Rand harmed himself attacking Christie, NOT Trump.

[Jan2017]

Got researching this and went to RCP average chart. I found Rand's high point in the fall of 2013 and also found that he plunged and Christie soared at the end of November 2013. Paul has NEVER recovered. I went back and researched what was happening November 2013. Here it is.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...es-up-with-alternative-to-beer-with-christie/
He attacked Christie in the debate as well and the pundantry all pretty much said Rand lost that bout and I didn't believe it at the time. Now I think it is true. Kind of reinforces the idea that Republicans never did buy into the Rand civil liberties stand.

What years did Rand win CPAC again . . . ???

Rand on cover of Time in what year again . . . ???

You seem to pay attention to the Fox spin on who won the exchange between someone who has zero chance of being on the GOP ticket (Christie)
and the defense of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

[acptulsa]

I could have sworn over a dozen shiny new candidate toys got thrown in the playpen since last November.

Hate to say it, but I think if we blame all this on anything deeper, we're overestimating the people who answer the landline and play with these pollsters.

 

[jonhowe]

I love how apparently every move Paul makes, according to the political campaign experts on this forum, is wrong.

His campaign is going nowhere, so maybe they're right?

 

[erowe1]

You're missing - or denying - the true breakpoint in the fall of 2013; the event that killed Rand's momentum that he has never recovered from. I can say it in one word - Maddow.

What did Maddow do? And how many people ever knew about whatever it was? In the hundreds?

 

[acptulsa]

His campaign is going nowhere, so maybe they're right?

Or maybe the MSM says it, and people see it and believe it, and parrot it here.

The Unapproved Candidate must be ungodly brilliant or the media will call him an idiot, and the sheep will say, 'Baaa!' We were fired up for Ron, so they didn't get away with that so much with him. I thought Rand would be better because he's a little slicker, so if we pulled as hard for him he should do better. But we haven't given him a fraction of what we gave his father so far.

 

[klamath]

People Look at this chart of average polls on RCP, scroll down to the graph. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep..._republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

What the hell happened around the fall of 2013? I maybe wrong in my analysis but finding out what went wrong is not negative. I have heard a hundred different causes on what went wrong with Rands polling and so far the events people cite do NOT match up to any changes in polling.

 

[adissa]

oo

 

[klamath]

The media started focusing on something shiny over there, namely Donald Trump. And the fear-mongers who worry about Mexicans under their beds allowed themselves to be distracted.

Read the post #26

 

[acptulsa]

Well, dude, it wasn't the fried Twinkie comment, because no one remembers it.

I'm inclined to say that three years before Election Night there are two and only two kinds of Americans--us, and people who don't give a shit yet and have no clue who they'll be voting for over a thousand days from that moment.

At that point, most people are still trying to recover from the previous bullfest just the year before, and waiting to see how badly they screwed up when they elected the clown they just got.

Come on, man. Think about how few people you can get to think as far ahead as next month.

 

[erowe1]

Rand was counting on Independents, not the GOP exclusively. "Another kind of Republican." The plagiarism went straight to his credibility - which even the GOPers were quite happy to question, despite Rachel Maddow.

Rand's confrontation with Christie played out in July/August. By November, he was happily trolling Christie pushing his Beer Summit. Plagiarismgate struck in November. Paul's numbers started to tank in November. How you can trace that to events three months earlier while ignoring the elephant in the room is mystifying.

What's plagiarismgate? I follow Rand closely and I've never heard of it.

 

[erowe1]

People Look at this chart of average polls on RCP, scroll down to the graph. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep..._republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

What the hell happened around the fall of 2013? I maybe wrong in my analysis but finding out what went wrong is not negative. I have heard a hundred different causes on what went wrong with Rands polling and so far the events people cite do NOT match up to any changes in polling.

From that chart, the more important factor in late 2013 appears to be the entrance of Huckabee, who started out with high poll numbers that look like they accompany big dips in both Cruz'z and Rand's. Rand came back a bit after that, but then went down again. But so did Christie. Both Rand and Christie have trended down pretty much in unison since early 2014.

 

[klamath]

From that chart, the more important factor in late 2013 appears to be the entrance of Huckabee, who started out with high poll numbers that look like they accompany big dips in both Cruz'z and Rand's. Rand came back a bit after that, but then went down again. But so did Christie. Both Rand and Christie have trended down pretty much in unison since early 2014.

Good point. They did start adding Huck about that time. Christie's surge might have been just the neocons rallying around him against Rand. It can be very volatile when everyone is running in the single digits and teens.

 

[klamath]

It really does bring out the attempt to destroy rand in the media. Who really should have had all the articles written about how their campaign collapsed? CHRISTIE. Christie went from the highest polling to the mud.

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

What's plagiarismgate? I follow Rand closely and I've never heard of it.

https://www.google.com/webhp#q=rand+paul+plagiarism 184000 hits

Apparently you had no access to any network, any newspaper, any magazine, or any website in late 2013.

