Rand got less than half the votes than Ron got

hells_unicorn said:
I don't think a single person is surprised at this, I think the issue is that there isn't really any plan for rectifying this. The television set is basically the religion of the average American voter, and even many that use the internet will flock to places that mirror the message coming out of the idiot box. There is a reciprocal relationship between the willful ignorance of the average voter and the stream of lies that flows from the media.

How do we counter this? What are your suggestions?
Click to expand...

How do we counter this?



Nothing. Lose, go "aw shucks, we'll get them next time" and they'll make rules to make it less possible you can get close.

Find a cave, wait for the end.
 
All these theories and nobody says the real reason why this happened. Its one you cant blame Rand for either. When Ron ran, he was the sole antiestablishment candidate Republican or Democrat. He was the only one speaking different ideas. That is the reason he has so much support. After realizing this ideology is taking a foothold, TPTB selected candidates to run against Rand this election that would split his vote and dilute his message. If you look at candidates they all are built to siphon support from Rand. Cruz copies Rand's message, but because he's a pathological liar and a showman he steals them and says in a preaching tone. Trump is supposedly an antiestablishment candidate (no clue how people believe this) who caters to the lowest IQ electorate who are fed up with govt and dont understand that what he is advocating will make it worse. Then you have the worst one.. Bernie Sanders. My guess is he takes away more votes than anyone else. When Ron ran, he was the only choice for these people. Now you have fake conservative/libertarians pumping Cruz as if he is Ron Paul. You have 24/7 media coverage of Trump. Sanders is also given a ton of attention and support to push socialistic agendas promising young people to not be in debt from college. They are going to do this every election from now on. The only thing we can do is spread the message enough to get people pissed. At this point, nothing shy of a violent revolution will amount to anything and there's just not enough willing to fight right now. People wont force their hand until the economy collapses, but by then they will already have preparations in place to prevent us from taking over.
 
Last edited:
parocks said:
Change political positions to ones liked by the big oligopoly that controls everything? Lose, but not complain so much? Because there really isn't a "plan to rectify this" that includes 1) policies that the bad guys won't accept and 2) winning.

Give up? I'd guess that there are plenty of Ron Paul supporters who are transitioning to the "give up" camp. I'm getting close to there. Maybe some day there will be anarchy and chopping off heads, because until that happens we lose, our candidates get worse and worse, the US keeps increasing the number of countries it attacks per year - and the overall quality of everything we consume gets lower and lower and lower. Hey, we have GMO Salmon now. Government said that was ok. And I bet the Libertarian principle says "in a free market, that's fine". But it's not ok. It's just another new thing competing with other new things for the worst thing ever.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about acquiring a TV network.
 
LibertyEagle said:
I'm talking about acquiring a TV network.
Click to expand...

That would probably be the single best thing that could be done, but requires hundreds of millions to make one big enough to become relevant, right? That might help with old voters who get their source from the television, but there also is another problem that needs to be addressed. The younger generation now who thinks socialism is the way to go... They dont get their news from the television yet they still believe this is the right way.
 
wizardwatson said:
Or, looked at another way, half the liberty movement in '08 and '12 were posers.
Click to expand...

bingo.

no one is willing to admit this, however. They want to go off on a tirade in la-la land and blame rand for these morons voting for cruz/trump/carson.

Look, any one in the liberty movement is not for launching nukes, killing innocent kids or making the sand glow (comments by the 3 aforementioned).

So, its an easy conclusion, if they changed their vote, they were posers. Plain and simple.
 
Ron is just a more charismatic guy who most importantly didn't dirty his brand by rolling around with Mitch McConnell. Rand should of never compromised, he should of been a clone of his dad but his decision to try to triangulate the establishment and his sad attempt at wooing minorities was a horrific mistake. Rand needed to be the champion against globalism, against the wars, against the media, against the destruction of this country but all Rand could muster this election was some lame tax plan with a VAT in it and privacy issues. We can't win unless we make it a moral issue, a life or death one, the country is dying and only we can save it because everyone else is an incompetent at best but more likely a straight up crook. Rand wasn't bold enough where he should of been, he was much too afraid of pissing off the conservative establishment that would never ever vote for him. I don't think Rand should run again because I don't think he can win, we need somebody else, not a Paul.

All the internet comment boards belonged to Ron Paul back in 08-12, now they belong to Trump and Bernie. Ron had a cult of personality on the internet; distancing yourself from all those freaks, geeks, and conspiracy theorists pretty much hollowed out Rand's base and grassroots support.
 
Last edited:
Matt Collins said:
Looks like Ron outperformed Rand in BOTH 2012 and 2008.


In case anyone is wondering Ron received 26,036 votes or 21.5% of the Iowa vote in 2012.


Rand will receive far less than half of that this year in 2016


Just to put into perspective, Ron also received 11,817 or 10% of Iowa in 2008.



So much for trending upwards and growing the base. :mad:
Click to expand...

So much for mainstreaming and moderating and flip-flopping towards the middle. Gee, if I recall correctly that's what Matt Collins advocated in the beginning... amirite?

