# Liberty Movement > Rand Paul Forum >  Honest assessment: don't underestimate Cruz, Rand support not as strong

## eleganz

Based on my own experiences Cruz has a stronger more fanatic base than Rand does.  The good thing is that they probably don't have a lot of the training and experience that a lot of us have gone through but they do have the fire in their bellies and we all know by now that isn't something to take lightly.

Yes Rand has a broader potential to reach farther and higher but will his base show up for him?  Even I think its questionable.  He will have to spend a lot of money and effort to successfully reach those sub-groups at just the right time.

Should we be prepared?  How?

Discuss~

PS If Huck joins the game, it would help with our Cruz problem since that would be like splitting Santorum's base in half.  So here's to Huck...I'll probably send him a few encouragement tweets.

----------


## Lightweis

Interesting assessment. Ted Cruz has 31 million dollars in PAC money backing him up and a strong base. He is a serious threat to Rand for sure.

----------


## AuH20

Cruz doesn't scare me because he's not willing to take risks. His ceiling is extremely low. He's like the Latino Walker.

----------


## ctiger2

> Interesting assessment. Ted Cruz has 31 million dollars in PAC money backing him up and a strong base. He is a serious threat to Rand for sure.


He sure is...

----------


## Sola_Fide

I agree with you, especially among evangelicals.   This is why I think Rand should not forget about the evangelical vote,  because he is going to need them when Ted Cruz bows out.

----------


## Inkblots

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you there.  Most of the people I know who are excited about Cruz are the same ones who bounced from Bachmann to Cain to Gingrich in 2012.  They're followers who reflexively support whoever talk radio tells them is the "true conservative" of the month.

These are really not the people we need to be worried about.

----------


## orenbus

Where do Cruz supporters congregate online, is it freerepublic? I've been trying to find where they are, I'm guessing they aren't as active online as we are or what?

----------


## AuH20

> Where do Cruz supporters congregate online, is it freerepublic? I've been trying to find where they are, I'm guessing they aren't as active online as we are or what?


Hot Air. Free Republic. Hannity Forums.

----------


## CPUd

> Where do Cruz supporters congregate online, is it freerepublic? I've been trying to find where they are, I'm guessing they aren't as active online as we are or what?


yes, they are at freerepublic, and also in Tea Party online groups.  Follow the places where johnwk posts.

----------


## mad cow

I agree with you.I never get this stuff right but out of all the names now being bandied about,I think that Cruz,Rand and Walker are the only ones with a real shot.

----------


## eleganz

> Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you there.  Most of the people I know who are excited about Cruz are the same ones who bounced from Bachmann to Cain to Gingrich in 2012.  They're followers who reflexively support whoever talk radio tells them is the "true conservative" of the month.
> 
> These are really not the people we need to be worried about.


I factored that into my observation as I've been paying attention for a while not sure what was going on but Cruz' support is not like that, he hasn't really seen his time yet, and maybe he's already hit his "announcement week peak"  His support is on fanatic level,  I do hope you are right though.




> Where do Cruz supporters congregate online, is it freerepublic? I've been trying to find where they are, I'm guessing they aren't as active online as we are or what?


I've had the "blessing" of being invited to many conservative groups due to some of my political activism.  Its all Cruz all the time.  I hope it will change as more people join the race.  If you go to Ted's fb page, you'll see he continuously gets 20,000 likes for every post then compare it to Rand's, but then again Rand makes a lot more posts.

They're definitely not as savvy as we are, they haven't been through 2 cycles of trench warfare.


Don't get me wrong people, I do think Rand is tolerable to them but this whole Mitch Mcconnell thing really screwed up his favor.  This is all tea party conservative types.  Tea Party + Evangelical is a pretty strong coalition if you can successfully get both and that is Cruz' strategy.


I saw today Cruz got 5.5 million engagements on FB while Rand got 1.9M for their announcements.

Here is some good news:

Rand got a bigger search bump from his announcement
https://www.google.com/trends/explor...6ty&cmpt=q&tz=

----------


## AuH20

Cruz can win if he can break from the republican stereotype and latch onto a key issue & make it his own. Religious freedom is not going to be enough. At least, Rand is known for being against the NSA and the Federal Reserve, which makes him refreshingly unique. Cruz needs something to define himself or he's going to be a non-factor. His platform is not exciting at the moment.

----------


## AuH20

Doug is right.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/the-diffe...-and-ted-cruz/

----------


## grizzums

I'd say having JC Watts as one of his biggest surrogates says that Rand will definitely be making a push for the evangelical vote.

----------


## orenbus

> Doug is right.
> 
> http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/the-diffe...-and-ted-cruz/


Interesting article, although it was probably written before the reports of the 30+ million in PAC money no?

----------


## Kotin

I believe he is large obstacle at this point.. especially because Iowa is an early state..

but thats just how it looks now.. there are not many candidates in right now..

what happens when more "christian" candidates get in or a bunch of neocons as well like Frothy and Huckabee...? Rand draws from all demographics and many of these people will be splitting each others voting bases.. 

I'll be interested to see the people do and dont get into the race..

----------


## francisco

> Where do Cruz supporters congregate online, is it freerepublic? I've been trying to find where they are, I'm guessing they aren't as active online as we are or what?





> Hot Air. Free Republic. Hannity Forums.


Hot Air yes but seems to go in cycles, sometimes having pro-Rand articles; especially seen this last week since Rand's announcement

Free Republic is all Cruz all the time and Rand doesn't get even grudging intermittent respect for anything. Big "Murica!" crowd over there. McCain gets knocked there because he isn't enough of a warmonger!

At Free Republic, the considered opinion is that Ron Paul is nuts, the acorn (Rand) doesn't fall far from the tree, and all libertarians and/or Rand supporters are pot-smoking hippies. It's a real Archie Bunker crowd.

----------


## RickyJ

> Based on my own experiences Cruz has a stronger more fanatic base than Rand does.


I don't see that at all. He does have big money on his side as well as good public speaking skills, but his support for more preventive wars will make him a loser versus any Democrat candidate.

----------


## AuH20

In other news.................

Krauthammer: Rubio has chance to be come Kennedyesque.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> Based on my own experiences Cruz has a stronger more fanatic base than Rand does.


Fanaticism is not necessarily a good thing to have on your side, at least visually, as Obama was able to disguise a lot of the fanatical element of his support base with a moderated tone. If you want to talk fanaticism, back in the 2012 campaign Rick Perry held this large gathering of evangelicals and had several pastors that made some extremely controversial statements. The media torpedoed him for it and, with the help of some really bad gaffes, effectively ended his campaign before the Iowa Caucuses happened. Bachmann also had a fair amount of fanaticism on her side and it didn't play out very well.

Now before anybody tries to use Frothy as an example of a man with a fanatical support base, while this may be true, Santorum himself is more of a diabolical type. It tends to go with being tied in with the Opus Dei (Rome's version of a masonic lodge) and being adept at manipulative politics. Having suffered this guy as my state's senator for 12 years, I can say from personal experience seeing him in action that the guy was extremely savvy and only lost his seat because of a massive national democratic wave in 2006.

----------


## cat_woman

> Where do Cruz supporters congregate online, is it freerepublic? I've been trying to find where they are, I'm guessing they aren't as active online as we are or what?


I post at Hot Air, and can tell you there are many Cruzbots there.  In fact a couple of his fanatical supporters post in every single thread not about Cruz to bash his opponents and their supporters.

That's one of the reasons why I joined here.  I wanted a safe haven to discuss Rand (and other like minded people like Justin Amash) without being attacked for it.  

Hannity forums have Cruz supporters too but they are not nearly as fanatical.  There also is support for other Rs including Rand.  

I think Breitbart has a lot of Cruz supporters too although I don't post there.

----------


## RonPaul4Prez2012

Sadly this is Ted Cruz's base - mostly southerners who want a man of faith in the white house and there are lots of them.

----------


## TaftFan

There are several massive Cruz groups on Facebook. There is one massive Rand group on Facebook.

----------


## hells_unicorn

> I post at Hot Air, and can tell you there are many Cruzbots there.  In fact a couple of his fanatical supporters post in every single thread not about Cruz to bash his opponents and their supporters.
> 
> That's one of the reasons why I joined here.  I wanted a safe haven to discuss Rand (and other like minded people like Justin Amash) without being attacked for it.  
> 
> Hannity forums have Cruz supporters too but they are not nearly as fanatical.  There also is support for other Rs including Rand.  
> 
> I think Breitbart has a lot of Cruz supporters too although I don't post there.


Breitbart has a decent number of Rand supporters, and I occasionally go there to support their efforts and usually end up butting heads with the hawks over there. Sadly I don't tend to keep my cool long when dealing with people who get their American and World History from children's books so I usually just up-vote pro-Rand comments and move on.

I don't spend much time on Hot Air or Hannity forums, though I may end up doing so for net-roots activist purposes this go around. I've spent about 5 years studying Presbyterian theology now and I think I may have the chops necessary to convince some of these people that their understanding of Christianity is woefully erroneous.

