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

[Peace&Freedom]

I guess we'll agree to disagree, but I will re-state that we've already tried the sweet reason approach. Twice. As with the foreign policy debate, it's hard for "the smart people" to talk rationally about non-intervention and blowback to a crowd who won't hear it, because they're sound asleep. A rational argument does not destroy a framework, and it's the "electability" meme framework that keeps the rank and file asleep, until it's too late. Yes, they can get slapped awake from this sleeping spell after the election loss, but then Fox and friends will have a fresh four years to lull them back to sleep---which is exactly what happened between 2008 and 2012.

"Where there is no pain, there will be no political change," says Gary North. I'm just saying the best time to wake them up is to do the slapping at primary time, not after losing the election. I think Rand could start the primaries without the "hostage scenario" to see what happens in January and February 2016. If/when it's clear the establishment is rigging Rand out of winning, Ron should announce he is running for the LP nod. Then (when it matters) the rank and file can wake up and choose to vote for Rand. If they don't, we would still be able to vote for a Paul in November. But if the pain is not introduced to the voters during the primaries, there will probably be no change in their framework, or their votes.

 

[acptulsa]

I guess we'll agree to disagree, but I will re-state that we've already tried the sweet reason approach. Twice.

Yes, we have. But we haven't yet been able to take full advantage of the fact that Fox has now completely discredited themselves as a racetrack tout, because they hadn't picked so many losers yet. And we haven't been able to point out that Rand Paul, despite fighting Obamacare tooth and nail, is the only member of Congress populist enough to sign up for it (even though he's exempt) because none of that had happened yet. And if we combine those two things, I think we've put together one hell of a sales pitch. A better sales pitch than we had in 2008 or 2012.

Let's run it up the flagpole and see who salutes.

I'm just saying the best time to wake them up is to do the slapping at primary time, not after losing the election. I think Rand could start the primaries without the "hostage scenario" to see what happens in January and February 2016. If/when it's clear the establishment is rigging Rand out of winning, Ron should announce he is running for the LP nod. Then (when it matters) the rank and file can wake up and choose to vote for Rand. If they don't, we would still be able to vote for a Paul in November.

It's a thought. But I disagree about waiting until primary time to wake people up. You don't wait until the epidemic to vaccinate, and I don't want to wait until primary time to vaccinate Republicans against Fox's Sure-Fire Loser Pickin' Service. We did that twice, too, and I just didn't see it working for us.

The other thing about this approach is that it emphasizes that what we're offering is a candidate with integrity. It just might remind Republicans that they kind of like integrity a little bit too...

 

[Liberty74]

Rand Paul is not an establishment Republican. They didn't support him his KY Senate bid back in 2010. And I am willing to betcha that the establishment will use their tools (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Levin, O'Reilly) to make sure Rand is denied just like they did with Ron. I still remember Ron trailing in the polls, in single digits leading up to the Iowa caucuses and Rush always excluding his name from the list of candidates claiming Ron doesn't have a chance. Then out of nowhere within four weeks of the caucus, Ron shot up to about 26%, taking the lead in Iowa in early December. I can still see the Drudge headline with a pic of Ron freely riding his bike with no helmet. All HELL BROKE lose on Fox News, and every radio talk show above. The gloves came off and everyone declared nuclear war on Ron. Ron finished 3rd in Iowa and it was downhill from there. The damage by the establishment was done. Ron's favorables in the 50 percentile flipped to 60 percentile unfavorable by SC. After NH, it was basically over.

I fear the same will happen to Rand.

 

[Liberty74]

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)

To be frank, Ron is very wrong about a third party winning. I have already established the basic numbers and the fact that 70% of Americans would like a viable third party candidate. This person would have to run as an Independent. Back in 1992, the first year I voted, Ross Perot was neck and neck with Bush and Clinton until Perot dropped out, lose momentum to only jump back in gathering 19% of the final vote.