Looks like Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard won soundly, last night.

jkob said:
Ron is just a more charismatic guy who most importantly didn't dirty his brand by rolling around with Mitch McConnell. Rand should of never compromised, he should of been a clone of his dad but his decision to try to triangulate the establishment and his sad attempt at wooing minorities was a horrific mistake. Rand needed to be the champion against globalism, against the wars, against the media, against the destruction of this country but all Rand could muster this election was some lame tax plan with a VAT in it and privacy issues. We can't win unless we make it a moral issue, a life or death one, the country is dying and only we can save it because everyone else is an incompetent at best but more likely a straight up crook. Rand wasn't bold enough where he should of been, he was much too afraid of pissing off the conservative establishment that would never ever vote for him. I don't think Rand should run again because I don't think he can win, we need somebody else, not a Paul.
Click to expand...

Yep.. I really would have liked to see Judge Nap run. That man is solid on liberty, an exceptional messenger, and great on tv. Seriously, he could have had a very strong run; perhaps one reason he stayed out of the race was Rand, who started running before Ron's 2012 campaign.

A sad turn of events for the liberty movement. It's hard to see where things improve from this point.
 
Last edited:
But actually, within the context of "any president who is not the worst president yet being highly unlikthe Elderely ever", there are a few tricks that could be used to increase the likelihood of some improvement at some time.

1) Talk about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion all the time. You won't win, but you'll change the parameters. Do a bong hit on stage, when talking about the Protocols of Elders of Zion. A line of coke, and USS Liberty 1967. The most brutal attacks mixed with actions showing the maximum disdain for the entire process. Ron Paul and Trump did very mild versions of this. A ridiculously extreme version of this would get peoples attention. And it would increase the range of permissible discourse in the future, because if 2020 candidate X is just blowing everything up, 2024 candidate can discuss those things as well. Take the offense and push, hard. You won't win, but each president has been worst than the last, over and over, so, this could possibly increase the chances of something good happening, sometime.
 
wizardwatson said:
Or, looked at another way, half the liberty movement in '08 and '12 were posers.
Click to expand...

This is the take-away. There was no Ron Paul base. Just people that wanted to go against the establishment. Rand has done the best that he can do. Those that wanted Rand to be more like Ron were wrong and are still wrong. Ron would have done worse in this climate. True liberty voters are still a very small minority.
 
LibertyEagle said:
I'm talking about acquiring a TV network.
Click to expand...

This.

If anything last night has made clear once again that the media decides the winner for the most part. Therefore, if we want to win, we have to force the media narrative.

Preaching to the choir doesn't work and only talking about politics isn't going to entice new viewers/listeners. The only way is to create a host of different shows that deal with every day stupid stuff. Then slowly feed your narrative into those stories.. Exactly how all the existing media companies are doing that.

I'm not sure if it HAS to be on TV. What is much more important is that a couple stable people start something like this and it doesn't become a one man show.
 
K466 said:
So much for mainstreaming and moderating and flip-flopping towards the middle. Gee, if I recall correctly that's what Matt Collins advocated in the beginning... amirite?

Looks like Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard won soundly, last night.
Click to expand...

Too much competition was the problem. Sanders, Trump, Cruz and Carson all got votes that could've gone to Rand. In 2012, Dems and I's could vote in the GOP primary. The non-establishment, not socon choices on the GOP side in 2012 were Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann. In Iowa, Romney, Gingrich and Perry were all establishment and Santorum was the socon. Here, Trump, Cruz and Carson were all outsiders, and Trump was certainly able to paint himself as more outsider than all of them.

Rand can still win, theoretically. He's taking a goldilocks "just right" position between conservative outsider and establishment. I'm not sure how exactly Cruz and Trump and Carson all just vanish, but if they did, Rand would be in a good spot, because it looks like 2016 is a good year for a conservative outsider and a bad year for establishment RINOs. The media, the oligopoly, wants Bush and always has, so expect that efforts will be made to achieve that objective. Rubio is the backup RINO. Clinton v Bush is what the oligopoly media wants. Bush did very bad in Iowa, so, that's good.
 
Many posters hit the nail on the head. Many of Ron's supporters weren't truly for liberty.

Don't get me wrong. For us to win any meaningful election we certainly need to bring in people that are not 100% sold. That is just the reality of the situation for any candidate.

However, what amazed me was the degree that many of Ron's supporters were not for liberty. How on earth could a Ron Paul supporter vote Bernie Sanders? That makes zero sense. He is the opposite of liberty.
 
jkob said:
Ron is just a more charismatic guy who most importantly didn't dirty his brand by rolling around with Mitch McConnell. Rand should of never compromised, he should of been a clone of his dad but his decision to try to triangulate the establishment and his sad attempt at wooing minorities was a horrific mistake. Rand needed to be the champion against globalism, against the wars, against the media, against the destruction of this country but all Rand could muster this election was some lame tax plan with a VAT in it and privacy issues. We can't win unless we make it a moral issue, a life or death one, the country is dying and only we can save it because everyone else is an incompetent at best but more likely a straight up crook. Rand wasn't bold enough where he should of been, he was much too afraid of pissing off the conservative establishment that would never ever vote for him. I don't think Rand should run again because I don't think he can win, we need somebody else, not a Paul.

