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

[nobody's_hero]

Guys, there's still a chance that the teleprompter might pick Rand Paul.

Maybe if we pray hard to the RNC teleprompter, it will choose wisely. I suggest an offering at the altar be made as well.

 

[fisharmor]

“Look, he was my guy. I knew he had a lesser chance. But as he moved farther to the right, I said I might as well go with the guy who at least has a better chance of winning,” Levy said.

Levy and other donors spoke to his staff on a few different occasions, questioning what Paul had said publicly on certain issues. But they eventually stopped reaching out after getting the same answer. “They’d usually just say this is what he actually believes.”

The absolute biggest mistake anyone can make, when reviewing what happened here, is assuming that only big-name donors think this way.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

Matt wasn't banned for "telling the truth"

BINGO!!

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The absolute biggest mistake anyone can make, when reviewing what happened here, is assuming that only big-name donors think this way.[/COLOR]

I'll assume you have different reasons than the Wall St. billionaires?

The Levys: Kenneth Levy of Mountain Lakes, New Jersey, cofounded the Jacobs Levy equity management firm and has donated about $85,000 to conservative causes, according to FEC records. His wife, Frayda Levin, is a national director at the Koch brothers' advocacy group Americans for Prosperity and sits on the board of the Club for Growth.

 

[devil21]

"
There were also some concerns about Steve Grubbs, the campaign’s chief Iowa strategist.

“He wasn’t very hands on, he wasn’t very involved,” the source close to the campaign said. “It seemed like he was more concerned with t-shirts than getting out the vote or the caucuses.”

The campaign ran their online store through Grubbs’ company, Victory Enterprises. “Victory Enterprises managed the online store, as we do for other campaigns and schools. It was a successful way to raise money for the campaign,” Grubbs told BuzzFeed News. Grubbs declined to say how much money he had made from the store, saying, “I’m not authorized to discuss finances.”

Somebody once criticized me for comparing conservatism to t-shirt selling operation. Well, literally this is what we have here. Yes, they probably did raise money for the campaign, after Grubbs got his cut.

^^^^^^^
A recurring theme of the teams that assemble around Paul campaigns. Cash cow for them and no desire to even act like they want to win. We've made some people stinking rich in this process and the ugly secret is that many of them are not on board with the message, only the money. In the case of some of the thieves like Rothfeld/Saber, they're even opposed to the message and likely actively worked against the campaign while collecting a check from it.

 

[WQuantrill]

You are exactly right. There is no one answer. And it is absolutely amazing how little most of the of people writing obituaries understood about the psychology of voters vs people who actively post here. I have read in almost every article that a big reason Rand lost was because he was too anti-immigrant.

I like Radley Balko but he literally thinks Rand had low numbers because he didn't mention criminal justice reform enough. He also think Rand's harsh tone with immigrants cost him. He thinks Rand was to harsh on Black Lives Matter. Just an awful fact free critique. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/02/04/rand-paul-and-missed-opportunities/

That one is a kneeslapper.

 

[alucard13mm]

Good thing i didnt accept that internship from buzzfeed. Hah

 

[fisharmor]

I'll assume you have different reasons than the Wall St. billionaires?

Why would you type that out when I pretty clearly implied the exact opposite of your statement to be the case?

“Look, he was my guy. I knew he had a lesser chance. But as he moved farther to the right, I said I might as well go with the guy who at least has a better chance of winning,” Levy said.

Levy and other donors spoke to his staff on a few different occasions, questioning what Paul had said publicly on certain issues. But they eventually stopped reaching out after getting the same answer. “They’d usually just say this is what he actually believes.”

Look, he was my guy. I knew he had a lesser chance.
TRANSLATION: I know that Paul doesn't have a very good chance, but I was supporting him anyway because that's what I believed and I support what I believe.

But as he moved farther to the right, I said I might as well go with the guy who at least has a better chance of winning
TRANSLATION: If he's going to say the same things the other guys are saying, then it doesn't make sense to go with the guy who doesn't have a chance.

CONCLUSION: In at least this one case, we have proof that it was a bad idea to pander to the far right on certain issues, because it alienated high-profile donors who would have supported him, who don't want those far right ideas implemented.
Which is exactly what some of us have been saying here for years.


Levy and other donors spoke to his staff on a few different occasions, questioning what Paul had said publicly on certain issues.
TRANSLATION: Some of the things Rand said over the years have been concerning to people outside the "libertarian purists" on this board.

But they eventually stopped reaching out after getting the same answer.
TRANSLATION: You can't say something repeatedly without people getting the impression that it's really what you stand for.

