Buzzfeed hit piece on Rand staff: "Why Rand Paul Lost"

[CPUd]

 

[jmdrake]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CPUd again.

 

[BenMuldowney]

Rand's decision to attack the outsider trend, instead of triangulate it and Trump, as Cruz did, was the crucial body blow to his campaign. Cruz also triangulated Rand by adopting his liberty positions, which eliminated the reason to go with Rand to begin with. Cruz and the others all had to deal with Trump's domination, but clearly some (Cruz, and for a while Carson) navigated it much better than Rand.

If Rand had not positioned himself as a compromising libertarian, he would not have been vulnerable (or as vulnerable) to somebody else posturing as a compromising libertarian stealing his views. Not having the foresight to see his finessing of liberty issues could be matched by somebody counter-finessing them turned out to be a fatal mistake.

i was horrified when rand starting attacking the only candidate that had any guts. here you have trump giving the establishment rino's fits and here comes lil rand barking at him like a chihuahua. he killed himself with that strategy and i have to think that came from the staff. i loved ron and i like rand but 3 campaigns in a row their choice in staff seemed like intentional sabotage. how can 2 brilliant men have such terrible staff 3 elections in a row?

logically speaking how can rand defend endorsing romney in 2012' while his dad is still in the race and then claim trump is the antichrist 4 yrs later? romney was infested with goldman sachs money and relationships. when rand's first action in the debates was to attack trump that was the end of his candidacy.

 

[CPUd]

i was horrified when rand starting attacking the only candidate that had any guts. here you have trump giving the establishment rino's fits and here comes lil rand barking at him like a chihuahua. he killed himself with that strategy and i have to think that came from the staff. i loved ron and i like rand but 3 campaigns in a row their choice in staff seemed like intentional sabotage. how can 2 brilliant men have such terrible staff 3 elections in a row?

logically speaking how can rand defend endorsing romney in 2012' while his dad is still in the race and then claim trump is the antichrist 4 yrs later? romney was infested with goldman sachs money and relationships. when rand's first action in the debates was to attack trump that was the end of his candidacy.

In the first debate prep they told him not to go after Trump, but he went off script. I think all the candidates at the time were expecting Trump to choke, and Rand decided he wanted to lead on it. Rand attacked Trump for not being willing to support the nominee, exactly the thing that would happen to Rand if he tried to run after not endorsing Romney.

 

[BenMuldowney]

In the first debate prep they told him not to go after Trump, but he went off script. I think all the candidates at the time were expecting Trump to choke, and Rand decided he wanted to lead on it. Rand attacked Trump for not being willing to support the nominee, exactly the thing that would happen to Rand if he tried to run after not endorsing Romney.

he didnt stop there he just kept harping on trump basically calling him a fraud. you have trump talking about how bad immigration is and vaccines cause autism, also how he opposed the iraq war in 2004 and rand is attacking him? trump stands up to fox/megyn and endears himself to many of us that hate the communist fox network and rand keeps up the attacks on trump? it was stupid and i would love to see your proof that staff told rand not to.

 

[CPUd]

he didnt stop there he just kept harping on trump basically calling him a fraud. you have trump talking about how bad immigration is and vaccines cause autism, also how he opposed the iraq war in 2004 and rand is attacking him? trump stands up to fox/megyn and endears himself to many of us that hate the communist fox network and rand keeps up the attacks on trump? it was stupid and i would love to see your proof that staff told rand not to.

He admitted it in an interview a few days after the debate.

 

[fisharmor]

Well, it's open to interpretation and evaluation of human motivation. That these people wanted simple "liberty" is a possibility with a very low probability in my estimation. I believe they want specific legislation or actions that will lead to monetary gain for themselves at the expense of anyone and everyone. If they can couch that in some wonderful humanitarian, selfless, non-profit organization, good for them, but I'm not buying the bullshit. No more than I buy it from the Clinton or Gates Foundations.

That you might want "liberty" without a specific monetary motivation is a much higher probability, once again, IMHO. Which conveniently leads us right back to my original response:

????????
So, here we have guys that gave money to Ron Paul despite the fact that he made it clear he wouldn't be bought, despite the fact that he had a 30 year voting record that never contradicted what he actually believed, despite the fact that he was the most electorally successful libertarian politician in history,
and yet refused to give money to his son, who had neither the same voting record, nor any indication that he couldn't actually be bought,
and you want to tell me it wasn't about liberty?

You guys really have gone whole hog on the dirty politics thing, haven't you? You're not only still convinced that dirty politics is the way forward, despite Rand's crushing loss of both support and votes, but you're projecting dirty politics everywhere you see, now.

