Now until Iowa, what needs to happen for Rand to win the nod?

[RonPaulMall]

I don't see a path honestly. Even if Trump and Carson both fall off the side of a cliff, Ted Cruz has masterfully positioned himself to attract their voters. Carson voters aren't going to magically come to Rand, Carson is not going to endorse Rand, Carson needs to be taken down like every other flavor of the week. The race or world events would have to change in such a way that we could never predict, I don't think Rand can turn it around on his own now. He could channel his father and have a couple epic debate performances, smacking down some neocons and the establishment should all he be doing. Get them to react to him and then he can respond. It might be a long race and raking up delegates might have value at a brokered convention.

It is definitely a daunting a task. It took Rand the better part of year to dig himself in to the current hole he is in and he can't just create a new identity overnight. It will take months of consistent messaging to reverse the damage that has been done. I'm not sure there is enough time, but there is no harm in trying. Rand needs to completely forget about everything he's said and done in the recent past and come out tomorrow as Rand Paul circa 2010 and run with that until the primary season is over. Like I said, might be too late, but even if it doesn't quite get him there in terms of the Presidency, it will still be beneficial in terms of his Senate career and overall political influence.

 

[erowe1]

I don't see a path honestly. Even if Trump and Carson both fall off the side of a cliff, Ted Cruz has masterfully positioned himself to attract their voters. Carson voters aren't going to magically come to Rand, Carson is not going to endorse Rand, Carson needs to be taken down like every other flavor of the week. The race or world events would have to change in such a way that we could never predict, I don't think Rand can turn it around on his own now. He could channel his father and have a couple epic debate performances, smacking down some neocons and the establishment should all he be doing. Get them to react to him and then he can respond. It might be a long race and raking up delegates might have value at a brokered convention.

Cruz definitely needs to be eliminated from the competition. I agree with that.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Cruz definitely needs to be eliminated from the competition. I agree with that.

Yup, from the day Cruz decided to run, he's been the main threat.

Trump/Carson are flavors of the month, no staying power.

Cruz has staying power, like Rand, and their bases overlap quite a bit.

 

[jmdrake]

Yup, from the day Cruz decided to run, he's been the main threat.

Trump/Carson are flavors of the month, no staying power.

Cruz has staying power, like Rand, and their bases overlap quite a bit.

Wrong. The primary threat is Hillary Clinton. When Rand recognized and acted that way he was winning. Then somebody talked him into attacking Cruz and then Trump and now (in a small way) Caron. Doing that only hurts Rand. Negative campaigning works when you are one of the last two people standing or when you are a largely than life figure like Donald Trump. Other than that, as you attempt to drag someone else down you drag yourself down too. Rand's base overlaps with Trump's base as well. Did you miss where Thomas Massie said man of his supporters are Trump supporters? They should all be Rand Paul supporters but they're not. Rand needs to refocus on Hillary Clinton and go after her hard. Not Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson or even Bernie Sanders. To coin a Clinton campaign phrase "It's Hillary Clinton stupid!" If he's going to attack someone else in the GOP, he should do it in connection with attacking Hillary Clinton. For example "Ben Carson thinks you should be limited on what kind of guns you own depending on where you live. Hillary Clinton agrees." Or "Ben Carson things we should militarily confront Russia over the Ukraine. Hillary Clinton agrees." Or "Marco Rubio supported giving aid to so called moderate jihadists (don't say rebels. Say 'jihadists'.) Hillary Clinton agrees." Or "Donald Trump thinks that the government should be able to take your land and give it to private developers. Hillary Clinton agrees." Bill Clinton was a master at triangulation politics. Rand should use the politics of "strangulation" by turning agreement with Hillary Clinton into an albatross to hang around the necks of his GOP opponents. That way he can "attack" them in the process of actually attacking her.

 

[eleganz]

The primary threat is Hillary Clinton. When Rand recognized and acted that way he was winning. Then somebody talked him into attacking Cruz and then Trump and now (in a small way) Caron. Doing that only hurts Rand.

Not really, the Hillary strategy did not connect even though Rand stuck with it for months.

He didn't attack Cruz, he was asked a question and he answered it. Cruz supporters were going to choose Cruz over Rand anyways. Cruz was attempting to usurp our movement for his own benefit, no matter what Rand cannot let that happen, I actually think he was more or less nice about it.

Trump is a phenomenon, you can't say somebody did the right or wrong thing with Trump because he broke all the rules and is still a famous celebrity running for president.