Changing ones opinion on political issues (philosophically speaking) is totally different than changing a political strategy to run or while running for office. Changing times and events can have an impact on whether one runs for office. Not that I am advocating Ron run here.

 

[acptulsa]

Rand Paul is not an establishment Republican. They didn't support him his KY Senate bid back in 2010. And I am willing to betcha that the establishment will use their tools (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Levin, O'Reilly) to make sure Rand is denied just like they did with Ron. I still remember Ron trailing in the polls, in single digits leading up to the Iowa caucuses and Rush always excluding his name from the list of candidates claiming Ron doesn't have a chance. Then out of nowhere within four weeks of the caucus, Ron shot up to about 26%, taking the lead in Iowa in early December...

All the more reason--together with the facts that he has been kissing mainstream Republican voter ass and he did this trick with Obamacare--that we can pull this off if we start working now to convince Republican voters we know swing voters better than the talking head brigade. And I don't know why we wouldn't.

They said Santorum was electable. They said McCain and Romney were electable. They have no credibility at all. None.

 

[philipped]

As a youth, I'm doing all I can to enlighten people on libertarianism, show the beauty of Ron Paul, and the potential with Rand. I also go about explaining my decision in voting for GJ last year, then showing them that in my opinion Rand IS electable and Christie is just gonna become another Romney. Hillary is not an option. People my age want non-interventionist foreign policy, sound money, constitutional based governing, economic and personal liberty. I guess people on this forum have been doing it longer so they're more familiar with mainline Republicans but I do hope the best of luck with you, maybe mentioning the youth and future generations and how conservatism still is within us can swing some people to.

And everybody I'm trying to sway is going to be @ a primary booth in 2016 so everybody here and off this site needs to be prepared for the resurgence of the youth vote.

 

[acptulsa]

And everybody I'm trying to sway is going to be @ a primary booth in 2016 so everybody here and off this site needs to be prepared for the resurgence of the youth vote.

Good plan! Younger people are a lot less likely to take Fox's opinion of what swing voters want in a candidate and go find out for themselves. So, they'll be the first to figure out Rand Paul is the GOP's only hope.

 

[fr33]

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.

The media and the GOP establishment would use it against Rand.

The GOPE has a track record of dismissing Ron Paul supporters even if it means they lose the general election.

Even without your plan put into place the media will try to marginalize Rand by using his father against him. Anything Ron says, they'll act upon as if Rand said it. We're already seeing some of that. They'll also play the "unelectable" card when describing Rand along with pointing out how he differs from the other candidates in his own party; just like they did with Ron. Having Ron running in another party will only embolden the media to use such tactics even more since they would be able to draw out Rand to to compete against his father.

 

[acptulsa]

The GOPE has a track record of dismissing Ron Paul supporters even if it means they lose the general election.

And the rank and file don't want to lose three in a row. I think they want to win badly enough to listen to us when we tell them what swing voters want.

I admit we can't manipulate primary voters as well as the media can--on the 'left'. But Fox has been obviously disingenuous often enough, and obviously wrong often enough, that we can convince the 'right' that a 'moderate' fake liberal can never win against the real thing (we've tried that--didn't work), but the time is ripe for a real conservative now that government has proven it can't do anything right. It isn't just exactly what they want to hear; it also happens to be right and true.

But in order to work, that candidate has to have principle and integrity. Whether they or Fox thinks anyone on the 'left' cares about that stuff or not...

You know, it's really, really weird that Republicans, who aren't supposed to enable corruption by encouraging big government, don't much seem to care about corruption (unless, as Will Rogers says, they can get some of it). Democrats do despise corruption, but do their damnedest to enable a whole lot of it to happen anyway. Weird. But challenging as it may be, I think we can maybe convince Republicans to vote for an honest man for the good of the party. They may not be able to identify with an honest man, and they may not much like honest men, but they'll nominate him if that's the only way they can win the White House.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

The media and the GOP establishment would use it against Rand.

The GOPE has a track record of dismissing Ron Paul supporters even if it means they lose the general election.