----------


## cat_woman

> Breitbart has a decent number of Rand supporters, and I occasionally go there to support their efforts and usually end up butting heads with the hawks over there. Sadly I don't tend to keep my cool long when dealing with people who get their American and World History from children's books so I usually just up-vote pro-Rand comments and move on.
> 
> I don't spend much time on Hot Air or Hannity forums, though I may end up doing so for net-roots activist purposes this go around. I've spent about 5 years studying Presbyterian theology now and I think I may have the chops necessary to convince some of these people that their understanding of Christianity is woefully erroneous.


I think you could make a very positive impact on Hannity.  There are some who are already saying they support Rand, plus others who have said positive things about him.  I've posted there for quite a few years.  Although it's not getting the same amount of traffic as it used to, it will certainly change as the election heats up.  Plus a lot of people lurk but never post or even sign up to post.  

As for Hot Air, if you aren't already a member you have to wait for open registration, which happens very seldom.  I stick around mostly because I like Ed Morrisey, and love AllahPundit.  

Plus, it's very safe to bash Jeb and Hillary there.  

Glad to hear that about Brietbart.  I had a feeling it was mostly a Cruz place, but am happy to hear Rand has a good amount of support too.

----------


## orenbus

> As for Hot Air, if you aren't already a member you have to wait for open registration, which happens very seldom.  I stick around mostly because I like Ed Morrisey, and love AllahPundit.  
> 
> Plus, it's very safe to bash Jeb and Hillary there.


Does Hotair have a forum or is it just news stories that people comment on? I was able to log in to comment on a posting off their main page does that mean I'm already a member?

----------


## cat_woman

> Does Hotair have a forum or is it just news stories that people comment on? I was able to log in to comment on a posting off their main page does that mean I'm already a member?


They do not have a forum, just news stories by their bloggers for people to comment on.  Did you have to register first in order to comment?  If not, then they must have changed their policy.  It used to be closed to comments except for open registration days.  

The other possibility is that you can comment on the news headlines (articles from around the web at the top of the page from different news sources) but not the main articles part of the page until you register.  

You can try posting a comment on one of the main articles (those written by Ed Morrisey, AllahPundit, Jazz Shaw or Noah Rothman) to see if it will allow you to.

----------


## orenbus

> They do not have a forum, just news stories by their bloggers for people to comment on.  Did you have to register first in order to comment?  If not, then they must have changed their policy.  It used to be closed to comments except for open registration days.  
> 
> The other possibility is that you can comment on the news headlines (articles from around the web at the top of the page from different news sources) but not the main articles part of the page until you register.  
> 
> You can try posting a comment on one of the main articles (those written by Ed Morrisey, AllahPundit, Jazz Shaw or Noah Rothman) to see if it will allow you to.


It asked me for a username/password I most likely registered during 2012 or earlier.

----------


## cat_woman

> It asked me for a username/password I most likely registered during 2012 or earlier.


OK.  It's still closed registration then.

One thing about Hot Air is every month they give people a chance to vote for their favorite candidate.  I'm not sure if everyone can vote or if you have to be a registered member.  In any case, the site gets a lot of traffic and it would be nice to see Rand win.   

I don't think they have done the April poll yet, but can post the link when the next one happens.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

Cruz is a natural born Canadian and subject of the Queen and would be a usurper in the White House.  Throw it in these Cruz fanatics' faces that they are supporting straight-up treason.

----------


## adelina

Cruz will not win, not possible. Zero chance. BUT he is a major obstacle to Rand winning, because he takes many votes away from Rand. Something has to be done about this. However, angering the Cruz supporters will not help Rand's case since anger is basically what drives them to vote for Cruz. So do not get into an argument with them, whatever you do. 

You can point out that Cruz is not a fiscal conservative, point out his ties with the Bush administration through his wife and Condi Rice, point out where his money is coming from (h ttp://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-mystery-moneymen-behind-ted-cruzs-super-pacs-116037797361.html), point out that he only renounced Canadian citizenship less than 1 year ago etc. You can also point out statistics show that among the likely Republican candidates, he polls the worst or one of the worst against Hillary. State things in a matter-of-fact way.

----------


## kingbingo

> So do not get into an argument with them, whatever you do.


Very wise that man. 

Its human nature when told NO, to insist on doing it anyway. Far better to accept that Crus is basically a good man and a decent choice, just that Rand is a better man and a better choice who is a lot more likely to win the General

----------


## adelina

> Very wise that man. 
> 
> Its human nature when told NO, to insist on doing it anyway. Far better to accept that Crus is basically a good man and a decent choice, just that Rand is a better man and a better choice who is a lot more likely to win the General


Yes, but please also don't say "Cruz is my second choice behind Rand" because that just encourages them as well.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Yes, but please also don't say "Cruz is my second choice behind Rand" because that just encourages them as well.


Only say it if you believe it.  

It_ is_ wise to build a camaraderie with the Cruz supporters.  Always _compare_ Rand with Cruz to a Cruz supporter - don't _contrast_ them.  Don't tell them why you think Cruz is bad.  DON'T DO THAT.  Repeat.  DON'T DO THAT.  Tell them, "yeah Cruz is interesting, but here's why I like Rand Paul..."

The only safe area where I think you can contrast is in electability.  Talk about how Paul is already polling above Hillary in key states.  

Listen, it's this simple:  If they like Cruz, and then you start going on about how Rand is_ different_ than Cruz...  It shouldn't take a genius to understand the folly of that.

----------


## William Tell

> Only say it if you believe it.  
> 
> It_ is_ wise to build a camaraderie with the Cruz supporters.  Always _compare_ Rand with Cruz to a Cruz supporter - don't _contrast_ them.  Don't tell them why you think Cruz is bad.  DON'T DO THAT.  Repeat.  DON'T DO THAT.  Tell them, "yeah Cruz is interesting, but here's why I like Rand Paul..."
> 
> The only safe area where I think you can contrast is in electability.  Talk about how Paul is already polling above Hillary in key states.  
> 
> Listen, it's this simple:  If they like Cruz, and then you start going on about how Rand is_ different_ than Cruz...  It shouldn't take a genius to understand the folly of that.


But the reason I like Rand, is because his voting record is a little bit better than Cruz. People are supporting Cruz rather than Rand because they have the perception that Cruz is the most Conservative. We need to change that narrative. It frustrates me.

People should know that Rand has the best Constitutional record of anyone in the Senate.

----------


## 65fastback2+2

im not seeing it...you can cite social media numbers and money but those are easily manipulated.

----------


## mosquitobite

> Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you there.  Most of the people I know who are excited about Cruz are the same ones who bounced from Bachmann to Cain to Gingrich in 2012.  They're followers who reflexively support whoever talk radio tells them is the "true conservative" of the month.
> 
> These are really not the people we need to be worried about.


Those are exactly the people we need to be worried about.  They're the sheep that vote in the primaries!  Don't you understand TPTB just have to keep him in long enough to split the anti-establishment vote?

----------


## William Tell

> im not seeing it...you can cite social media numbers and money but those are easily manipulated.


Cruz does seem to have the most passionate base on the internet. Judging by comment sections, and all the tweets and facebook posts I see. They are also winning a lot of polls. They are kind of doing what Ron Paul supporters did on the internet last cycle. We really need to stop acting like we are the only kids on the block. I have seen a few Cruz supporters saying they think Rand supporters on the internet are establishment bots to split the vote. They are delusional, of course, but so are we if we assume the same about them. Cruz has lots of passionate supporters, I have met some. We need to face that reality.

----------


## newbitech

I have yet to hear anyone not politically affiliated mention Cruz. I don't think he has the name recognition that Paul enjoys.  When I see a "Who is Ted Cruz" blimp, I'll start to get concerned.

----------


## William Tell

> I have yet to hear anyone not politically affiliated mention Cruz. I don't think he has the name recognition that Paul enjoys.  When I see a "Who is Ted Cruz" blimp, I'll start to get concerned.


Well, I'm in Texas and on the Internet. Maybe its different elsewhere.

----------


## 65fastback2+2

> Cruz does seem to have the most passionate base on the internet. Judging by comment sections, and all the tweets and facebook posts I see. They are also winning a lot of polls. They are kind of doing what Ron Paul supporters did on the internet last cycle. We really need to stop acting like we are the only kids on the block. I have seen a few Cruz supporters saying they think Rand supporters on the internet are establishment bots to split the vote. They are delusional, of course, but so are we if we assume the same about them. Cruz has lots of passionate supporters, I have met some. We need to face that reality.


i'm not saying to discount him...but im looking more at the overall picture.

Ted has 900k fb likes on his page...rand is almost at 1.9 million.

Now, consider this...I am a rand supporter but guess what? I liked ted cruz's fb page over a year ago. Why? Because I like to keep up with texas politicians. Doesnt mean I would vote for him over rand, or that I am a cruz supporter.

Judging from the general posts and what not...a rand supporter is typically more hard-core small government and more apt to vote for rand. Whereas your cruz voters would be more apt to vote for whomever the R is.

----------


## cruzrulez

We need to court Cruz people after he drops out. He may have enough gusto to last him until the RNC though. 

Saw a Cruz bumper sticker yesterday.

----------


## philipped

Y'all are talking like he's gonna get out of Iowa or something....

----------


## adelina

The point is that Cruz is going to take some votes away from Rand. In a crowded field, even the difference of a few hundred or a few thousand votes can cost Rand a win in Iowa or New Hampshire. So we have to, as far as possible, try to minimize the damage from Cruz. And do so without angering his supporters.