That is why Rand lost. Dirty politics.

If you guys think this is the way forward, I'll ask the same fucking thing I've been asking for four years. What in the hell is the point in supporting someone who claims to be liberty oriented, then? If you're so convinced the world revolves around dirty politics, why not find the dirtiest guy you can get and just get the money together to pay him to do what we want, like everyone else?

I understand that you guys have been saying for four years that nothing is as it seems and people say stuff they don't really mean. And I've not been alone in pointing out that there was one guy who didn't roll that way.

If you don't think it mattered that he kept clean, more power to you. But we have an electoral result to point to now that shows that it actually does matter.

 

[RonPaulMall]

i was horrified when rand starting attacking the only candidate that had any guts. here you have trump giving the establishment rino's fits and here comes lil rand barking at him like a chihuahua. he killed himself with that strategy and i have to think that came from the staff. i loved ron and i like rand but 3 campaigns in a row their choice in staff seemed like intentional sabotage. how can 2 brilliant men have such terrible staff 3 elections in a row?

That was the straw that broke the camels back for sure, but even before Trump had entered the race Rand had developed a reputation for being the guy who just goes around calling Republicans "racist". Rand spent the entire year before the election undoing all the good will and respect he had gained in 2010 through 2012 and instead just started pissing all over the very people he expected to vote for him. Trump wouldn't exist if not for the vacuum created by the incompetence of the campaigns of Rand, Walker, and even Cruz. The only thing that made Cruz different is that once Trump took off Cruz realized his error and from that point on affixed his lips firmly to Trump's ass.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Why did Rand Paul lose?

i was horrified when rand starting attacking the only candidate that had any guts. here you have trump giving the establishment rino's fits and here comes lil rand barking at him like a chihuahua. he killed himself with that strategy and i have to think that came from the staff. i loved ron and i like rand but 3 campaigns in a row their choice in staff seemed like intentional sabotage. how can 2 brilliant men have such terrible staff 3 elections in a row?

logically speaking how can rand defend endorsing romney in 2012' while his dad is still in the race and then claim trump is the antichrist 4 yrs later? romney was infested with goldman sachs money and relationships. when rand's first action in the debates was to attack trump that was the end of his candidacy.

^^^idiots like this

 

[angelatc]

I don't know about you, but if I was about to drop a six figure check in someone's lap, regardless of the context, I would want assurances that I was going to get what I was paying for.

Is it even on your flowchart of possibilities, that these guys may have wanted LIBERTY, and may have wanted some assurances that they would get some, if they donated to him?.

I am with you. But if the article is correct, Paul did not do a good job at reassuring the big donors that their interests would be protected, despite noise they might hear from the campaign trail.

I mean, look at GWB. He originally ran on a platform that some of us would flok to today. No nation building, less war....and as soon as he got settled in, all that went out the window. Unless you think that the hawks that supported him were unpleasantly surprised by the wars, it appears there might be a grain of truth to it.

 

[Rudeman]

People can criticize the way Rand ran his campaign or his staff but the bottom line is Rand had to deal with more "outsider" competition than Ron ever had to deal with. Bernie to the left, Trump for the racists, and Cruz to the right.

Who was Ron's biggest competitor? Kucinich?

On Reddit and other liberal places only you'd see a lot of people liked Rand but Bernie was their guy, a lot of people on here jumped on the Trump train of idiocy, and several even went to Cruz as the guy with a chance to win.

So yes Rand could have ran a better campaign but the competition he had to deal with was a lot greater than Ron ever had to go through.

 

[nikcers]

he didnt stop there he just kept harping on trump basically calling him a fraud. you have trump talking about how bad immigration is and vaccines cause autism, also how he opposed the iraq war in 2004 and rand is attacking him? trump stands up to fox/megyn and endears himself to many of us that hate the communist fox network and rand keeps up the attacks on trump? it was stupid and i would love to see your proof that staff told rand not to.

You mean Trump sexually harassed Megyn Kelley, maybe when you older you will understand this, I would of stopped supporting Rand if he would of took Trumps side on that. If you said half the stuff he said about her to a coworker you would be fired.

 

[Erazer]

Stafford, Gor and May are three of the biggest clowns you could ever encounter in any presidential campaign. They were kept around for 1 reason only - personal rapport.

 

[jmdrake]

In the first debate prep they told him not to go after Trump, but he went off script. I think all the candidates at the time were expecting Trump to choke, and Rand decided he wanted to lead on it. Rand attacked Trump for not being willing to support the nominee, exactly the thing that would happen to Rand if he tried to run after not endorsing Romney.