All the internet comment boards belonged to Ron Paul back in 08-12, now they belong to Trump and Bernie. Ron had a cult of personality on the internet; distancing yourself from all those freaks, geeks, and conspiracy theorists pretty much hollowed out Rand's base and grassroots support.
Click to expand...

Trump and Bernie were new in 2016. R Paul v 3.0 is not going to be as new.
 
twomp said:
Rand Paul took a calculated risk by distancing himself from his father. He became buddy buddy with McConnell. Both were calculated risks... and it damaged his credibility with the people who supported his father. Just look at the weak money bombs and lack of enthusiasm.
Click to expand...

These are the exact reasons I did not give any money this cycle; I do not want to reward this type of behavior. I still support Rand and will vote for him though. Another thing that bothered me is when he went on the Rush show and said he would pander to the masses to get their votes...that is what an establishment candidate would do.

All of that said, I am not upset with a 5th place finish. WE BEAT BUSH. That's at least a worthy consolation prize. Fuck Bush.
 
SilentBull said:
This is the take-away. There was no Ron Paul base. Just people that wanted to go against the establishment. Rand has done the best that he can do. Those that wanted Rand to be more like Ron were wrong and are still wrong. Ron would have done worse in this climate. True liberty voters are still a very small minority.
Click to expand...

If that is the case then it is time to give up on electoral politics, I think Ron does more than twice as well as Rand would of if it weren't for the fact that he's 80 years old now.

I agree tho, there wasn't some giant legion of libertarian Austrian-free marketeers propelling Ron's candidacies thru the internet or grassroots advocacy and this "base" simply had mad attractive options this time around in their opinion. The problem is globalism, these wars, the oppressive government, I just thought Rand lacked on all them. He needed to take bold maybe even extreme/controversial policy positions, complete legalization of drugs would of been a good one or maybe not shitting on that whole Iran deal. Rand had 6 years to differentiate himself in the senate and all we got were a couple filibusters and a lot of coozying up to Mitch McConnell. Cruz did jack squat in the Senate and made no friends, he just won Iowa and is the viable candidate going forward so I guess we got to put them in our pipe and smoke it.
 
Matthanuf06 said:
Many posters hit the nail on the head. Many of Ron's supporters weren't truly for liberty.

Don't get me wrong. For us to win any meaningful election we certainly need to bring in people that are not 100% sold. That is just the reality of the situation for any candidate.

However, what amazed me was the degree that many of Ron's supporters were not for liberty. How on earth could a Ron Paul supporter vote Bernie Sanders? That makes zero sense. He is the opposite of liberty.
Click to expand...

Both want to legalize weed, right?

Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders were both saying things that were new. Young folks don't have set political ideologies and enjoy hot freshness. Here's a possible mind-set of a Paul / Sanders voter.

"I think that things are seriously broken in this country. I don't know what the solutions are, but they should be vastly different from what we're doing now. Ron Paul is proposing something vastly different from what we have now. Because I like "vastly different" I'll vote for that. Bernie Sanders is saying something vastly different from what we have now, and vastly different from Ron Paul, because I don't know what the answer is, except that big changes need to be made, I'll vote for Bernie."

Some people liked Ron Paul just because they thought he seemed honest. Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders are both old, and are seen as authentic as opposed to plastic. Many of Ron Paul's voters were largely unfamiliar with the unpopular Libertarian ideology, they just liked him for whatever reason.
 
LibertyEagle said:
I'm talking about growing up. I'm talking about looking at the issue and dealing with it. There are people who have shown they have pockets deep enough to support a good plan. Perhaps it's time we came up with one.
Click to expand...

The fundamental problem is that this country is stuck in a state of arrested development. As a movement I think we grew up in the 2012 cycle, and those of us who didn't have a fit over Rand's nuanced approach showed an even greater level of maturity. However, the average voter is essentially a combination of middle-aged adolescents and geriatric children who believe everything that daddy government and uncle MSM tells them, or are fooled by the first fashionable non-conformist.

We've been doing the alternative media thing, and a bunch of them were peeled off by Donald Trump's dog and pony show, having our own television station will probably yield similar results. At this point, I'm more of a mind to go back to a local, ground-up approach, but with an eye to not only changing the politics of a locale, but the entire culture. I think our problem here is as much theological as it is philosophical, and I think a concerted effort to take down prominent heresiarchs in the American Christian community would be a good place to start.
 
Matthanuf06 said:
However, what amazed me was the degree that many of Ron's supporters were not for liberty. How on earth could a Ron Paul supporter vote Bernie Sanders? That makes zero sense. He is the opposite of liberty.
Click to expand...

Most of these people who jumped were just anti-war. Ron was the only anti-war candidate running in 2012 really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top