Even without your plan put into place the media will try to marginalize Rand by using his father against him. Anything Ron says, they'll act upon as if Rand said it. We're already seeing some of that. They'll also play the "unelectable" card when describing Rand along with pointing out how he differs from the other candidates in his own party; just like they did with Ron. Having Ron running in another party will only embolden the media to use such tactics even more since they would be able to draw out Rand to to compete against his father.

Actually, that could be good thing if the media covered Rand vs Ron in that scenario, as it would keep the coverage focused on Rand, and give him more chances to discuss how his views vary from Ron's. The suggested plan is to first see if Rand can be fairly permitted to win the primary race, and when/if it's clear that's not going to be the case (say by late winter 2016---remember, the primaries are going back to being frontloaded delegate-wise, to try to lock the establishment moderate in sooner), Ron should announce an LP run.

This way, we see how the media treat Rand without Ron in the picture at all, and then with him in as a competitor. If Rand has clearly already been rigged out of winning by mid-February, he has really nothing to lose from his father running third party by that point, and all the political leverage from it to gain. Then it will be up to the rank and file to face the clear choice of winning with Rand, or losing in November, and hope that they choose to win.

 

[acptulsa]

Then it will be up to the rank and file to face the clear choice of winning with Rand, or losing in November, and hope that they choose to win.

But my hope is that we'll get busy and convince Republicans that when voters have to choose between a Democrat who admits to being a Democrat and a Democrat who claims to be a Republican, the voters will vote for the Democrat who calls himself or herself a Democrat every time. And that other voters--especially now--have learned to appreciate integrity more than they have.

Or, to put it another way, that they have a clear choice between winning with Rand or losing--again--even without Ron Paul helping us be the bad guys by destroying GOP unity and splitting the vote.

And the way to do that is to make them understand that are better friends to them, and will do them more good, than Fox News.

Fox said McCain was electable. Was Fox lying or just stupid? Fox said Romney was electable. Was Fox lying or just stupid? Fox said Santorum was electable! Was that a joke?!

What Fox did not tell anyone was Ron Paul could have beaten Obama in the general election. And we had some pretty good proof:

See? I told you that you can't fix stupid.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ction-matchup/2012/02/18/gIQABoeUMR_blog.html

http://www.fitsnews.com/2011/09/27/ron-paul-leads-obama-in-new-poll/

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/318764

http://politicalnews.me/?id=12069

http://www.ibtimes.com/ron-paul-2012-rasmussen-poll-says-he-would-beat-obama-418358

http://politicalnews.me/?id=11876

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...Paul-poll-shocker-He-beats-Obama-head-to-head

What part of the independents outnumber you and us combined do you not understand? Would it help you do the math if you took your cotton pickin' shoes off?

Just damn! Somebody give me a 2x4. I gotta learn a mule somethin'.

Yes, the conclusion is clear. Listen to us and win. Or listen to Fox again and lose again. And it doesn't require a Ron Paul independent run for that to be true.

Fox has been trying to poison their wells against us for years and years. Well, Fox led them astray and gave us ammo to use against it. Why wouldn't we poisoning their wells against Fox? In fact, why aren't we?

Listen to Fox and lose. Again. Or listen to us. Rand Paul has the integrity, the record, and the wisdom to win the swing voters who will decide the next election. And if we have any sense at all, we'll give them what they want--because if we have any sense, and we're really conservatives, it's what we want too!

The Obamacare debacle is giving us a unique opportunity. Will we blow it by nominating someone so stupid voters have no faith he can figure out how to fix things? Will we blow it by nominating someone no one can tell from a crooked Democrat? Or will we nominate Rand Paul, laugh as the liberal media smears him as heartless and lies about him, and enjoy watching him get more and more popular the more the discredited liberals say we should all hate him, and smile as he wins the White House for the GOP?

