IF Republicans Have Enough Sense to Nominate Rand, THEN the GOP is Guaranteed the White House

[acptulsa]

If Republicans have enough sense to nominate Rand Paul in 2016, then and only then is the Republican Party a guaranteed lock to win the the presidency.

Rand Paul has the wisdom to have strenuously opposed Obamacare from the start, the foresight to have voted against it, the integrity to spurn his immunity from that law and to refuse to put himself above us by signing himself and his family up for it anyway, and the street cred that could only come from being the first (and so far, the only) congress critter to do so.

Please note that I did not say the only Republican member of Congress. I said the only member of Congress.

This combination will play in Peoria--and in every other swing district--in the 2016 general election. And in 2016 there will be one unholy hell of a lot of swing districts. More than ever before.

If Republicans can avoid being stupid enough to let that Democrat Rupert Murdoch and his tool Fox News talk them out of nominating Rand Paul for the presidency, then the G.O.P. is guaranteed to win the White House.

This isn't a matter of you heard it here first. This is a matter of every rank and file Republican needs to hear this today, like in right now, before the Murdoch Spin Machine begins to counter this simple fact with their disingenuous propaganda.

Like in, right now!

There is no other Republican you can say that about. There will be no other Republican you can say that about. Even if another potential Republican candidate follows Rand's lead, he or she is still a follower, not the leader. Me too won't cut it.

That is all.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Rand Paul 2016, Republicans Join or Die.

 

[anaconda]

A lot of money, press, and influence will be used to keep a central bank/warfare puppet in the White House. Which party wins is far less important to the ruling class. Rand will be the underdog and will have powerful forces working against him.

 

[Matt Collins]

If Republicans have enough sense to nominate Rand Paul in 2016, then and only then is the Republican Party a guaranteed lock to win the the presidency.

I think external factors will play less of a role for Rand than they did Ron.

This means we have to pony up, get him the money he needs, and be willing to work our asses off to get the job done. Between now and then, for people who want to see Rand elected, they need to take every campaign training course they can on how to win elections.

The future is in our hands.

 

[Working Poor]

Rand will be the underdog and will have powerful forces working against him.

The republican party is his biggest opposition.

 

[fr33]

The GOP desperately needs a populist candidate and Rand is the best option. I fear that their voters are too far gone to understand the reality of the situation and will be manipulated by the media yet again. I sure hope not though.

 

[acptulsa]

The republican party is his biggest opposition.

Yes. Well, yes and no. I don't think rank and file Republicans dislike him. nor do I think the Official GOP will dare to anger us by dissing him.

I think his biggest threat is Rupert Murdoch. Fox has proven over and over it's all tptb need to torpedo non-controlled candidates. That's what we have to prevent.

We can do this. The first step I outlined in the OP--tell all the rank-and-file Republicans now that Rand can and will win the White House now that everyone hates Obamacare.

The second step is to torpedo Fox when it tries to torpedo Rand. For those Republicans who won't listen to conspiracy theories, you simply say, 'Fox said McCain was electable and that Romney was electable. If we keep letting this bookie pick our horses, there won't be any Republican Party left by 2020.' And leave it at that.

For those Republicans who will listen to conspiracy theories, you say the same thing. Then you follow it up with this little tidbit from 2012:

That ought to do it. Provided we start now (their memories are often short) and are diligent.

 

[Working Poor]

Yes. Well, yes and no. I don't think rank and file Republicans dislike him. nor do I think the Official GOP will dare to anger us by dissing him.

All I see is the republican party pushing for Jeb Bush and Christie and the media is already behind them. I hate that thing about the plagiarism because that is all I see being talked about when ever Rand makes a statement in the media especially in comment sections.

I hate to think we are defeated but I have to face reality because I have been constantly disappointed with the past 4 elections. I cannot take it anymore. I believe in liberty and I will do whatever I can to promote liberty in the elections.

 

[acptulsa]

All I see is the republican party pushing for Jeb Bush and Christie and the media is already behind them. I hate that thing about the plagiarism because that is all I see being talked about when ever Rand makes a statement in the media especially in comment sections.