----------


## William Tell

> The point is that Cruz is going to take some votes away from Rand. In a crowded field, even the difference of a few hundred or a few thousand votes can cost Rand a win in Iowa or New Hampshire. So we have to, as far as possible, try to minimize the damage from Cruz. And do so without angering his supporters.


Yes, and I believe we do this best by making more people aware of how Rand votes in the Senate compared to everyone else. Rand has the most fiscally conservative record, he is the main 2nd amendment champion. People should know this, as well as the fact that he's the most electable.

----------


## adelina

> Yes, and I believe we do this best by making more people aware of how Rand votes in the Senate compared to everyone else. Rand has the most fiscally conservative record, he is the main 2nd amendment champion. People should know this, as well as the fact that he's the most electable.


And tie fiscal conservatism to national defense/security. Because as Rand likes to say "you can't project American power from bankruptcy court".

----------


## William Tell

- Ted Cruz voted YES on the Amendment S.Amdt. 2867 to H.R. 4152. The  Senate version of this legislation - offered in the form of a substitute  amendment to the House version, H.R. 4152 would provide $150 million  for direct aid to Ukraine. It would also provide for loan guarantees  (meaning that the U.S. taxpayers would be stuck holding the bag if the  loans are not paid).

----------


## phill4paul

> And tie fiscal conservatism to national defense/security. Because as Rand likes to say "you can't project American power from bankruptcy court".


   In FB conversation w/ a Cruz supporter he seemed to think that Rand was like Ron and was concerned about defense. I explained that Rand's budget amendment allotted more to the Pentagon than the Cruz budget, $69 billion more than the Pentagon asked for, but that it included $219 billion in cuts to foreign aid to countries that burn American flags. He seemed thrilled by this.

----------


## William Tell

> *the Cruz budget*


Do you mean the Rubio budget that Cruz voted for?

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Here is some good news:
> 
> Rand got a bigger search bump from his announcement
> https://www.google.com/trends/explor...6ty&cmpt=q&tz=


Unfortunately, this isn't true.  

Change the time period to 30 days or 90 days and you will see what I mean.  Cruz got more than twice the search traffic Rand did on their respective announcement days.  If you're looking a too long a time period, sometimes the data gets screwed up.  If the graph for either search term only goes up to a pinnacle and doesn't come back down, change to a different time period.

----------


## TheTexan

> Sadly this is Ted Cruz's base - mostly southerners who want a man of faith in the white house and there are lots of them.


Them right there are true Americans.  God bless this country.

----------


## adelina

> In FB conversation w/ a Cruz supporter he seemed to think that Rand was like Ron and was concerned about defense. I explained that Rand's budget amendment allotted more to the Pentagon than the Cruz budget, $69 billion more than the Pentagon asked for, but that it included $219 billion in cuts to foreign aid to countries that burn American flags. He seemed thrilled by this.


Yeah, I think there's a lot of misinformation out there about Rand. Fox pretty much ignored the Rand vs Rubio/Cruz tussle over the budget so most Republican voters don't know about it.

----------


## Millennial Conservatarian

> In other news.................
> 
> Krauthammer: Rubio has chance to be come Kennedyesque.


Ok now they're just messing with us....

----------


## phill4paul

> Yeah, I think there's a lot of misinformation out there about Rand. Fox pretty much ignored the Rand vs Rubio/Cruz tussle over the budget so most Republican voters don't know about it.


  Expect more of it. We've played this game before. If Rand's message is going to be heard then his supporters are going to have to be the ones that open some ears. And as has been mentioned now is the time to gently push with truth bombs. Once the debates start Rand will do the rest.

----------


## specsaregood

The interesting thing about Rafael is that I don't think Randal is competing for the same voters as he is.   As strange and certainly unexpected as it might be; Randal is competing and attempting to win the moderates and centrists.   He is competing with Jeb, not Cruz, not Huckabee, etc.

I look at everything Randal has done over the past couple years and I see that he has positioned himself as the moderate; not the extremist.   and if you look at who has won the last GOP presidential primaries; it has been the moderate.

Jeb is his competition, not Rafael.

----------


## 65fastback2+2

> Expect more of it. We've played this game before. If Rand's message is going to be heard then his supporters are going to have to be the ones that open some ears. And as has been mentioned now is the time to gently push with truth bombs. Once the debates start Rand will do the rest.


yup! Its up to us.

My coworker here in the office never votes...says its all rigged.

Ive been making him listen to Rand speeches and clips and he's interested now.

----------


## adelina

> The interesting thing about Rafael is that I don't think Randal is competing for the same voters as he is.   As strange and certainly unexpected as it might be; Randal is competing and attempting to win the moderates and centrists.   He is competing with Jeb, not Cruz, not Huckabee, etc.
> 
> I look at everything Randal has done over the past couple years and I see that he has positioned himself as the moderate; not the extremist.   and if you look at who has won the last GOP presidential primaries; it has been the moderate.
> 
> Jeb is his competition, not Rafael.


Tea party supporters remain an important part of Rand's coalition. Not all of them are nutty extremists, many are just really frustrated with the status quo. He cannot afford to lose too many of them to Cruz.

Yes, Rand is trying to attract some centrists. But he's not positioning himself as a "moderate Republican", he's positioning himself as a strong conservative (and according to his voting record, _the_ most conservative candidate running) whose ideas can reach across factions within the party to unite the anti-establishment voters. Don't call Rand a "moderate Republican" because in the eyes of anti-establishment conservatives, that term = RINO.

----------


## specsaregood

> Tea party supporters remain an important part of Rand's coalition. Not all of them are nutty extremists, many are just really frustrated with the status quo. He cannot afford to lose too many of them to Cruz.
> 
> Yes, Rand is trying to attract some centrists. But he's not positioning himself as a "moderate Republican", he's positioning himself as a strong conservative (and according to his voting record, _the_ most conservative candidate running) whose ideas can reach across factions within the party to unite the anti-establishment voters. Don't call Rand a "moderate Republican" because in the eyes of anti-establishment conservatives, that term = RINO.


He is positioning himself as the moderate.   It is a fact.  I've been watching it for the past year or so.   A big part of his strategy has been to create a NEW moderate base; wholly different than the establishment moderate group.    That doesn't mean he doesn't want tea party support; but rather he is focusing on the 90% issues that made the tea party popular originally and adding in some other 90% issues while at it.   Basically running on the TP party issues before the TP got corrupted by establishment hacks.

----------


## AuH20

> Tea party supporters remain an important part of Rand's coalition. *Not all of them are nutty extremists, many are just really frustrated with the status quo. He cannot afford to lose too many of them to Cruz.
> *
> Yes, Rand is trying to attract some centrists. But he's not positioning himself as a "moderate Republican", he's positioning himself as a strong conservative (and according to his voting record, _the_ most conservative candidate running) whose ideas can reach across factions within the party to unite the anti-establishment voters. Don't call Rand a "moderate Republican" because in the eyes of anti-establishment conservatives, that term = RINO.


Rand hurt himself with the McConnell alliance. It just looks very bad from the outside. I know he wanted the Foreign Relations Committee post but McConnell is the face of Republican duplicity. Rand made another miscalculation when he let Chris McDaniel swing in the wind after the election was stolen from him.

----------


## CaptUSA

> But the reason I like Rand, is because his voting record is a little bit better than Cruz. People are supporting Cruz rather than Rand because they have the perception that Cruz is the most Conservative. We need to change that narrative.* It frustrates me.*
> People should know that Rand has the best Constitutional record of anyone in the Senate.


Do you want to ease your frustration or do you want to win?!  

I imagine most salesmen are frustrated with their competitors product and they just need their customers to see _their_ product as superior.  But guess what?  Successful salesmen know that if a customer _likes_ that other product, you don't go telling them how much your product is different.  You tell them that yours is just as good, if not slightly better in some ways, and it costs them less.

To translate this into this realm...  Don't say Cruz sucks and here's why...  Say, Cruz is good, but so is Rand and Rand can actually win a general election.

----------


## orenbus

Something we should have learned by now, this race at least initially is going to come down to if Rand can win either Iowa or New Hampshire. If a win doesn't happen it's going to be near impossible to win the race, that's the reality. Right now Cruz is barely polling at 4 & 7-9% in either state, that's not to say the numbers can't change as we saw with Santorum the last month in Iowa 2012, but at the moment it's Walker and Bush that are the threats in the two critical early states.

----------


## William Tell

> Do you want to ease your frustration or do you want to win?!  
> 
> I imagine most salesmen are frustrated with their competitors product and they just need their customers to see _their_ product as superior.  But guess what?  Successful salesmen know that if a customer _likes_ that other product, you don't go telling them how much your product is different.  You tell them that yours is just as good, if not slightly better in some ways, and it costs them less.
> 
> To translate this into this realm...  Don't say Cruz sucks and here's why...  Say, Cruz is good, but so is Rand and Rand can actually win a general election.


I don't think you get what I'm saying.

*I'm not telling Cruz supporters that he sucks*.

I don't plan on saying Cruz sucks in the face of his supporters. However, I don't know a single Cruz supporter or someone on the fence between him and Rand who would switch to Rand over electability. Rand has the best conservative record, if the electorate knew that more of them would choose Rand.

