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

[Bastiat's The Law]

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.

Ron Paul running in 2016? More third party talk?

Okay, you're not a serious poster.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

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.

It hasn't happened in 150 years and won't ever happen again in your lifetime. Let's get real here.

 

[acptulsa]

It hasn't happened in 150 years and won't ever happen again in your lifetime. Let's get real here.

It hasn't happened at all, and almost certainly won't.

Lincoln ran as a Republican, which back then was Third Party to the Democrats and the Whigs. The Whig Party was dying, and the Republican Party replaced it. If we were to abandon the GOP, that would probably eventually kill it, and then we could likely replace it with something or another (if we were on the ball). It would sure be easier to turn the GOP into something worth supporting.

 

[fr33]

It hasn't happened in 150 years and won't ever happen again in your lifetime. Let's get real here.

When has a liberty candidate won the presidency? Let's get real here.

 

[acptulsa]

When has a liberty candidate won the presidency? Let's get real here.

1800. He got reelected in 1804, too. Last good Democrat ever to serve in that office. There never has been a decent one in the White House.

I don't think Republicans realize just how much they have discredited themselves in the minds of most independent voters this millenium. Most people learned their lesson with the Dubya/Cheney dog and pony show. We really are the only thing standing between the GOP and the fate of the Whig Party. The American Voter may be a slow learner, but Washington will soon find out that this doesn't mean they don't learn at all.

 

[fr33]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

When has a liberty candidate won the presidency? Let's get real here.

The only offices that have evaded us are the Presidency and a Governorship and we got close to winning a Governorship last month. These are exciting times! We've only been seriously at this thing for 4-5 years, so we're really just getting started. We can elect liberty candidates to House and Senate when we put our mind to it. State races are fairly easy to win now. We also have a great shot at the Presidency in 2016. If Rand wins he's going to have long coattails and help other liberty candidates get elected down the ballot across the country.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

The Liberty Movement infecting the GOP is a much more fruitful and hopeful endeavor than any third party talk or falling into apathetic anarchism.

 

[mad cow]

1800. He got reelected in 1804, too. Last good Democrat ever to serve in that office. There never has been a decent one in the White House.

Grover Cleveland.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Ron Paul running in 2016? More third party talk?

Okay, you're not a serious poster.

Okay, you're not serious about Rand winning. My point was that the entire media and Republican establishment will do the same marginalizing routine to Rand in 2016 that they did to Ron in '08/'12, based on defining and covering Bush/Christie as the serious, "electable" frontrunners, and cast all the other contenders as at best, second tier, or irrelevant. The media will monopolize coverage of the race as a Bush/Christie conflict in order to reinforce that message. This WILL happen, based on the elite's established track record and MO. Their successful track record in lulling the GOP voters back to sleep after losing with the "electable" McCain, or now Romney on this basis is also well-established. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away.

I suggested a counter-strategy to neutralize this narrative, involving Ron Paul running on the LP line, which would have the perceived effect of making Bush and Christie unelectable, thus giving Rand a more level playing field to win the Republican nomination. If he still fails, it would serve to exact immediate pain on the GOP leadership for foisting another hack moderate on voters and for rigging the race against Rand, while at last giving the movement a chance to vote for a Paul on election day for a change. It is a serious solution, to a serious issue. What is your alternative to effectively dealing with the "X is electable, Rand is not" establishment meme?

 

[acptulsa]

It is a serious solution, to a serious issue. What is your alternative to effectively dealing with the "X is electable, Rand is not" establishment meme?

I thought I put forth a serious suggestion about that in the OP. We use their track record of complete failure and our direct connection with the public (being among them) to plant the idea that they don't know electable from corn dogs and we have the plan that will actually work.

These are changing times, and people are sick of the media. Even Faux.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Okay, you're not serious about Rand winning. My point was that the entire media and Republican establishment will do the same marginalizing routine to Rand in 2016 that they did to Ron in '08/'12, based on defining and covering Bush/Christie as the serious, "electable" frontrunners, and cast all the other contenders as at best, second tier, or irrelevant. The media will monopolize coverage of the race as a Bush/Christie conflict in order to reinforce that message. This WILL happen, based on the elite's established track record and MO. Their successful track record in lulling the GOP voters back to sleep after losing with the "electable" McCain, or now Romney on this basis is also well-established. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away.

