WI: Senator Ron Paul?

In 1984, Ron Paul forfeited another term in the House to run for the United States Senate seat from Texas. He came in a distant second to future conservative icon Phil Gramm, who had recently switched from the Democrat Party.

So. Let's say Gramm never switches to the Republicans, or if he does, decides to work his way up the House leadership. Ron Paul is able to win the Republican nomination, and wins in November on Reagan's coattails. How does his career change from then? How about the libertarian movement in general.
 
In 1984, Ron Paul forfeited another term in the House to run for the United States Senate seat from Texas. He came in a distant second to future conservative icon Phil Gramm, who had recently switched from the Democrat Party.

So. Let's say Gramm never switches to the Republicans, or if he does, decides to work his way up the House leadership. Ron Paul is able to win the Republican nomination, and wins in November on Reagan's coattails. How does his career change from then? How about the libertarian movement in general.

Probably no real changes, although he gains a lot more visibility than before.
 
Probably no real changes, although he gains a lot more visibility than before.

That and he probably gets primary-challenged and if he somehow survives that, gets kicked out in 1990 by one of the remaining conservative Democrats in Texas.

I say that because Paul would undoubtedly be a headache to Senate GOP leadership, not voting for things his party would want him to vote "yes" on regardless of his own positions (not necessarily a problem in the 435-member House, but often of vital importance in the Senate, where one vote matters so much more) so he probably wouldn't endear himself to Bob Dole there.

Plus, the GOP would realize pretty quickly that: a) the state is not a safe GOP seat (yet) and b) some of Paul's positions would either turn the conservative base off or make them willing to vote for a conservative Democrat instead of keeping Paul in the Senate.
 
I think he can hold onto his seat for at least a second term in 1990, when things were going well for the Republicans and the last thing they would want would be a bitter primary. After two terms if he is primaried, he can pull a Lisa Murkowski.

At some point he may try his hand at running for Governor though. Just a feeling.
 

Hyperion

Banned
Being the odd man out that he is, what if, with a win, Ron Paul decides to declare himself Libertarian, going full out 3rd Party, no caucusing with the GOP or anything.

It would be extreme, but while 3rd Party platforms have been weak running for President, having the odd person(s) in the Senate or House under a 3rd Party platform isn't unusual.

Perhaps, with his influence and resources, Ron Paul could help to gain three or four Libertarian House seats over the next few years. Nothing major, but not something that can be ignored either.
 
Realistically, Paul runs President in 1988 and 1992 on a libertarian-Republican platform (as he is currently doing.) He's going to get a lot more visibility and will probability accelerate the support for many of his causes. However, Paul is still a thorn in the side of Reagan and Dole. He'll probably hound the White House on Iran-Contra and if he survives electorally until 1991 he'll be a critic of the Gulf War. On the state level, Paul's victory probably helps the Texas Democratic Party. Instead of having to run against a former Democrat (Gramm), the party can attack Paul from both sides. They'll lambaste him for being too far to the right on economic issues, while also criticizing him for his foreign policy views. It's possible that former Governor Mark White or Attorney General Mattox run for the seat in what was already an incredibly divided primary field. If Paul's the nominee, there's a great chance that the Democratic wins. Then again, there's also a great chance that Paul gets beats in the primaries.
 
He'd be a thorn in Dole's side not Ronald Reagan's. In fact Reagan would endorse Paul in the 1988 primary over VP Bush. A senate term would actually help him in a future presidential run.
 
He'd be a thorn in Dole's side not Ronald Reagan's. In fact Reagan would endorse Paul in the 1988 primary over VP Bush. A senate term would actually help him in a future presidential run.
No no no no no no no. Reagan might have more in common with Paul, but after all the attacks Paul would have made on him for his policies since becoming President, which would only increase in ferocity with him in the Senate, no way in hell does he get Reagan's endorsement.
 
Personally, the scenario I would find most interesting is that in 1990, after six years of Paul attacking Reagan, Bush, and the rest of the GOP for Iran-Contra and military spending, the Texas Republican establishment gets a more doctrinaire conservative to challenge him in the 1990 Senate primaries, narrowly beating him.

But Ron Paul, undetered, accepts the Libertarian nomination to run for reelection and, in a massive upset, narrowly defeats the Democrat nominee (Ann Richards?). And then a fed-up (no pun intended) Paul, who is now the first third-party Senator since Jim Buckley in the 1970's, decides to go all out in the 1992 presidential election, running as the Libertarian nominee...

(Also, if I were to fully flesh out this scenario, Phil Grammy remains part of the conservative Democrats in the House, then in 1990 runs for Governor and becomes Texas' Zell Miller: a true Democrat-in-name only.)
 
Paul liked some of Reagan's ideas, but the two most certainly disagreed on foreign policy and of course spending.

