bunch of ineffective idiots in Washington.
    Where would we all be if we didn't perform an assigned task at our jobs? Out on the street!!

    November 21, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  231. Daniel" Iraq vet"

    Yes we need a third party! The two we have are worthless, and bought out by lobbyist! We need a new party! What better person to found it!

    November 21, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  232. Thomas M. of Wisconsin

    Absolutely. Considering former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura is considering running for the Libertarian Party, what could be a more dangerous combination to Washington D.C. than a Paul/Ventura Ticket?

    November 21, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  233. Rich from Minneapolis

    Even if Ron Paul's ideas have merit, they are too outside the norm for our political system and electorate to adopt. What will work best is for the Obama administration to continue to strategically illustrate how the republicans are for the most-part governed by ideology to the point of folly and that each elected member is not really an independent representative of their constituency but rather minions of party leadership concerned only with fulfilling policies that favor their benefactors, ie. Corporations etc...

    November 21, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  234. John in CA

    While it is clear the two party system has become a disaster, and that a
    third, moderate party is is sorely needed, this is not the time. Priority one
    has to be defeating Obama and his party of idealistic, childlike amateurs.
    Four more years of this will result in civil war...

    November 21, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  235. Joe from Princeton

    Jack,

    Ron Paul makes the most sense pointing out that we have the insane expense of maintaining 900+ military bases in over 100+ countries, other countries dislike us because of our foreign occupation and presence not because of our quality of life and he has been consistent with his beliefs for years. Hopefully, he will be the Republican candidate, but if not he should run as a third party candidate.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  236. Jocelyn Wadsworth

    Yes he should launch a third party run Jack! Think about it, a year from now when we go to the booths to cast our votes.... we will all be sick and tired of both Democrats AND Republicans. We need a viable third party in this country and what better time than when we cannot stand the two parties that already exist. Absolute power corrupts absolutely remember? Time for REAL change we can believe in.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
  237. Miguel

    I am tired of hearing about "handing the election to the Democrats," or "a win for the Republicans." I have never and will never vote for someone based on their party affiliation. That is the first mistake Americans have to stop making. We have to vote on the person that shares our own personal beliefs, has a strong consistent voting record, and has a real plan that makes sense to help strengthen our country and economy. And, for me that person is Ron Paul...Republican or Independent.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  238. jean2009

    I wouldn't be against this hypocrite running as a third party candidate. However, anyone who thinks he has made sense for years has a definite problem. I sure don't think he has.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  239. Karen

    Sure, then President Obama would win a second term! Ron Paul has some good ideas but he is too anti entitlement to win. Seriously, does he really think it's ok for people to opt out of medical insurance and just be left to die. As a physician how can he take such an unethical position? You'd have a hard time enforcing that in hospitals where doctors and nurses are mandated by medical and nursing boards to provide care to people regardless of their economic status, not to mention that we have morals and would not just watch someone die because they had no insurance!!! He's a kook as far as I'm concerned.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  240. Cam2

    Yes, Ron Paul should run as a third party candidate. Say no to Status quo (Romney and Obama.)

    November 21, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
  241. Tom Fortson

    Ron Paul running as an independent can help continue to educate the masses and keep the national discussion on the what is really important .... even though he has absolutely no chance on winning.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  242. Zohny like Tony with a Z.

    I think Ron Paul should do whatever he thinks is right. The guy has been right about everything else, the economy, our foreign policy, our education system. He'll probably make the right decision on this too. His supporters want him to be president regardless of party affiliation. Besides, it seems that the stronger your affiliation with the Republocrat party the less you care about the American people. I know Ron Paul will make the right decision.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  243. sheeplehelper

    YES! Ron Paul has more support than any other person out there. If only the media and the debates would give him any attention.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:27 pm |
  244. Jason

    If Ron Paul doesn't win the Republican nomination he should definitely run third party. The main reason he isn't ahead in the Republican polls is because he doesn't get enough publicity. The media is too concerned about the candidates involved in scandals, their gaffs, the ones that don't have a clue, and those that are showing early signs of dementia.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  245. Lightnin'

    I'm seeing more and more Ron Paul bumper stickers here in heavily Republican south central Pennsylvania. I've seen none for any other candidate. The internet seems to be making Americans smarter.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  246. John

    I don't care if he runs 3rd party or not, he has my vote either way.
    If you take the time to learn about Ron Paul, you find that he alone stands head and shoulders above all other candidates, including Obama. If not Ron Paul, it doesn't matter which crook is elected, the outcome will be the same.
    Ron Paul alone is espousing the policies that can restore America and return the country to we the people.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  247. Chris, Tallahassee, FL

    Why would Ron Paul run as a third party candidate when he is going to win the republican nomination? Stop with the propaganda and start giving him serious airtime.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:28 pm |
  248. Jarrell

    Absolutely! Ron Paul is the GOP candidate by far. I've always thought that he should led the Independent Party (or make his own for that fact! Seriously). This is coming from me, a democrat. And I'm big supporter of President Obama.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
  249. Ed in California

    Living in California with Gov Jerry Brown (the retread), Senators Feinstein and Boxer plus Congressperson Pelosi...I've had enough of the kooks already!!! PASS!

