Rand harmed himself attacking Christie, NOT Trump.

[erowe1]

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

I vaguely remember that now that you mention it. That was a non-issue though, and I'm not sure why anyone would call it plagiarismgate.

 

[klamath]

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.

I also believe the rise of ISUS was a very big problem as well. What you said is spot on how people respond. Concern of NSA overreach went out the door.

 

[ifthenwouldi]

IMO, Rand "harmed himself" by running as a Republican presidential candidate. Winning over the GOP base was always going to be a more difficult struggle for him than convincing independents.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

This late in the game, Ron Paul was in a way better position and had way more support than Rand Paul. Rand doesn't seem to have any grassroots support these days, hes just a toothless tiger and his attempts of playing the political game just come across as really really weak. Rand should have been going for blood since day 1, and ignoring hillary

 

[LatinsforPaul]

This late in the game

Over four and half months till the Iowa Caucus.

 

[LibertyEagle]

IMO, Rand "harmed himself" by running as a Republican presidential candidate. Winning over the GOP base was always going to be a more difficult struggle for him than convincing independents.

And running as an Independent, he would not have been in ANY televised debates or gotten any national interviews.

Yeah, a brilliant idea you have there.

 

[acptulsa]

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.")

He never said he would cut aid to Israel before we had cut aid to all their hostile neighbors. And he made it clear his 190 billion dollar offense increase was a genuinely deficit-neutral troll of a bunch of RINOs designed to call, and successful in calling, their bluff. And you're smart enough to know this. Therefore, what we are seeing here is Rand Paul's real problem.

That, of course, would be the mainstream media monolith's fervent desire to dumb down the whole conversation. They leave out these vital parts of the narrative. And if Rand Paul has a major weakness, it's that he looks annoyed at the reporter without saying why (or with his why winding up on the cutting room floor), and people assume he's annoyed at them or misinterpret however else they're told to.

Now, a principled liberal with a modicum of maturity will see that dumbing down the narrative is not going to help get rid of this massive corruption. With that in mind, a principled liberal might realize that partisanship is not what is wanted, and that the nation would be healthier if the hyperbole were cut out and Americans remembered how to talk to each other. In this case, a principled liberal with no vested interest might decide playing mind games with the closest thing to principled conservatives he or she can find might not be as helpful as informing as many Democrats as possible that there are these three secret Democratic candidates in the race. And one of them might be pretty good. I know there are worse in the race than Jim Webb--no matter which side of the aisle you look at.

What's more, if this increasingly hypothetical liberal were principled, intelligent and sensible in the face of evidence, this liberal might work with us in every federal election. This liberal might wake up to the fact that the greatest Democrat of all, Thomas Jefferson, was right when he said that if every detail of American life were micromismanaged from Washington, it would be '...the most corrupt government on the face of the earth.' And that liberal might find it wiser to advocate for their beloved socialism only on the state and local level. You know, the way Europe did, back before it created a corrupt central government called the EU and began also to collapse around the edges. And the way Eastern Europe used to do, back when all those communist countries survived the fall of the centralized Soviet Union.

Or does a plan like that stand too much chance of actually working to suit you people?

'High ideals are fine, but they got to be about 33% plausible.'--Will Rogers