Frank Luntz: RAND has MOST LIKEABILITY of ANY candidate he's EVER polled the audience on
- Thread starter DeadheadForPaul
- Start date
You say that like it's a bad thing.
speciallyblend
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Messages
- 20,351
maybe rand should enter the race to counter the gop est and announce he is running as well. something to shake the gop est to their foundations!!
speciallyblend
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Messages
- 20,351
Rand Paul 2012 or Ron Paul 2012 or both are fine by me
Paul 2012
Paul 2012
speciallyblend
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Messages
- 20,351
get them both on the stage and we can worry about which gains traction
personally i would vote for a Paul/Paul ticket, but i would trust ron and rand to figure out those plans as time goes by!
Patrick Henry
Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,531
If this is true, (I refuse to trust Luntz) then Rand should get out there campaigning for his old man ASAP.
Last edited:
Yeah, it's pretty cool, but Luntz is a manipulation specialist... not sure why'd we'd take this seriously just because it's favorable. It's very cool that this is being broadcast, and hopefully we don't see a reversal of the media when Rand runs.... but I am sort of curious why they're doing it.
He's going to cause a worldwide economic depression!!!!!111111
BlackTerrel
Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2008
- Messages
- 10,464
Wow. Thanks for the Tube.
Sola_Fide
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 31,482
I know! That was great huh?
georgiaboy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 6,489
Cool.
A possible scenario: establishment GOP candidate wins the 2012 nomination, and seeks Rand Paul as his/her running mate as a way to unite the party. Would Rand take the offer, and if he did, would we vote for the ticket? My instinct is that Rand, similar to his debt ceiling stance, would require the nominee to agree to making certain policy decisions as president, or he wouldn't get on board. Scary, but could work out, esp. thinking 2012.
Better scenario: establishment sees the writing on the wall, realizing that they won't get a victory over Obama without the RP republicans, conceding the nomination to Ron Paul and positioning Rand Paul as the running mate to bring the establishment GOPers alongside the RP republicans. Total victory.
A possible scenario: establishment GOP candidate wins the 2012 nomination, and seeks Rand Paul as his/her running mate as a way to unite the party. Would Rand take the offer, and if he did, would we vote for the ticket? My instinct is that Rand, similar to his debt ceiling stance, would require the nominee to agree to making certain policy decisions as president, or he wouldn't get on board. Scary, but could work out, esp. thinking 2012.
Better scenario: establishment sees the writing on the wall, realizing that they won't get a victory over Obama without the RP republicans, conceding the nomination to Ron Paul and positioning Rand Paul as the running mate to bring the establishment GOPers alongside the RP republicans. Total victory.
radiofriendly
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,107
This has to be the weirdest piece of tv I've seen in years. It's like an infomercial for the establishment to learn how to attempt a coop of the message. Amazing but mega weird!
PaleoForPaul
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 560
What Obama did in the last election was so rare, getting elected as President from the Senate. What was interesting to me was it was actually advantageous that Obama was not in the Senate or government very long. Usually Senate candidates have a long string of votes and unpopular legislation that can be attacked for its incompetence or hypocrisy.
Obama had voted so little, there was nothing to use against him.
Rand would have been in that position for 2012. I fear by 2016 he will have made some kind of vote or slip up that will be used to marginalize him.
Sola_Fide
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 31,482
Well, that's only because most politicians are unprincipled hypocrites. I don't see Rand going down that road. A consistently principled voting record will be an asset in 2016.
In my opinion, this is just an attempt to give Rand overwhelming support so that people go "you know what.. i'll just hold off this election - voting for the one running most similar to Rand (obviously Ron) and just vote Rand in 2016 because I bet he will be running" This is an attempt by the establishment to get people to basically to give up this election cycle and pray for a good 2016, but in reality, this country won't make it to 2016, and they know that. By 2016, we'll be in the most horrendous, policed country in the world. That's why they're trying to divert the energy and give it to somebody who isn't currently running because they don't pose as big of a threat.
PaleoForPaul
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 560
You wrote about Ron Paul:
The last thing Ron Paul does is 'just spout off lines'. Just spouting off lines, or talking points is what almost every other candidate does. Lets take one 'line' that Ron Paul uses in relation to solving our economic problems:
"You have to allow the liquidation of debt and the malinvestment."
What exactly does it mean? It basically means that debts need to be paid off or defaulted on before saving and investing can resume at normal rates. Attempts to inflate and stimulate our way out of the crash will only cause more problems.
The problem with the line is that 90% of Republican primary voters don't know what it means. "Liquidate the debts" is probably above the heads of 80% of the primary voters, and the concept of Malinvestment which is specific to the Austrian school of economics is probably out of the reach of 95% of the primary voters.
Rand however, doesn't bother with such things. He just says "IM AGAINST BAILOUTS". I think Rand believes the same things, but he simply understands how to appeal to a broader base of voters by dumbing down the message.
Rand sneaks the Libertarian message by, while Ron Paul uses it as a hammer to hit people in the head with.
The last thing Ron Paul does is 'just spout off lines'. Just spouting off lines, or talking points is what almost every other candidate does. Lets take one 'line' that Ron Paul uses in relation to solving our economic problems:
"You have to allow the liquidation of debt and the malinvestment."
What exactly does it mean? It basically means that debts need to be paid off or defaulted on before saving and investing can resume at normal rates. Attempts to inflate and stimulate our way out of the crash will only cause more problems.
The problem with the line is that 90% of Republican primary voters don't know what it means. "Liquidate the debts" is probably above the heads of 80% of the primary voters, and the concept of Malinvestment which is specific to the Austrian school of economics is probably out of the reach of 95% of the primary voters.
Rand however, doesn't bother with such things. He just says "IM AGAINST BAILOUTS". I think Rand believes the same things, but he simply understands how to appeal to a broader base of voters by dumbing down the message.
Rand sneaks the Libertarian message by, while Ron Paul uses it as a hammer to hit people in the head with.
Similar threads
