Rand got less than half the votes than Ron got

[ChristianAnarchist]

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.

I have to agree.

 

[K466]

Or, looked at another way, half the liberty movement in '08 and '12 were posers.

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.

Posers? No, the are not that sophisticated. Let's face it, most people put little thought into political philosophy, economics, logic, etc; they are swayed as much by other factors (style, consistency, strength, excitement) as long as there are some basic agreement on the politics.

And I think a large number of Ron Paul voters stayed home. Like I will (here's why).

 

[jbauer]

Until I saw this from a MOD to somebody with over 41,000 posts and been here since 07, I only thought tonight things were over for Rand.
Now I realize something even much sadder, this night brings to end to RPF as viable place to post and discuss politics realistically and pragmatically.

It's a very sad night indeed

Unfortunately I feel the same. What has happened to this place?

 

[jkob]

Most of these people who jumped were just anti-war. Ron was the only anti-war candidate running in 2012 really.

Big part of it, Rand's descent into irrelevance seem to really begin when he didn't support the Iran deal

He should of met with Obama and worked out a deal he could call bipartisan and kept his anti-war credos while at the same time showing that he is capable of compromising and thus governing.

changing American foreign policy was huge, maybe the biggest part of Ron's appeal in my opinion

 

[LawnWake]

Many people are posting the argument that it's not Rand but the time/environment he ran his campaign in -- and I don't entirely disagree. But at the same time, you have to understand that a good campaign is a campaign appropriate for the race. And I would argue that Rand's campaign strategy may not have been entirely appropriate for the political climate or race he was in. There's many factors, many of which not directly in the hands of Rand and some not even in the campaign's. But that shouldn't mean that we should overlook the factors that Rand and his campaign are responsible for either.

Personally, a factor that I think is vastly overlooked is my suspicion that the media peaked him early. Somewhat in 2008, but especially in 2012, the media was pumping up candidate after candidate. And they peaked, and then they failed. Kind of like the fed's financial bubbles. And the media really pushed Rand hard far too early in the race. Essentially turning him into "old news" before the race properly started.

At the same time, the campaign could have used that to its advantage to properly propel Rand. When the media declared him the early frontrunner, that could have been the perfect opportunity to align himself with a message and delivery closer to Ron Paul's -- the media would have given him the platform and declared the radical message "safe" before turning on him. But hindsight only means so much.

And before anyone says "the race isn't over, the delegates aren't assigned yet etc etc"; Rand is a unique candidate. The media isn't going to work in his favor for the rest of the race. He needed a strong popular vote to project strength and position himself as a viable candidate to rake in delegates through-out the whole race. 2012 proved that a delegate-focused strategy without many popular vote wins isn't a viable option if you REALLY want to amass actual delegates.

And finally; I think Justin Amash is a better potential liberty candidate than Rand. And one that should be drafted for 2024; yes 2024. If the anti-establishment vote that helped Ron in 2012 went to the more successful (so far) campaign of Sanders. Amash could build off of that momentum in time, especially with his broader potential appeal.

 

[K466]

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.

No. Ron had something different going for him that in this cycle Cruz and Trump have carried on (to a lesser degree).

 

[Peace&Freedom]

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.

Yes, get a real alternative network on the cable dial (or through syndication), call it "Liberty TV" and promote it as the true remedy to pro-government, pro-war, pro-PC news and commentary stations. BUT FOR IT TO HAPPEN, AND FOR IT TO WORK, AND FOR IT TO NOT GET CO-OPTED:

Cooperation: The entire grassroots liberty movement needs to work with each other, by which I mean both the libertarian and constitutionalist wing, and the patriot or populist wing. Meaning, no sniping at, or putdowns of libertarians over being too 'pure' or the LP/CP as being 'irrelevant,' and no sniping at, or putdowns of populists over conspiracy or truth advocacy. Programming of both types should be on the channel, possibly from using material already being independently produced (say internet talk show simulcasts, from Ben Swann to Infowars Nightly News, to Michael Rivero's What Really Happened, to Abby Martin's Empire Files, and so on). Respectability Napoleons need not apply.

Funding: A consortium or board of mutually agreed upon, grassroots-trusted independent voices should set up the network as a cooperative venture, and control both editorial and financial decisions. This is important to keep the network from being infiltrated by Republican, corporate or neocon operatives who will want to rope the content back within the two-party paradigm and turn it into FOX2. If most of the programming is reused from independent, but existing material, that should minimize costs enough for the channel to be sustained by grassroots donations or (case by case) selected big donors (e.g., Thiel). The board should be committed to NEVER letting folks like the Kochs in as funders, or any advertiser who demands the channel "stop talking about X" as a condition for advertising on the network.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

The verdict is in, Ron's uncompromising style is more effective than Rand's squeamish equivocating.

You have summed it up rather well. Let's hope that Rand eats some humble pie and hits the drawing board. He will need a drastically different strategy if he is going to win during a future presidential run.

 

[parocks]

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.

This sounds largely accurate.

All of those outsiders were meant to break apart a Rand Paul coalition. I think they did a better job than they planned, because they wanted Clinton v Bush, and Bush don't look so good right now.

About this - "there's just not enough willing to fight right now." Fight who, for who, for what exactly? No one has really identified any targets. People who want to fight are probably the same people who understand that the one guy who wants to fight is surrounded by government informants. ISIS is fake. It's pretty close to an official US Government agency, a black op, or something. A joint venture between the US and Israel. There are some people who are angry enough to fight, but I seriously doubt there's enough brain power there to accomplish anything. In this context, it's purely a non-starter. Not going to happen. Societal collapse could happen, in such a case, find a cave. From where we are now, the government, taken over, will just become the government, again. If everything just goes kaput, then there are at least places to hide, potentially, and subsistence level living doesn't leave much for the government to take so they can buy sticks to hit you with.