You're talking less about the Republican National Committee and more about Fox. And, of course, the powers that be's paid Troll Squad.

I hate to think we are defeated but I have to face reality because I have been constantly disappointed with the past 4 elections. I cannot take it anymore. I believe in liberty and I will do whatever I can to promote liberty in the elections.

Well, Ron Paul may have been able to win the general election in 2008. And several polls showed he definitely would have beten Obama in 2012 if only the Republicans had had enough sense to nominate him.

I think it's safe to say that if we can convince rank and file Republican primary voters that we're right about whether Rand Paul can win and Fox is wrong (or lying, or both) then he has it in the bag. And since Fox has been dead wrong about who is electable in the last two elections, I think we have a chance.

But we have to work at it. And Rand is helping us with brilliant moves like signing up for Obamacare. We just have to point out how well it will go over with the billions of swing voters, because few Republicans (be they libertarian or not) are very impressed.

 

[RickyJ]

The GOP is guaranteed the White House in 2016 no matter who they nominate.

 

[acptulsa]

The GOP is guaranteed the White House in 2016 no matter who they nominate.

Nonsense.

For example, they could nominate Rick Santorum. Or Chris Christie. In the latter case, no Republicans would vote for him. In the former case, nobody would vote for him at all.

Either way, Fox would pronounce him electable.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Nothing is certain at this point. The media is pushing Hillary and Christie. We'll see how that pans out.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

The GOP is guaranteed the White House in 2016 no matter who they nominate.

Not if they put up another milquetoast moderate who alienates their own base, and angers the liberty faction enough that they stay home. Fewer Republicans voted for Romney in 2012 than voted for McCain in 2008, the trendline is rank-and-file GOPers being more apathetic than energized. The two-party paradigm siren call is increasingly not working. Too many are also becoming aware of how the pro-war dogma has cost the party the White House twice, and too many remember the GOP leadership caving on the budget and Obamacare.

Rand Paul is indeed the best answer to the apathy, as he is consistent and principled, and can energize both the mainline conservatives and the pro-liberty plus tea party factions. As a Senator from Kentucky, which borders Ohio and Virginia, he is the best chance the party has to recover those states. His approach to social issues may be attractive enough to bring back some cultural conservative Democratic votes and younger voters, while still satisfying the GOP social right, as Reagan accomplished in the '80's.

The elite interests behind the GOP (and Democratic party) do not want any more Reagan landslides based on the above coalition. They want pro-war, pro-Fed, pro-NSA compliant hacks to prevail, and plan to rig the game against Rand as they did to Ron the last two times. They will paint Jeb Bush and Chris Christie as the only true top-tier, "electable" candidates, and the MSM will monopolize the primary race coverage with those two, in order to freeze out Rand. Most likely, primary voters will follow the pied piper as before, and choose either hack 1 or hack 2.

The only real way to beat this syndrome, as I have suggested before, is to have Ron Paul run on the LP line in order to destroy the hypnotizing narrative that the hacks are "electable." When the de-hypnotized rank and file realize the choice is "pick Paul in the primary, or lose again in November when the other Paul splits the conservative vote," they will likely vote Rand in as the Republican nominee (whereupon Ron withdraws his third party bid). This is the most credible scenario for Rand getting past the elite opposition and winning in 2016.

 

[acptulsa]

The only real way to beat this syndrome, as I have suggested before, is to have Ron Paul run on the LP line in order to destroy the hypnotizing narrative that the hacks are "electable." When the de-hypnotized rank and file realize the choice is "pick Paul in the primary, or lose again in November when the other Paul splits the conservative vote," they will likely vote Rand in as the Republican nominee (whereupon Ron withdraws his third party bid). This is the most credible scenario for Rand getting past the elite opposition and winning in 2016.

I was with you every step of the way, right from the top, point by point, word for word, until you got to this paragraph.

Republicans won't vote for a non-team player, no matter how much better a plan he has than what the team has.

So, Rand just can't do this and win. And he won't. He saw how the media lambasted his father for running as the candidate for aome party other than the GOP thirty years before and actually get traction with it.

