How is Rand polling this low?

[eleganz]

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.

Sorry and it saddens me to even have to admit this myself, but we never had a solid 10% support, people keep propagating that and we did a good job because the mainstream media and mainstream GOP even say that but libertarian Ron Paul supporters do not make up 10% of the GOP. What you see as Rand's support line right now, the 2 and 6% that he has been consistently getting well within most pollsters' margin of error, is the libertarian support line. He needs a magic moment, or his timing needs to be impeccable and lined up with a lot of luck to peak right after everyones had their turn (like Ron).

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.

Its always been a hard juggling job for Rand, everything he is doing is perfect for the general election but even Ron's timing needed a lot of luck to push him up in Iowa like that.

The magic of the Paul organization has always been boots on the ground mobilization, that was our speciality and things aren't changing.

End of the day, everyone must stop frowning, we have a unique ability to affect this race for the rLOVEution, the phone bank is smarter, better and more organized for maximum affect this time around. They've had 4 years to fine tune their strategies, technologies, and the biggest weapon this time is the students for Rand. Don't underestimate it, its been years in the making.

Thanks to Ron for making the ultimate sacrifice of running when he didn't want to, now it is time to make the next step forward, which is to help Rand win or at least give him the type of platform he needs to spread the message even more. Rands message may be different but its still badass.

 

[JoelYrick]

I don't understand why Rand hasn't gone big on the ground in Iowa. I was of the opinion that had Ron done the 99 county thing in Iowa, he would have won it. Santorum benefited instead. (Yes, there can be some crossover, believe it or not, especially since war just isn't a big deal for a lot of people.) I understood that Ron might have been a little old to pull off that type of crazy schedule, but Rand should be able to do it. When you're in the room to caucus, that personal impression talking one-on-one with a candidate can make all the difference between being a little more sure and vocal about your vote and being swayed by the current Fox candidate.

The Iowa dividend is a big payoff, and I think it is easier to achieve than a NH primary win. SC will be extremely difficult. None of the other front runners are playing a strong ground game in Iowa, and Rand should go all in there.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

There's definitely many factors but my gut feel is it's a lot of the following:

• A very large segment of voters supported Ron Paul because he always spoke his mind and never backed down. The candidate that does that this cycle is Trump.
• Rand speaks like an extremely calculated politician. I think a lot of people pick up on this
• 35% of Republicans are anti-war, and Rand did not attempt to position himself as an anti-war candidate until the most recent debate, which was likely too late for many.
• Rand Paul does not speak well or have leadership stature. Trump called him "shrill" and honestly I think a lot of people outside this forum would agree with that.
• Internet/youth activists have gone to Bernie Sanders. There was no comparable candidate in previous cycles except Mike Gravel who just never caught on like Bernie did.

(Embracing for incoming neg reps, let me preemptively say that I'm not a Troll, nor a Trump supporter)

In other words...

Quite simply: the public does not want liberty. They are too fucking stupid to deserve the blessings of freedom.

 

[CPUd]

I don't understand why Rand hasn't gone big on the ground in Iowa. I was of the opinion that had Ron done the 99 county thing in Iowa, he would have won it. Santorum benefited instead. (Yes, there can be some crossover, believe it or not, especially since war just isn't a big deal for a lot of people.) I understood that Ron might have been a little old to pull off that type of crazy schedule, but Rand should be able to do it. When you're in the room to caucus, that personal impression talking one-on-one with a candidate can make all the difference between being a little more sure and vocal about your vote and being swayed by the current Fox candidate.

The Iowa dividend is a big payoff, and I think it is easier to achieve than a NH primary win. SC will be extremely difficult. None of the other front runners are playing a strong ground game in Iowa, and Rand should go all in there.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...anager-Chip-Englander-on-Rand-s-Iowa-strategy
https://twitter.com/randstudents

 

[devil21]

Because they only poll old people that live in front of Fox News. On purpose. Some people still don't understand the depth of the corruption, scripting and rigging that goes on in major elections? smh

The Israel-centric establishment (aka the entire media and much of the political structure) is scared of Rand and will lie and cheat to prevent him from appearing as a viable option. After being seen as the only reasonable adult on stage by 25 and 23 million people per debate so far, there's no way his "real" polling is that low. Polls are crap. Fuck you Frank!

 

[LatinsforPaul]

I don't understand why Rand hasn't gone big on the ground in Iowa. I was of the opinion that had Ron done the 99 county thing in Iowa, he would have won it. Santorum benefited instead. (Yes, there can be some crossover, believe it or not, especially since war just isn't a big deal for a lot of people.) I understood that Ron might have been a little old to pull off that type of crazy schedule, but Rand should be able to do it. When you're in the room to caucus, that personal impression talking one-on-one with a candidate can make all the difference between being a little more sure and vocal about your vote and being swayed by the current Fox candidate.

The Iowa dividend is a big payoff, and I think it is easier to achieve than a NH primary win. SC will be extremely difficult. None of the other front runners are playing a strong ground game in Iowa, and Rand should go all in there.

Come end of January you will be very pleased with Rand and his Iowa ground campaign. This includes his PACs too.

 

[mac_hine]

There's your answer, when you cut right to the chase.

Liberty cannot be attained at the ballot box.

 

[mac_hine]

I really wonder.... if Ron was a few years younger and ran again this cycle... could it have all been his?

The Ron Paul of the 1980's was an absolute monster. He would be dominating these debates.

 

[Patrick Henry]

Buckley is hard to listen to. His fake accent and smug face is so annoying.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

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."

