CNN poll: Rand Paul in 3rd among GOP presidential candidates with 13%

[July]

/facepalm We had people posting repeatedly saying that "they" wouldn't let Rand win his senate race either. We did it anyhow. Rand's opponent was Sec. of State, running the election. There are ways to counter voter fraud. It all comes down to tactics. What that mentality says though is: "They won't let us win. If we win, it means we sold out." or in other words "There's no way to win! Deessspaaaiiir."

Probably because a lot of people aren't aware of or don't follow the "invisible primary" process...so when it comes time to vote, the field is usually already narrowed down and party leaders and donors already have clear favorites in mind (who they will naturally want to help win). But by then the voting can feel like just a formality, or like it doesn't matter...and they are probably right, in a sense because most of the real heavy lifting all happens long before the voting, building up coalitions, raising money, gaining support, etc. That said, Rand has definitely been participating in this process, and I would guess that's the main reason why he is being taken as seriously as he is, even if begrudgingly.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

The liberty movement is so far succeeding (fitfully) because its infrastructure (the grassroots, CFL, the Paul mailing list, alternative media, money bombs, etc) remain OUTSIDE Republican control. Your examples illustrate my point, not rebut it.

You can make what argument you like and develop your best laid plans, but the truth is that this issue was resolved organically a long time ago. Regardless, of what you say, we will be working within the frame of the GOP trying to imbue it with our values. If you don't like this tack, you are free to use your time in the way you see most valuable. But if you think you are going to convince anyone to change course at this point, I have some ocean front property in Arizona for you.

 

[limequat]

Poll includes more independents then republicans. This is not how the primaries play out.
Over-representing independents favor christie who scored 28% with "moderates". In this poll, Paul didn't do any better with independents than he did overall.

Encouraging: Paul leads the south with 19%.

 

[mwkaufman]

Poll includes more independents then republicans. This is not how the primaries play out.
Over-representing independents favor christie who scored 28% with "moderates". In this poll, Paul didn't do any better with independents than he did overall.

Encouraging: Paul leads the south with 19%.

This is all wrong. Christie is at 18% with Independents and 17% with Republicans. He leads the poll either way. But who it does favor is Rand Paul who is second with Independents at 17%, and fifth with Republicans at 9%. Who it hurts is Jeb Bush who is 6% with Independents and 13% with Republicans.

It may well oversample moderates, amongst conservatives the number looks like:

16% Paul
16% Ryan
11% Bush
11% Rubio
8% Christie

The challenge for Christie is the challenge Giuliani and Huntsman have faced... there just aren't many moderates in Iowa or South Carolina.

McCain pulled it off in 2008 with a coalition of foreign policy hawks and moderates, but even then, they were a plurality in South Carolina, not a majority, and they had weak opponents in Huckabee, Thompson, and Romney.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

You can make what argument you like and develop your best laid plans, but the truth is that this issue was resolved organically a long time ago. Regardless, of what you say, we will be working within the frame of the GOP trying to imbue it with our values. If you don't like this tack, you are free to use your time in the way you see most valuable. But if you think you are going to convince anyone to change course at this point, I have some ocean front property in Arizona for you.

What you mean "we," Galt man? It's not clear which direction most of the movement is going, or just who decided "organically" what was to be done. You are as well free to use your time in the way you see most valuable, I have just pointed out where the 'party reform' path leads. You can also ask the last dozen stalled reform movements where it leads.


PS: Readers belatedly reading this thread please note, how Bastiat, in subsequent rebuttal posts, keeps carefully omitting the legislative failure of the 'reform from within the GOP' approach, and only wants the issue discussed within the context of the electoral failure of the 3rd party side of the ledger. IAW, only one side gets to be held accountable for any losses. Just like the establishment wants it, as the alternative movement thinks it's 'winning' when it takes a few offices relying on the current system, meanwhile no aspect of policy changes, because the infrastructure of statism remains dominant. Until this short-sighted mindset changes, nothing else will change.

 

[MrGoose]

we have a new top tier....crispy cream, paul ryan and the other guy who isnt rand paul... - MSM

Oh god don't remind me.

In PolySci you need the 3 Ms

Media
Money
Momentum

I think we're starting to get Media on our side (hopefully it's not just for show). We'll have money and groundwork. ANd I know we'll do good in Iowa (hopefully win). Then and only then will we see if we can win.

