Mark Sanford Loses SC Seat In Primary

[nikcers]

That statement would have been fine if he had left it at that. He didn't leave it at that though.

His audience was conservatives, you know the ones that were supporting people like Ted Cruz all the way up until the convention. Everything in there sold that one line to his audience.

 

[dannno]

Apparently that's true. But another way you could say that is, "For libertarian-leaning candidates, being libertarian-leaning is not a winning strategy."

This is a really dumb comment, you must not pay attention to Rand Paul at all. Rand brings out Trump's libertarian side and supports the President in reaching his libertarian goals. When Trump's goals aren't libertarian, Rand steps to the side, makes some mild policy criticisms without shouting them from the rooftops and lives to fight - and win - another day.

All you do is come here and lie and say that Trump doesn't have any libertarian goals, which is complete horse shit.

 

[juleswin]

Rand shot himself in the foot by opening the first debate attacking Trump for not being a party-line Republican. His father's credibility came from not being party line. He blew all that.

You can play Monday morning QB all you want but just know that no campaign is perfect. Trump made many mistake himself but once the media latched unto him, it was a foregone conclusion that he would win the race. People underestimate the power the media still have on the average voter.

Rand had very powerful forces working against him

 

[angelatc]

This is a really dumb comment, you must not pay attention to Rand Paul at all. Rand brings out Trump's libertarian side and supports the President in reaching his libertarian goals. When Trump's goals aren't libertarian, Rand steps to the side, makes some mild policy criticisms without shouting them from the rooftops and lives to fight - and win - another day.

All you do is come here and lie and say that Trump doesn't have any libertarian goals, which is complete horse shit.

I don't care much for SM, but Daniel McCarthy made pretty much the same case that he's making, which is that conservatives don't have any real issues with big government and debt.

I should post this in it's own thread but nobody actually reads articles anyway. https://usa.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/how-donald-trump-eclipsed-the-libertarian-moment/

 

[angelatc]

This is a really dumb comment, you must not pay attention to Rand Paul at all. Rand brings out Trump's libertarian side and supports the President in reaching his libertarian goals. When Trump's goals aren't libertarian, Rand steps to the side, makes some mild policy criticisms without shouting them from the rooftops and lives to fight - and win - another day.

All you do is come here and lie and say that Trump doesn't have any libertarian goals, which is complete horse shit.

And by the way, Sanford was loyal to Ron Paul in 2007 when the GOP wanted his head. Your man Trump outed him. You might be best served by just staying out of this thread.

 

[dannno]

And by the way, Sanford was loyal to Ron Paul in 2007 when the GOP wanted his head. Your man Trump outed him. You might be best served by just staying out of this thread.

I'm not going to stay out of a thread where dumb comments are being made.. You didn't see Rand running against Trump for his Senate seat and he is more libertarian than Sanford... like everybody else said that is just stupid regardless.

 

[angelatc]

I'm not going to stay out of a thread where dumb comments are being made.. You didn't see Rand running against Trump for his Senate seat and he is more libertarian than Sanford... like everybody else said that is just stupid regardless.

This just opens the door for attacks on Massie and Amash, too. They're a lot more vocal than Sanford was.

This just sucks, and Trump is a giant dickhead for encouraging it.

 

[dannno]

This just opens the door for attacks on Massie and Amash, too. They're a lot more vocal than Sanford was.

I don't think so, Massie has been very supportive of the President when he has done good things, and has been mildly critical when he has done bad things. Massie isn't "running against" Trump by any stretch.

Amash may very well do better in his district if he runs against Trump. Have you seen his town halls?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

What local (former) Sanford supporters were saying...

“We need to recognize that we are at an inflection point in American politics,” a philosophical Sanford told supporters in a (surprise) exceedingly lengthy concession speech.

The former two-term governor of South Carolina went on to bemoan that his values hadn’t changed, they just didn’t “sell well in this particular election.”

Really?

Sanford saying his core values haven’t changed is downright comical. This news site has written numerous articles over the years chronicling Sanford’s unfortunate evolution into a shill for the #NeverTrump “Republican” establishment.

It finally caught up with him …
...
https://www.fitsnews.com/2018/06/12/sc1-katie-arrington-vanquishes-mark-sanford/

 

[Krugminator2]

What local (former) Sanford supporters were saying...

Like you (and I) said in the thread last year it wasn't a good strategy going after Trump. I said in the other thread I thought he might run for the LP nomination. Johnson actually asked him as his first choice over Weld to be the VP. Given the tack Sanford took, that seems more likely now. But it is ridiculous Fitnews calling Sanford a shill for the Republican establishment. I'm pretty sure Paul Ryan and Boehner don't agree.