If you want to use the car salesman example: Cruz is a pickup truck, he gets 18mpg, Rand is a pickup truck, he gets 25mpg. That is Rand's main selling point to Conservatives. Yeah, beating Hillary is a plus. But when Ron Paul was polling the best against Obama people didn't flip from Romney to Ron Paul.

*Rand has the best record* we need to get that across, don't want to mention Cruz? Neither do I, but when the Cruz supporter tells you (like 90% of them will) that they are supporting Ted Cruz because he's the most Conservative. How do you plan on getting them to pick Rand without letting them know that Rand is not less conservative than Cruz?

You seem to be ignoring _why_ people support Ted Cruz over Rand.

Why not just say yes, I'm supporting Rand, because of his record, and Ted Cruz has the next best record in the race?

----------


## adelina

> Rand hurt himself with the McConnell alliance. It just looks very bad from the outside. I know he wanted the Foreign Relations Committee post but McConnell is the face of Republican duplicity. Rand made another miscalculation when he let Chris McDaniel swing in the wind after the election was stolen from him.


If he hadn't endorsed Mitch and Mitch had still won, Mitch (with the full backing of the establishment) would have gone out of his way to ruin Rand. It wasn't just about the comm seat. It was about survival.

----------


## AuH20

> If he hadn't endorsed Mitch and Mitch had still won, *Mitch (with the full backing of the establishment) would have gone out of his way to ruin Rand.* It wasn't just about the comm seat. It was about survival.


The establishment is still trying to ruin Rand. McConnell is someone I would never get in bed with.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> In other news.................
> 
> Krauthammer: Rubio has chance to be come Kennedyesque.


Cruz is already losing his support to Rubio. The neoconservatives and fake teo-cons (Hannity, etc.) will flock to Rubio.

I'll stick with this prediction:




> Cruz is a distraction. The plan is to switch to Rubio. Rubio is the new Paul Ryan. Fully establishment, with a veneer of "new kid on the block" for the ignorant masses.

----------


## NoOneButPaul

Cruz is splitting our base and we're splitting his... really wish they could have gotten him to sit this one out. 

If he's not out by Iowa it's going to hurt us badly.

----------


## CaptUSA

> You seem to be ignoring _why_ people support Ted Cruz over Rand.


I'm not ignoring it.  I'm _allowing_ for it.

You seem to want them to support Rand OVER Cruz.  While that is good, the real push is to have them support Rand IN ADDITION to Cruz.  It's a minor distinction, but an important one in selling a product.  If they are happy with their product, let them stay happy.  But if they should ever become _un_happy, or their product is no longer available, you have a good substitute for them.  You don't have to make Rand everyone's first choice.  That was the mistake of 2012.  Just make him an acceptable alternative.

----------


## AuH20

> Cruz is splitting our base and we're splitting his... really wish they could have gotten him to sit this one out. 
> 
> If he's not out by Iowa it's going to hurt us badly.


He's a selfish bastard for pulling this stunt without much preparation and if he attacks Rand, we'll really know where his true heart lies.

----------


## CaptUSA

> Cruz is already losing his support to Rubio. The neoconservatives and fake teo-cons (Hannity, etc.) will flock to Rubio.
> 
> I'll stick with this prediction


Yep.  And the flock will continue to move around.  The key is to become a little stronger each time they move.

----------


## AuH20

Ted Cruz has one foot in the tea party coalition camp and the other in the neoconservative camp. At some point, he has to make his mind up. Voting for Rubio's budget didn't earn him any acclaim.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *Ted Cruz has one foot in the tea party coalition camp and the other in the neoconservative camp*. At some point, he has to make his mind up. Voting for Rubio's budget didn't earn him any acclaim.


Sadly, that's the same camp.

----------


## AuH20

> Cruz is already losing his support to Rubio. The neoconservatives and fake teo-cons (Hannity, etc.) will flock to Rubio.
> 
> I'll stick with this prediction:


I don't think Cruz will lose too much to Rubio. Rubio's brand is badly damaged in that only northern establishment types really gravitate to him.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> Cruz is splitting our base and we're splitting his... really wish they could have gotten him to sit this one out. 
> 
> If he's not out by Iowa it's going to hurt us badly.


No way he drops before Iowa.

We're going ot have to win over a sizable chunk of his supporters while he's still in the race.

----------


## AuH20

> Sadly, that's the same camp.


It's not the same. The tea party is broad. Actual neoconservatives are very small in number. What neoconservatives do is drive the national dialogue and create false dilemmas in which their 'solutions' win out.

----------


## adelina

> The establishment is still trying to ruin Rand. McConnell is someone I would never get in bed with.


Has the establishment succeeded yet? No. Is Rand able to run for both presidency and senate reelection? Yes.

----------


## newbitech

Cruz has some fairly impressive establishment status quo credentials of his own.

Cruz spent a good portion of his early career working for President George W. Bush — first as a legal policy adviser to the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2000, then as part of the recount team in Florida. He was the Department of Justice coordinator for the Bush-Cheney transition team and then spent six months as Associate Deputy Attorney General at the DOJ. But his longest stretch of work for Bush was at the Federal Trade Commission, before he departed to become the Solicitor General of Texas. From July 2001 to January 2003, Cruz was the director of the Office of Policy Planning at the FTC.


Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...s-jim-geraghty

----------


## AuH20

> Has the establishment succeeded yet? No. Is Rand able to run for both presidency and senate reelection? Yes.


He's getting raped on FNC daily. McConnell and his ilk are probably cheering for his downfall. I would never given McConnell the satisfaction after he tried to off Rand in the Kentucky primary.

----------


## AuH20

> Cruz has some fairly impressive establishment status quo credentials of his own.
> 
> Cruz spent a good portion of his early career working for President George W. Bush — first as a legal policy adviser to the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2000, then as part of the recount team in Florida. He was the Department of Justice coordinator for the Bush-Cheney transition team and then spent six months as Associate Deputy Attorney General at the DOJ.* But his longest stretch of work for Bush was at the Federal Trade Commission,* before he departed to become the Solicitor General of Texas. From July 2001 to January 2003, Cruz was the director of the Office of Policy Planning at the FTC.
> 
> 
> Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...s-jim-geraghty


If your read the article, Cruz actually did some good things during his time there in terms of deregulation.

----------


## Millennial Conservatarian

The thing is that Rand's supporters are FAR less mobile towards the other candidates than Ted's supporters.

----------


## newbitech

> If your read the article, Cruz actually did some good things during his time there in terms of deregulation.


That is besides the point tho isn't it?  He's also back peddled on immigration.  he wrote the policy that Bush ran and won on.  It's hard to imagine anyone considering Ted Cruz as a Washington outsider with consistent views on certain hot button topics.  

The fact that his pedigree is flying under the radar probably helps his poll numbers and perception vs Rand Paul today.  Or it could just be the "Tea Party" wing of the Republican Party is a facade that has been coopted by the establishment.  Take your pick.

----------


## AuH20

> That is besides the point tho isn't it?  He's also back peddled on immigration.  he wrote the policy that Bush ran and won on.  It's hard to imagine anyone considering Ted Cruz as a Washington outsider with consistent views on certain hot button topics.  
> 
> The fact that his pedigree is flying under the radar probably helps his poll numbers and perception vs Rand Paul today.  Or it could just be the "Tea Party" wing of the Republican Party is a facade that has been coopted by the establishment.  Take your pick.


I'm not defending Cruz. I'm saying that his stint with Bush wasn't all bad.

----------


## adelina

> He's getting raped on FNC daily. McConnell and his ilk are probably cheering for his downfall. I would never given McConnell the satisfaction after he tried to off Rand in the Kentucky primary.


I doubt Mitch is cheering for his downfall. Mitch stands to benefit greatly if Rand wins the presidency. Mitch is not an ideologue, he's a self-preservationist. 
Rand wanted to launch a serious bid for the presidency while not giving up his senate seat. The only choice was to back McConnell.

----------


## CPUd

Well the freepers will be going after Rubio this week...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...of-Marco-Rubio

----------


## specsaregood

> I doubt Mitch is cheering for his downfall. Mitch stands to benefit greatly if Rand wins the presidency. Mitch is not an ideologue, he's a self-preservationist. 
> Rand wanted to launch a serious bid for the presidency while not giving up his senate seat. The only choice was to back McConnell.


And I still say having Mitch on his side and IN the majority leader role can quite possibly be Randals best leverage during this election cycle.   As it gives him the actual chance to see his legislation come up for votes and maybe even pass.   The more legislation Randal can point to as successful; the better his position becomes.

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

> Cruz is a natural born Canadian and subject of the Queen and would be a usurper in the White House.  Throw it in these Cruz fanatics' faces that they are supporting straight-up treason.


Ted Cruz's father was born in Cuba so he isn't a true natural born citizen anyway.

----------


## orenbus



----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I don't think Cruz will lose too much to Rubio. Rubio's brand is badly damaged in that only northern establishment types really gravitate to him.


Polls will tell this week.

Here's an early indicator. It looks like Rubio is pulling from Cruz in a big way:




> 32% Marco Rubio
> 13% Ted Cruz
> 55% Rand Paul
> 
> http://nation.foxnews.com/poll/2015/...ance-for-2016/

----------


## newbitech

> I'm not defending Cruz. I'm saying that his stint with Bush wasn't all bad.


