Paul says he will now prioritize stopping Trump?

[presence]

“He would be a disaster,”
[]
Still, Paul said he would support Trump should he win the nomination.

WTF is an "endorsement" if you don't approve anything the other person stands for besides their loose "party" affiliation?

sorry Rand, I can't stand with you on this one, I'm not the "go along just to get along" type

 

[PCKY]

Essentially Rand is going to try triangulating his campaign with both the mainline GOP and the so-called anti-establishment, which is what he was trying to do before Trump got involved and turned the whole thing into a circus. The difference now is that since Rand was given an opportunity to tell Fox Business and the RNC to shove it for their treatment of him and has earned himself some street cred with people who want so-called "outsiders", he now has to take out the competition in that department, namely the Clinton plant from the big apple.

People can bitch all they want about attacking Trump being a bad move, if Rand is going to get the nomination then Trump has to go down, end of story. If Rand can upset Trump and Cruz in Iowa and win, he'll be in a prime position to make things tough for Trump in New Hampshire and beyond, thus deflating Trump's "inevitability" claim, which is the sole reason why he is polling so high. Trump has no real support outside of his media phenomenon and celebrity, and once he loses a few contests, these poll numbers will start to evaporate.

From your keyboard to God's ear.

 

[jmdrake]

WTF is an "endorsement" if you don't approve anything the other person stands for besides their loose "party" affiliation?

sorry Rand, I can't stand with you on this one, I'm not the "go along just to get along" type

He doesn't expect you to. He didn't expect you to support Romney either.

Edit: And after the endorsement of Mitt Romney in 2012 you didn't expect Rand to endorse whoever the GOP nominee is for 2016 then you haven't been paying attention. Plus one of his early attacks on Trump was to get Trump to pledge not to run 3rd party to show he was really a "loyal republican." If Rand didn't ultimately endorse Trump as the nominee, in the unfortunate case of Trump winning which is by no means certain, then Rand would lose all future credibility with the overwhelming majority of Republicans. Ron didn't endorse McCain or Romney but Ron's primary objective was never winning. It was a nice secondary goal for him.

 

[rich34]

Yes, Rand now has some anti-establishment street cred, because he was forced to actually walk the walk of acting like one by confronting the MSM once he was excluded from the debate. But now he is walking straight back to an establishment stance, with his stop-Trump bashing. You can drone on all you want about attacking Trump being a good move, but if Rand is going to get that guy's VOTES then he has to go down the path of embracing the anti-estaIblishment candidates, end of story. The anti-establishment vote is real, and independent of Trump, and will only transfer to another non-establishment candidate, but not to one who retreats back to an establishment posture.

Attacking is NOT triangulating. Cruz, the one contender who has been able to compete with Trump, did so based on triangulating him instead of openly attacking him (note that now that Cruz did take a shot at Trump, watch for the hit he is going to take in the polls). Bash the lead anti-establishment candidate, and you bash their supporters, which turns them off from thinking you are anti establishment. If Rand has not learned that by now, it doesn't bode well.

I agree. Let Rubio and Cruz go after Trump while all three start dueling it out and Rand will be perfectly positioned to be the only candidate to stop Trump in Iowa. The establishment must know if Trump wins Iowa then he'll likely run the table. Paul is the best positioned candidate to stop the Trump jauggernaut from winning Iowa allowing the establishment to fight another day. Not implying that Rand is fighting for them, but at this point they must pick their poison... They know I'm sure Rand would be easier to beat later on, but a Trump win in Iowa and their candidates have no chance.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

what the fuck is "triangulating" someone?

serious question lol

As above summarized by jmdrake, it's creating a situation where you, or your desired outcome comes away being perceived as the more attractive of three options. In a classic triangulation example, a leader can manipulate a policy battle in his favor by having a surrogate in Congress or the media raise a stink by voicing his party's view in a deliberately inflammatory manner (A), that instantly draws an equally overheated response by the opposition (B). The leader then steps in and, instead of focusing on attacking the opposition, introduces a measured, carefully prepared, non-heated variation of A that makes him look like the statesman (C) and the desired policy look like the most reasonable course. Other variations:

Movement triangulation: instead of attacking the contender whose voters represent a movement you want to attract (A), agree with him on X,Y,Z where you can, and respond to the extreme attacks on that candidate (B), then introduce your version as the best way to get to X,Y,Z (C). This communicates you are on the same trajectory as the other candidate without confrontation, so supporters can view you as a friendly alternative.

Theft Triangulation: Outright stealing the other candidate's ideas (as Cruz has done to Rand) is a cruder way to show those supporters you are 'another place to go' (making them think, "hey, why should I stay with my guy who's at 2%, when the other guy who will get me what I want is at 20%?"). In this case two undesirable situations are being triangulated---struggling candidacy (A) versus succeeding candidates you absolutely oppose (B)---to make your 'better off' candidacy (C) the one they settle for.

