PPP: Rand polling at 5% in the GOP field

[Agorism]

Ventura is lazier than shit, he's not going to run for anything.

Lol, I wouldn't call him lazy given he's fairly accomplished person.

Could be true at this point in career though.

 

[Qdog]

We tried winning by educating the fools. Let Ron continue to educate them. I want to win. Lets trick those idiots into electing someone who will bring the troops home, and close the military bases, and stop being the policemen of the world.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

That's my point. That crowd might prefer Rand over Ron, but they are still going to vote for Rubio or Ryan. I don't care how often Rand makes trips to Israel, I don't care how often he wears a yarmulke, or how many times he votes to sanction Iran. He might as well stop trying to suck up that group and start solidifying his base.

You're becoming a bigger troll than cajun; that is if you're not one of her sock puppets.

 

[Monotaur]

Rubio 21%
Ryan 16%
Huckabee 15%
Christie 14%
Bush 14%
Paul 5%
Jindal 3%
Perry 2%
Martinez 2%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/01/clinton-still-tops-for-2016.html#more

Everyone else makes me want to puke.

(Actually the worse feeling is knowing that people would vote FOR some of those people.)

 

[Agorism]

Ron's strategy of only focusing on a small number of people in the liberty movement and not trying to reach out to anyone else was proven to be a failure. The definition of insanity would be for Rand to pursue the same failed strategy.

You don't understand that in 2007 we got 10k iowa votes and 2011 we got 27K votes.

That's 170% increase in 4 years.

If we had even half that increase by 2015, Ron Paul would win Iowa in a landslide. If the strategy failed, it's only because he's elderly, and can't run in the next couple cycles not because of the trajectory.

 

[Brett85]

You don't understand that in 2007 we got 10k iowa votes and 2011 we got 27K votes.

That's 170% increase in 4 years.

If we had even half that increase by 2015, Ron Paul would win Iowa in a landslide. If the strategy failed, it's only because he's elderly, and can't run in the next couple cycles not because of the trajectory.

Even if Ron had won Iowa, he would've started struggling as more of the establishment candidates dropped out. He benefited from the establishment vote being split up among 8 or 9 different candidates. Ron wasn't hardly anyone's second choice, so as candidates like Perry and Bachmann dropped out, all of their support would've went to Romney, Gingrich, etc, and Ron wouldn't have been able to win any states beyond Iowa. Rand will do better than Ron because he will actually be a lot of people's second choice.

 

[Agorism]

Hypothetically if Ron Paul was 50 years old, and could run again in 2015, I can see us not winning again....like you say (or i could see us winning too btw)

But everything would be amplified. More GOP chairs would go down. Ron Paul would easily win Iowa by a lot. The chairs and states that hung on by a thread this time would start to fall like: Colorado, Missouri, Alaska, Oklahoma, Arizona, Wyoming, etc, etc I can think of more.

Thereafter, it would be chaos to the point that the anti-Paul would begin to be terrified of him.

Also note the demographic working in Ron's favor. If you look at the Iowa caucus break down he took over 50% of the less than 30 year old vote (more than all the other candidates combined on the GOP side.) He took a very disproportionate percent of 30-40 as well. he took almost zero percent of the +60 vote.

But the +60 people will die off even more so in 4 years, and we get new 18 year olds. And the 28 year old voting for him will now be 32 year olds with higher paying jobs. The reason why Paul benefitted over a 4 year span is demographic changes. He wins at the campus level. Those people get older in 4 years. Then in 8 years they get older still, but there politics stay with them, and we get new young.

The only demographic not working in Ron's favor is his own age, but his approach was correct.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

That's my point. That crowd might prefer Rand over Ron, but they are still going to vote for Rubio or Ryan. I don't care how often Rand makes trips to Israel, I don't care how often he wears a yarmulke, or how many times he votes to sanction Iran. He might as well stop trying to suck up that group and start solidifying his base.

Hate to break the news to you, but half of that "base" walked away from him already, and even if they didn't that base could only generate 10% in the primaries at best. Rand is his own man - he believes what he believes. You are free to support whomever you wish to support with your money and time. But don't pitch a fit when he doesn't pander to you.

 

[supermario21]

Even if Ron had won Iowa, he would've started struggling as more of the establishment candidates dropped out. He benefited from the establishment vote being split up among 8 or 9 different candidates. Ron wasn't hardly anyone's second choice, so as candidates like Perry and Bachmann dropped out, all of their support would've went to Romney, Gingrich, etc, and Ron wouldn't have been able to win any states beyond Iowa. Rand will do better than Ron because he will actually be a lot of people's second choice.

I disagree slightly. Paul said he got his biggest boost in supporters when guys like Perry and especially Cain dropped out. I'll find the interview and post it if I can.

 

[Agorism]

I disagree slightly. Paul said he got his biggest boost in supporters when guys like Perry and especially Cain dropped out. I'll find the interview and post it if I can.

They were herding cats. Cane shot up as fast as he crashed. Same with Perry. As soon as Fox decided his candidacy was on the downtrend, the rats jumped ship.

Hardly what I would call a base of support. More like competing for the crowd on an MTV reality show.