 

[erowe1]

Wrong. The primary threat is Hillary Clinton. When Rand recognized and acted that way he was winning. Then somebody talked him into attacking Cruz and then Trump and now (in a small way) Caron. Doing that only hurts Rand. Negative campaigning works when you are one of the last two people standing or when you are a largely than life figure like Donald Trump. Other than that, as you attempt to drag someone else down you drag yourself down too. Rand's base overlaps with Trump's base as well. Did you miss where Thomas Massie said man of his supporters are Trump supporters? They should all be Rand Paul supporters but they're not. Rand needs to refocus on Hillary Clinton and go after her hard. Not Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson or even Bernie Sanders. To coin a Clinton campaign phrase "It's Hillary Clinton stupid!" If he's going to attack someone else in the GOP, he should do it in connection with attacking Hillary Clinton. For example "Ben Carson thinks you should be limited on what kind of guns you own depending on where you live. Hillary Clinton agrees." Or "Ben Carson things we should militarily confront Russia over the Ukraine. Hillary Clinton agrees." Or "Marco Rubio supported giving aid to so called moderate jihadists (don't say rebels. Say 'jihadists'.) Hillary Clinton agrees." Or "Donald Trump thinks that the government should be able to take your land and give it to private developers. Hillary Clinton agrees." Bill Clinton was a master at triangulation politics. Rand should use the politics of "strangulation" by turning agreement with Hillary Clinton into an albatross to hang around the necks of his GOP opponents. That way he can "attack" them in the process of actually attacking her.

I don't think Rand himself should attack Cruz. But somebody should. I don't think Rand and Cruz can both do well. One of them has to tank for the other to win.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Wrong. The primary threat is Hillary Clinton. When Rand recognized and acted that way he was winning. Then somebody talked him into attacking Cruz and then Trump and now (in a small way) Caron. Doing that only hurts Rand. Negative campaigning works when you are one of the last two people standing or when you are a largely than life figure like Donald Trump. Other than that, as you attempt to drag someone else down you drag yourself down too. Rand's base overlaps with Trump's base as well. Did you miss where Thomas Massie said man of his supporters are Trump supporters? They should all be Rand Paul supporters but they're not. Rand needs to refocus on Hillary Clinton and go after her hard. Not Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson or even Bernie Sanders. To coin a Clinton campaign phrase "It's Hillary Clinton stupid!" If he's going to attack someone else in the GOP, he should do it in connection with attacking Hillary Clinton. For example "Ben Carson thinks you should be limited on what kind of guns you own depending on where you live. Hillary Clinton agrees." Or "Ben Carson things we should militarily confront Russia over the Ukraine. Hillary Clinton agrees." Or "Marco Rubio supported giving aid to so called moderate jihadists (don't say rebels. Say 'jihadists'.) Hillary Clinton agrees." Or "Donald Trump thinks that the government should be able to take your land and give it to private developers. Hillary Clinton agrees." Bill Clinton was a master at triangulation politics. Rand should use the politics of "strangulation" by turning agreement with Hillary Clinton into an albatross to hang around the necks of his GOP opponents. That way he can "attack" them in the process of actually attacking her.

Did I say that Rand should attack Cruz?

No, I just said that Cruz is Rand's greatest rival.

#readingcomprehension

...while there may be opportunities to directly attack Cruz, I'd say Rand should focus on his own positive vision for the country ATM.

 

[ds21089]

I don't think Rand himself should attack Cruz. But somebody should. I don't think Rand and Cruz can both do well. One of them has to tank for the other to win.

Agreed. However, I highly doubt anyone is going to attack the bloodsucker at all. Without anyone exposing his bad stances, he's the go to liberty candidate for people who don't know Rand like we do. He repeats Rand's stances with much more enthusiasm and so people who like what Rand's message is through Cruz, are more receptive to it in that way. How does Rand go about differentiating himself from Cruz in a positive way which stands out?

 

[jmdrake]

Not really, the Hillary strategy did not connect even though Rand stuck with it for months.

I beg to differ. At one point Zogby had Rand as the clear front runner with 20%. Now no poll anywhere has him above 5%. And one point he was connecting. Now he isn't.

He didn't attack Cruz, he was asked a question and he answered it.

He could have answered that question one of three ways.

1) Cruz is right. McConnell did lie. (How I would have answered it).

2) That's between Cruz and McConnell. My target is Hillary Clinton. (How he should have answered it).

3) Cruz is being rude and he can't get anything done legislatively. (How his father's opponents attacked him).

Rand choose #3. It was a mistake. We should just accept that it was a mistake and move on. I don't like Ted Cruz. But that was an uncalled for attack by Rand. If I can see that and I like Rand and I don't like Ted Cruz then certainly people who liked Cruz and Rand could see it and lean away from Rand.