FWIW

 

[dannno]

Like you (and I) said in the thread last year it wasn't a good strategy going after Trump. I said in the other thread I thought he might run for the LP nomination. Johnson actually asked him as his first choice over Weld to be the VP. Given the tack Sanford took, that seems more likely now. But it is ridiculous Fitnews calling Sanford a shill for the Republican establishment. I'm pretty sure Paul Ryan and Boehner don't agree.

FWIW

Looks like their freedom meter is broke..

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Like you (and I) said in the thread last year it wasn't a good strategy going after Trump. I said in the other thread I thought he might run for the LP nomination. Johnson actually asked him as his first choice over Weld to be the VP. Given the tack Sanford took, that seems more likely now. But it is ridiculous Fitnews calling Sanford a shill for the Republican establishment. I'm pretty sure Paul Ryan and Boehner don't agree.

FWIW

Yeah, I'm not in agreement with FITS News on that. But Sanford's attacks on Trump have aided the neoconservative establishment agenda, albeit not intentionally on Sanford's part.

Unless one buys into the supposition that Sanford is more of a libertarian-neocon. One has to wonder about his former "aides" that are arguably as hard core neocon as Lindsey Graham. And yes, I am talking about Nikki Haley and Jon Lerner.

Advising Haley then – and now – is Jewish neoconservative pollster and political consultant Jon Lerner (below, far left), who certainly appears to be whoring Haley out politically on the national stage every bit as aggressively as he whored out another former S.C. governor – Mark Sanford.
...
https://www.fitsnews.com/2017/04/09/donald-trump-needs-to-put-a-leash-on-this-puppy/

 

[angelatc]

I don't think so, Massie has been very supportive of the President when he has done good things, and has been mildly critical when he has done bad things. Massie isn't "running against" Trump by any stretch.

Amash may very well do better in his district if he runs against Trump. Have you seen his town halls?

Sanford voted for Trump's agenda 89% of the time.

Amash has to get through the primary. You may recall that when they couldn't primary him out, they tried to redistrict him out. That seat is now a prime candidate for a pro-Trump thumper in a primary, then to be taken by a Democrat.

 

[Krugminator2]

One has to wonder about his former "aides" that are arguably as hard core neocon as Lindsey Graham.

His long time Chief of Staff was Tom Davis who was the most visible South Carolina Ron Paul supporter.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Gonna say this, just because a strategy did not work doesn't mean the strategy is wrong. Maybe given the time, his personal, his personal experience, the mood of the country, the help from the media, he was the unbeatable candidate in the race? still doesn't dismiss the idea that attacking his credibility was a good strategy.

I've said this previously, but it bears repeating. The problem with Rand's strategy wasn't that he failed to beat Trump. Nobody beat Trump. It was his year. Rand couldn't have done anything to gain the nomination, it was Trump's from his first speech. The problem with Rand's strategy was that not only did he fail to capitalize on the movement his father built, he failed to get out of the single digits in polling. That is, by definition, a bad strategy. Rand zigged when he should have zagged. He was terrified of being called a racist or an extremist or whatever, so he tried to court favor with the mainstream and ended up alienating everyone in the process. His ill-timed, ineffectual attack against Trump was just part in parcel with a bad strategy. He didn't read the writing on the wall.

I think Trump tapped in something emotional in people to the point they were more invested in him as a person than any thing he said about his policies. This is one place where I think libertarians can learn a thing or two from Trump. They need to stop being policy wonks and realize that the masses need more than anything a father figure, a leader, someone to inspire and give them hope. Trump did this better than anyone in the race and he was rewarded with the victory.

I agree with this partially, but I think that policy had a lot to do with it. If Trump had the exact same personality but talked a lot about how mass immigration and NAFTA were great things, he would have lost. Trump's persona benefited him greatly, but so did his stated goals and we're seeing the rise of similar ideas throughout the West.

It is not nonsense, wikileak showed the strategy of the elite was to push and promote Trump over all the other republican candidates and they did this via a non conventional, reverse psychology sort of way. Think, addition by subtraction and it worked. The people in large masses fell for him. Wrong again, a strategy that loses is not automatically a bad strategy, strategies are relative and the best strategy is the one that gives you the best chance to win regardless of whether it nets you the win.

Which leak? I recall a leak where it was clear that Hillary's camp wanted Trump to win the nom because they thought he'd be easy to defeat-something I don't doubt the media agreed with. The media pushing Trump and making him look like a martyr when attacked is a different narrative and not something that happened last election cycle.

I think your problem is that you underestimate your enemy, you see them as one dimensional idiots like the people who vote. They are not, they are experienced world conquerors who have different methods to trick the average voter into voting for one of their own whilst they believed they are voting against the establishment.