Paul would be able to work with libertarian leaning Jack Kemp, and if he's running in the 90s, then current and popular governor Gary Johnson.

Lets say he runs in 1988 and comes in third or fourth, runs in 1996 and comes in second or third, and in 2000 he's in a straight up primary battle with a social conservative and a moderate. (all of course assuming a Democrat wins in 92 or at least 96).

I don't know if Bush would run knowing another Texan is in the race, nor do I know the relationship between McCain and Paul, but one can only imagine the 2000 with three powerful campaigns duking it out. A clash of the proverbial titans.
 
Personally, the scenario I would find most interesting is that in 1990, after six years of Paul attacking Reagan, Bush, and the rest of the GOP for Iran-Contra and military spending, the Texas Republican establishment gets a more doctrinaire conservative to challenge him in the 1990 Senate primaries, narrowly beating him.

But Ron Paul, undetered, accepts the Libertarian nomination to run for reelection and, in a massive upset, narrowly defeats the Democrat nominee (Ann Richards?). And then a fed-up (no pun intended) Paul, who is now the first third-party Senator since Jim Buckley in the 1970's, decides to go all out in the 1992 presidential election, running as the Libertarian nominee...

(Also, if I were to fully flesh out this scenario, Phil Grammy remains part of the conservative Democrats in the House, then in 1990 runs for Governor and becomes Texas' Zell Miller: a true Democrat-in-name only.)
Means Russell Means is the 1988 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, which should be interesting to say the least.

However I find it more liable that Ron Paul were to run with Ross Perot rather than make a run of his own accord. Now, they disagree on plenty of other issues, but they do agree on the major ones such as Balancing the Budget and NAFTA. There would also be the fact that Paul is the only member of Congress who is neither a Republican or a Democrat, and thus a major symbol of the "breakdown" of the duopoly. Far from guaranteed of course, but there is a chance.

Running on his own however, unless Perot bows out and endorses him, he is going to be eclipsed by Perot.
 
Means Russell Means is the 1988 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, which should be interesting to say the least.

Russell Means in 1988 could probably get Ralph Nader numbers. If he plays his cards right, he makes inroads in the Ron Paul crowd and Jesse Jackson crowd.
 
Paul, who is now the first third-party Senator since Jim Buckley in the 1970's, decides to go all out in the 1992 presidential election, running as the Libertarian nominee.

Go full insanity. Perot still runs and Buchanan also runs as an independent. Jesse Jackson runs on the New Alliance line. Bush vs Clinton vs Perot vs Paul vs Buchanan vs Jackson. Because why the hell keep things simple?

Means Russell Means is the 1988 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, which should be interesting to say the least.

However I find it more liable that Ron Paul were to run with Ross Perot rather than make a run of his own accord. Now, they disagree on plenty of other issues, but they do agree on the major ones such as Balancing the Budget and NAFTA. There would also be the fact that Paul is the only member of Congress who is neither a Republican or a Democrat, and thus a major symbol of the "breakdown" of the duopoly. Far from guaranteed of course, but there is a chance.

Running on his own however, unless Perot bows out and endorses him, he is going to be eclipsed by Perot.

Ron Paul is a huge free trade advocate. He'd disagree with Perot on NAFTA, though in some weird way rather than an outright opposition.
 
Go full insanity. Perot still runs and Buchanan also runs as an independent. Jesse Jackson runs on the New Alliance line. Bush vs Clinton vs Perot vs Paul vs Buchanan vs Jackson. Because why the hell keep things simple?



Ron Paul is a huge free trade advocate. He'd disagree with Perot on NAFTA, though in some weird way rather than an outright opposition.

I heard that even though Paul is pro-free trade, he's actually against free trade agreements such as NAFTA, calling them "managed trade".
 
Ron Paul is a huge free trade advocate. He'd disagree with Perot on NAFTA, though in some weird way rather than an outright opposition.
Paul is a proponent of Trade that does not have any barriers or benefits enacted by National Governments. Basically his position regarding the Markets in that the Government has no part in it, and should not interfere.

Perot was also against Free-Trade Agreements but also wanted to raise tariffs to protect the American Economy and Labor Force. This would be the significant point of disagreement between them on this issue.

 
...and it'd take serious stumbling by the Democrats for him to win the general... Of course, Obama had similar luck getting his Senate seat, so it's hardly ASB... But, yeah, he'd also be a one-termer, I agree.

Both his campaigning and issues are mediocre to horrible. It takes a seriously racist rural House seat for the wanting Jim Crow back bit to turn Mr Goldbug into a winner.

HTF would being on the Libertarian ticket help him, any more than it won him the Presidency?... He's still a LAME CAMPAIGNER. And libertarian tickets regularly get as thumped here in Texas as the rest of the country.
 
Top