I am not attacking him.  I am saying that the perception that is out there about him seems a little inside out.  I prefer to think about a candidate in terms of merit, their record, and what they have been able to achieve during their time as public servants.  

I would say both candidates rate evenly in that regard.  Sure, there could be some crossover between the two in terms of merits, record, and achievement.  they are very similar candidates.  

I think what really separates them is ideology and character.  I think Cruz has some character flaws the biggest being his dual citizenship.  Not sure how any message he brings can resonate with full blooded American citizens.  I know it's a big turn off for me.  The guy cannot hope to relate to my Florida upbringing since I tend to view anyone from Canada as snowbirds that clog up the bridges to the beach and generally come to my town to soak up the service economy.  Nothing inherently wrong about that, but I seriously doubt Ted Cruz is going to fit in on my main street.  

Rand Paul has the benefit of the doubt from me in terms of ideology.  But I don't think the Paul's own the idea of freedom and liberty.  So I guess it really shakes down for me that I need someone who can understand and represent me from my perspective while sharing similar ideology.  I see Ted Cruz as being a connected insider and Paul, not.  

Perhaps some current Cruz supporters would feel the same way if the information about Cruz's early political career where brought to light.  Perhaps those supporters don't care that his political career included advising Bush and serving in the Bush administration.  Dunno, but I think it's worth mentioning especially given the perception that Cruz is a "Tea Party" candidate.  And then again, perhaps the "Tea Party" label is so twisted that people who support Cruz on his "Tea Party" credentials don't consider "outsider" status as part of that movement.  Perhaps "Tea Party" is accepting of candidates with a line of succession that can be traced back to the neocon movement.  Dunno.

----------


## AuH20

> Polls will tell this week.
> 
> Here's an early indicator. It looks like Rubio is pulling from Cruz in a big way:


If anything, Rubio hurts Bush more than anyone else.

----------


## AuH20

> I am not attacking him.  I am saying that the perception that is out there about him seems a little inside out.  I prefer to think about a candidate in terms of merit, their record, and what they have been able to achieve during their time as public servants.  
> 
> I would say both candidates rate evenly in that regard.  Sure, there could be some crossover between the two in terms of merits, record, and achievement.  they are very similar candidates.  
> 
> I think what really separates them is ideology and character.  I think Cruz has some character flaws the biggest being his dual citizenship.  Not sure how any message he brings can resonate with full blooded American citizens.  I know it's a big turn off for me.  The guy cannot hope to relate to my Florida upbringing since I tend to view anyone from Canada as snowbirds that clog up the bridges to the beach and generally come to my town to soak up the service economy.  Nothing inherently wrong about that, but I seriously doubt Ted Cruz is going to fit in on my main street.  
> 
> Rand Paul has the benefit of the doubt from me in terms of ideology.  But I don't think the Paul's own the idea of freedom and liberty.  So I guess it really shakes down for me that I need someone who can understand and represent me from my perspective while sharing similar ideology.  I see Ted Cruz as being a connected insider and Paul, not.  
> 
> Perhaps some current Cruz supporters would feel the same way if the information about Cruz's early political career where brought to light.  Perhaps those supporters don't care that his political career included advising Bush and serving in the Bush administration.  Dunno, but I think it's worth mentioning especially given the perception that Cruz is a "Tea Party" candidate.  And then again, perhaps the "Tea Party" label is so twisted that people who support Cruz on his "Tea Party" credentials don't consider "outsider" status as part of that movement.  Perhaps "Tea Party" is accepting of candidates with a line of succession that can be traced back to the neocon movement.  Dunno.


Cruz only won because he was going against an entrenched, despicable foe  like Dewhurst and was swept in by Tea Party momentum.  Now he has a critical decision to make. Stand by your old employers or stand by the people who brought you to the dance? It's going to be interesting to see what he does. He already failed the first small test by voting for the Rubio budget that wasn't revenue neutral.

----------


## francisco

> If he hadn't endorsed Mitch and Mitch had still won, Mitch (with the full backing of the establishment) would have gone out of his way to ruin Rand. It wasn't just about the comm seat. It was about survival.


You are wise beyond your time here, grasshopper.

----------


## newbitech

> Cruz only won because he was going against an entrenched, despicable foe  like Dewhurst and was swept in by Tea Party momentum.  Now he has a critical decision to make. Stand by your old employers or stand by the people who brought you to the dance? It's going to be interesting to see what he does. He already failed the first small test by voting for the Rubio budget that wasn't revenue neutral.


It is interesting to see the list of endorsements he received.  Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, George P. Bush (the grandson)

So I can totally see how he has that torn decision to make.  This makes his character even more wishy washy in my mind.  He just doesn't seem like a viable candidate and I am not really sure what his supporters in the grassroots see in him.  I can certainly understand what the big donors see in him tho.

----------


## adelina

> And I still say having Mitch on his side and IN the majority leader role can quite possibly be Randals best leverage during this election cycle.   As it gives him the actual chance to see his legislation come up for votes and maybe even pass.   The more legislation Randal can point to as successful; the better his position becomes.


The particular piece of legislation that is crucial is the audit the fed bill.

----------


## AuH20

> It is interesting to see the list of endorsements he received.  Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, George P. Bush (the grandson)
> 
> So I can totally see how he has that torn decision to make.  This makes his character even more wishy washy in my mind.  He just doesn't seem like a viable candidate and I am not really sure what his supporters in the grassroots see in him.  I can certainly understand what the big donors see in him tho.


Cruz has a vast 'constitutional conservative' background, but the question is, "Will he employ the principles he learned?" Ted knows the correct path....... but people sometimes take the easy one for their own benefit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/nat...g-know-it-all/




> *Cruz, 44, was a marvel in high school, a kid who memorized the Constitution and wowed audiences with his speaking skills. In college, he was a prodigy and a pest; the same people who avoided having dinner with him went out of their way to watch him debate.* As a politician, the senator from Texas is what he's always been - a lightning rod for controversy, a stickler for process, an evangelist for conservative principle, a constitutional wonk in ostrich-skin cowboy boots.





> Even before high school, Cruz thought about such things. *He read the economics classics of Adam Smith, freemarketeer Milton Friedman and Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, a hero to American libertarians.*





> *Cruz was always ambitious about rising in politics. "I don't ever remember a time when I wasn't," he says. "The politic answer is 'I was reluctantly drawn to it.' "* *But politics was the main dish at the Cruz dinner table, and Ted's appetite for it was powerful.*





> *Cruz said Princeton's president, Harold Shapiro, had "blatantly violated the spirit of the honorary degree process" when he bypassed the faculty-student council and granted an honorary degree to then-President George H.W. Bush. Similarly, Cruz blasted Shapiro for banning beer kegs from campus events - again, without consulting the council. Cruz didn't object to Bush getting the degree, just as he didn't care whether campus parties would be allowed to feature kegs of beer. The point in both cases was the principle and the process.*

----------


## eleganz

> The interesting thing about Rafael is that I don't think Randal is competing for the same voters as he is.   As strange and certainly unexpected as it might be; Randal is competing and attempting to win the moderates and centrists.   He is competing with Jeb, not Cruz, not Huckabee, etc.
> 
> I look at everything Randal has done over the past couple years and I see that he has positioned himself as the moderate; not the extremist.   and if you look at who has won the last GOP presidential primaries; it has been the moderate.
> 
> Jeb is his competition, not Rafael.


You've completely missed the campaign strategy, it has always been to be the top conservative that goes against the establishment candidate.

For all others who feel like Cruz is not a big deal, that is fine, but it doesn't change the amount of passion his supporters have.  They are definitely us in 08 and 12, maybe not as organized maybe they are.  It doesn't matter, people with that much conviction will do what they can to win and that right there is a real danger.

----------


## specsaregood

> You've completely missed the campaign strategy, it has always been to be the top conservative that goes against the establishment candidate.


I think it is you that has missed the strategy.  what you are talking about is what was expected; but it is not what Randal has been gearing up for the past couple years.   He is running a populist/centrist campaign not a "most conservative" campaign.  Of course we could argue about what "conservative" means but he isn't running a campaign focusing on what the media paints as "conservative".

They thought they were gonna be able to box him into the hard core conservative position; but that isn't his platform at all.

----------


## CPUd

> You've completely missed the campaign strategy, it has always been to be the top conservative that goes against the establishment candidate.
> 
> For all others who feel like Cruz is not a big deal, that is fine, but it doesn't change the amount of passion his supporters have.  They are definitely us in 08 and 12, maybe not as organized maybe they are.  It doesn't matter, people with that much conviction will do what they can to win and that right there is a real danger.


I could see the lights getting turned off on them, maybe even by Rand people.  Not sure they are on the level of rump conventions yet, but there's still a lot of time.

----------


## eleganz

> I think it is you that has missed the strategy.  what you are talking about is what was expected; but it is not what Randal has been gearing up for the past couple years.   He is running a populist/centrist campaign not a "most conservative" campaign.  Of course we could argue about what "conservative" means but he isn't running a campaign focusing on what the media paints as "conservative".
> 
> They thought they were gonna be able to box him into the hard core conservative position; but that isn't his platform at all.