But that's not to say that you can't mention, as you talk about how important it is to nominate Rand Paul, that if they don't nominate him, both libertarian conservatives and disaffected Democrats will vote Libertarian Party rather than vote for some 'moderate' tool like Christie, or for another damned Bush. And, yes, that would be a handy way to lose the White House to the Democrats for a third time in a row. In spite of how completely the Democrats have been screwing up.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

If RON Paul runs third party in 2016 and becomes a "non team player" in the eyes of some, it does not impact RAND Paul's status AS a team player. Two different guys---it wouldn't be RAND doing it, but it would give Rand leverage to get past the "hack frontrunner is electable, but Paul isn't" spell placed on primary voters. That's the beauty of this technique. It exacts political pain if Rand is not chosen, thus wakes voters up to the stakes early during primary season, unlike the last two races, where Republican voters didn't face the pain of their mistaken choice until being defeated on Election day.

It's important to keep in mind we've already tried doing things twice the other way, to no avail. Primary voters didn't reward Ron staying loyal to the GOP by giving him primary wins. They voted for the frontrunner, who party leaders and pundits told them was the "serious" candidate, or "the one who could in November." Under this notion, every other contender becomes irrelevant, or viewed as a nuisance, liberty candidates included.

Going into the next cycle, as of right now, Rand has NO leverage to defeat being similarly boxed out by "the establishment guy is electable" narrative. NONE. Based on this consideration, the liberty candidate is positioned to lose again. Just saying "well, you guys lost the last two times running moderates" will not defeat that narrative. What is an effective alternative? Please describe another plan that would actually work in getting around this real problem. Otherwise, doing the same thing as before, is going to result in the same defeat as before.

 

[Tod]

I thought we concluded that the GOP doesn't really CARE whether they win or lose. So why would they take a chance with Rand? Besides, Rand's wife says no.

 

[Tod]

If RON Paul runs third party in 2016 and becomes a "non team player" in the eyes of some, it does not impact RAND Paul's status AS a team player. Two different guys---it wouldn't be RAND doing it, but it would give Rand leverage to get past the "hack frontrunner is electable, but Paul isn't" spell placed on primary voters. That's the beauty of this technique. It exacts political pain if Rand is not chosen, thus wakes voters up to the stakes early during primary season, unlike the last two races, where Republican voters didn't face the pain of their mistaken choice until being defeated on Election day.

It's important to keep in mind we've already tried doing things twice the other way, to no avail. Primary voters didn't reward Ron staying loyal to the GOP by giving him primary wins. They voted for the frontrunner, who party leaders and pundits told them was the "serious" candidate, or "the one who could in November." Under this notion, every other contender becomes irrelevant, or viewed as a nuisance, liberty candidates included.

Going into the next cycle, as of right now, Rand has NO leverage to defeat being similarly boxed out by "the establishment guy is electable" narrative. NONE. Based on this consideration, the liberty candidate is positioned to lose again. Just saying "well, you guys lost the last two times running moderates" will not defeat that narrative. What is an effective alternative? Please describe another plan that would actually work in getting around this real problem. Otherwise, doing the same thing as before, is going to result in the same defeat as before.

Why would he run 3rd party? He has already clearly said that a 3rd part stands NO CHANCE of winning? How many times have you heard the man waffle on a subject? (I've only heard of one time.....capital punishment)

 

[Working Poor]

You're talking less about the Republican National Committee and more about Fox. And, of course, the powers that be's paid Troll Squad.

They are the ones who will sway public opinion. Look at how the newsletters were brought up with Ron Paul at almost every turn do you not think the same will be done with Rand over the plagiarism when it comes to the primaries? Oh come on. I know Rand has better support than Ron did in the media but many are labeling him a racist especially on the liberal side. Being labeled a racist is death to a presidential candidate. Rand knows the black and minority vote is important but every out reach he does to them is put down just about every where but here. TPTB do not want the people to not want drone attacks or for their 4th amendment right to be restored they want to keep the poor voting democrat and to increase the dependency of the people on government.

Believe me I will stand for freedom I look to people here for support to clear the BS from my eyes and ears so I can keep talking and acting for freedom. So I can confront the people who say oh well if you are not doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about..