A RINO couldn't win before Obamacare. Fox said they could but they couldn't. A RINO sure as hell can't win after Obamacare. Swing voters are crying for a genuine conservative with the kind of integrity they can trust. We have one, and his name is Rand Paul. Nominate him and win. Fail to nominate him and lose. No matter what Fox says. Period.

And the time to vaccinate is now, before Fox starts trying to create an epidemic of stupidity. Because we already know we can't fix stupid. But we don't yet know that we can't vaccinate against stupid.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

As important as FOX is as an influence, we should keep in mind it's a cable network with a few million viewers per day. It's not broadcast TV news, with dozens of millions of viewers a day. The bulk of the institutional shafting of Paul in '08 and '12 came from the ENTIRE MSM, and the ENTIRE national Republican machine. It is that entire establishment that pushed the "electability" meme in cross-reinforcing unison.

The cheating of Paul out of caucus victories was done by the GOP machine, the media just played getaway driver. The incredible snubs of Paul and Paul delegates at the state conventions and the national convention was done by the machine, not FOX. And the milquetoast frontrunners pushed on the voters and straw poll participants early and hard, were pushed by the entire elite, from the Republican leadership to all the networks.

Despite huge GOP gains made in Congress the 2010 midterm elections, largely based on Obamacare, the establishment still managed to maneuver into place the worst guy possible to oppose Obamacare and Obama in 2012---Romney, the author of Romneycare! So forgive me if I persist in believing in the power of the establishment to lull GOP voters back to sleep, making getting them to listen to another message (while they slumber) impossible. Ultimately, to wake people up, you have to stop talking to them while they sleep, and you have to jostle them up.

 

[acptulsa]

If Fox is strictly a cable/dish entity, how do I watch them courtesy of my rabbit ears every Sunday morning?

If the GOP machine is unstoppable, why do they need the media for a getaway driver?

If we can help the rank and file Republicans make up their minds right now, before they get stirred up, why would we worry about the media attempting to confuse them with 'facts' later? You and I know that attempting to confuse most Republicans with 'facts' after they've made up their minds just makes them mad. So, why wouldn't we start now and avoid the Christmas rush?

 

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

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

Sweet Jesus, I hope you're wrong, sir. Those dipshits might nominate Paul Ryan with McCain as Veep, or the other way around, and then I don't even

<Head Explodes>

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Having now read the thread, I'm happy to see that we are beginning to coalesce around Rand here at RPFs. As the resident most-jaded-sumbitch-here, however, I'm not seeing a cheery future for the country Wednesday, November 9, 2016.

Already in the comments section of news articles in which Rand has done something good, or taken a good stand, there's mention of some kind of Blue Cross/Blue Shield thing, and surely other bullshit I've not seen. The disinformation campaign is already in motion - sure, this shows the more conspiratorial mind, such as mine, that the establishment is choosing to fight a preemptive war against a Rand nomination for reasons that are obvious to everyone here.

I'm saying we need to get in front of it. Does there exist already here in the forums a short guide, authored to make it easy to refute the nonsense we see in article comments? People read that shit and remember it, take it as gospel...

Sad. So sad...the liberty movement first must fight the GOP establishment in the form of Grannies and Grandpas who haven't picked up a newspaper since Reagan was re-elected, next, must face down the GOP nominating process, in which the rules have been changed to de-fang the grassroots, then, must fight the media as well as those who will be paying attention to them during the primary season and are just so fucking informed about the candidates because they've been watching FOX, and only then after running that gauntlet, can the fight against Hillary begin.

It's gonna be a tough row to hoe. I wonder if we can get it done...I don't have faith in the average American anymore.

 

[acptulsa]

Sad. So sad...the liberty movement first must fight the GOP establishment in the form of Grannies and Grandpas who haven't picked up a newspaper since Reagan was re-elected, next, must face down the GOP nominating process, in which the rules have been changed to de-fang the grassroots, then, must fight the media as well as those who will be paying attention to them during the primary season and are just so fucking informed about the candidates because they've been watching FOX, and only then after running that gauntlet, can the fight against Hillary begin.