If you want me to use the terminology properly I can change it to the top anti-establishment choice, it doesn't make a difference to me.  That is who Rand wants to be, that was who Ron wanted to be.  When I said conservative, I meant it in a general anti-establishment sense.

----------


## newbitech

> You've completely missed the campaign strategy, it has always been to be the top conservative that goes against the establishment candidate.
> 
> For all others who feel like Cruz is not a big deal, that is fine, but it doesn't change the amount of passion his supporters have.  They are definitely us in 08 and 12, maybe not as organized maybe they are.  It doesn't matter, people with that much conviction will do what they can to win and that right there is a real danger.


Hey just curious, how are you comparing Cruz 2016 to Paul 2008 and Paul 2012?  I think Paul 2012 fell well short of the level of raw passion that Paul 2008 had, but it was more than made up for with intelligent support.

As far as Cruz 2016, what metrics are you using to make the comparison? 

Sign bomb for Cruz link?
Grassroots fundraising link?
List of grassroots websites links?

Cruz support is invisible to me right now outside of what I see in polling (scientific and non-scientific).  Really just not seeing this passion on par with Paul 12 much less Paul 08.

Help me out here, how much passion do Cruz supporters have?  Where is this conviction you speak of?  Assay the danger for me please.

----------


## eleganz

^^^^^ Lets say if 2008 was the height of our movement's activism a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10 and if 2012 was a 9, I honestly wouldn't be able to tell you where Cruz supporters fall.  I can tell you their passion level is the same as ours.  I never claimed they were a majority but I can confidently say they are a vocal and firm minority.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> If you want me to use the terminology properly I can change it to the top anti-establishment choice, it doesn't make a difference to me.  That is who Rand wants to be, that was who Ron wanted to be.  When I said conservative, I meant it in a general anti-establishment sense.


Yes, exactly. Vis a vis the other contenders, Rand wants/needs to be this cycle's "anti-Romney," the "conservative alternative." 

This is the person who can "unite the clans," the warring anti-establishment or conservative factions of the party. 

Ron failed to do this last time. He simply could not make himself appealing to those groups, and so they rallied around Santorum instead.

Rand's budding coalition is qualititatively very similar to Ron's, it's the same constellation of interests: fiscal conservatives, social liberals, doves. The difference is that Rand has moderated on each of those spectra. Where Ron only attracted hardcore non-interventionists, Rand attracts them _and_ more mainstream critics of hyper-intervention. Where Ron only attracted hardcore free marketers, Rand attracts them _and_ more mainstream economic conservatives. Where Ron attracted only hardcore social liberals, Rand attracts them _and_ more mainstream social liberals. I would describe it as populist libertarianism.

What we want is for that coalition to become the largest non-establishment faction within the GOP.

 --> Rand = "conservative alternative" 

--> head to head fight with the establishment that we've always wanted (and that we know we can win)

P.S. Incidentally, I think your disagreement with specs may be mostly semantics, over how you two are using the words "conservative" and "moderate"...

----------


## newbitech

> ^^^^^ Lets say if 2008 was the height of our movement's activism a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10 and if 2012 was a 9, I honestly wouldn't be able to tell you where Cruz supporters fall.  I can tell you their passion level is the same as ours.  I never claimed they were a majority but I can confidently say they are a vocal and firm minority.


I suppose all grassroots activism require a high level of passion, regardless of what or who fuels it.  You did say there is danger, I'd just like to know if there is a specific perceived threat or if this is a generalization from your perspective. 

At this point, I am not convinced that Ted Cruz supporters are a threat to anything that Rand Paul is trying to do.  I also don't perceived Ted Cruz supporters as a thread to what I personally will be doing.  In fact, I feel that there are probably some areas where Ted Cruz and Rand Paul can be allies, same with their supporters.  But a threat or danger in and of themselves?  Just not seeing it. 

I'd agree that I definitely won't write them off or pretend like their issues don't matter.  But really I am not even sure what their issues are or why they are so passionate, just not hearing that vocalization that you are I guess.

----------


## TheTexan

> ^^^^^ Lets say if 2008 was the height of our movement's activism a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10 and if 2012 was a 9, I honestly wouldn't be able to tell you where Cruz supporters fall.  I can tell you their passion level is the same as ours.  I never claimed they were a majority but I can confidently say they are a vocal and firm minority.


Their passion is understandable.  It's not every day they get to vote for a true conservative.

----------


## eleganz

> Their passion is understandable.  It's not every day they get to vote for a true conservative.


True.

The best thing to can do is use our experience to win because experience is the only thing that really sets our camps apart.

On that thought, I think I will start a 50 state delegate thread like I did last time where we compile delegate information.  I think privacy should be a concern, whatever we compile shouldn't really be public information.  We need to be smart about it this time.  At the very least it should be only viewable to registered members of RPF.

----------


## rich34

That block of voters Cruz will be fighting for imo will be split up among the various candidates.  I disagree with the assessment, if Cruz had that much support he wouldnt have had to announce in a place where it was made mandatory to attend.  Rand's support is legitimate and also more die hard than Cruz's because again as soon as these other social cons get in the race that support is not so gun ho.  If anything id say his most die hard support comes from the anti immigration crowd.  Of course the money is the biggest threat which is simply an extension of the Bush campaign.  

Rand HAS to make sure hes the top anti establishment candidate.  This is the reason so much money will be going to other candidates to make sure that isnt Rand.  So with that said they know Rand HAS the most grassroots/fired up support because if he obtains the top anti establishment slot he'll win as would Ron before the fake Santorum surge..

----------


## serenityrick

Cruz definitely has a big following. There IS passion for him. That's why both he and Rand need to lay off attacking eachother. They both appeal to largely the same base so Rand can't come off as attacking Cruz or he risks alienating a large part of the base. The differences in supporters branch off probably as you get to evangelicals versus libertarians.

Honestly, I think Rand's "attacks" on Hillary are more about perking up the ears of Cruz supporters than actually trying to undermine Hillary. If you notice, a LOT of Rand's message is how he's the only conservative candidate that beats Hillary in the polls. So he's saying without saying it "Listen, don't vote for Cruz because he can't beat Hillary. I can".

----------


## 65fastback2+2

> Cruz has a vast 'constitutional conservative' background, but the question is, "Will he employ the principles he learned?" Ted knows the correct path....... but people sometimes take the easy one for their own benefit.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/nat...g-know-it-all/


everything you highlighted is why i wouldnt mind him as vp...i really want to see the man debate the dem vp candidate badly.

----------


## orenbus

Here's the Cruz supporters today talking about Rubio on FP:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3278664/posts

----------


## Patrick Henry

Just a side note about freerepublic.

Once upon a time, the majority on that site thought that Fred Thompson was going to be the saviour of America and "Conservativism". Now he is selling reverse mortgages on MeTV.

----------


## serenityrick

> everything you highlighted is why i wouldnt mind him as vp...*i really want to see the man debate the dem vp candidate badly.*


haha same here.

I know everyone here hates Cruz but it would be delightful seeing him actually debate a democrat on the national stage. The dude has an award named after him at Princeton for debating and has won several competitions. 

Maybe we'll see him tear Jeb Bush apart in the republican debates on domestic issues.

----------


## Patrick Henry

> If anything id say his most die hard support comes from the anti immigration crowd.


What gets me is that his stance is darn near identical to Rand's. Or am I missing something?

----------


## georgiaboy

> I think it is you that has missed the strategy.  what you are talking about is what was expected; but it is not what Randal has been gearing up for the past couple years.   He is running a populist/centrist campaign not a "most conservative" campaign.  Of course we could argue about what "conservative" means but he isn't running a campaign focusing on what the media paints as "conservative".
> 
> They thought they were gonna be able to box him into the hard core conservative position; but that isn't his platform at all.


This is a correct assessment.  He's going big tent, looking more toward the general and overall electability.

He's not trying to paint himself as hardcore anything or extreme anything, except an extremely good president for America.

He's avoiding the fringe labelling on purpose, to his and the country's ultimate gain.

Cruz's folks should be able to easily transition to Rand.

----------


## serenityrick

> What gets me is that his stance is darn near identical to Rand's. Or am I missing something?


Rand turned off some hardcore tea partiers when he said something about not making immigration a main priority and that it makes the republicans seem "mean" or something to that effect (paraphrasing heavily). So a lot of them took that as Rand not having a tough stance on the border in general.

But honestly, I think the main difference is the vocal hardliners who weren't too keen on Rand playing ball with the establishment (McConnell, etc). Both Cruz and Paul are pretty damn close idealogically but they respect Cruz's lack of willingness to "play the game"

EDIT - and in line with what georgiaboy just said, I don't think that's enough for Cruz's hardcore supporters to be turned off of Rand entirely. If Cruz drops out I think Rand easily grabs them regardless of Rand's support for McConnell

----------


## orenbus

> I know everyone here hates Cruz ...


I don't hate him, but just being honest he reminds me of a stereotypical unethical slick used car salesman.

----------


## adelina

> everything you highlighted is why i wouldnt mind him as vp...i really want to see the man debate the dem vp candidate badly.


