And a listing like that should suggest exactly why Obama won't show up. He's unlikely to take too much of a hit from ignoring "fringe candidates" and only engaging his main opponent, and any hit he does take will be purely of the "Oh, he should have" appealing to journos and pundits, rather than the palpable damage of a few bad viral video clips from the debate itself.
Black This Out- A Ron Paul 2012 Timeline
- Thread starter Zacoftheaxes
- Start date
- Status
And a listing like that should suggest exactly why Obama won't show up. He's unlikely to take too much of a hit from ignoring "fringe candidates" and only engaging his main opponent, and any hit he does take will be purely of the "Oh, he should have" appealing to journos and pundits, rather than the palpable damage of a few bad viral video clips from the debate itself.
Some important dates coming up:
August 27-30: Tampa Convention
September 12, 2012: Permanent Injunction against NDAA
October 3: First Debate
October 16: Second Debate
October 22: Third Debate
October 23: First Free & Equal debate
November 5: Second Free & Equal debate
November 6: Presidential Election
Obama won't enter the Free & Equal debates. If he does it not only provides an opening for Paul but for Barr and Anderson as well--the latter two will definitely attack his environmental policies and everyone will attack his foreign policy.
I've included the NDAA as a key date because OTL Obama asked for an emergency stay and was granted that. However, seeing a candidate that has drawn in much of the anti-NDAA crowd among the independents he would most likely lose the lawsuit on purpose, probably admit his mistake in a press coverage, in order to avoid Paul from bringing that issue in the debates.
Also, what about the Auora shootings? You possibly neglected a major tragedy that can dominate in the debates in the topic of gun control.
Speakers at the convention could be: Justin Amash, Rand Paul, Mitt Romney, Justin Raimondo John Huntsman, Gary Johnson, and Carol Paul(since Romney also got his wife to speak why can't Paul).
And with Ron Paul joining the third party debate, I can possibly see "the duopoly" forever broken by this.
August 27-30: Tampa Convention
September 12, 2012: Permanent Injunction against NDAA
October 3: First Debate
October 16: Second Debate
October 22: Third Debate
October 23: First Free & Equal debate
November 5: Second Free & Equal debate
November 6: Presidential Election
Obama won't enter the Free & Equal debates. If he does it not only provides an opening for Paul but for Barr and Anderson as well--the latter two will definitely attack his environmental policies and everyone will attack his foreign policy.
I've included the NDAA as a key date because OTL Obama asked for an emergency stay and was granted that. However, seeing a candidate that has drawn in much of the anti-NDAA crowd among the independents he would most likely lose the lawsuit on purpose, probably admit his mistake in a press coverage, in order to avoid Paul from bringing that issue in the debates.
Also, what about the Auora shootings? You possibly neglected a major tragedy that can dominate in the debates in the topic of gun control.
Speakers at the convention could be: Justin Amash, Rand Paul, Mitt Romney, Justin Raimondo John Huntsman, Gary Johnson, and Carol Paul(since Romney also got his wife to speak why can't Paul).
And with Ron Paul joining the third party debate, I can possibly see "the duopoly" forever broken by this.
Last edited:
Orville_third
Banned
If Obama won't attend the Free and Equal debates, I think Paul might just skip the Commission ones.
And can you include Walter Jones as a speaker?
And can you include Walter Jones as a speaker?
You know...you may be actually on to something...
I can see Paul actually threatening to back out of the mainstream debates just to "make a point" unless Obama joins the third party debate too. So Obama now has a choice....face the end of the two party duopoly(at least for this election) or hide because he's "scared" to face criticism.
The third party debates should have an interesting co-host to "link" the Mainstream and Alternate News Media, as if Obama joins it is very likely to be broadcast by CNN, FOX and MSNBC, the first of such debate in history. They should have a retired MsM news legend co-host with the F&E founder and either Ben Swann or an news anchor from either RT or AJE(hehe...cliche three judges). That or a important voice among the independents.
I can see Paul actually threatening to back out of the mainstream debates just to "make a point" unless Obama joins the third party debate too. So Obama now has a choice....face the end of the two party duopoly(at least for this election) or hide because he's "scared" to face criticism.
The third party debates should have an interesting co-host to "link" the Mainstream and Alternate News Media, as if Obama joins it is very likely to be broadcast by CNN, FOX and MSNBC, the first of such debate in history. They should have a retired MsM news legend co-host with the F&E founder and either Ben Swann or an news anchor from either RT or AJE(hehe...cliche three judges). That or a important voice among the independents.
I was surprised that he did so poorly hosting it. Though I suppose under these circumstances he'd be better prepared.
That's why I didn't mention him. The mainstream debates are pretty much the same but suppose we're going by two judges, a better host could be Ben Swann, he could easily link the mainstream and alternate media--he is a news reporter for FOX19 but he reports on what the media doesn't cover. That or Judge Napolitano.
Plus, he's got that Voice. IMO, Paul has the most to lose from the debate, because Goode or Rocky will probably win it, and it further associates him with the fringe.
That's likely just to dig him deeper, I can see the Obama attack ads now.
Even if Rocky and Goode do equally as well, or Rocky beats him, Goode has far more ballot access at the end of the day, both in the swing states and in the states that Obama could probably turn blue because Paul's the candidate.
It is not as cut and dry as it appears. Goode appears on the ballot in a lot of places, I'll give him that, but Rocky also had Write-In access in quite a few states. Write-In access is certainly less desirable, but if you already know the name of the candidate you want to vote for, and you have the option to write their name in, why wouldn't you if you favored the candidate in question?
Everyone's electoral performance in general is going to skyrocket. The question is if the Libertarian Party is even still in the race, or if they endorsed Ron Paul; they might be the only one's not to particularly benefit, or as much rather.
Everyone's electoral performance in general is going to skyrocket. The question is if the Libertarian Party is even still in the race, or if they endorsed Ron Paul; they might be the only one's not to particularly benefit, or as much rather.
Libertarians endorsed Paul. Constitution is running Goode. Green is running with Barr/Sheehan, Rocky Anderson is still in, and Andre Barnett is the Reform nominee.
Of course, but as you admit yourself it's a large disadvantage nonetheless. Goode heavily outnumbers Rocky in ballot access but is also more or less tied in write-in access, he's far more capable of spoiling things Paul than Rocky is for Obama.
However, Goode might actually agree with 95% of RP's domestic views unless some influential hawkish tea party officials and neocons endorse him over Paul.
Neocons will not unite around Goode; in fact, I think they are more likely to support Paul who at least favors free trade.
- Status