Rand got less than half the votes than Ron got

[fr33]

No, it was because Cruz has been more bombastic in his pandering. His style is abrasive, and abrasive is what a certain segment of the GOP base wants at the moment.

Rand would be wise to do everything he can to paint himself as a care-free renegade, he stands opposed to his party and his associates in Washington as he fights for low taxes, decreased spending, peace, privacy and prosperity.

In general, I think he needs to stop talking in specifics and he needs to stop speaking in terms of current political paradigms. "I'm the most conservative" is something he should not say. "I'm the one who wants you to keep your money, your guns, and your god" is what he needs to say. "I think we will surprise people in this Republican caucus," needs to become "We're leading a revolution against the old ways of graft and greed, and blazing a new path towards peace and prosperity."

He needs to speak in grand terms, that appeal to the individual. He needs to forget attempts to appeal to political affiliation, and he needs to very blatantly castigate his opponents when they show themselves as supporters of the status quo. Rand represents a new way. He needs to make sure everyone realizes it.

Man, you are saying that Rand should have acted more like his dad. Maybe you are right. I thought he was doing the right thing in pandering but this election has broken all the rules of politics that I thought I knew. Ron got almost no votes last time and now Rand is on track to get even fewer.

 

[jmdrake]

I think some of you are delusional. Ron Paul if he were running, would have blown Carson out of the water... It's okay to give Rand Paul excuses but please, Rand Paul took a calculated risk by distancing himself from his father. He became buddy buddy with McConnell. Both were calculated risks which were praised by the exact same people who are now saying that the "climate" was wrong for Rand Paul. The reality is he took a risk and it damaged his credibility with the people who supported his father. Just look at the weak money bombs and lack of enthusiasm. The writing has been on the wall for a LONG time now. This is not new.

^This.

Ron lost too. To win, the person needs to appeal to one hell of a lot more people than just libertarians. I would have thought you could have figured that out by now.

That's just it. Ron appealed to a lot more than just libertarians! Really "Silent Bull" is attacking those voting for Trump or Bernie for "not really being about liberty." Okay. Then you're pointing out you have to have more than libertarians to win? Cool. Bernie Sanders voters aren't libertarians. By in large Trump voters aren't as well (at least I hope not). What happened though is that Ron appealed to people who didn't support his ideology 100% because they believed he was honest and agreed with him on certain things. Rand tried to appeal to people who didn't like his dad's foreign policy. Okay. But those people, while liking Rand as a second choice, prefer the "Let's kill the families of ISIS" rhetoric of Trump or "Let's make the sand glow" rhetoric of Cruz. So Rand lost support while Cruz and Trump picked up support he was trying to get.

 

[invisible]

matt. you are banned for a bit. fuck off you piece of shit.

I thought The Collins was actually working for Rand's campaign in some paid capacity. Did that change?

 

[invisible]

I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. The vote was split twice the amount than in 2008/2012. Given the talk of terror, and so forth, at many of the precincts, my guess is that in the end, Students For Rand didn't show as expected and In Iowa (at least) Isis beheaded the Liberty candidate. And I would also add that the Ron supporters from 2008/2012 that didn't vote for Rand went to Trump. These would be the States' rights guys. Not really Liberty in my opinion--more like supremacists that never actually bothered to read the Confederate constitution, which forbade States' rights.

Here's the positive: Trump was taken down a peg (almost 2)
Here's the negative: America at large is not interested in Liberty and we will go broke as America enters WWIII.
Here's reality: Trump will continue to decline, Cruz will fall apart and when the smoke clears Rubio will be the nominee. Vote your heart--the Libertarian Party; I plan to caucus for Rand in Ky & vote for him as my US Senator and perhaps he can stick his finger in the dyke as our rights are swept away.
I will not blame Rand for any of this. Ron got nowhere and Rand will get a little bit farther, but in the end, they were both spitting in the wind. Out of about 150 million American voters, Libertarians, including the Ron Paul revolution only made up about 3%.
We're doomed.
And one more thing...Rand could have a shot as an independent (that's where his supporters live, really) if Bloomberg jumps in, That would be a 4 way race.

Don't say it's over yet. A good showing in NH and a top 3 finish in NV will absolutely keep him in the game.

 

[trey4sports]

If everybody keeps talking the way that they have been on this forum the past couple hours, I'm not sure Rand would even want to continue. Everybody's lost hope. Honestly, I am disappointed that he put all his chips on the young vote because clearly they are not reliable AT ALL, but hopefully he comes up with another strategy after tonight.