 

[JohnM]

Is Christy or Ryan leading in Iowa NH or SC? Nothing else matters.

This.

To be honest, I think this poll looks pretty good for Rand.

 

[mosquitobite]

"There you go again." I didn't suggest there was a liberty movement within the DNC, or that any should be attempted from within to reform it, anymore than it can ultimately the reform the GOP. The US establishment is hardwire designed (through gerrymandered seats at all levels) for only the major parties to win, and that is why 3rd parties don't win elections. Within the major parties, the cost of winning electorally is losing legislatively, which is why both parties have failed to reverse a single aspect of the growth of the Total State in almost a century. After all those decades of losing, I have suggested we try something else.

I'm saying, if we really believe there's no real difference between the leadership of both parties on liberty issues (other than rhetoric), we'll run a liberty candidate as a Republican in an open seat primary race in a GOP leaning district, AND we'll run a liberty candidate as a Democrat in an open seat primary race in a Dem district. We won't ignore 50% of the winnable races on the table, simply because we don't want the candidate to run on the D line. We will emphasize the liberty candidate, not the D or R label they happen to slap on to win office.

That's the idea behind Get Out of Our House (GOOOH.com)

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

"There you go again." I didn't suggest there was a liberty movement within the DNC, or that any should be attempted from within to reform it, anymore than it can ultimately the reform the GOP. The US establishment is hardwire designed (through gerrymandered seats at all levels) for only the major parties to win, and that is why 3rd parties don't win elections. Within the major parties, the cost of winning electorally is losing legislatively, which is why both parties have failed to reverse a single aspect of the growth of the Total State in almost a century. After all those decades of losing, I have suggested we try something else.

I'm saying, if we really believe there's no real difference between the leadership of both parties on liberty issues (other than rhetoric), we'll run a liberty candidate as a Republican in an open seat primary race in a GOP leaning district, AND we'll run a liberty candidate as a Democrat in an open seat primary race in a Dem district. We won't ignore 50% of the winnable races on the table, simply because we don't want the candidate to run on the D line. We will emphasize the liberty candidate, not the D or R label they happen to slap on to win office.

It's not just gerrymandering. It's 150 years of a third party candidate never winning. That leads to voter psychology being attuned to third parties being a waste of time, money, and a vote. You will never overcome that barrier, not even a popular former President could overcome it. You can't even get to the meat of the issues because voters have already labeled you a loser (and rightly so) within 0.2 seconds.

Liberty candidates running in the DNC are simply DOA and a drain of time, resources and bandwidth. Don't be hardheaded here, stick with what has been working.

 

[mosquitobite]

It's not just gerrymandering. It's 150 years of a third party candidate never winning. That leads to voter psychology being attuned to third parties being a waste of time, money, and a vote. You will never overcome that barrier, not even a popular former President could overcome it. You can't even get to the meat of the issues because voters have already labeled you a loser (and rightly so) within 0.2 seconds.

Liberty candidates running in the DNC are simply DOA and a drain of time, resources and bandwidth. Don't be hardheaded here, stick with what has been working.

What say you about Dennis Kucinich?

I wouldn't vote for him, but California might. Why wouldn't we at least go for liberals that are strong on civil liberties?

 

[libertygrl]

ryan and bush are purely name recog.

but trailing christie sucks.

I think this is BS. Republicans I know hate Christie for believing he aligned himself with Obama. I don't trust polls. They're just another tool to lead the population on, and build momentum toward a particular candidate.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Paul was and is an uncompromising constitutionalist and libertarian, and that is why his candidacy stood out in two GOP primary races stacked with statists. So let's not re-write history, he ran a principled 3rd party campaign in a major party race, using resources from outside a party establishment. That is the core method, not the save the GOP holy grail that came later, that the establishment knows how to beat.

That establishment otherwise has two modes with regards to alternatives--they either co-opt and/or neutralize it from within, or they marginalize it and/or crush it from without. The Tea Party has been basically co-opted or neutralized, it 'enjoys success' from the Republican hip pocket. Occupy refused to be co-opted, so the establishment crushed it. Either way, be it crushed or neutralized, a movement is defeated from changing the landscape.

The liberty movement is so far succeeding (fitfully) because its infrastructure (the grassroots, CFL, the Paul mailing list, alternative media, money bombs, etc) remain OUTSIDE Republican control. Your examples illustrate my point, not rebut it.