I think you meant to say "Ron in he tried to run" but yeah. Your analysis is spot on. It's not that Rand shouldn't have attacked Trump. He absolutely should have. But those attacks should have been on issues that would have separated Trump from his own base like Trump flip flopping on gun control. Instead Rand went against Trump for being anti establishment in the year where being anti establishment is the badge of honor. Rand screwed up worse attacking Cruz for calling Mitch McConnell a liar. Note that when Trump attacked Cruz for being "nasty" and "difficult to work with" that was the first time during this campaign that Trump actually dropped in the polls after launching a vicious attack. Trump could attack Fiorina's face, Megan Kelly's PMS, John McCain's war record, Ben Carson's biography (once his strongest asset) and George W. Bush's performance as commander in chief leading up to 9/11 and not suffer from hit. But when he attacked Cruz for not working with the establishment, Trump took a hit. That really says all about this election cycle that anyone needs to know if they are paying attention. Sadly most people are not in the general electorate and even hear at RPF. (Maybe especially here where there is a strong "Don't ever criticize Rand no matter what" contingent.)

 

[parocks]

People can criticize the way Rand ran his campaign or his staff but the bottom line is Rand had to deal with more "outsider" competition than Ron ever had to deal with. Bernie to the left, Trump for the racists, and Cruz to the right.

Who was Ron's biggest competitor? Kucinich?

On Reddit and other liberal places only you'd see a lot of people liked Rand but Bernie was their guy, a lot of people on here jumped on the Trump train of idiocy, and several even went to Cruz as the guy with a chance to win.

So yes Rand could have ran a better campaign but the competition he had to deal with was a lot greater than Ron ever had to go through.

Carson, too.

 

[parocks]

I think you meant to say "Ron in he tried to run" but yeah. Your analysis is spot on. It's not that Rand shouldn't have attacked Trump. He absolutely should have. But those attacks should have been on issues that would have separated Trump from his own base like Trump flip flopping on gun control. Instead Rand went against Trump for being anti establishment in the year where being anti establishment is the badge of honor. Rand screwed up worse attacking Cruz for calling Mitch McConnell a liar. Note that when Trump attacked Cruz for being "nasty" and "difficult to work with" that was the first time during this campaign that Trump actually dropped in the polls after launching a vicious attack. Trump could attack Fiorina's face, Megan Kelly's PMS, John McCain's war record, Ben Carson's biography (once his strongest asset) and George W. Bush's performance as commander in chief leading up to 9/11 and not suffer from hit. But when he attacked Cruz for not working with the establishment, Trump took a hit. That really says all about this election cycle that anyone needs to know if they are paying attention. Sadly most people are not in the general electorate and even hear at RPF. (Maybe especially here where there is a strong "Don't ever criticize Rand no matter what" contingent.)

If you're consistent, you're ok. When you break character, people start to think you aren't the character you're playing.

 

[nikcers]

I think the closest comparison between 2012/2016 is Newt Gingrich and Ted Cruz. Marco Rubio is more like Mitt Romney, they even have the same initials and their religous beliefs are beyond belief. John Kaisich is the Jon Hunstman this time around. Rand is the Ron Paul this time around, the RNC even kicked him out of the main debates. Trump/sanders combined are this years Obama but he is running on the Republican platform. Bush is like Rick Perry, has all the money and the resume but speaks like an idiot and has no chance at winning the general election.

 

[BenMuldowney]

That was the straw that broke the camels back for sure, but even before Trump had entered the race Rand had developed a reputation for being the guy who just goes around calling Republicans "racist". Rand spent the entire year before the election undoing all the good will and respect he had gained in 2010 through 2012 and instead just started pissing all over the very people he expected to vote for him. Trump wouldn't exist if not for the vacuum created by the incompetence of the campaigns of Rand, Walker, and even Cruz. The only thing that made Cruz different is that once Trump took off Cruz realized his error and from that point on affixed his lips firmly to Trump's ass.

yes.. thank you for reminding me... rand's mangina act in ferguson was sickening. i had forgot about that... cowering to thugs and rioters and social justice warriors.

 

[BenMuldowney]

He admitted it in an interview a few days after the debate.

i'd love to see that video.

 

[BenMuldowney]

Why did Rand Paul lose?



^^^idiots like this

was i an idiot when i was spending my own money to travel as a delegate for ron paul and rand decided to endorse mitt romney? haha... looking back i guess i was... i even defended rand. look.. i still think rand is the best politician in DC, i'm just very disappointed in some of his choices.