 

[Lightweis]

Yah banning people for speaking the truth makes a lot of sense. I feel bad for people that wasted their time. And people that were trying to worn you guys and we were called "trolls".

 

[parocks]

Yes, get a real alternative network on the cable dial (or through syndication), call it "Liberty TV" and promote it as the true remedy to pro-government, pro-war, pro-PC news and commentary stations. BUT FOR IT TO HAPPEN, AND FOR IT TO WORK, AND FOR IT TO NOT GET CO-OPTED:

Cooperation: The entire grassroots liberty movement needs to work with each other, by which I mean both the libertarian and constitutionalist wing, and the patriot or populist wing. Meaning, no sniping at, or putdowns of libertarians over being too 'pure' or the LP/CP as being 'irrelevant,' and no sniping at, or putdowns of populists over conspiracy or truth advocacy. Programming of both types should be on the channel, possibly from using material already being independently produced (say internet talk show simulcasts, from Ben Swann to Infowars Nightly News, to Michael Rivero's What Really Happened, to Abby Martin's Empire Files, and so on).

Funding: A consortium or board of mutually agreed upon, grassroots-trusted independent voices should set up the network as a cooperative venture, and control both editorial and financial decisions. This is important to keep the network from being infiltrated by Republican, corporate or neocon operatives who will want to rope the content back within the two-party paradigm and turn it into FOX2. If most of the programming is reused from independent, but existing material, that should minimize costs enough for the channel to be sustained by grassroots donations or (case by case) selected big donors (e.g., Thiel). The board should be committed to NEVER letting folks like the Kochs in as funders, or any advertiser who demands the channel "stop talking about X" as a condition for advertising on the network.

Wouldn't work, unless the plan is simply to have an unpopular tv network.

The specifics of your unpopular tv network are perfectly fine, but it just wouldn't have that massive effect you think it would. The internet isn't new any more, really, and there's no shortage of diverse viewpoints there. I'm not suggesting that this is a bad idea, but if a network about as popular as animal planet was hyping Rand Paul 24/7, would that mean that Rand Paul does better than 5% in Iowa?

 

[cajuncocoa]

If he was trying to court the rank and file morons.. how come Rand didnt say bomb the mexicans and arabs???

All I saw Rand doing was trying to court young votes and black votes.

He was carefully straddling that fence, not trying to be too radical on either side. That's how I see it. Those of us in the liberty movement were explicitly told (at least I was) to ignore what he was saying, pay attention to his votes/actions. But not everyone will bother to research votes. Busy people don't always have time...they listen to the news on the car radio on their way to and from work and they catch the sound bytes....then go home to spend precious time with their children, not looking up how Rand Paul voted on a bill today.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Of course they did. Why is this surprising anyone???? How much longer are we going to sit here being victims vs. making a plan to rectify this?

I'm listening....what ideas do you bring to the table?

 

[65fastback2+2]

I'm listening....what ideas do you bring to the table?

I'm in...I want to see their plan to conquer fear mongering.

 

[LawnWake]

Yah banning people for speaking the truth makes a lot of sense. I feel bad for people that wasted their time. And people that were trying to worn you guys and we were called "trolls".

This place is notoriously opposed to reality checks.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Here's what's weird about this election: since maybe October I've seen nothing but Bernie Sanders bumper stickers in my area. I'm not talking about New Orleans, I'm talking about my suburb...an area that might just be among the reddest of all red areas in the country. I'm the lone person driving around with a Rand sticker on my car. I haven't even seen Hillary bumper stickers in NOLA...all Sanders.

Yesterday I saw a local news story that Bernie is opening a campaign office in said suburb....I almost fell off my chair. Obama didn't have one. Kerry didn't have one. Gore would have wasted his money. Bill Clinton may have had one (although NOLA is more likely) as he won Louisiana....last Dem candidate to do so. WTF is going on here???

 

[cajuncocoa]

I'm in...I want to see their plan to conquer fear mongering.

What would that plan look/sound like? Fear is a powerful motivator.

 

[staerker]

What would that plan look/sound like? Fear is a powerful motivator.

The populace of America is completely gripped by fear. There is nothing that Americans en masse value more than security.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I'm in...I want to see their plan to conquer fear mongering.

This plan should probably have its own thread...I hope LE won't mind if I lift her post to start it because I think it IS a great idea if it would be doable.

 

[65fastback2+2]

What would that plan look/sound like? Fear is a powerful motivator.

I think Rand is actually on the right track...the most fearful thing is our debt.

I think where the miss has happened is not conveying this fear properly and in a manner that people can understand.


$19 trillion when you can just "raise the debt ceiling" doesnt make sense to people.

We need to be using 10 and 20 year projections for the debt and explain it in "credit card minimum" returns.

"In 10 years, our debt will be $30 trillion. The minimum credit card payment for that is $1 trillion a year. We take in $3 trillion. That is 1/3 spent paying interest. In 20 years, it will be $40 trillion and the minimum payment will be $1.5 trillion per year. Still taking in $3 trillion annually, we can no longer afford to fun welfare programs and the military. In 20 years, we will be having to cut the military significantly and those needing welfare to survive will have to go without."

Thats the long version and someone smarter than me can make it more meaningful, but it has to get dumbed down.

The consequences of not being able to pay for our current lifestyle have to be, properly, and fearfully conveyed.