“They’d usually just say this is what he actually believes.”
TRANSLATION: Particularly when his campaign staff doesn't contradict any of it.

CONCLUSION: There are people out there who listen to what other people say and think that it means something... it's possible that one person, hearing another person speak about what they believe and want to do, could construe those things to be what the speaker actually believes and wants to do.
Which is exactly what some of us have been saying here for years.


I preemptively expected the conversation now to turn in the direction of "Yeah but those guys are bigwig donors, not the rank-and-file voters". Hence my original comment:

The absolute biggest mistake anyone can make, when reviewing what happened here, is assuming that only big-name donors think this way.

 

[CPUd]

 

[eleganz]

You know what they say about statements given by "sources close to the campaign"

 

[Brian4Liberty]

You are exactly right. There is no one answer. And it is absolutely amazing how little most of the of people writing obituaries understood about the psychology of voters vs people who actively post here. I have read in almost every article that a big reason Rand lost was because he was too anti-immigrant.

I like Radley Balko but he literally thinks Rand had low numbers because he didn't mention criminal justice reform enough. He also think Rand's harsh tone with immigrants cost him. He thinks Rand was to harsh on Black Lives Matter. Just an awful fact free critique. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/02/04/rand-paul-and-missed-opportunities/

Just goes to show that even the "post mortems" are nothing more than an opportunity for spin and propaganda.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Why would you type that out when I pretty clearly implied the exact opposite of your statement to be the case?

What is the specific issue in question that is too "right-wing"? Is it getting tough on foreign policy? The Iran letter? The establishment/Wall St would love that direction. So it must be another issue. Many people claimed that Rand was getting tougher on immigration. In that case, the Wall St. cheap labor class would definitely not want that.

As far as being vague on issues, every candidate has their flip-flops, most with far more dramatic ones than Rand. Why is Rand singled out?

 

[fisharmor]

What is the specific issue in question that is too "right-wing"? Is it getting tough on foreign policy? The Iran letter? The establishment/Wall St would love that direction. So it must be another issue. Many people claimed that Rand was getting tougher on immigration. In that case, the Wall St. cheap labor class would definitely not want that.

I mean, don't take this the wrong way, but it seems to me like you spend a lot more time on this site than I do.
If I knew that the entire point of Rand's campaign from the onset was to distance himself from his father's more leftist and populist ideas so he could appeal to the right wing base of the Republican party, I'm not sure how that could be missed.

Then again, I'm not sure how it could be missed that it's been said here, a lot, that very few people in Ron's base ever appreciated Rand doing this, nor am I sure why it still needs to be spelled out, even now that we can see this was clearly a losing strategy.

As far as being vague on issues, every candidate has their flip-flops, most with far more dramatic ones than Rand. Why is Rand singled out?

Every candidate?
I think you meant every candidate but one.
The one guy Rand is guaranteed to be compared to, incidentally. Particularly by that guy's former enthusiastic supporters.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Every candidate?
I think you meant every candidate but one.
The one guy Rand is guaranteed to be compared to, incidentally. Particularly by that guy's former enthusiastic supporters.

Well, Ron was pretty good on that.

The donor class doesn't care though. They want someone who will guarantee them that the candidate will take very specific actions that will benefit them. I certainly didn't casually call up Rand or his close advisers to ensure that he would do what I want.

They wanted guarantees:

"they eventually stopped reaching out after getting the same answer"

As far as Rand getting in trouble with supporters, he had a hard line to walk. He could talk about any issue, and half the supporters would say "he's moving to the right!" and the other half would say "he's moving to the left!" Ron could walk that tightrope, but Rand couldn't.

 

[Krugminator2]

Every candidate?
I think you meant every candidate but one.
The one guy Rand is guaranteed to be compared to, incidentally. Particularly by that guy's former enthusiastic supporters.

Being inflexible and not changing your mind isn't a virtue. I posted a speech a few months back of Ron Paul from 1982 where he went through the same doomsday spiel that he goes through now. He couldn't have been more wrong about everything. He couldn't have been more wrong over the last 7 years about inflation and the stock market. And yet it is so close minded that he doesn't consider any other viewpoints.

Rand actually wants to see his views implemented in practice. That means having to confront reality. Ron preaches totally unworkable and contradictory solutions that have no risk of ever being implemented. I reject the notion that Ron is more principled than Rand.

 

[fisharmor]

The donor class doesn't care though. They want someone who will guarantee them that the candidate will take very specific actions that will benefit them. I certainly didn't casually call up Rand or his close advisers to ensure that he would do what I want.