 

[Dystopian]

Hate to break the news to you, but half of that "base" walked away from him already, and even if they didn't that base could only generate 10% in the primaries at best. Rand is his own man - he believes what he believes. You are free to support whomever you wish to support with your money and time. But don't pitch a fit when he doesn't pander to you.

Rand is his own man, but that man rode into the senate on his fathers coattails and reputation. He only got elected because his last name was Paul, so maybe it would be beneficial to "pander" to the people who made him into a national figure in the first place. Or, he can continue to pander to the people who are never going to vote for him, the people who are always going to vote for a Rubio, Ryan, or Santorum over him. We'll see how that works out.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

just a moderation type note.

In the campaign I would have altered this headline, were it on Ron, so it didn't show up in google search precisely as that headline. So you know, this is what I just got on my first page of a google search for RON.

Check third entry:

How do we prevent that? Make sure there is nothing that looks bad in the first sentence of the post?

 

[sailingaway]

How do we prevent that? Make sure there is nothing that looks bad in the first sentence of the post?

pretty much. Or start with a line of asterisks and some space if it is bad. Be creative.

It isn't really hard, the main thing is keeping it in mind when you post, to begin with.

 

[TheTexan]

Do your best for Rand 2016... but try not to do it at the expense of your local gov. National politics is a lost cause

 

[Dystopian]

You're becoming a bigger troll than cajun; that is if you're not one of her sock puppets.

You're like a wart on my ass, every thread I post on, there you are trying to get me to acknowledge you. If I am a troll then I must be doing a pretty good job since I'm obviously getting under your skin this much. How about in the future, you try to ignore my posts like I try to ignore yours.

 

[TheTyke]

It's funny how all the tired old attacks are being trotted out again, now that Rand is making moves towards running. We dispelled them all before, during the Senate race... during moneybombs we'd have people relentlessly posting how Rand was a neocon to sap enthusiasm and make it harder to raise funds. And we were vindicated when he became the best senator we've seen in our lifetimes. It reminds me of how old campaign deceptions about Jefferson are STILL repeated today...

True liberty activists who pay attention already know Rand is one of us, and the best chance we've ever had to win the White House. Our real enemies can't stand that, and will relentlessly try to divide us against each other and tear him down. Let's not fall for it.

 

[compromise]

I don't remember. I certainly don't remember Ron ever getting less than 5% in any national poll after his 2008 Presidential run.

This is February 2010.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

You're like a wart on my ass, every thread I post on, there you are trying to get me to acknowledge you. If I am a troll then I must be doing a pretty good job since I'm obviously getting under your skin this much. How about in the future, you try to ignore my posts like I try to ignore yours.

It's rather quaint that you think you're trying to tell us something about Rand, when we've been following and working closely with him for several years now. Nobody cares about your opinion of Rand or anything else for that matter. I'll be all over you smear merchants when you push your garbage in a candidate's forum.

How about in the future you start keeping your word.

Ok, now I feel like a douche. I'll just refrain from commenting on Rand Paul and lets just forget this thread ever happened.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

It's funny how all the tired old attacks are being trotted out again, now that Rand is making moves towards running. We dispelled them all before, during the Senate race... during moneybombs we'd have people relentlessly posting how Rand was a neocon to sap enthusiasm and make it harder to raise funds. And we were vindicated when he became the best senator we've seen in our lifetimes. It reminds me of how old campaign deceptions about Jefferson are STILL repeated today...

True liberty activists who pay attention already know Rand is one of us, and the best chance we've ever had to win the White House. Our real enemies can't stand that, and will relentlessly try to divide us against each other and tear him down. Let's not fall for it.

I believe this comes from a mindset that I call a "third party mentality". What I mean by that is you have individuals or a group of individuals that hold people up to a very narrow standard of ideological purity, and when anyone deviates from that purity, they are cast off as being a traitor or an enemy. You see this in the LP, CP and the dozen or so other groups that fancy themselves as political parties. I am not trying to psychoanalyze here, but in some ways it is almost as though folks with that mentality don't want to succeed. Because if they do, they will feel in some way that they sold out their principles. They seem to be happier being removed from the process, isolated in their own ideological bubble where they can criticize from the sidelines. Of course, "happier" is probably not the best way to describe these folks, since they are so negative in what comes from their lips.

Conversely, you have another mentality that understands that like-minded people can have some disagreements on ideology and policy, but at the same time still be allied on the same team. Rand (or for that matter any other people that fall under the broad category of liberty candidates) might make some votes or statements that I disagree with, but for me those are just minor disagreements, and that the bigger picture shows that these folks are in agreement with what I stand for 90% of the time or more.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Rand is his own man, but that man rode into the senate on his fathers coattails and reputation. He only got elected because his last name was Paul, so maybe it would be beneficial to "pander" to the people who made him into a national figure in the first place. Or, he can continue to pander to the people who are never going to vote for him, the people who are always going to vote for a Rubio, Ryan, or Santorum over him. We'll see how that works out.

Why should he pander to you if he does not believe what you believe? Do you want him to be disingenuous? You mentioned in a previous post "I don't care how often he wears a yarmulke, or how many times he votes to sanction Iran". Is it safe to assume that you would be happier if he refused to wear a yarmulke at the Western Wall, and that he voted against the sanctions? Why should he do that if those are not his personal beliefs?