I can't imagine how your faith is so low, considering getting the party that loves to win to nominate the candidate that can win will be like pulling teeth. Especially if they're convinced that the Obamacare debacle means they can't lose, so they might as well nominate the dipstick born loser who they most want to have a beer with...

 

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

You're right, that post was a bit fatalistic, I suppose. I know that when the time comes, I will be active and vocal, and do what I view as "my part." I just can't get Tampa out of my mind. To know the enemy is one thing, to see its face, naked and raw, as Boener read from that teleprompter, is something I will carry with me for all my days. It colors my view of American politics, and chills me to the bone.

My fear is that the will of the people will be overcome once again by the will of the perpetrators of the silent, bloodless coup that has wrested the control of this nation from the hands of those rightfully entitled to hold it. By that, I mean you and me.

Granted, the winds of shit are a-blowin', aren't they? Love your sig, btw. Golden.

 

[Liberty74]

Ron should announce an LP run.

Why is it people in here don't have a clue? The only chance a third party has of winning the presidency is as an INDEPENDENT. Why? Because that is who MOST PEOPLE identify themselves as. Get it? Regardless of ones belief, identity politics play a huge role in how one votes. As a Libertarian myself, the Libertarian Party just doesn't have a prayer at the national level. Ron Paul was pulling 19% as an Independent in a 3 way with Romney and Obama. Run in as a libertarian candidate, not only would he get less than 2%, he would have no shot at getting in the debates with low poll numbers. It doesn't have to be Ron, it could be the Judge Nap himself.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Why is it people in here don't have a clue? The only chance a third party has of winning the presidency is as an INDEPENDENT. Why? Because that is who MOST PEOPLE identify themselves as. Get it? Regardless of ones belief, identity politics play a huge role in how one votes. As a Libertarian myself, the Libertarian Party just doesn't have a prayer at the national level. Ron Paul was pulling 19% as an Independent in a 3 way with Romney and Obama. Run in as a libertarian candidate, not only would he get less than 2%, he would have no shot at getting in the debates with low poll numbers. It doesn't have to be Ron, it could be the Judge Nap himself.

We've never seen what the LP numbers would be for a truly nationally popular, grassroots backed, and seriously funded candidate who stayed in the race through Election day. Some estimates are that Ron Paul could, through a combination of money bombs and traditional fundraising, raise at least $100 million for his campaign based on his current resources, and that's a war chest we've simply not seen for past alternative candidates.

The above polls don't show what the real number would have been for a real candidacy as an independent, and were probably not done during the latter 2012, when people really would be making up their minds. A Paul candidacy would show what the true potential vote totals would be for a candidate meeting those criteria, instead of the containment field third parties are structurally bottled up in.

An LP run has the advantage of giving Paul a ready-made infrastructure and platform that could assure he was on the ballot in almost all the states, whereas the logistical labor/time intensive problems in achieving ballot status as an independent would dissipate much of the money needed for Paul's campaign. In addition, If Paul only achieved a consistent 5% vote across the states, the number of states where the LP had regular or 'permanent' ballot status would double, making it much easier to run liberty candidates in the following 4 years.

 

[nobody's_hero]

The same people who were in control in 2012 are still in their seats. We need to throw John Boehner out of office if it is the only way to get him removed from the speakership. Take one for the team, Ohio. Mitch McConnell isn't quite as bad but I don't think he has the fortitude to support a libertarian or constitutional conservative over a corporate funded stooge. So, for good measure, I'd say Mitch needs to go too.

Priebus needs to go. Etc. etc.

Get these people out of positions of power or they will be erecting the very same obstacles they did in 2012.

 

[acptulsa]

Get these people out of positions of power or they will be erecting the very same obstacles they did in 2012.

We need just as much to beat some Democrats. If we can leverage Obamacare and do that, then it will not only give us more good voters in Congress, it'll give us more gravitas in the GOP.