Pick Cruz as VP and you will LOSE. Independents and moderate Republicans do not like him at all. You think a guy who calls the gay rights movement "jihadist" or says that IRS agents should be lined up along the border will be a net asset to Rand's campaign?

----------


## DP714

I generally interact with Cruz supports by somewhat of a formulaic praise of Rand's voting record, followed by a caveat saying that I prefer Cruz's bold/strong/unwavering rhetoric. This back and forth, keeps their ears open and allows their minds to wander just a little bit more than before. Also, in a way it helps to blur the distinctions between Rand and Cruz, so when they see Cruz falling/dropping out completely, they will jump to Rand, instead of the other contenders. It maintains their worldview of Cruz being the realest and baddest of them all, but also gets them to consider the notion that best practical chance of Cruz's policies being implemented in real life is probably through Rand, due to his broad appeal (electability). So, the goal is, at least initially, to secure Rand as their second-best option. The rest will work itself out in the long run.

----------


## AuH20

> What gets me is that his stance is darn near identical to Rand's. Or am I missing something?


It is closer than they'd like you to believe. I'm a Buchanan guy and I'd probably rate Rand a 'C' which is satisfactory. Cruz grades probably a B -. This imagined gulf between the two men on this issue simply doesn't exist. Rand uses pro-Hispanic rhetoric to wet the palate and that's about it. The Cruz people must perceive Rand to be some multinational open borders guy just off some of the statements, but it means nothing.

----------


## serenityrick

> If he hadn't endorsed Mitch and Mitch had still won, Mitch (with the full backing of the establishment) would have gone out of his way to ruin Rand. It wasn't just about the comm seat. It was about survival.


Most people know and realize this but a lot of grassroots conservatives/tea party are completely turned off of people who don't stand on principle now. They don't realize or choose not to care that if Rand stabs McConnell in the back, he would be completely useless in the Senate and thus nothing relating to the liberty agenda is even considered.

But I don't really blame them for wanting a candidate to stand entirely on principle and being wary of someone willing to "play the game".. They've had candidates do that for decades so it's understandable they'd be pissed off. Hell, I was. I still am. I $#@!ing hate McConnell. But I'm able to see the forest through the trees in regards to Paul.

I don't know why he's the only candidate I'm willing to do that for. Probably because I know he's playing the game for a different reason and not just to gain power for himself within the establishment.

----------


## JohnGalt1225

I'm all for keeping friendly relations with Cruz voters because when he drops out we'll need them. They are people, much like Bachmann supporters in 2012, who want to be anti-establishment and have true conservative values, they just are backing the wrong horse. I believe that supporters of Palin, Bachmann, and Cruz are a lot closer to Paul supporters than any other group of supporters. Rubio's "base" will probably mostly go to someone like Jeb. Lindsey Graham has no real support and he is a complete joke. Huckabee supporters might be predisposed to our side but I have a feeling Huck attracts Evangelicals who are more statist and establishment in their outlook and would probably back Jeb.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> I post at Hot Air, and can tell you there are many Cruzbots there.  In fact a couple of his fanatical supporters post in every single thread not about Cruz to bash his opponents and their supporters.
> 
> That's one of the reasons why I joined here.  I wanted a safe haven to discuss Rand (and other like minded people like Justin Amash) without being attacked for it.  
> 
> Hannity forums have Cruz supporters too but they are not nearly as fanatical.  There also is support for other Rs including Rand.  
> 
> I think Breitbart has a lot of Cruz supporters too although I don't post there.


Welcome to the forums.

----------


## serenityrick

> Pick Cruz as VP and you will LOSE. Independents and moderate Republicans do not like him at all. You think a guy who calls the gay rights movement "jihadist" or says *that IRS agents should be lined up along the border* will be a net asset to Rand's campaign?


That was a joke dude. I also doubt moderate republicans wouldn't vote for Paul if Cruz was VP.. Not that moderate republicans are important anyway. If they were, Romney would be President right now. The important vote to get is that of your own base. However, I can see any potential "Reagan democrats" and a chunk of independents skipping out on voting for Paul with Cruz as VP.

In short, the negatives outweigh the positives in a Paul/Cruz ticket.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Cruz will not win, not possible. Zero chance. BUT he is a major obstacle to Rand winning, because he takes many votes away from Rand. Something has to be done about this. However, angering the Cruz supporters will not help Rand's case since anger is basically what drives them to vote for Cruz. So do not get into an argument with them, whatever you do. 
> 
> You can point out that Cruz is not a fiscal conservative, point out his ties with the Bush administration through his wife and Condi Rice, point out where his money is coming from (h ttp://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-mystery-moneymen-behind-ted-cruzs-super-pacs-116037797361.html), point out that he only renounced Canadian citizenship less than 1 year ago etc. You can also point out statistics show that among the likely Republican candidates, he polls the worst or one of the worst against Hillary. State things in a matter-of-fact way.


Very good observations. We have to stay positive, and Rand does too. What he needs to do is give a reason why people should support him vs Cruz. Rand can't out religion Cruz. And he certainly can't out "war hawk" Cruz. The big opening I see is that Cruz is so closely associated with Wall Street through both his wife and his major backers. Rand's best bet at converting base Cruz voters to base Paul voters is via economic populism. No matter how much they may like their religion and their wars, heartland conservatives DO NOT have much love for Wall Street. That is Paul's opening. The war on the middle class, rule by Goldman Sachs, tax code and laws that favor the 1% over the working man, ect.

----------


## orenbus

> Very good observations. We have to stay positive, and Rand does too. What he needs to do is give a reason why people should support him vs Cruz. Rand can't out religion Cruz. And he certainly can't out "war hawk" Cruz. The big opening I see is that Cruz is so closely associated with Wall Street through both his wife and his major backers. Rand's best bet at converting base Cruz voters to base Paul voters is via economic populism. No matter how much they may like their religion and their wars, heartland conservatives DO NOT have much love for Wall Street. That is Paul's opening. The war on the middle class, rule by Goldman Sachs, tax code and laws that favor the 1% over the working man, ect.


What do Cruz supporters think of the bank bailout?

----------


## newbitech

> But I don't really blame them for wanting a candidate to stand entirely on principle and being wary of someone willing to "play the game".. They've had candidates do that for decades so it's understandable they'd be pissed off. Hell, I was. I still am. I $#@!ing hate McConnell. But I'm able to see the forest through the trees in regards to Paul.


This is the sentiment towards Cruz that I just cannot fathom.  I appreciate you saying you can see the forest through the trees with Rand Paul.  What really irks me though is that Cruz has been "playing the game" more than Rand.

Why does Cruz get a pass on his game playing?  He served in George Bush's administration.  He was legal counsel during the Florida non-recount.  His views on immigration have flip flopped if you take his policy recommendations and legal arguments while on the Bush campaign team and compare to his recent rhetoric.  

He is a connected insider in Texas and now national politics.  He's as much a game player as any politician, yet he gets a pass and flies under the radar.  Why?  What apologies do his supporters have for him being a part of the Bush administration?  Clearly he is attached to that financial donor base.  Are his supporters just not connecting those dots?  Or is he just a really smooth talker to the point where people don't care about peeling back a few layers to see what is driving his ambitions?

----------


## Patrick Henry

> What really irks me though is that Cruz has been "playing the game" more than Rand.


Like his fake Soetoro care filibuster.

----------


## eleganz

> This is the sentiment towards Cruz that I just cannot fathom.  I appreciate you saying you can see the forest through the trees with Rand Paul.  What really irks me though is that Cruz has been "playing the game" more than Rand.
> 
> Why does Cruz get a pass on his game playing?  He served in George Bush's administration.  He was legal counsel during the Florida non-recount.  His views on immigration have flip flopped if you take his policy recommendations and legal arguments while on the Bush campaign team and compare to his recent rhetoric.  
> 
> He is a connected insider in Texas and now national politics.  He's as much a game player as any politician, yet he gets a pass and flies under the radar.  Why?  What apologies do his supporters have for him being a part of the Bush administration?  Clearly he is attached to that financial donor base.  Are his supporters just not connecting those dots?  Or is he just a really smooth talker to the point where people don't care about peeling back a few layers to see what is driving his ambitions?


Seems like great content for a "realtedcruz.com" website.

Anyone??

----------


## adelina

> This is the sentiment towards Cruz that I just cannot fathom.  I appreciate you saying you can see the forest through the trees with Rand Paul.  What really irks me though is that Cruz has been "playing the game" more than Rand.
> 
> Why does Cruz get a pass on his game playing?  He served in George Bush's administration.  He was legal counsel during the Florida non-recount.  His views on immigration have flip flopped if you take his policy recommendations and legal arguments while on the Bush campaign team and compare to his recent rhetoric.  
> 
> He is a connected insider in Texas and now national politics.  He's as much a game player as any politician, yet he gets a pass and flies under the radar.  Why?  What apologies do his supporters have for him being a part of the Bush administration?  Clearly he is attached to that financial donor base.  Are his supporters just not connecting those dots?  Or is he just a really smooth talker to the point where people don't care about peeling back a few layers to see what is driving his ambitions?


Because he tells them exactly what they want to hear. He feeds on their fears and anger, the same way Fox does with many of its viewers. "The world is on fire!"

