Slate: Rand Paul Must Surpass Father's Numbers in Iowa or He's Done

AuH20

Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
28,739
I'm not sure about that.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ate_is_essential_to_the_kentucky_senator.html

If Paul can’t add a sizeable chunk of establishment or evangelical voters to his libertarian-leaning coalition in Iowa, there will be little reason to believe he’ll be able to do so in other states where he won’t have the luxury of a robust foundation on top of which he can build. Worse still, if he falls short of Ron Paul’s mark, it will mean that not only was he unable to add to the coalition his father assembled, but that he wasn’t even able to preserve it. By trying to be all things to all GOP voters, he’ll have effectively become nothing to everyone.

Already there are signs that could happen in Iowa.

Paul’s efforts to attract social conservatives and foreign policy establishment types have only just begun, and already there are grumblings among Ron Paul’s true believers that the younger Paul is selling out. An internal poll conducted in February of the elder Paul’s delegates to the 2012 Iowa GOP convention found that fewer than 70 percent of those delegates are leaning Rand Paul’s way in 2016. “He’s moderating on most of [his father’s positions], not taking a real clear stance on a number of them,” Drew Ivers, the chairman of Ron Paul’s 2012 Iowa campaign and one of a number of recent high-profile defections from Rand’s camp, complained to Politico last month. “The strategy of sending a blended message is one that has risk.”

It’s not all bad news for the Paul camp, however. In Iowa, he might not have to venture as far from his base as he may need to in other contests to be competitive. If everyone who is expected to seek the nomination does, the crowded field in Iowa could work to Paul’s advantage. Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, and Marco Rubio will have to fight it out for the support of the establishment Republicans who backed Romney in 2012, while Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, and Santorum will need to compete for the evangelical votes that delivered the caucus to Santorum in 2012 and Huckabee in 2008. If everything were to break right for Paul, he wouldn’t need to win a larger slice of the vote than his father to win the caucus. And if he pulls off a victory—something his father never managed to do on any primary or caucus night—it will be easy enough to overlook the raw numbers that delivered it.

Still, even there Paul faces a potential no-win situation in the long term. A libertarian-heavy campaign in Iowa might be enough to deliver him a caucus victory, but it won’t be enough to ultimately win the nomination—and by the time Iowans show up to caucus, there won’t be much time left for Paul or any other candidate to rebrand for the contests that will follow. The distance between now and the caucuses is further than between the caucuses and the GOP nomination. Rand Paul, then, faces a choice: He can focus on winning the battle in Iowa and know he’ll likely lose the nominating war. Or he can give up his best shot at an early nominating contest victory in hopes of future ones. We know Rand Paul’s determined to do better than his father. The question will come down to just how much better he wants to do.
 
Yeah, I don't see the campaign continuing after Super Tuesday unless he has the nomination in sight. He would need to focus on his Senate campaign, where the Dems will likely pump money into a candidate there enough to force him to campaign there, too.
 
Last edited:
No. New Hampshire is the make or break state. He doesn't need to win Iowa, he just needs to finish a close top 2 or 3.
 
I still don't understand the strategy. Independents make up over 50% of the voting electorate. Rands trying to appease the 50% of the 25% (GOP) base. Why not maintain the 30% libertarians of the 25% (GOP) and go after the 50% (I) instead. Stay true to principles and then get those independents while pulling possibly 25% of the 25% (Dems) as well. That would ruffle some feathers.
 
I still don't understand the strategy. Independents make up over 50% of the voting electorate. Rands trying to appease the 50% of the 25% (GOP) base. Why not maintain the 30% libertarians of the 25% (GOP) and go after the 50% (I) instead. Stay true to principles and then get those independents while pulling possibly 25% of the 25% (Dems) as well. That would ruffle some feathers.

I'd make a guess the the independents do not vote as much in the primary. Even then their numbers might be divided between the D primary and the R primary. He has to win the R primary before he can tackle the job of winning the I's in the general.
 
Last edited:
There's that damn line again. " all things to all people " or sub voters for people. It's subtle but I've noticed it in almost a dozen different sources. We must work against that before it becomes ingrained in the political consciousness.

I fear that line is being used to undermine Rand and indicate to voters that he is just pandering. We must counter it but not address it head on because that will only bring more attention to it and reinforce the notion.
 
Back
Top