Rand got less than half the votes than Ron got

twomp said:
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 principal inspires people.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: I think he blew it too in the first couple of debates, but that's all I'm going to say about it right now.

Kissing your feet would have still ended up with a loss though.
 
Schifference said:
Is it over for Rand now or is he still in it to win it?
Click to expand...

Rand is in it to win, in the near term and he's in it to win for Liberty in the long term.

We didn't lose when Romney won the nomination and Ron faded into the sunset. We win. By fighting we win. We are why Cruz happened. We are why Trump happened. We are why anti-tax, anti-spending, anti-estabishment candidates are the new "thing" in the GOP. We are convincing an entire party that the status quo is wrong. We are convincing an entire party that a new direction is needed. We've shown that a new way is needed.

One little vote in one little state is nothing over lifetimes of political campaigns and intellectual movements. Don't lose sight of that.

We will win. One way or another, we will win. We have to.
 
fr33 said:
I don't understand why he was able to do this. Is it because Texas just gets more press than Kentucky?
Click to expand...

I just listened to Cruz's speech. I wanted to barf. He is one fake SOB. But, people ate it up. He strummed every chord. Even made a pitch to libertarians. Thinks he is the second coming of Ronald Reagan.

But, he isn't who we need to worry about the most, in my opinion. It's that POS Rubio.
 
fr33 said:
I don't understand why he was able to do this. Is it because Texas just gets more press than Kentucky?
Click to expand...

I think they were neck and neck going into the first couple debates. I think it's because Rand attacked Donald first and Donald hit back. I'm not really sure what else Cruz did elevated him up, but they were definitely tied not too long ago. Rand just didn't end on top.
 
Kregisen said:
Really? I think Rand would give it one more shot.
Click to expand...

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.
 
CaptainAmerica said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
heavenlyboy34 said:
This^^ and if I understand correctly, the Rand forum is designed for constructive threads WRT the campaign instead of stuff like the OP.
Click to expand...

Constructive? Most posts on this board are about encouraging false optimism. Look at how little got done vs how many threads were started about how much Rand will kick ass.

Rand performed exactly as I expected him myself, so I'm not even bitter now.
 
don't count Rand out too quick. 2o2o has high odds of being a totally different election, with its own rules. just saying...
 
fr33 said:
I don't understand why he was able to do this. Is it because Texas just gets more press than Kentucky?
Click to expand...

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.
 
LawnWake said:
Constructive? Most posts on this board are about encouraging false optimism. Look at how little got done vs how many threads were started about how much Rand will kick ass.

Rand performed exactly as I expected him myself, so I'm not even bitter now.
Click to expand...

No one has ever won a caucus on a message board.

We've got to act to win.
 
jmdrake said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, Rand did go on Alex Jones' show last month.
 
jonhowe said:
For what?? What did he post that is wrong?


WE GOT FUCKING CRUSHED. IT DIDN'T WORK! We need to figure out what went wrong and look ahead. Matt is merely documenting it.
Click to expand...

We didn't get crushed. Stop with that shit. The candidates of rancor did well, because rancor is the cause celebre this cycle. If Rand embraces it, he will perform better on Super Tuesday. Do you want him to do that? Or do you want him to be optimistic and pragmatic? How much in terms of message and tone are you willing to sacrifice for more votes?
 
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...
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.
 
Last edited:
If I were Rand, I would be hurling mountain sized piles of shit at everyone, especially the three guys ahead of him.

I would be going scorched Earth, in an entirely blatant effort to win the White House, without regard for anyone that comes after me or for my political future in the Senate.

We're all lucky, I think, that someone like me is not in Rand's position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top