Reverse Triangulation: If you are already the perceived marginal or 'extreme' party, it's possible create a desired outcome by forcing the opposing side to overreact, causing the public to become aware that your side is the preferred alternative. A real world example of this was the "gun for tots" street theater pulled off by LP activists in NYC in 2002. The city council was planning to pass a bill banning brightly colored toy guns without much fanfare or notice in the news, so in protest the party decided to go to Harlem and hand out colored toy guns to kids on the day of the hearing (A). The liberal NY media and pols went ballistic on the local LP (B), of course, but the alerted public sided with us that the toy ban was a silly idea (C) and so the bill didn't pass.

 

[jkob]

So what has Rand been prioritizing the last 6 months?

Attacking Trump was stupid for the reasons already stated, we needed those votes and by attacking Trump it made them resistant to ever considering Rand, Rand should of been conciliatory and understanding of the anger propelling Trump's candidacy instead he carried water for the establishment. Bitch all you want but the two candidates that have risen since Trump exploded on to the scene have been Ted Cruz and Ben Carson who have made a point of not seriously criticizing Trump, Carson and Cruz have gained the soft anti-establishment support that would go to Trump but are turned off by his shtick which could of went to Rand had he taken the same strategy.

The cozying up to the establishment was just a huge mistake, Rand should of been a balls out libertarian the last 5 years like his dad and not worry about reelection or becoming president which has always been the problem since it seems like it has been planned since before Rand even held elected office.

There is more than just becoming president, education + winning the hearts and minds changes the narrative so hopefully we haven't lost sight of that. I miss Ron.

Hopefully this wacky precinct captain ground game works in Iowa, it sort of sounds like people when they thought Ron was going to win first ballot at the RNC in 2012. Wishful thinking probably, better than expected finish hopefully.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Let's face it. Other than Rand, they all suck and we're screwed. Rand must win !!

This. Stand With Rand.

 

[hells_unicorn]

I see that despite some really bad trolls being sent packing, the Trump lovefest on this forum has not ceased. If Rand ends up losing, I know exactly who I'm going to blame, and apart from the RNC and the media, it will be you guys.

 

[nikcers]

This is just what happens when you soundbyte Rand out of context.

MSM:We said Trump is the nominee, Trump says he is the he nominee, the Washington machine has won, you didn't even get to go to the debates, why don't you drop out??

Rand:(middle finger) No one has voted yet, I will do everything possible until then to defeat you!

 

[loveshiscountry]

But Trump doesn't (publicly) subscribe to a no fly zone in Syria and poses as a non internationalist. As GW did.

Someone who wants our troops to stay in the Middle East isn't a non interventionist.

 

[Tinnuhana]

hxxp://www.americanpatriotdaily.com/uncategorized/presidential-poll/
Rand a distant 3rd here. This looks like the Santorum crowd looking for a new candidate. JMO

 

[RandallFan]

If Gary Johson and Trump both ran third party Gary would get 1% and Trump would get 20%. Johnson clearly has problems with pandering and open borders and those who emulate Gary.

 

[Stratovarious]

Essentially Rand is going to try triangulating his campaign with both the mainline GOP and the so-called anti-establishment, which is what he was trying to do before Trump got involved and turned the whole thing into a circus. The difference now is that since Rand was given an opportunity to tell Fox Business and the RNC to shove it for their treatment of him and has earned himself some street cred with people who want so-called "outsiders", he now has to take out the competition in that department, namely the Clinton plant from the big apple.

People can bitch all they want about attacking Trump being a bad move, if Rand is going to get the nomination then Trump has to go down, end of story. If Rand can upset Trump and Cruz in Iowa and win, he'll be in a prime position to make things tough for Trump in New Hampshire and beyond, thus deflating Trump's "inevitability" claim, which is the sole reason why he is polling so high. Trump has no real support outside of his media phenomenon and celebrity, and once he loses a few contests, these poll numbers will start to evaporate.

Today 1 16 16 I see not a snowball's chance in hl Rand can wrest the nomination away from Trump, why play that defeatist angle imo.
The best man in America for President of is Ron Paul (of course he won't run but he is the best) ,2nd Rand Paul 3rd without a doubt Trump, he is not constitutionalist like Ron, but he is has 1000 times more momentum than anyone else, all things being equal he will be pres, the brains of the ticket should be Rand, the mouthpiece Trump. Now I don't like a lot of Trumps idiotic stances, but let's face reality , 99% or everyone in America like something about Trump (no it's not him walking off the stage ). Lets also be honest, if Rand was a strict constitutionalist, which is what would be the quickest tool to turn the domestic tyranny around, his positions today would be much different. Before Trump took the sails out of everyone's candidacy hopes, Rand was looking great, now,,,,,,,,, forget about it. On a side note, I think all of us realize that the Muslim Obama should have been tried for treason the day he made the statement that our constitution was 'seriously flawed ...."