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Why would he run 3rd party? He has already clearly said that a 3rd part stands NO CHANCE of winning? How many times have you heard the man waffle on a subject? (I've only heard of one time.....capital punishment)

After 2008, Ron also said he had no plans of running in 2012 when asked about it---and his wife was reluctant too. There are other metrics justifying a third party run than direct victory. In this case, it's a positioning tool. Liberty voters need to give Rand a more level playing field to prevail in the primaries. That doesn't exist now, as the entire establishment will be brainwashing the voters with the "Bush/Christie is electable, so Rand and the others don't matter" meme. Primary voters feel no pain associated with falling for this meme again, and the GOP hacks also don't see a downside to cheating Rand Paul as before.

The prospects of a RON Paul running third party damages the "establishment frontrunner is electable" presumption because it gives the RAND Paul supporters a place to go once the leadership and media rigs Rand out of primary victory, thereby splitting the non Hillary vote. The Republican leadership may not care about losing in 2016, but the rank and file does, as they will sense the GOP can't win if Ron is also on the ballot---thus breaking the spell of them falling for the establishment "electability" meme. Apart from this strategy, Rand will have no leverage to break that spell of that brainwashing, and we'll be stuck with a choice of Jeb-Hillary come the election.

 

[acptulsa]

The prospects of a RON Paul running third party damages the "establishment frontrunner is electable" presumption because it gives the RAND Paul supporters a place to go once the leadership and media rigs Rand out of primary victory, thereby splitting the non Hillary vote. The Republican leadership may not care about losing in 2016, but the rank and file does, as they will sense the GOP can't win if Ron is also on the ballot---thus breaking the spell of them falling for the establishment "electability" meme. Apart from this strategy, Rand will have no leverage to break that spell of that brainwashing, and we'll be stuck with a choice of Jeb-Hillary come the election.

And the non-Hillary vote (or non-Democratic-Tool of Choice vote) will be very, very, very large after this Obamacare crap. And it will not go to another Bush, be it Jeb, Neil or Otherwise, and it will not go to any Republican perceived as just another Bush.

Yes, I see your strategy. No, I don't disagree completely. But I do perceive a problem. It positions us in an 'us vs. them' mentality against the rest of the GOP. You don't think that can be avoided. I'm not saying I can be sure you're wrong. But I think we have an opportunity if we start early--like right now--to avoid that and sidestep the trap Fox and the Powers that Be are planning to set for us.

If we say, 'Vote for our man or we'll vote Libertarian (or we'll vote whatever), then that will cause a knee jerk reaction among most Republicans very much like the knee jerk reaction you get when you say, 'We don't negotiate with terrorists.' It will make us the enemy, and put them in a mood to fight us. What Rand Paul is obviously trying to do, and what I'm trying to find a way to do, is to gain sway over them, to give them good ideas which (ideally) they can convince themselves are their own, and not to make them feel like they're being held hostage.

I'm not so sure they like to win the White House better than they like to feel like they're in charge. They do like to win the White House, yes, but (for instance) I think they like sex, beer, eight point bucks and vehicles with eight cylinders better than winning the White House, and I think they like fooling themselves into believing they're in charge better too. They stick with Fox even as Fox repeatedly leads them astray and causes them to fail to get the White House by making them feel like they're in charge. They aren't, of course. But Fox is good at making them feel that way.

The best way to win the White House is to help them win the White House. 'Hey, you're in charge, guys, not Fox. They're a crappy bookie. They keep recommending losing horses. Stop listening to them and back our horse, and together we will be in the winner's circle.' That's a sales pitch that can work.

They don't know what swing voters want. They've been slapped in the face with this fact often enough that they have to know it by now. Fox doesn't know what swing voters want--or, at least, Fox is pretending they don't know what swing voters want. Perry? Santorum? Really? Seriously?

We know what swing voters want better than Fox does. Listen to us, and join, or die. Listen to the smart people who are on your side or continue to be a bunch of losers. That simple.

I think this is a better idea than trying to hold them hostage and expecting them to like it. Is it not worth a try? Especially since we can start now, and hold onto that hostage strategy for later in case this doesn't work?