Rand got less than half the votes than Ron got

thoughtomator said:
Rand had years to capture their imagination and rally them.
Click to expand...
He was doing well, in fact in Q1 and Q2 of 2015 he was near if not at the top of the field.

But remember, his personality cannot compete with Trump's. Nothing anyone can do to change that.


thoughtomator said:
He spent that time sucking up to the establishment to become acceptable to them, I presume in exchange for the expectation of more favorable media and/or material support which was never going to happen. He capitulated and got nothing for us in exchange.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. Some good things did come out of that, nearly passing an Audit the Federal Reserve in the Senate, and also Rand's appointment to some key committees. And a few other major votes that he was able to get on record, including filibuster(s).

And yes it did help him, but the problem is that he did it in such a way that he lost his base over it.
 
thoughtomator said:
The media did not make Rand's key strategic choices for him. He made those choices himself.

He made the choice to sequester the leader of the liberty movement.

He made the choice to not rally the faithful in support of his campaign.

He made the choice to go weasel on some key issues and undermine his own standing as the alternative to the establishment.

Rand made these choices. The media did not. The media was a fixed element in all of this, they behave exactly as they always do. Their behavior was not a variable in the equation.

If liberty is about responsibility, then anyone who believes in it has to hold Rand responsible for the choices that created this outcome.
Click to expand...

Does not negate the point I made that WITHOUT MEDIA you can do everything "right" (including your list above) and you still won't get past 5%...

Yeah, the media "behaved" exactly as they always do (killing liberty) and you are VERY mistaken in thinking this is not a variable in the equation... This is the MAJOR variable which all other variables hang...
 
Last edited:
thoughtomator said:
Can't black out a household name and top national celebrity. Plenty of character assassination and reputation destruction though, and we're familiar with those things from what we witnessed they did to Ron Paul.

It is quite possible that someone like Trump is the only option that we the people have to break the shadow government's stranglehold on us. They've got everything rigged for a straight player to fail.
Click to expand...

Who creates celebrities? How do they make "bad boys" all the more excitable to those that like their rendition of "bad boys?"
 
Last edited:
Matt Collins said:
Yes and no. Some good things did come out of that, nearly passing an Audit the Federal Reserve in the Senate, and also Rand's appointment to some key committees.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine that if it were Rand as the front-runner right now and the media was pulling this David Duke nonsense, instead of McConnell attacking as he did to Trump, he would probably be up there defending Rand.
 
thoughtomator said:
Rand had years to capture their imagination and rally them. He spent that time sucking up to the establishment to become acceptable to them, I presume in exchange for the expectation of more favorable media and/or material support which was never going to happen. He capitulated and got nothing for us in exchange.
Click to expand...

Before teh Collins jumps in and says "exactly" and rewrites his liberty roots teh Collins was all for the sucking up and booting the "toofer" base. It was strategery or some such in political parlance.
 
Last edited:
Matt Collins said:
No because Rand's personality cannot compete with Trump's personality (and pockets).

Yes A lot of Trump's people are also Rand's people, but Trump is louder and better appeals to them if for nothing else than personality.
Click to expand...

Matt Collins said:
Yes but given the choice they will choose Trump because he taps into their raw emotion much better than Rand does.
Click to expand...

Yep. I don't post here too often anymore, but I the last time I was active here, I was singing this same song. Rand takes a very intellectual approach to interviews and debates. He really does a disservice to himself when he makes points with a passive voice "why don't we" or similar variant. He doesn't project the confident personality of a leader, even if he is a thought leader. Running for POTUS is more than just an intellectual exercise.
 
ChristianAnarchist said:
Does not negate the point I made that WITHOUT MEDIA you can do everything "right" (including your list above) and you still won't get past 5%...

Yeah, the media "behaved" exactly as they always do (killing liberty) and you are VERY mistaken in thinking this is not a variable in the equation... This is the MAJOR variable which all other variables hang...
Click to expand...

But the most successful candidates in the race (Trump, Cruz, and for a time Carson) fared well despite a hostile media, or almost no media time. They got past 5%. What we saw in this cycle is the emergence of a new variable that reshuffles the deck. If a candidate either has the money to disregard the media, or openly confronts them in spinning the pro-statist "mainstream" narrative, they can do well. Rand did neither, thus he didn't get past 5%.
 
