Rand got less than half the votes than Ron got

TomtheTinker said:
Unless there is something else that Collins did to get banned besides this post. You had zero reason to ban him.
Click to expand...
I'm sure this wasn't the reason, but Collins has always been the first person to shit on Ron's tactics and say repeatedly that Rand needed to be doing exactly what he was doing, because none of us understands politics.
For him to come in here and pretend like he isn't the biggest cheerleader for the strategy Rand was using, is the height of two-facedness.

misterx said:
He'll stay in for NH at least, but at this point it's about getting exposure and spreading the message.
Click to expand...

Am I taking crazy pills? For four years we've been told the message has to take a back seat to getting elected.
I know I didn't imagine all that, because I was called all sorts of nasty things for thinking that we needed to have a consistent message out there.
 
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...

Your analysis is wrong:

1) competition much tougher now than in 2008 or 2012.

2) national mood not anti-war like in 2008 or pro-fiscal conservatism like in 2012.

3) Rand polled better in general election polls than Ron.

4) Iowa caucus was cancelled.

In hindsight, Rand made some strategic overall decisions that cost him, the biggest being that he overdid it in showing he could get along with establishment (without getting the fundraising to show for it).
 
ron_paul-e1379955495435.jpg



People actually thought Rand was going to get more votes than Ron Paul while running on "libertarian" lite?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
CaptainAmerica said:
People actually thought Rand was going to get more votes than Ron Paul while running on "libertarian" lite?
Click to expand...

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.
 
twomp said:
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 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.
Click to expand...

And if he would have kept all of the libertarian purists, he would have still lost. Because in reality, those purists were only a small fraction of Ron's supporters.
 
LibertyEagle said:
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.
Click to expand...

I guess you don't recall 2011 , the Iowa caucus recounting....and the Santorum surge? its all manufactured.
 
I think what has been said by others is the truth. This was a very difficult election for the liberty message to run in due to ISIS, no tea party, and Trump running. To make matters worse, Cruz was able to steal Rand's thunder and take a lot of his other votes away. At the same time, since hindsight is 20/20, Rand definitely make some errors such as attacking Trump first, which killed his poll numbers that he NEVER recovered from. All in all, I am proud of Rand and wish he continues to get in the debates, but it just wasn't happening this time. Republicans just don't care about the NSA or the criminal justice system, and apparently the debt isn't high enough yet for Republicans to really care.

I really wish Rand had run in 2012 instead of Ron. I think Rand could have won it all that year - the climate was perfect with the tea party and the field was very weak.

Maybe 2020 will look better.
 
twomp said:
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 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.
Click to expand...

What do you think ISIS would have done to Ron?

You know Ron would have said the truth about it, which is that it's a non-threat and of our own creation (i.e. same thing Rand's said, but more blatantly).

How would that have played with the bloodthirsty screaming mob which is the GOP electorate this cycle?

How about Ron's objection to building a border fence because, ala E. Germany, it might be used to keep us in?

How do you think that that would've played with people who want to deport 11 million Mexicans?
 
I think what has been said by others is the truth. This was a very difficult election for the liberty message to run in due to ISIS, no tea party, and Trump running. To make matters worse, Cruz was able to steal Rand's thunder and take a lot of his other votes away. At the same time, since hindsight is 20/20, Rand definitely make some errors such as attacking Trump first, which killed his poll numbers that he NEVER recovered from. All in all, I am proud of Rand and wish he continues to get in the debates, but it just wasn't happening this time. Republicans just don't care about the NSA or the criminal justice system, and apparently the debt isn't high enough yet for Republicans to really care.

I really wish Rand had run in 2012 instead of Ron. I think Rand could have won it all that year - the climate was perfect with the tea party and the field was very weak.

Maybe 2020 will look better.
 
CaptainAmerica said:
I guess you don't recall 2011 , the Iowa caucus recounting....and the Santorum surge? its all manufactured.
Click to expand...

Yup. And so is the Rubio surge. I've been saying that the establishment was pushing Rubio. They will continue and the MSM will continue doing it too. You can whine about it and continue being a victim, or figure out what can be done about it for the future.
 
2012_Iowa_Republican_Caucus_Results_2016_02_01_2.jpg


according to ground counters...more homes had Ron Paul support than any candidate running, and it was so immense that it should have been enough to win,of course that is still rumor...but this shows Ron Paul was a huge deal, Rand could never get that kind of ground support or votes...his problem despite many of you denying it, is that Rand is too much of a G man. Rand is basically the vanilla of civil liberties...its not appealing to a lot of people,including myself.
 
LibertyEagle said:
And if he would have kept all of the libertarian purists, he would have still lost. Because in reality, those purists were only a small fraction of Ron's supporters.
Click to expand...

He got half of what his dad got the first time around. In "reality", he did worse. He didn't just lose the "purists," he lost the energy of the whole movement. How many people here said that they would still vote for Rand but they won't put in the effort that they did for his dad. Sorry, you were one of those people cheering him on as he tried out his new strategy. It didn't work. How about now, he goes back to being the Rand Paul of 2010. It's more of a winning strategy than trying to play footsy with Mitch McConnell. Standing on principle inspires people.
 
rich34 said:
Well I certainly do not want banned but technically speaking I can find no wrong with anything he said?? The truth is Rand took a different approach that he thought would be a winner but he wasn't counting on Trump being a media darling and Cruz being funded by Goldman Sachs who he likes to claim is his grassroots. I think if anything Rand or anyone else should learn from this is people want the cold hard truth, they don't want it sugar coated. Go Rand, nonetheless!
Click to expand...

I'll give you my opinion as to why he got banned and deserves it. He's a negative fuck!! I'm sick of hearing him crow about how right he thinks he is when Rand gets poor results. It's not Rand's fault. I spoke for Rand at a neo-con typical caucus in Mt. Pleasant (not very pleasent). I watched the votes being counted and there were no shenagans I could see. Paul got 9 and Cruz got 45. It wasn't because the idiots didn't understand or like Rand, it was because most of the American sheeple ARE idiots. I don't know what the cure to this idiocy is, but gloating negative comments when we need more energy is just being an asshole...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top