I suggested a counter-strategy to neutralize this narrative, involving Ron Paul running on the LP line, which would have the perceived effect of making Bush and Christie unelectable, thus giving Rand a more level playing field to win the Republican nomination. If he still fails, it would serve to exact immediate pain on the GOP leadership for foisting another hack moderate on voters and for rigging the race against Rand, while at last giving the movement a chance to vote for a Paul on election day for a change. It is a serious solution, to a serious issue. What is your alternative to effectively dealing with the "X is electable, Rand is not" establishment meme?

Oh nos the media don't like us! The fact is, if it wasn't for the media and the Presidential debates nobody would know who Ron Paul is and this website wouldn't exist. Their smears work less and less by the day. Besides, Rand is a fighter. He won't sit there and allow the media or anybody to beat him up. He could pull a Newt and attack the media during the debates and primary voters will fawn over him even more! Ron Paul is 80 years old, let the guy retire in peace. He doesn't owe us anything. Not to mention your counter-strategy is just ridiculous with zero chance of working or being implemented.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Oh nos the media don't like us! The fact is, if it wasn't for the media and the Presidential debates nobody would know who Ron Paul is and this website wouldn't exist. Their smears work less and less by the day. Besides, Rand is a fighter. He won't sit there and allow the media or anybody to beat him up. He could pull a Newt and attack the media during the debates and primary voters will fawn over him even more! Ron Paul is 80 years old, let the guy retire in peace. He doesn't owe us anything. Not to mention your counter-strategy is just ridiculous with zero chance of working or being implemented.

Rand has zero chance of winning, without something like this strategy being implemented. WE made the media know who Ron Paul is across 2007-2008 and this website preceded his breakthrough. The media's smears work less, except at each crunch time or primary season, as we've already seen---most rank and filers go back into a trance, and follow the frontrunner. And it's not whether "Ron owes us anything," it's about what Rand needs to prevail.

Whether Rand can fight back better or not, as of now he still has no leverage to defeat the "only the frontrunner guy is electable" narrative, that will be heavily pushed by the entire establishment and the GOP, not just Faux. At least acptulsa, understanding this, put up a counter-argument about preaching to rank and filers about the Fox et al failed track record (to which I replied that a rational message won't work against those who are still asleep). But you seem to be in denial about the problem.

 

[acptulsa]

Grover Cleveland.

Humpf. Do you realize how much J.P. Morgan paid for the ICC, and how much damage it did? Ever read up on the Pullman strike?

I do kind of appreciate the 22nd president. But not the 24th. He was competent enough during prosperity, but should never have been reelected.

At least acptulsa, understanding this, put up a counter-argument about preaching to rank and filers about the Fox et al failed track record (to which I replied that a rational message won't work against those who are still asleep). But you seem to be in denial about the problem.

No, you said they go to sleep at crunch time. I see it a little differently. I say they react to the overt and unceasing attempts to manipulate them by making a decision, then saying, 'Don't confuse me with facts, I've made up my mind!' They do this in self defense. And that's why I say the good psychology is to start the grassroots push right now, and help them lose their patience with being overwhelmed by a massive flood of so-called 'facts' before the deluge even begins.

We all rub elbows with these people. They all appreciate the personal touch more than most liberals do. 'Rand Paul is most likely to help us get rid of Obamacare because he knows best how bad it is--he signed up for it' is a mighty good argument. 'Independent voters will vote for him because he had the integrity to sign up for Obamacare and find out what the public is up against' is a good selling point. We have nothing to lose by using it now.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

The establishment has successfully lulled most GOP voters back to sleep over the course of the past election cycle. They know how to do this, while we merely hope that will no longer work. They double down on the sleeping spell during the campaign season, with the dominating emphasis in coverage being given to the designated "electable" candidates. I'm saying you can't "make a decision" while you're in a trance. It's a left/right brain thing. The logical part of a person could hear the message if the emotional framework was not overwhelming the issue. The prospect of a conservative vote-split will likely shake people out of the framework, while a grassroots pushed message will likely not.

 

[acptulsa]

They double down on the sleeping spell during the campaign season...

Which is why I say we should be working our asses off to get Rand nominated right freaking now! Neither side has tried that. I've lived in a 'Red State' all my life, and I see a lot of reason to believe it's well worth a try.

The media couldn't possibly convince them to make up their minds this early. We can. That's the difference in the way they react to media vs. the way they react to human contact.