No I don't. Politicians are often dim, but they at least posess animal cunning of some sort. People who stay in power long are often quite smart. It's no easy feat.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Moron? I understand how what I said hurts your feelings but if it makes you feel any better, my criticism came from the heart. Also, I don't hold it against you that you support Trump. Loads of good, intelligent people fell for his con. And yes, I know my writing skills aren't the best, my sentence structure/syntax, grammar, spelling could all use some improvement and it is something I have always struggled with. Also, I can't proofread to save my life. You really don't have to tell me about it, I am well aware of it and I work on it every single day of my life. And no, I won't make the excuse that it's because English is my second language, I know loads of people who did not speak English at all before they arriving to the states who have better command of the English language than me.

Again, for the third time, show me a time where I praised Trump in a sycophantic or overly myopic way. Do this or I have been proven right, as all can see.

Its the vibe I get from reading your many posts of RPF, deal with it.

Ah, "vibes". Yes, such great epistemological rigor.

Lets just agree to disagree here cos I think tax cuts, spending increase etc appeal to the common man too. I think what you are trying to say here is that Trump introduced new populist policies to the campaign like immigration and border wall security. That I can agree with you on.

Tax cuts can be populist but you have to make the emotional argument, not heady economic ones.



Calm down man, I wasn't talking about ethnic cleansing either. Why would you think that is what I was thinking in my post? That wasn't a typo, I actually meant to say ethnic leaning not ethnic cleansing.

I know enough about you in the area that matter to me. Your opinion on statecraft is one area I don't particularly care about. Also, I qualified my statement with the word "quite" which must mean something different to me than it means to you

You are a communist apologist who cheers when millions are murdered by leftist governments. How do I know this? Well, it's just a vibe I get. I know enough about you in that area to make that claim. I mean, look at your avatar. I like this new standard, no reason to demonstrate validity or soundness anymore. So much easier.

 

[eleganz]

I've said this previously, but it bears repeating. The problem with Rand's strategy wasn't that he failed to beat Trump. Nobody beat Trump. It was his year. Rand couldn't have done anything to gain the nomination, it was Trump's from his first speech. The problem with Rand's strategy was that not only did he fail to capitalize on the movement his father built, he failed to get out of the single digits in polling. That is, by definition, a bad strategy. Rand zigged when he should have zagged. He was terrified of being called a racist or an extremist or whatever, so he tried to court favor with the mainstream and ended up alienating everyone in the process. His ill-timed, ineffectual attack against Trump was just part in parcel with a bad strategy. He didn't read the writing on the wall.

Oh Please, this is such flawed reasoning, save the high horse all knowing political operative bullsht. Rand didn't read the writing on the wall because nobody could see it, neither could you. You're only claiming to now because you've experienced it the successful way Trump did it, guess what? We all experienced it. Its so easy to say that Rand (or any candidate) should've been more like Trump before Trump himself even entered the race. The only way to be the anti-Trump was to NOT act like Trump.

By your logic, Cruz and Carson's time as the anti-Trump was pure genius and good political "strategy", because good strategy automatically equals success right? No, Cruz and Carson were LUCKY. Everybody who has witnessed the primaries in the past knows that voters and media flirt with a flavor of the week, they spend some time at the top of the polls and whenever the voters get bored or they were successfully attacked, the next one comes up. 2012 Santorum got LUCKY and in a sense Bachmann, Gingrich and Ron also got LUCKY, or did you think Ron Paul actually had 21% of the republican party as his base? lol, gtfo~


Rand ran a good traditional campaign, which at one point he was considered a top tier candidate having spent some time at the TOP of the polls before Trump entered.


If you're so good at reading the writing on the wall, run a campaign and show us all how its done. Its that easy right? read and run. Go for it boy

 

[oyarde]

I am thinking Sanford has lost interest . Cannot blame anyone for that . I hated to see DeMint go .

 

[angelatc]

I am thinking Sanford has lost interest . Cannot blame anyone for that . I hated to see DeMint go .

Demint is a guy I'd like to see get involved with the Libertarians.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

His long time Chief of Staff was Tom Davis who was the most visible South Carolina Ron Paul supporter.

Yeah, Tom Davis is good.

Oh Please, this is such flawed reasoning, save the high horse all knowing political operative bullsht. Rand didn't read the writing on the wall because nobody could see it, neither could you.
...

Not to interrupt and go on a tangent, but Dave Brat ran an anti-establishment campaign and took out Eric Cantor. His platform was essentially Ron Paul with an America-first twist, including opposition to mass immigration and the US Chamber of Commerce. That was in 2014. That was an indicator, from a position standpoint, of what was going to be successful.