...

 

[Stratovarious]

I should add that the media is conspiring to keep Rand Silent and if Trump hadn't stated that he supported Israel 1000% no one would know he was even running.
Ron Paul had great integrity on the issue of the biggest welfare recipient in the history of Mankind; Israel , he was willing to let that rich Country enjoy its riches without our checks of upwards of 10 billion a year if you count military, Cash , infrastructure and other US gifts.

 

[nikcers]

Today 1 16 16 I see not a snowball's chance in hl Rand can wrest the nomination away from Trump, why play that defeatist angle imo.
The best man in America for President of is Ron Paul (of course he won't run but he is the best) ,2nd Rand Paul 3rd without a doubt Trump, he is not constitutionalist like Ron,

Wrong Trump will lose momentum as it gets closer to time to vote people will take a closer look at the policies and their numbers drop. Plus the pollsters don't want to be completely off so they unpad their numbers prior to the votes. According to you the top and second choice candidates also say that your 3rd choice candidate is the opposite of them. An authoritarian who is socially liberal and interventionist. He has called for intervention in Syria and even places like North Korea, he wants to be a humanitarian and nation build. He wants to reboot the Korean war, and go back to the world war days where the winner takes call. He wants us to occupy Iraq and take their oil and give it to our friends basically controlling the world economy he believes in taking private property from people and he doesn't even know there is a fourth amendment.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

He'd prefer Cruz or Rubio? How's that going to be better?

These neocons bought tools will be worse than Trump... at aleast Trump despite all his hot air baloonery is causing some damage to sacred establishment cows of GOP.

Trump did attack Rand unfairly, hopefully there is not an "anti-Trump" emotional strategy being devised by Rand advisors.

A strategy of Rand spending more energy on attacking Trump (the most vocal critic of Obama, Bush Iraq war policy, Cruz Goldman Sachs financing, "open borders" etc) than attacking Obama will be counter-productive if goal is to win GOP base and nomination. Hopefully that is not the case.

I'm not a fan of many of Trumperisms but he is teaching all of GOP how to handle political attackers and face hacks among media owners employees. Maybe business and politics in US have a lot more in common than is commonly believed.. or perhaps the two have become the same and skills are fully transferrable.


Related

But Paul said that he would still support Trump if he were to win the nomination, out of party loyalty.

"I'm a Republican, and I think if you don't support the nominee, it harms even those like myself. Because, for example, I was not the establishment pick when I ran for the U.S. Senate, but I agreed I would support them if they won, but they also agreed to support me, so it works both ways."

"It sounds terrible, 'Oh you're going to support Donald Trump,' but I expect Donald Trump to support me as well if I win."

 

[tonyaustin]

I hope he tones it down a bit with the attacks on Trump since most people I know are open to Rand but would reject him for attacking another Republican.

My concern with this strategy is that it could not only damage Rand's chances of keeping his Senate seat, rather it could give the election to Rubio or Jeb or damage the Republican brand enough to give the election to Hillary Clinton.

 

[nikcers]

I hope he tones it down a bit with the attacks on Trump since most people I know are open to Rand but would reject him for attacking another Republican.

My concern with this strategy that it could not only damage Rand's chances of keeping his Senate seat that it could give the election to Rubio or Jeb or damage the Republican brand enough to give the election to Hillary Clinton.

My only concern is even in 2000 Republicans lost, they had to rig that election, Rand has been saying the republican brand sucks for years and it's always been to his benefit. Rand is the republicans only chance at winning in 2016.

 

[CPUd]

I hope he tones it down a bit with the attacks on Trump since most people I know are open to Rand but would reject him for attacking another Republican.

My concern with this strategy is that it could not only damage Rand's chances of keeping his Senate seat, rather it could give the election to Rubio or Jeb or damage the Republican brand enough to give the election to Hillary Clinton.

Rand is attacking several other candidates in his stump speeches now, based on what they've said in the debates. Rand will have 0 problems winning the Senate reelection if he doesn't win the nomination.

Yes, also Rand is the only one serious about rebranding the GOP in the way they claimed they needed to after Mitt got his ass handed to him. Everyone else is taking the party in the other direction.

 

[rich34]

.gh

WTF is an "endorsement" if you don't approve anything the other person stands for besides their loos "party" affiliation?

sorry Rand, I can't stand with you on this one, I'm not the "go along just to get along" type

Relax Rand is trying to appeal to the majority of the GOP and is trying to come off sounding as a uniting force in the GOP not a divider. That means a lot to party faithful and by the looks of it along with the numbers he's saying he has he won't need much of the older crowd to go along with his younger support to win Iowa. He's really starting to hit his stride and is looking like the confident man he was before Trump got into the race.