----------


## cat_woman

> Because he tells them exactly what they want to hear. He feeds on their fears and anger, the same way Fox does with many of its viewers. "The world is on fire!"


That's exactly right.  We could cite all his negatives (in a polite way) as well as the fact he's the least electable of any of the candidates, and it wouldn't matter to most of his followers.  They are delusional for the most part.

And I suspect many of them will not move to other candidates if and when he drops out.

----------


## orenbus

> Because he tells them exactly what they want to hear. He feeds on their fears and anger, the same way Fox does with many of its viewers.
>  *"The world is on fire!"*

----------


## serenityrick

> This is the sentiment towards Cruz that I just cannot fathom.  I appreciate you saying you can see the forest through the trees with Rand Paul.  What really irks me though is that Cruz has been "playing the game" more than Rand.
> 
> Why does Cruz get a pass on his game playing?  He served in George Bush's administration.  He was legal counsel during the Florida non-recount.  His views on immigration have flip flopped if you take his policy recommendations and legal arguments while on the Bush campaign team and compare to his recent rhetoric.  
> 
> He is a connected insider in Texas and now national politics.  He's as much a game player as any politician, yet he gets a pass and flies under the radar.  Why?  What apologies do his supporters have for him being a part of the Bush administration?  Clearly he is attached to that financial donor base.  Are his supporters just not connecting those dots?  Or is he just a really smooth talker to the point where people don't care about peeling back a few layers to see what is driving his ambitions?


Because most people have no idea he was legal council to Bush. They only know him as a Senator. And as Senator he hasn't played ball with the establishment. Libertarians may hate his "grandstanding" on Obamacare but tea party supporters $#@!ing LOVED him in that filibuster.

----------


## eleganz

Noticing an odd trend lately, Cruz supporters seem to think he is supposed to or deserves to be polling high (like first) in scientific polls (probably because they are winning some of the online polls), which leads me to believe they are naive like Ron Paul supporters from 07.

Kind of plays back to the original message of this thread, they're in frenzy mode.

Anybody know what I'm talking about? Thoughts?

----------


## aclove

Agree.  They are passionate, paranoid, and convinced that their candidate (and by extension, they themselves) are being persecuted by a biased media and establishment conspiracy.  In other words, they're just like us in '07, '08.  That should tell you that no attack, no matter how factual, will do anything other than make them despise us.  

The only way to win Cruz supporters over is to express admiration for Cruz, compare him favorably to Rand, play up their good relations, and hope that results in them considering Rand their second choice when Cruz drops out.  As long as he's in, they absolutely will not waver from him, and any attempt to dissuade them will only make dedicated enemies.

Cruz, of course, could derail even the "second choice" strategy by endorsing Walker or Huckabee, but if you spend enough time buddying up to a handful of Cruz supporters, you might still lure them over to Rand by virtue of having established a personal relationship.  Ultimately, these people make their decisions based primarily on tribal affiliation.  Their opinion of a candidate will largely depend on whether they see him and his supporters as part of their tribe.

----------


## adelina

> Noticing an odd trend lately, Cruz supporters seem to think he is supposed to or deserves to be polling high (like first) in scientific polls (probably because they are winning some of the online polls), which leads me to believe they are naive like Ron Paul supporters from 07.
> 
> Kind of plays back to the original message of this thread, they're in frenzy mode.
> 
> Anybody know what I'm talking about? Thoughts?


Idolization

----------


## CPUd

I fully expect them to go hard in the caucus states and be involved in the delegate process.  This is a good thing, as it is what the caucus format was designed for, as long as the winners win fair and square.

----------


## squirl22

HotAir is having their May poll right now. Walker and Cruz are favorites there.  You do not have to be logged in to vote.  Another big Cruz site is The Right Scoop....that's where the haters are...they hate Rand, don't bother posting, you immediately will be called names.  Not worth it.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

A lot of NC establishmentarian Republicans who lean Tea are Cruz fanatics because they think "he's the only one who will uphold the Constitution."  Given Cruz's actual record in the US Senate...which is not as bad as the neocons, but it's not even remotely as Constitutional as Rand, I have to wonder where these zombies come from?

Do they just know the WORD Constitution but never actually read it or something?  Because Cruz says the WORD 'Constitution' more than Paul that makes him more Constitutional and his actual Senate record be damned?

My fb feed is chok-full of Cruz avatars, from Tea Party types who claim to venerate the US Constitution.  They think Rand is a libertarian and Cruz is a Constitutionalist.  

I'm starting to wonder if North Carolina has lead in the water.

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Because most people have no idea he was legal council to Bush. They only know him as a Senator. And as Senator he hasn't played ball with the establishment. Libertarians may hate his "grandstanding" on Obamacare but tea party supporters $#@!ing LOVED him in that filibuster.


Also, he really wasn't that much of an "insider". His tenure at the FTC was actually pretty controversial and he tried rocking the boat a bit. And working as an attorney in the Florida recount certainly isn't something conservatives are going to view as a "bad" thing. He was fighting to keep the Dems from "stealing the White House". Finally, the fact that the Bush clan didn't lift a finger to help him in his Senate run (despite the fact he was running against a Perry surrogate and the Bushes f'ing hate Perry) tells you everything you need to now about how much of an "insider" Cruz really was. Working for an administration doesn't make you an "insider" or define your personal politics. Pat Buchanan worked for Nixon. 

That being said, I'm not too worried about Cruz. I think he's going to have a hard time finding his niche in a crowded field. Walker is the one I'm worried about. If he catches fire and locks up the middle class, anti-establishment vote we are toast.

----------


## Liberty74

> I agree with you, especially among evangelicals.   This is why I think Rand should not forget about the evangelical vote,  because he is going to need them when Ted Cruz bows out.



BINGO, you can't win the Republican nomination without the evangelicals. You don't need the majority but damn it you need a very good size to win, hence one of the reasons why Ron Paul lost - never talked about his faith or reached out to enough evangelicals so they could relate to Paul's religious side. 

Right now anything can happen but I'm not so sure if anyone besides Rand has a real base. Money does not equal base. Remember, these candidate all came and went extremely quickly after raising money fairly fast in 2011/12 - Cain, Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich (made a slight comeback after SC), etc.

Edit: In the end it always comes down to Iowa and NH. You must place first or a very strong second in BOTH or you are history...

How each candidate builds their base, raise money, does in the debates, and handle the media will determine the outcome. Repeat, the media will determine the outcome - Howard Dean anyone? Each candidate as a chance to create the news as well - comeback kid Clinton anyone? 

Be likable and stay likable. Don't make screams or say something crazy that the media can jump on to paint you negatively. Hopefully Rand has a media strategy.

----------


## mosquitobite

> A lot of NC establishmentarian Republicans who lean Tea are Cruz fanatics because they think "he's the only one who will uphold the Constitution."  Given Cruz's actual record in the US Senate...which is not as bad as the neocons, but it's not even remotely as Constitutional as Rand, I have to wonder *where these zombies come from*?
> 
> Do they just know the WORD Constitution but never actually read it or something?  Because Cruz says the WORD 'Constitution' more than Paul that makes him more Constitutional and his actual Senate record be damned?
> 
> My fb feed is chok-full of Cruz avatars, from Tea Party types who claim to venerate the US Constitution.  They think Rand is a libertarian and Cruz is a Constitutionalist.


FoxNews

----------


## William Tell

> *Finally, the fact that the Bush clan didn't lift a finger* to help him in his Senate run (despite the fact he was running against a Perry surrogate and the Bushes f'ing hate Perry) tells you everything you need to now about how much of an "insider" Cruz really was.


Actually, George P. Bush did endorse Ted Cruz, nearly a year before the Senate Primary.


http://blogs.star-telegram.com/polit...rses-cruz.html

----------


## squirl22

> That's exactly right.  We could cite all his negatives (in a polite way)  as well as the fact he's the least electable of any of the candidates,  and it wouldn't matter to most of his followers.  They are delusional  for the most part.
> 
> And I suspect many of them will not move to other candidates if and when he drops out.


I agree with you.  And, they will not vote at all if he does not get the nomination. Most of these people have no experience whatsoever in politics and they do not vote.  They will always chose someone who does not get the nomination and then they will just not vote.  So, why waste time on them...these people are not voters just complainers and critics.

----------


## RDM

> BINGO, you can't win the Republican nomination without the evangelicals. You don't need the majority but damn it you need a very good size to win, hence one of the reasons why Ron Paul lost - never talked about his faith or reached out to enough evangelicals so they could relate to Paul's religious side. 
> 
> Right now anything can happen but I'm not so sure if anyone besides Rand has a real base. Money does not equal base. Remember, these candidate all came and went extremely quickly after raising money fairly fast in 2011/12 - Cain, Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich (made a slight comeback after SC), etc.
> 
> Edit: In the end it always comes down to Iowa and NH. You must place first or a very strong second in BOTH or you are history...
> 
> How each candidate builds their base, raise money, does in the debates, and handle the media will determine the outcome. Repeat, the media will determine the outcome - Howard Dean anyone? Each candidate as a chance to create the news as well - comeback kid Clinton anyone? 
> 
> Be likable and stay likable. Don't make screams or say something crazy that the media can jump on to paint you negatively. *Hopefully Rand has a media strategy.*


Yeah, they got that one "licked".

----------

