How is Rand polling this low?

65fastback2+2 said:
another reason is, obama's re-election killed most people's thoughts that the country was saveable.
Click to expand...

I don't buy that. Obama's no different than every other president, and is probably less bad than Romney would have been.
 
erowe1 said:
I don't buy that. Obama's no different than every other president, and is probably less bad than Romney would have been.
Click to expand...

Well, thats what several of my friends and family are telling me. That it doesnt matter now because it cant be saved.
 
65fastback2+2 said:
Well, thats what several of my friends and family are telling me. That it doesnt matter now because it cant be saved.
Click to expand...

They'll say the same thing 4 years from now, and then 8 years from now. They probably said it 4 years ago too. At some point they'll say to themselves, "Wait a second, I already used that line up."
 
erowe1 said:
They'll say the same thing 4 years from now, and then 8 years from now. They probably said it 4 years ago too. At some point they'll say to themselves, "Wait a second, I already used that line up."
Click to expand...

I dont recall them using it 4 years ago...but they could very well use it 4 years from now
 
He's run a bad campaign. Did not anticipate the anger GOP voters have towards the establishment and Rand went out of his way to make peace with the establishment.

Neocons dropped millions on ads about Iran and Rand being an isolationist before he even announced But I knew he was in trouble the minute he started flirting with amnesty for illegals. His big play for money from the billionaire donors by flip flopping on immigration. The money never arrived and he alienated the grassroots
 
Rand is not his father for better or worse, I think Ron would be doing very well this cycle and with such a divided field could of really stood out. People always get on Ron for not being a good speaker but I think he was a great speaker and a much better more inspiring one than Rand. It's authenticity, it's honesty, it's not sounding like you're trying to lecture or pander. Ron built a following, a movement, what will bethe impact of Rand's campaign once it is done?
 
Jackie Moon said:
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.
Click to expand...

^^^^ Everyone PLEASE pay attention to this post, quit being dense and making shit up.
 
eleganz said:
^^^^ Everyone PLEASE pay attention to this post, quit being dense and making shit up.
Click to expand...

I guess it seems on target but the thought was those 10% would be on board from the get go. Either the polls lie or we lost support from 2012.
 
eleganz said:
^^^^ Everyone PLEASE pay attention to this post, quit being dense and making shit up.
Click to expand...

Be that as it may. Ron lost. So polling like his father did 4 years ago isn't really reassuring. I agree with those who claim that Rand shouldn't peak right now. But he should be projecting strength through-out the whole campaign. Because even the tiniest signs of weakness will be used to marginalize him. And currently, he's projecting a lot of weakness.
 
Jackie Moon said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is encouraging, but what's your source? I don't remember Ron being that low in 2011.
 
erowe1 said:
This is encouraging, but what's your source? I don't remember Ron being that low in 2011.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Ron was polling in fourth at 8% in September 2011. This was when Perry was peaking.

I don't think it's fair to compare the 2012 and 2016 campaigns one way or another though. The field is a lot stronger and more competitive--probably because the democrat opponent won't be a sitting president this time.
 
EBounding said:
Yeah, Ron was polling in fourth at 8% in September 2011. This was when Perry was peaking.

I don't think it's fair to compare the 2012 and 2016 campaigns one way or another though. The field is a lot stronger and more competitive--probably because the democrat opponent won't be a sitting president this time.
Click to expand...

Indeed. People have been trying to draw too many parallels between 2016, 2012 and 2008. Despite the fact that the field and the political climate in each of those election seasons has been entirely different.

Or drawing too many parallels between someone like Rand and other players in the field. What's true for the "flavor of the week" media darlings who get their time to shine (before imploding) will not necessarily be true for Rand.

I've seen people argue on here that Rand polling low right now is good because he shouldn't peak too soon. But I think that's sort of a black-and-white approach and they're doing it based on the assumption that Rand will be treated the same way by the media as the rest of the pack. But he won't be. As I mentioned before, he should not peak too soon. But he can't show any sign of weakness at all in the media, and that's exactly what he's doing right now. He should steadily be polling at around 3rd-5th place, at least in the 5-10% range. It implies a strong base of support and consistent frontrunner status, without appearing like the flavor of the week.

Looking back; is it possible that the media fabricated Rand's frontrunner status pre-announcement, just to have him peaking early? Something to think about.
 
I don't know how people can claim that Ron's campaign was better. We're 4 months from Iowa. Why don't we wait until then to make those claims?

It's not fair to compare polling numbers right now. The field was completely different. And no, Rand should not be more like Ron. Ron wasn't even taken seriously by most in the party. Rand will have a much easier time convincing them when the race is down to 4-5 candidates.

Remember that 4-person debate when they were all sitting down? Just picture Rand being one of those 4 this time. Once the field narrows, Rand is going to crush everyone.

And no, Rand doesn't need to be more like Trump, because it's not the "controversial" anti-establishment candidate who gets the nomination. Rand is obviously trying to compete for Jeb's voters in the end.
 
I forget who it was, but two members here were arguing about whether Rand was going for the anti-establishment votes vs the establishment ones. I thought it was an interesting conversation because everyone, including the establishment, figured Rand's strategy was to be the anti-Bush. I think Rand made a calculated move. The anti-establishment never wins. So I think in the end, he wants the moderates who will consider Bush to say, "well Rand is also kind of a moderate and his name isn't Bush. Maybe I'll vote for him instead."
 
jkob said:
Ron built a following, a movement, what will bethe impact of Rand's campaign once it is done?
Click to expand...

Oh come on... If we're gonna be fair, then we should be judging it based upon Ron's 1988 run :rolleyes:

Rand is young and has a lot of time left...
 
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...
I have a theory, but people here won't like it.

Way back when I was pissed off because I saw Rand as pandering to the neoconservative wing of the GOP, I thought it was a wasted effort because I knew he would never win them over. But everyone told me he had to do it because he couldn't win with "just us"...they said I should be patient, watch what he does, not what he says. He's really just like his Dad, they said. Over time, I became convinced that Rand IS the last best hope for me to see a liberty candidate in the WH in my lifetime. He may not be his Dad, but I reasoned that he's a lot better than Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio. I got onboard the Rand bandwagon.

However, I think many people who felt like I did early on left. He didn't manage to win over the mainstream GOP voters (I knew he wouldn't) and he lost a lot of people in his Dad's base because of the rhetoric he had to use in trying to win over those people.

You can ask Carlybee. We had many discussions about this...we both feared this would happen because he was always trying to play both sides.
 
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...

Three main reasons:

1) much tougher competition
2) Rand was vetted early
3) Libertarians spend most of their time bitching about what Rand said
 
Galileo Galilei said:
Three main reasons:

1) much tougher competition
2) Rand was vetted early
3) Libertarians spend most of their time bitching about what Rand said
Click to expand...

Of course it can't be that conservatives are always bitching about wanting to bomb somebody and Rand won't give them what they want.

Of course not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top