Spoken on a day when the anti-establishment side won (by forcing out Boehner as speaker). The Eric Cantor defeat last year, and the emergence of multiple anti-establishment candidates in leading positions this election cycle, signifies we may be in new territory that Rand did not anticipate. The people are tired of being defeated, and at this point will embrace anybody who apparently will defy the elite. The race is turning on who inherits the anti-establishment meme, not on who best emulates Bush.

 

[Jackie Moon]

This is encouraging, but what's your source? I don't remember Ron being that low in 2011.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...owa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html

The debates began earlier in 2011, the first was in May and the second was in June. This time they started later in August, but the Iowa caucus is pushed back also.

So it's fair to compare to where they are relative to the debates instead of the direct date.

One month after the second debate, poll done in Iowa:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2011/Iowa_MasonDixon_0714b.htm

It's true Ron didn't win Iowa, but he finished with 21.5%, just 3% short of winning. Bachmann finished with 5% and dropped out.

It's not true to say that Rand is polling worse than Ron was at this point. And, as history shows, having 30% at this point doesn't mean you won't finish with 5% - and having 4% doesn't mean you won't finish with 24% and win.

I love Ron. I wouldn't be here if it weren't for him. But if this thread is just going to be another "why isn't Rand more like Ron" thread I'm gonna back out.

 

[movingstone]

For the people that view the collective polls as bought and paid for. Rand has his own pollster so are many of the candidates. Ted Cruz's pollster had leak out before too.

 

[movingstone]

So it's fair to compare to where they are relative to the debates instead of the direct date.

Except, people generally don't pay attention all that much in June of any years. And also consider how many people are watching the debates right now.

During the last cycle, I was extremely surprise that Santorum won Iowa. All polls prior to voting day had picked Ron as the winner. It took 3 days from the last poll for Gingrich's voters to come to Santorum. If Ron had won Iowa, it would have been quite a game changer.

 

[Liberty74]

I don't understand why Rand hasn't gone big on the ground in Iowa. I was of the opinion that had Ron done the 99 county thing in Iowa, he would have won it. Santorum benefited instead. (Yes, there can be some crossover, believe it or not, especially since war just isn't a big deal for a lot of people.) I understood that Ron might have been a little old to pull off that type of crazy schedule, but Rand should be able to do it. When you're in the room to caucus, that personal impression talking one-on-one with a candidate can make all the difference between being a little more sure and vocal about your vote and being swayed by the current Fox candidate.

The Iowa dividend is a big payoff, and I think it is easier to achieve than a NH primary win. SC will be extremely difficult. None of the other front runners are playing a strong ground game in Iowa, and Rand should go all in there.

A ground game is important but let's not kid ourselves about Santorum. Santorum was always under 10% in accurate polling. Ron rose and CNN put out a "republican only" poll which is not an accurate poll because 30% of Iowa caucus voters were Indy. So this showed Santorum higher than all the other real polls. The media went crazy and called that a surge. It was fucking manufactured. The rest is history. Santorum was going no where without the help of CNN. It had nothing to dow with him practically living in Iowa the entire 2011 and look where he is at today. A complete dud.

How does an electorate think you are half god one year and four years later won't give you the time of the day? Same for Huck.

 

[jj-]

How does an electorate think you are half god one year and four years later won't give you the time of the day? Same for Huck.

Circumstances, and the options available can change in 4 years.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I've got an idea. What if polls are all just made up numbers? And become self fulfilling prophecies?

 

[CPUd]

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."

Rand's campaign strategy has always been focused on the state and local conventions, with the added expectation that they be competitive in the popular vote. This is why he has been doing small localized events. The grassroots will be there at the conventions, what the campaign has been doing so far is making sure when that happens, the Rand people do not get the lights turned out on them, or get forced to hold rump conventions in the parking lots.

 

[69360]

..

 

[Cutlerzzz]

1: Rand is too center for many purists. Ron was radical enough for many hardcore libertarians, but not Rand. His is further exacerbated by many young libertarians from 08/12 becoming anarchists and minarchists.

2: Ted Cruz is eating up a small portion of the Tea Party vote.

3: Bernie Sanders entrance into the race. Ron got a handful of left wingers to back him when Obama went full war hawk and kept the drug war going, but Sanders can take that demographic now by promising to end the wars while also having left win policies. He is also taking parts of the youth vote who were just looking for an anti establishment candidate back in 08/12, and now have someone else.

4: Trump is taking a large part of the protest vote.

This is where the Ron Paul vote has gone.

 

[RandallFan]

He insults the intelligence of predominantly white Republicans relative to the black lives matter idiots.

Trump on the other hand actually handles the issue pretty well saying he'd fight the individual gate crashing BLM & calls the Hispanic protesters "central casting" without even bringing up the ethnic pandering issue.

Romney got heckled by the NAACP which was good. Only 10% of blacks would ever vote GOP and i doubt NAACP has 90% approval of blacks.

He courted Al Sharpton who no moderate/conservative blacks would support/care about.

He courted the dinosaur media like Chris Matthews, Sharpton and sleepy eyes Chuck Todd while nobody bloggers circle jerked.

He compared a large section of immigration hawks to wanting concentration camps. Stupid reference and he probably alienated a lot of people who are concerned about the Israel lobby. There's probably pro-immigration, anti-nwo voters who did not like the way he did that.

He ignored people more knowledgeable than him on specific issues like immigration. Rand needed to school himself on immigration. Sessions, Vitter and DeMint fought the exact same talking points for 7 years before Rand decided he was supportive of beltway immigration reform. He ignored Florida Hispanic Republicans are not as pro-amnesty as other states.