    Besides, Ron Paul running as an Independent would virtually guarantee Obama's reelection.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
  250. TB from melbourne, FL

    Ron Paul should run as an independent. He is the only candidate that speaks to how our foreign policy and the cost
    of our wars and our defense budget plays into our deficit.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
  251. Zach

    Jack you said it best, "Ron Paul has been talking sense for a long time." Let's face it, he gets little attention within the Republican field. If he was on display like Ross Perot was in '92, more people would pay attention to his sensible views and realize how much they align with their own. He's our only chance to change the status quo.

    Zach K.
    Bath, ME

    November 21, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
  252. Susan, Cranford NJ

    Third party, no third party. Who cares. With a Republican Party whose stated goal, from day one, was to make sure Obama was a one term President, and the Democtatic Party haveing to cave on details to get something through, and thereby making "agreements" toothless, a third party isn't going to help to do anything accept muddy the swamp.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
  253. Derek

    Yes, we need to move away from a two party system. Maybe if a third party got involved and started getting significant support the Democrats and Republicans would realize that they actually have to get something accomplished in order to keep their seats.
    As for Ron Paul taking votes away from Mitt Romney (or whoever gets the nomination), that may be true, but I for one am voting for Obama if Ron Paul doesn't get the Republican nomination and decides not to run as a Libertarian or Independent. I've also convinced quite a few of my Democrat friends to consider Ron Paul. Some of them have even said they have decided to vote for him instead of Obama.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
  254. Ken Payne

    Whatever Ron Paul decides to do, I'll support him. It's obvious he's too smart & conservative to suit the Media because they will never let him talk during any of the Debates. People should really study Ron Paul & vote for what's best for America, not which Party you're stuck to.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
  255. John

    Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that can beat Obama.
    Ron Paul in 2012 !

    November 21, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
  256. David Bowman

    Yes, Dr. Paul should run 3rd party if he does not receive the GOP nomination. We are at the point where it does not matter any more which main-stream politician occupies the office of President. Republicans increase our debt to satisfy the military-indusrtial complex, while Democrats increase it to satisfy the entitlement, labor, and sundry victim groups.
    Without a "non-beholden" like Ron Paul in the office, we are in a lose-lose position regardless of which of the other Republocrats might win. Perhaps a third party run from Mr. Paul would serve incrementally in bringing the nation to its senses in time for the post-Obama era. I would "waste" my vote for Mr. Paul in a three-way, in order to send a message.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
  257. Tanner Steele

    Ron Paul's ideas generate an intense group of followers who want to see real change in government. Dr. Paul is winning nearly every straw poll with almost no support from mainstream media. He has been speaking the truth for a long time and deserves the GOP spot against Obama, but a third party ballot would definitely shake things up. Paul may be the only candidate that can truly bring necessary advancements for our country.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
  258. Joe

    I wrote him in four years ago, and I will write him in again. I don't see it as wasting a vote. Voting for any of the other Republican choices, or worse yet, for Obama the socialist, would be the real wast of a vote.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
  259. Wil

    I for one am voting Ron Paul, regardless. I will write him in if hes not running on the ticket either as a Republican or a third party. For me the philosophy of government is the deciding factor. I am 26 years old and this will be the first time I have had someone I felt worthy of my vote, I regret not having known about the Ron Paul Revolution in 2008.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
  260. Doug

    A man of common sense and thinking about the needs of the people has not a chance of gaining the nomination of a major party, as they only want the same old pork barrel politics, by career politicians; that should be reigned in with term limits, and the removal of lobbyists from the halls of congress...I would support Ron Paul simply for his middle American views, instead of the normal, lawyer politician view of how Washington should 'rule' America. Mr Paul would be a good start in cleaning up a bad system we now have in place...

    November 21, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
  261. John, in OK

    Although a recent poll shows Paul getting 18% of the vote in a three-way contest against President Obama and Mitt Romney, there will be more polls conducted between now and the RNC (in late August). I propose it is too early to ask if Rep. Paul should launch a third party run, especially considering the short-term success anticipated in Iowa and New Hampshire.

    Any Republican that worries that a Ron Paul third party run would benefit President Obama, I'd also propose, has misguided anxiety. Obama is not an enemy, one person is not the problem, nor is only one person going to be the solution. My hope is that the GOP can nominate a candidate who is sincere about addressing the public debt, who is able to lead us to greater productivity (with the result of a healthier economy), and who is able to work with Congress to get real results. Besides being silly, worrying about what Ron Paul is going to do will not achieve any results.

    Furthermore, should Ron Paul make a third-party run, I would support him. In my experience, many Ron Paul supporters – especially young supporters – feel that we are treated as outsiders with regard to the Republican Party. Our loyalty is to the message of liberty much more so than the "R" that comes after a name. The GOP can avoid this so-called "nightmare scenario" by better embracing this message, and its supporters, if the GOP so chooses.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
  262. Tom Dybowski

    Ron Paul vs. Big Brother 2012 – The Choice IS Clear!

    November 21, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
  263. Adan Rodriguez

    The rumors of third party bid should be laid to rest. If he doesn't win, which seem unlikely as time progresses. His response in 2008 is likely the senario that will play out. He has done the third party bid before and has stated its a futile effort with our current election laws and we all know he doesn't chage his stances. I do believe he is the best shot the GOP has with his political and personal history, and especially when compared to his underachieving rivals whom are weak in comparison now with the new economic and political landscape that they seem to fail to fully comprehend.

    November 21, 2011 at 5:37 pm |