CPUd
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2012
- Messages
- 22,978
I know I'm new here, but it still surprises me every time I see the argument that candidate X or candidate Y is simply running to siphon support from Rand. Why would anyone go through the process of campaigning, hiring staff, traveling, sucking up to voters, debating, fundraising and so on and so on and so on for months on end when our sinister candidate X could just run a SuperPAC and nuke Rand with ads? Better yet, go on a talking head show and rhetorically kneecap Rand on TV! Saves a lot of time and effort! Even Lindsay Graham, who can't wait to confront Rand on a debate stage, is still salivating at the prospect of being "Your Commander-in-Chief".
What is wrong with the simple idea that a lot of Republicans with the ambition/ego/delusion to run for president have entered the race? Occam's Razor!
I think it is normal. When I watch some of the other candidates' supporters in action, many of them are the same way about their candidate; they complain the press is biased and won't give favorable coverage (or any coverage at all), some or all of the other candidates are running to steal votes from their guy, etc.
It is true to some extent that someone will consider the other candidates in the race when making the decision to run. If there are 5 candidates in the race, and they are all taking the same position, someone is likely to enter the race taking the opposite position. If it were only that simple. Some issues have multiple positions that overlap or contradict with positions on other issues. this is why politicians like to frame positions as for/against a given issue. On a divisive issue, support could be split 5 ways on the "for" side, but taking the "against" side could get a candidate all of that support (including big donors). The recent Jack Hunter article does a good job explaining how Rand fits into all this.
In this race, we also have/had Perry, Santorum running because they saw some success in 2012 and believed they could duplicate it, Walker because he dominated Iowa for so long and had 350,000 donors from the recall he thought would be behind him, Jindal and Rubio because they were trotted out on national TV to be the face of the party for the SOTU response, and Christie, because he was sold as being the most bipartisan (prior to Sandy and the bridge stuff).