Cruz supporters were going to choose Cruz over Rand anyways.

Correction. People who were already supporting Cruz over Rand would choose Cruz over Rand. But if you're going to be fatalistic about it then why view Ted Cruz as competition? Seriously. Everybody's like "We gotta stop Ted Cruz." Well...why?

Cruz was attempting to usurp our movement for his own benefit, no matter what Rand cannot let that happen, I actually think he was more or less nice about it.

That's called politics. Rand wants to win over some Obama supporters too. That's what's behind his whole urban outreach initiative.

Trump is a phenomenon, you can't say somebody did the right or wrong thing with Trump because he broke all the rules and is still a famous celebrity running for president.

I have a first amendment right to say whatever I want. But more importantly, Rand was not helped at all by attacking Trump. If something isn't going to help you in politics, and this isn't some "moral crusade", why do it? Rand was higher in the rankings before he went on the attack against Trump. That drove up Rand's negatives without really affecting Trump at all. It was a mistake. I don't know why some people have a hard time accepting that Rand has made mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes. You only learn from your mistakes if you acknowledge them. And Rand's demand that Trump pledge not to run third party came off as hypocritical. Everyone knows Ron ran third party once. And while Ron has never run third party after first running in the primary as a GOP candidate, he did endorse a third party candidate in 2008. For Rand to take that issue on was just bizarre.

 

[jmdrake]

Did I say that Rand should attack Cruz?

No, I just said that Cruz is Rand's greatest rival.

I didn't say you said attack Cruz. I said The primary threat is Hillary Clinton. So #readingcomprehension right back at you.

...while there may be opportunities to directly attack Cruz, I'd say Rand should focus on his own positive vision for the country ATM.

The way to attack Cruz is to find positions where Cruz and Hillary agree and then attack Cruz from that perspective. Cruz, as I recall, was against Hillary's use of force in Libya so that doesn't help. Cruz also seems to be reading from the Paul playbook on Syria.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-to-defeat-isis-according-to-ted-cruz/380500/
But while Cruz resembles McCain and Graham in hyping threats and dropping bombs, he morphs into Rand Paul when the subject turns to political engagement overseas. McCain and Graham want to train and arm the Free Syrian Army so that when America bombs ISIS, non-jihadist rebels seize their territory and eventually pressure Bashar al-Assad into a political settlement. Cruz doesn’t. When it comes to Syria’s “moderate” opposition, he’s doubtful that the United States “can tell the good guys from the bad guys.”

So I'm sure that's part of Rand's frustration. Going after Cruz' "rude" attack on McConnell probably seemed like a good way to get at Cruz at the time. Only Mitch McConnell is wildly unpopular with the people both Rand and Cruz are trying to reach. That said, every time Rand goes after Hillary that drives his positives up with the republican base. Every time he goes after a GOP rival it drives up his negatives. He has to do it some, but so far it's come off badly.

Edit: And perhaps you misread where I wrote this. "Then somebody talked him into attacking Cruz and then Trump and now (in a small way) Carson." For the record I don't think you were that somebody. What I do believe is that the perception that "We've got to somehow stop Cruz...Trump...Carson" is what has led to a campaign strategy that is driving up Rand's negatives. I don't know why more people don't see this. This isn't 2008 where out of the gate everybody was going after Ron on foreign policy. Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and to a lesser extent Ted Cruz have adopted Ron/Rand's foreign policy.

 

[LatinsforPaul]

I think this not only has to be big but also successful for Rand to have a shot at winning Iowa...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?484794-PROJECT-Caucus-Takeover‏

 

[notsure]

As far as the other candidates go; Cruz needs to acknowledge the fact that he isn't Constitutionally eligible to be President of the US and stop trying to draw off supporters from Rand. Cruz needs to provide proof of his US citizenship and admit that he is a naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizen.

 

[Gage]

Less arguing among ourselves on an internet forum and actually donating and volunteering on the ground is what will help Rand to win the nod. I just posted a thread about a project that was just announced today by the campaign to GOTV in Iowa. So far no responses or sign that anyone here is planning on helping out with that.

 

[eleganz]

Just got free for today and going to make calls.

Anybody else want to get on the phone from home? Come on its super easy. If you don't have login details by now, what are you sticking around for?

 

[Jonderdonk]

As far as the other candidates go; Cruz needs to acknowledge the fact that he isn't Constitutionally eligible to be President of the US and stop trying to draw off supporters from Rand. Cruz needs to provide proof of his US citizenship and admit that he is a naturalized citizen, not a natural born citizen.

The Constitution does not specify the meaning of "natural born citizen," therefore, Cruz is eligible unless there is a new court interpretation stating otherwise.