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?
What I got out of those quotes is exactly that. They wanted liberty and weren't sure Rand was going to give it to them. And if they weren't going to get it, they may as well talk to any old candidate who isn't selling liberty.

As far as Rand getting in trouble with supporters, he had a hard line to walk. He could talk about any issue, and half the supporters would say "he's moving to the right!" and the other half would say "he's moving to the left!" Ron could walk that tightrope, but Rand couldn't.

Tightrope walking? What were you guys reading and watching and experiencing from 2007-2012? What I saw is a guy who was sticking to one story, and when someone got in his face telling him his story was wrong, he told them the other part of the story they didn't know or weren't paying attention to.
He didn't get donors by brown-nosing. He got them by convincing them that his position was right, and they should change theirs instead of expecting him to dance for them.
The exact same way he got regular supporters.

Being inflexible and not changing your mind isn't a virtue.

It is when you're in a race with 12 other people who have made careers out of changing their minds. You want to know why Bernie is so popular? It's not because of his positions: it's that he actually believes them.
Ron is wrong on some things, sure. Do you honestly believe he was wrong about EVERYTHING? That's what you wrote:

He couldn't have been more wrong about everything.

If that's what you believe, why are you here?

Rand actually wants to see his views implemented in practice. That means having to confront reality. Ron preaches totally unworkable and contradictory solutions that have no risk of ever being implemented.

What is different about Rand's position vs. Ron's position is that everything Rand talked about involved playing by the rules.
I never once heard Rand say that almost every piece of legislation was going to get vetoed.
Ron had unorthodox ideas that would still be within his power if he got to be president.
I don't see how that's outside reality. It would be different, which is what people want.

I reject the notion that Ron is more principled than Rand.

Great, but that's not the subject. I brought up that Rand's positions are different from, and at odds with, Ron's positions, and that this cost him donors.
It's right there in the article.
He can be principled and not be what people are looking for.
As I said, Sanders is very principled.
The point is, if those principles don't line up with yours, you're not going to support Sanders.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

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?

What I got out of those quotes is exactly that. They wanted liberty and weren't sure Rand was going to give it to them. And if they weren't going to get it, they may as well talk to any old candidate who isn't selling liberty.

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:

I'll assume you have different reasons than the Wall St. billionaires?

 

[nikcers]

Being inflexible and not changing your mind isn't a virtue. I posted a speech a few months back of Ron Paul from 1982 where he went through the same doomsday spiel that he goes through now. He couldn't have been more wrong about everything. He couldn't have been more wrong over the last 7 years about inflation and the stock market. And yet it is so close minded that he doesn't consider any other viewpoints.

Rand actually wants to see his views implemented in practice. That means having to confront reality. Ron preaches totally unworkable and contradictory solutions that have no risk of ever being implemented. I reject the notion that Ron is more principled than Rand.

People think of rand as a "compromiser" but Rand actually ran a campaign on a clear message that didn't minse words. People think that every policy he stands for is a compromise, not his true stance. Oddly people have a harder time pinning down Rand's stances on things then Ron, so that's why they think of him more principled. What makes people mad is not only do they think that he has alterior motives, but most people think of compromise as no one is happy. He has a hard time of describing that compromise or tolerance is a good thing because otherwise nothing gets done, because the person next to him is selling them a campaign where things magically get done and people would prefer to live in a world of magic then in a world where they have to compromise.

 

[jmdrake]

Matt wasn't banned for "telling the truth"

I didn't say he was banned for telling the truth. I said folks got mad at him for telling the truth. Please read carefully before responding next time. That said, in the thread where Rand told the truth about Rand's numbers in Iowa, a moderator said "You will be temp banned for this." I read it so don't bullshit me. And yeah, I did see Matt's other completely asshat thread. But at this point:

 

[jmdrake]

The tendency is to blame specific people for failures. No keyboard warriors know the details of what happened and what was done by inside individuals. Even insiders don't know everything that happened. It is more productive to talk about the strategies, tactics, political environment, issues and competition.

Well the OP article did talk about strategies, tactics, political environment, issues and competition. But it's also good to know what went wrong from an insider perspective. Sorry but I don't buy the "Folks just want war" BS that the neocon press is spouting and many people inside this movement have chosen to believe when the top two contenders for the GOP nomination have both been critical of the Iraq, Libya and Syrian wars. What is more defeatist? Saying "Maybe the grassroots efforts weren't so bad after all considering that a blimp is more impressive than a freaking eagle" or saying "We just can't win cause people hate liberty?"