How is Rand polling this low?

Brett85 said:
Ron Paul never won a single primary or caucus. Let's not pretend like Rand's only problem is that he's not enough like Ron.
Click to expand...

No, but he made huge gains from when he was at 1% in early 2007 to 2012 when he virtually tied for first in Iowa, 2nd in NH, and won a majority of delegates from 6(??) states.

Then Trump came in and stole it all in the absence of another strong anti-establishment candidate. I really wonder.... if Ron was a few years younger and ran again this cycle... could it have all been his?
 
The comparison on the drug answer is an interesting one, but I think it also demonstrates why Ron was never electable. Rand knows that there is little chance of convincing the public right now that laws against drugs and prostitution are bad because they go against liberty. It is realistic though, to convince the public that they are bad laws because of the tangible harm they cause ( which happens to be a consequence most of the time when you diminish individual freedom). Most Americans don't see it as obvious, the way many of us here do, that liberty-diminishing laws have unintended consequences in the first place.
 
brandon said:
No, but he made huge gains from when he was at 1% in early 2007 to 2012 when he virtually tied for first in Iowa, 2nd in NH, and won a majority of delegates from 6(??) states.

Then Trump came in and stole it all in the absence of another strong anti-establishment candidate. I really wonder.... if Ron was a few years younger and ran again this cycle... could it have all been his?
Click to expand...

I really wonder had Rand ran in 2012 using his '16 tactics if he'd have won. I think he still has the winning platform for the GOP. To answer the OP, I think the media plays a big role. The results are clear, when the media pimps a candidate they rise. But they are empty suits singing the wrong tune, and so they fall. Rand is not an empty suit. We just need to be patient and have a little faith.
 
I think Rand really needs to keep hammering his "New Republican" message. Show that the GOP is an inclusive party that believes in economic AND social freedom.

It worked for Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party. Back in the 70s and 80s (with the exception of Carter's election in 1976, and even that was a close election), the Democrats faced a series of landslide defeats, mainly because their candidates were jokes and because the party was moving too far to the left. However, enter Bill Clinton in 1992, saying that he's "a new kind of Democrat" who supports most New Deal programs, but he also supports the death penalty, welfare reform, etc. He was able to deliver strong elections for Democrats.
 
PaleoPaul said:
I think Rand really needs to keep hammering his "New Republican" message. Show that the GOP is an inclusive party that believes in economic AND social freedom.

It worked for Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party. Back in the 70s and 80s (with the exception of Carter's election in 1976, and even that was a close election), the Democrats faced a series of landslide defeats, mainly because their candidates were jokes and because the party was moving too far to the left. However, enter Bill Clinton in 1992, saying that he's "a new kind of Democrat" who supports most New Deal programs, but he also supports the death penalty, welfare reform, etc. He was able to deliver strong elections for Democrats.
Click to expand...

I'm good with this strategy, because the press is using the whitewingers and their batshit candidates to destroy what's left of the Old Republicans.
 
Once again... polls are not rated for accuracy until a month or so before the election. National polls especially have a habit of showing people like Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann etc. leading, who actually have no organization and don't win anything. So if we start taking "lessons" from these polls, (i.e. voters hate liberty, our candidates are weak) - we are basing it off inaccurate information and allowing ourselves to be manipulated by our political foes.

The only real answer at this point is to keep doubling down on our efforts. The true results will only be seen at the election - but if we don't give it our all now, we could end up falling 3% short like we did for Ron in Iowa.
 
I believe the media is manipulating Paul to be at the bottom. But I've noticed that with each successive debate his base gets a little bit happier with him. The media is pushing candidates up and down and it's really starting to bother me. These debates are really bothering me because they are not being run as a forum to exchange ideas but as some kind of reality TV where candidates are required to argue with each other.
Bernie fans are a lot of the Occupy Wallstreet crowd that I don't think are in the Liberty camp.
I loved the clip from Ron, but I think Rand won his argument with Bush and Christie. And his soft accent makes him impossible to be shrill. That's ridiculous.
Rand needs to stay the course, stay on message and take advantage of any moments coming his way.
 
AngryCanadian said:
Or its rigged. If they wanted Paul he would be the main front runner by now, noticed how they are keeping Bush at 9% or 11% in the polls?
Click to expand...

The polls aren't rigged. That's just complete nonsense and the same crap floated by RPF people who don't get reality.

The reality is the voters have a shitty perception of Rand. That perception I blame on Rand and Chip. WTF has Chip done to help? But mostly I blame the media including talk radio especially Rush who has trashed the Paul's and say they don't belong in the Republican Party because they don't want men and women killed, coming back with missing limbs or committing suicide. Rush is a fake and a shill just like Trump.

Ron could not overcome the hate and attacks. So far Rand is failing and so is Chip.

There is time. Plenty of time and so much can happen from now to Feb. Ron was always around 3% nationally until he started to rise to the top in Iowa Dec of 2011 with 24%. All hell broke lose by the establishment and the neocon talk radio bitches that destroyed Ron's chances to make a splash. The system is corrupt from government to the media.