No one wants to count on the notoriously unreliable "youth" vote but Rand doesn't pander to paticular groups.... he has a message and that message happens to resonate really well with young people therefore he tries to turn them out to vote. It's not like a romney campaign where the message is tailored to a voting audience.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Ron finished the 2012 Republican Primary a very distant 4th to Gingrich, Santorum and Romney in total voting. He was never a threat to win. Ever. He won zero states. He was a movement candidate like Pat Robertson. He had a base. He was effective. A guy who is repulsive to 85% of the voters of a party is not going to win. That isn't a media conspiracy.

That said. I do think he would have done better than Rand this year. But Sanders, Carson, Cruz, and Trump would pull from Ron's support. Maybe he would get 8-12% vs Rand's 4%. It is hard to see him doing better than 12% and it is hard to imagine he would have done worse than Rand but it is obviously a guess.

You're wrong, Ron Paul was a threat to win, we were getting delegates in Iowa and many other states, that possibility was way more in favor of Ron Paul than any one besides Mittens mcromnasty. Do you recall how most of the state conventions were shut down?lights turned off....ballots taken away..adjourned illegally because ron paul had delegates?

 

[invisible]

Ok as a young person who's been watching closely and has really grown to like Rand a lot let me just put in my 2 cents. Once the media starts really digging at Ted Cruz, I believe he will lose a lot of his support. Donald Trump is just a huge distraction right now. Marco Rubio is basically Bush III. Carson is unqualified to be president although a likeable and surely a genuine guy at heart. He just wears his superstitions too much on his sleaves.

Paul still has a good chance, he's ahead of Bush, Fiorina, Christie, Santorum, obviously Huckabee dropped out. Guys this wasn't a huge win but it also wasn't a total loss. Let's keep a positive attitude moving forward, this is an INSANE race. So much could happen, you could possibly say maybe it's good Paul hasn't peaked yet.

THIS! If he can finish above this bunch in NH (and maybe even above one of the top 3 in IA), and make a top 3 finish in NV, he still has a very good shot going into super Tuesday!

 

[KingNothing]

Man, you are saying that Rand should have acted more like his dad. Maybe you are right. I thought he was doing the right thing in pandering but this election has broken all the rules of politics that I thought I knew. Ron got almost no votes last time and now Rand is on track to get even fewer.

I'm in total agreement with you. I thought the same way you did. We, and Rand, failed in that regard -- we didn't accurately judge the tone of the GOP voter.

No matter. In the long run, Rand's style wins -- he isn't pandering. He's working to form coalitions to enact change. He isn't being brash. He's being measured in tone and rhetoric. His way is best in the long run. Don't lose site of that.

 

[KingNothing]

It certainly is not over yet, by any stretch.

Cruz is utterly contemptible. Independents hate him. Trump is a clown. A giant swath of the American electorate hates him.

These guys are not going to win the White House. Trump might not even want it. A lot can change between now and November. Don't lose hope.

 

[Krugminator2]

You're wrong, Ron Paul was a threat to win, we were getting delegates in Iowa and many other states, that possibility was way more in favor of Ron Paul than any one besides Mittens mcromnasty. Do you recall how most of the state conventions were shut down?lights turned off....ballots taken away..adjourned illegally because ron paul had delegates?

You are the perfect example of a voter Rand does not appeal to but Ron does. And that is roughly the difference in Rand's vote total.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I think he said some time back that it was a one shot deal.

Why on earth would he, anyway? The so-called liberty movement was HORRIBLE to him. Stabbing him in the back the whole way.

Yup

Much as I'd like to see him try again, I wouldn't blame him at all if he didn't.

It amuses me that the "libertarians" who chose not to support Rand blame Rand for not motivating them to support him (!).

Unfuckingbelievable

 

[KingNothing]

THIS! If he can finish above this bunch in NH (and maybe even above one of the top 3 in IA), and make a top 3 finish in NV, he still has a very good shot going into super Tuesday!

I think he just needs to stay in the top 5 in NH, SC, and Nevada.

 

[Crashland]

So we have 2 factions here at RPF, those who blame the candidate and those who blame the electorate. I'm with the latter.

 

[PCKY]

No it's not the truth and you prove again that you don't know shit. Rand Paul's strategy to court the rank and file morons in the GOP did him in. He decided early on to distance himself from his father and the movement that brought him to the dance. The weak money bombs and the lack of enthusiasm proved it. Did you see any sign bombs on freeway overpasses? In 2012, a sea of people with home made signs followed Ron Paul wherever he went often preceding him before he even got there. Did you see the same enthusiasm for Rand Paul? His strategy of working with the establishment didn't work. Plain and simple. It didn't gain him any support but it did lose him some with his father's base.

