I actually didn't have either Fox or CNN viewers in mind. I'm talking more about talk radio and websites such as,but not limited to, Breitbart. These are sources that I see, maybe you see it differently, as potential sources of support for Rand. They love it when someone goes after the establishment. Now granted, just having these places on your side isn't the recipe for success. Talk show radio and places like Breitbart and Redstate love Trump and Cruz, but I don't think either stand a chance in the general election, but they love them because they are seen as being fearless and standing up against the establishment (that's what I think their appeal is anyways, kind of hard when I'm not a supporter of either so I'm not entirely sure what drives people to them).
You're right, but the kind of folks that are picking who they 'support' right now based on who they see superficially as anti-establishment are not donors and caucusgoers and they can be convinced to jump to another candidate with the most trivial of emotional appeals. Better to angle as a palatable answer for the donor class and moneyed interests who fear chaos and understand there is no market left if debt spirals out of control. Then when the time is right, Rand can kiss a few babies and, voila.
My point was more that, Rand at one point, at least on Breitbart, was received very positively, but that no longer seems to be the case, and Rand also seems to be hounded quite often whenever he makes comments like this by people on twitter and facebook. That doesn't mean Rand has to start getting bombastic, but why are places that used to be very supportive of Rand changing? what caused them to sour to Rand?
But again these are superficialities. The temporary blathering of drunken low information voters does not define the winner of the Republican primary. People liked talking about 9-9-9 because Daily show had some good jokes. So Herman Cain is a "frontrunner lol". Then Santorum wins Iowa with a sweatervest. But of course Mr. Country Club Romney wins it all.
The "many" people I was referring to were people that I see who may actually consider Rand as their choice.
They don't decide the nominee. Voters don't decide the nominee. Voters don't decide the nominee. Voters don't decide the nominee.
This is not a democracy. It is money. Money. Money! The winning candidate only need be plausibly popular within a narrative and desirable to money.
I think there is an overlap in potential voters between Rand and Cruz. I perceive many of the people in this overlap as people who would consider being hated by the rest of the Senate as a good thing. These are people, in my view, that want to see the establishment attacked and brought down. When the institution is seen as poorly as is currently, I don't think being hated by it is necessarily seen as a bad thing by these people is the point I was trying to make. Maybe I'm entirely wrong in the cross-section of voters Rand is going for.
You are absolutely right, if popular vote and public sentiment were relevant. But it isn't! What the media says the public sentiment is - that is relevant. And media is owned by money.
To put it more clearly, a few years ago there was a story about a member of the steering committee calling Justin Amash an Asshole, this brought about quite a bit of attention and support among this same group of people. So my only point was being disliked isn't necessarily a bad thing (and no I'm not saying Rand has to all of a sudden be hated by his peers, let me just get that out there before someone misconstrues my point
).
I understand, and you're right. But what matters to average joe is not in Rand's control. It is in the media's control, through total narrative domination. Thus he must position liberty as acceptable to money. In fact it is. But those people are insane too, and largely racist, and those who don't have money don't deserve it to these people. They are the pretty ones, the ones that just laugh and smile and afford better clothes therefore have the appearance of being superior - and when it works for them, it reinforces their belief that the masses are animals who are so dumb as to let they, whom they secretly know to be of little worth inside, walk wherever they want, take whatever they want, and say whatever they want - with only a facade to back it up.
Let me reverse the question, do you not think there is a decent amount of people who would see being disliked by many of the insiders as a good thing?
Yes I do and you are right. But these people are spineless and powerless and watch too much TV.
I'm not really that cynical.