And apparently you weren't reading here, either.

https://www.google.com/search?q=sit....20107j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8 557 hits

 

[jonhowe]

People Look at this chart of average polls on RCP, scroll down to the graph. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep..._republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

What the hell happened around the fall of 2013? I maybe wrong in my analysis but finding out what went wrong is not negative. I have heard a hundred different causes on what went wrong with Rands polling and so far the events people cite do NOT match up to any changes in polling.

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=rand paul&date=7/2013 5m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc/GMT+4

Zooming in on the time in question, the biggest headlines were his Chris Christie feud, and Syria.

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=rand paul&date=7/2013 5m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc/GMT+4

Zooming in on the time in question, the biggest headlines were his Chris Christie feud, and Syria.

LOL. July - November is "zooming in?" NO. THIS is zooming in:

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=rand paul&date=10/2013 2m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc/GMT+4

Oh, and check this one out:

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=rand paul, plagiarism&date=7/2013 5m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc/GMT+4


n.b. note also - even on your link, check the Related Searches at the bottom. You won't see "Chris Christie." You will see "Rand Paul plagiarism," though.

 

[klamath]

LOL. July - November is "zooming in?" NO. THIS is zooming in:

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=rand paul&date=10/2013 2m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc/GMT+4

Oh, and check this one out:

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=rand paul, plagiarism&date=7/2013 5m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc/GMT+4


n.b. note also - even on your link, check the Related Searches at the bottom. You won't see "Chris Christie." You will see "Rand Paul plagiarism," though.

There are two things wrong with your analysis. First Rand was the leading republican at the time so just reading google trends is very likely yourself and other democratic operative searching to get dirt on the leading republican.
Second off you are not creditable because this thread is about fixing a problem with a candidate that the majority supports around here but it is in your best interest to lead everyone too the wrong conclusion so the problem can't be fixed.

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

Second off you are not creditable because this thread is about fixing a problem with a candidate that the majority supports around here but it is in your best interest to lead everyone too the wrong conclusion so the problem can't be fixed.

Yeah, well as for fixing the problem, you have to identify it first. And it is clearly NOT Paul's feud with Christie. After taking on the King of Pork in mid-2013, Paul's polling was going up (that's how you get to a peak, as in "Rand Paul peaked in November"). The plagiarism issue exposed things about Rand Paul that continue to dog him - one of which YOU already alluded to, his petulance. Others would be his lack of authenticity ("I never said I would reduce aid to Israel" - what about this budget you proposed that eliminates it entirely?) and his habit of blaming others for his own shortcomings ("This $190 billion defense increase is not a change from the $110 billion defense cut I proposed earlier, you're just too dumb to see the nuance.")

p.s. You don't even have to give Maddow any blame/credit; if she hadn't started the ball rolling, Buzzfeed probably would have. But no, Rand's wound from the plagiarism scandal was entirely self-inflicted, just like almost all of his wounds.

 

[klamath]

Yeah, well as for fixing the problem, you have to identify it first. And it is clearly NOT Paul's feud with Christie. After taking on the King of Pork in mid-2013, Paul's polling was going up (that's how you get to a peak, as in "Rand Paul peaked in November"). The plagiarism issue exposed things about Rand Paul that continue to dog him - one of which YOU already alluded to, his petulance. Others would be his lack of authenticity ("I never said I would reduce aid to Israel" - what about this budget you proposed that eliminates it entirely?) and his habit of blaming others for his own shortcomings ("This $190 billion defense increase is not a change from the $110 billion defense cut I proposed earlier, you're just too dumb to see the nuance.")

p.s. You don't even have to give Maddow any blame/credit; if she hadn't started the ball rolling, Buzzfeed probably would have. But no, Rand's wound from the plagiarism scandal was entirely self-inflicted, just like almost all of his wounds.

You made my point. You wouldn't want us to identify the problem. You would want to get Rand supporters to follow you down a rathole that would NOT help rand. Why should we trust YOUR analysis? Why would you tell us the right answer to help rand if you can't stand Rand? You maybe a liberal and believe you are altruistic and all but some how I don't believe you are that helpful

 

[hells_unicorn]

Honestly, I think the OP gives the fickle American public way too much credit when it comes to why Rand's numbers changed. Nobody that I have spoken to remembers anything major from 2013 apart from the rise of ISIS, which is probably the primary reason why Rand's numbers started to suffer. Having a sworn enemy that you worry might actually be able to hit you at home completely changes the equation, as matters of self-actualization and liberty take a backseat to survival instincts, whether they are based in reality or not.

The Neo-con wing of the GOP got a huge boost by the advent of ISIS, and focusing in on Chris Christie alone misses the point, though the fact that Graham, King and Christie all mounted a concerted attack on Rand's national security views probably helped significantly.

P.S. - The liberal guy who keeps yammering about Rachel Maddow is literally making the dumbest argument I've ever heard, pay attention to what he says at your own detriment.