Peace&Freedom said:
But the most successful candidates in the race (Trump, Cruz, and for a time Carson) fared well despite a hostile media, or almost no media time. They got past 5%. What we saw in this cycle is the emergence of a new variable that reshuffles the deck. If a candidate either has the money to disregard the media, or openly confronts them in spinning the pro-statist "mainstream" narrative, they can do well. Rand did neither, thus he didn't get past 5%.
Click to expand...

Sounds a lot like Rand captured the entire libertarian vote.
 
Brian4Liberty said:
I'd imagine that if it were Rand as the front-runner right now and the media was pulling this David Duke nonsense, instead of McConnell attacking as he did to Trump, he would probably be up there defending Rand.
Click to expand...

The media was going to pull David Duke type stuff on Rand if necessary.
It's why Rand was taking certain positions, to try and head that off.
What he failed to understand was that his pandering on those positions and to those groups of voters, didn't and weren't going to be reflected in the primaries and caucuses.
He was concentrating on stopping the potential coming attacks, and not on keeping his base secure. Not caring about the base started back in 2012, so it didn't really matter after that point.
Rand Paul lost 2016 with decisions made back in 2012.
 
Peace&Freedom said:
But the most successful candidates in the race (Trump, Cruz, and for a time Carson) fared well despite a hostile media, or almost no media time. They got past 5%. What we saw in this cycle is the emergence of a new variable that reshuffles the deck. If a candidate either has the money to disregard the media, or openly confronts them in spinning the pro-statist "mainstream" narrative, they can do well. Rand did neither, thus he didn't get past 5%.
Click to expand...

Rand was torpedoed at every turn. Name me one other candidate (besides Ron Paul) who the lame stream media would constantly mess up when reporting poll numbers (you know, like completely eliminating him or posting someone else's picture...) Quite a coincidence, wouldn't you say??
 
ChristianAnarchist said:
Rand was torpedoed at every turn. Name me one other candidate (besides Ron Paul) who the lame stream media would constantly mess up when reporting poll numbers (you know, like completely eliminating him or posting someone else's picture...) Quite a coincidence, wouldn't you say??
Click to expand...

Vermin Supreme. Not even mentioned in the polls.
 
phill4paul said:
Before teh Collins jumps in and says "exactly" and rewrites his liberty roots teh Collins was all for the sucking up and booting the "toofer" base. It was strategery or some such in political parlance.
Click to expand...

GUXeoqp.gif
 
Brian4Liberty said:
Sounds a lot like Rand captured the entire libertarian vote.
Click to expand...

It does. And this is exactly why the "too principled for you" crowd needs to be tossed overboard. Because 5% will never win anything.

You want to win? Got to make a coalition that can get the majority of votes. That means making compromises with people with whom one doesn't agree.

Those who refuse to compromise to form a winning coalition are making sure we never win at all.

And now you all know why I am COMPLETELY FED UP with that crowd. They are the albatross around our neck.
 
thoughtomator said:
It does. And this is exactly why the "too principled for you" crowd needs to be tossed overboard. Because 5% will never win anything.

You want to win? Got to make a coalition that can get the majority of votes. That means making compromises with people with whom one doesn't agree.

Those who refuse to compromise to form a winning coalition are making sure we never win at all.

And now you all know why I am COMPLETELY FED UP with that crowd. They are the albatross around our neck.
Click to expand...

I would think that Rand would have lost the actual libertarian voters, the ones that are against "making compromises".
If he did lose those, then the voters that he kept were? A small scattered bit of what was left of his father's base?

Rand was all about trying to compromise and form a winning coalition for his campaign, wasn't he? I mean, that was exactly what led him to where he was, was it not?
 
thoughtomator said:
It does. And this is exactly why the "too principled for you" crowd needs to be tossed overboard. Because 5% will never win anything.

You want to win? Got to make a coalition that can get the majority of votes. That means making compromises with people with whom one doesn't agree.

Those who refuse to compromise to form a winning coalition are making sure we never win at all.

And now you all know why I am COMPLETELY FED UP with that crowd. They are the albatross around our neck.
Click to expand...
I don't think he articulated a world view that was captivating when he muddied his message. Ron wasn't going to close the government down. He wanted a sensible transition period. If the message is true and the current situation taken into consideration shouldn't the rightness of the message bring people over?
 
I fervently supported Dr. Ron Paul and so did my family and friends. Yet none of us voted for Rand and we all voted for other candidates such as Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. The reason is because Rand changes his positions and panders to minorities. Nobody is inspired by that Marxist neocon idea that is against reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top