I don't even know what that means. Sounds like you're trying to put Ron's run as a REPUBLICAN and him spearheading reforming the GOP in your third party win column. He wouldn't have even been on stage if he wasn't in the Republican party. No debate appearances means no viral Youtube videos being shared and nobody even knowing he exists. This website wouldn't exist. Are you dizzy from that spin mastery?

The tea party is getting even more brazen and libertarian. I believe like Matt Kibbe said that the tea party, Paul supporters, and genuine conservatives will encompass an even bigger liberty movement. I can see the tea party name being dropped shortly and everyone that wishes to reform the GOP will be under the Liberty Movement umbrella.

The liberty movement is succeeding because Ron woke people up initially and then gave us the historic base to defend our liberty ideals and most importantly a viable path to change things for the better, and what do you know we started elected candidates within the GOP we can be proud of. Those candidates then took the baton and ran with it giving our liberty movement messengers to rally around and a bigger voice on the national stage. Rand Paul is the de facto leader of the Republican party and liberty movement now. We now have a realistic chance at becoming a force to be reckoned with nationally and win the Presidency in 2016 which will cement our standing for a generation and could usher in a libertarian awakening this country hasn't seen since its founding.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

/facepalm We had people posting repeatedly saying that "they" wouldn't let Rand win his senate race either. We did it anyhow. Rand's opponent was Sec. of State, running the election. There are ways to counter voter fraud. It all comes down to tactics. What that mentality says though is: "They won't let us win. If we win, it means we sold out." or in other words "There's no way to win! Deessspaaaiiir."

Great post. The naysayers have been proven wrong time and time again. They are caught in a whirlpool of despair and wish to suck us down with them. I look forward to proving them wrong again in 2014 and 2016.

 

[Brett85]

What say you about Dennis Kucinich?

I wouldn't vote for him, but California might. Why wouldn't we at least go for liberals that are strong on civil liberties?

How can Kucinich be strong on civil liberties when he supports banning guns and wants the feds to have our health care data?

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

What you mean "we," Galt man? It's not clear which direction most of the movement is going, or just who decided "organically" what was to be done. You are as well free to use your time in the way you see most valuable, I have just pointed out where the 'party reform' path leads. You can also ask the last dozen stalled reform movements where it leads.

Your idea of reform is what fails and fizzles out, your way of thinking is fossilized. You would rather us go the way of the Reform Party or some other fruitless 'outside' endeavor. Sorry, but we're much smarter these days. The evangelicals reformed the GOP in the 80's without the benefit of the internet. Taking a page out of their playbook we're not only going to imbue the GOP with our ideals, we're going to fundamentally change this country.

 

[mosquitobite]

How can Kucinich be strong on civil liberties when he supports banning guns and wants the feds to have our health care data?

I said I wouldn't vote for him.

But will California vote for Rand Paul?

 

[pacelli]

I wonder if Rand's campaign has any plans for what to do when the media just skips over him entirely in the polls, kind of like they did with Ron's campaigns.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

I wonder if Rand's campaign has any plans for what to do when the media just skips over him entirely in the polls, kind of like they did with Ron's campaigns.

Hard to skip the front runner. Rand is building an enormous base of support. You should've heard them introduce him in Kentucky, they were salivating over him running for President and brought it up several times. And I didn't get the impression these were young Paulbots. These were mostly older folks. Rand is winning and we haven't even really started anything yet. If things keep going this way there might be such a groundswell nationally for Rand that the GOP nomination might be just a formality.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

I said I wouldn't vote for him.

But will California vote for Rand Paul?

California is a hard nut to crack. I think Nevada, and to a lesser degree Oregon, and Washington are in play out west.

 

[BlackTerrel]

/facepalm We had people posting repeatedly saying that "they" wouldn't let Rand win his senate race either. We did it anyhow. Rand's opponent was Sec. of State, running the election. There are ways to counter voter fraud. It all comes down to tactics. What that mentality says though is: "They won't let us win. If we win, it means we sold out." or in other words "There's no way to win! Deessspaaaiiir."

The funny thing is I had friends on facebook in 2008 saying "they" wouldn't let Obama win. Then even after he won election they said that "they" would assassinate him. No one admits they were wrong 5 years later. Funny how that works...