It may be too late for this election but all is not lost. The rEVOLution is still out there and Rand Paul can lead it. He needs to go back to the Rand Paul of 2010. The one that said Iran was no threat to us. The one that said he would end aid to EVERYONE including Israel. The one that won't kiss the ring of whoever is leading the GOP. Hopefully he learns now to go home with the one that brought him to the dance. The country will still need it.

The problem is that the Revolution was dancing all by itself. All that enthusiasm got Ron exactly nowhere. What sickens me is that the pundits were right--the youth vote simply didn't show... As predicted and Rand will have to spend all of next week explaining that instead of focusing more Liberty.
And the next debate probably won't happen either as you were guaranteed with top three in Iowa and the rest is up to polling. Rand has no argument now. His "awesome" ground game in Iowa didn't deliver so the awesome ground game in NH will likely fold as well.
I will not blame Rand for this! Our whole system is FUBAR and until it burns to the ground and start over, Liberty will be a great idea, but not much in reality. Adams and Jefferson are spinning.

 

[PaleoPaul]

Hmm...

Rand Paul 2020?
Matt Bevin 2020?
Justin Amash 2020?
David Koch 2020?

 

[KingNothing]

So we have 2 factions here at RPF, those who blame the candidate and those who blame the electorate. I'm with the latter.

How can you blame either?

Just worry about what you've done to change the electorate.

 

[KingNothing]

Hmm...

Rand Paul 2020?
Matt Bevin 2020?
Justin Amash 2020?
David Koch 2020?

Paul's re-election campaign in 2020 should be easy.

 

[fcreature]

Uhhh....no. You don't get it. Ron would have done better this year Trump would have muted any criticism against Ron for being against the Iraq war. Hell, Trump was against the Afghanistan war until he was for it. Trump was have muted any criticism against Ron being tied to 9/11 truthers since Trump grabbed the "twofer" mantle and ran with it, both attacking dubya for "not protecting us" prior to 9/11 (undermining the official story that there was no actionable intelligence) and being proud to go on the Alex Jones show, something Rand has not been willing to do after Alex went temporarily insane following Rand's endorsement of Romney. And Ron most likely wouldn't have played the fool and gone after Trump to try to get him to "pledge not to run third party" and "pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee" the way Rand did. Seriously, Rand has made some actual mistakes (I know that's hard for some people to admit) and that's part of the reason why he didn't do as well..

I'm not the one who doesn't get it. You are comparing Ron's run which was in an entirely different political environment to Rand's. Let me point out a few things.

First, when Ron ran the political climate was far more anti-war than it is today. Sure, Trump says the Iraq war was a mistake but then he turns around and says we need to go over to the middle east, murder the families of "terrorists", steal the oil, and bomb the fuck out of them. Trump is not anti war and did not get any support for being anti war.

Going on the Alex Jones show would have accomplished absolutely zilch, aside from removing one criticism you have today of his campaign. Going on that show does not get you more voters in Iowa.

Trump pledged to support the nominee and not to run third party as well.

Yes, Rand's campaign did make some mistakes as do all campaigns. But to try to sit here and say Ron's actual campaign was run better than Rand's is absolutely ridiculous and your reasoning behind it is even worse. Your primary mistake is thinking that the same rules apply to Rand as they do Trump or Cruz. That has always been where you have gone wrong in your criticism of Rand's campaign this entire cycle.

Keep in mind Ron lost all his attempts at running for president and never even came close. Rand's first attempt is not going great as of now, yet you are advocating for Rand to run a campaign modeled after a failed candidate. When in reality, Paul's initial strategy would have been very successful in 9 out of 10 election cycles.

You are also making the huge mistake of assuming that either Cruz/Trump is going to win the nomination, thus making the incorrect assumption that even if Rand ran the exact campaign as these two he would ultimately win.

 

[PCKY]

So we have 2 factions here at RPF, those who blame the candidate and those who blame the electorate. I'm with the latter.

I think I'm there too. Hindsight is 20/20. I believe if the Rand of 2010 stayed the Rand of 2010 he would never have been given a voice at all.

 

[Badger Paul]

"you are banned for a bit"

A bit? Why don't you kick this loser's arse out of RPF once and for all.