If Rand starts to rise in Iowa and/or NH, is Rand and his team ready to FIGHT cause the attacks will be full nuclear.
 
Last edited:
First of all, I have come to realize that Ron Paul's numbers were incredibly inflated. While many of us liked Ron for his adherence to principles and his economic understanding, there was a large segment of "Ron Paul supporters" that just liked him because he was against the establishment. Ron had a way of appealing to people who didn't know why things are so f'd up, they just know that politics is to blame.

Many of those people went to Bernie Sanders and they are now inflating his numbers. Many of them went to Trump and they're inflating Trump's numbers. To a lesser extent, some of them are checking out Fiorina and Carson.

But I think we were fooling ourselves when we looked at Ron's "bottom" of 10% of the GOP and thought they were all on board with the liberty movement. Sadly, this was not the case. We make up about 3-5% of the GOP. And even in this 3-5%, we are finger-pointing and shifting allegiances. The odds are stacked against us. If Sanders stays in (which it appears he will do), you can forget about crossover primary voters as a way to boost Rand's numbers.

So that's the bad news. The good news is that our 3-5% is very determined and very active. We have the potential to have a strong ground game and win back those wishy-washy contrarians. It just needs to be timed right. I still have hope. The PTB are really, really good at what they do and how they manipulate the electorate. We just need to make sure it doesn't dishearten us. Then, they win without even much of a fight.
 
sgt150 said:
Quite simply: the public does not want liberty. They are too fucking stupid to deserve the blessings of freedom.
Click to expand...

Oh please. :rolleyes:

Rand isn't focusing enough on those issues that the voting public cares the most about and when he does mention them, he isn't clear or passionate enough.

Did you listen to that podcast of Woods and Rockwell? Tom talked about it. (Although his suggestion to call them clowns wasn't the best).
 
Rand is polling the same as Ron was at this point in the schedule.

In an Iowa poll done 1 month after the second debate in 2011:

Bachmann 32%
...
Ron Paul 3%

We're only 1 week after the second debate in 2015 and the one poll since has Rand at 4%. And that one still included Walker.

Two debates down... Ron had 3%, Rand has 4%.

I'm not a mathmagician but I'd say Rand is polling comparably to where Ron was at the same point. And as we see what happened to Bachmann's and Ron's final numbers, polls this far out mean nothing anyway.
 
jonhowe said:
Looking at the newest polls on RealClearPolitics, Rand is at 1-3%. 2.3% average. How is it possible that Ron (who was older, far less 'main stream', far less 'well spoken', and a mere congressman) was polling above where Rand is now? The difference is stark from 2011 to now. We're literally getting less than half as much support. I don't understand how this is possible.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Are we doing something wrong? Does Rand just not capture the 'purist' voters? Has the demographic changed? Is it Bernie Sanders? What do we do?
Click to expand...

You answered your own question.

Ron was less mainstream. His supporters were drawn to him by the things that made him different from the rest.
 
Crashland said:
The comparison on the drug answer is an interesting one, but I think it also demonstrates why Ron was never electable. Rand knows that there is little chance of convincing the public right now that laws against drugs and prostitution are bad because they go against liberty. It is realistic though, to convince the public that they are bad laws because of the tangible harm they cause ( which happens to be a consequence most of the time when you diminish individual freedom). Most Americans don't see it as obvious, the way many of us here do, that liberty-diminishing laws have unintended consequences in the first place.
Click to expand...

ah, the first post of logical thinking in here. Good job.
 
another reason is, obama's re-election killed most people's thoughts that the country was saveable.

many of my friends this cycle say "it doesnt matter" because "It cant be saved"
 
its not only Rand having problems. Huck and Santorum are both Iowa winners, and they are getting no traction yet either. Jeb has money and name. Trump , Carson and Fiorina have messed up the schedule. but things will begin to settle in Oct. Rand could be 3rd in NH by mid Nov.
 
Oh for fuck's sake. Anybody that wants Rand to be more like Ron is begging for failure.
True, Ron generated a following. We don't need followers, we have 'em in spades. What we need is voters. And voters do not want someone who comes out and says liberty = shooting heroin or talks about going to a gold standard (kooooky!)

For those of us around in 2008 we learned all about the polls. "The polls are rigged!" we'd shout. Only to see primary results right on top of the RCP average.

I'm gonna say it again: "The polls are rigged!" Didn't I learn a lesson? Yes, but as already noted, the polls are not rated for accuracy until 1 month prior to the election. Now we have 300 sample sizes that poll 50 y/o's over land lines. Meanwhile internet opinion polls and GOP strawpolls show a huge fucking disparity. I'd bet Rand's true national numbers are closer to 20%.

2 options:
Polls are correct: We're getting our asses kicked, work harder!
Polls are not correct: We're doing good, work harder!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top