The real reason Rand lost Iowa (the power of the news cycle)

[eleganz]

Aside from the obvious TRUMP factor~

No it had much less to do with his not being pure like his dad and had much more to do with the news cycle and the timing of how long the media takes to bring up a candidate and take them down.

For so many people who have personally experienced so many GOP candidates rise and fall in the 2012 cycle and again in 2016, you would think that there would be some common understanding that there is a huge block of voters that fluctuate from candidate to candidate.

WAKE UP CALL : There aren't nearly enough libertarian voters to take on the GOP electorate.

The only reason why Ron got 21k votes and 3rd place in Iowa, wasn't because Libertarians suddenly decided to come out of the shadows and back him, it didn't have to do with his libertarian purity, he did well because he was next in line for Republicans to support. Ron was FORTUNATE enough to be toward the end of the candidate fluctuation cycle. If Iowa 2012 took place just a few days earlier, Ron might've been the winner. If Rand did well in Iowa, I don't think anyone would be complaining about Rand's version of libertarianism.

Have any of you wondered if Iowa 2016 took place a few days or a week later, what might've happened? The press loves airing dirty laundry like the Ted Cruz voter shaming tactic and maybe just a few days of a NORMAL news cycle covering that would've brought Ted down.

Look, if you're a purist and you want Rand to be a purist, thats fine but to think that libertarian purity of issues means success in the GOP, well then you're simply just not being realistic.

 

[nikcers]

The medias portrayal of his character, I definitely agree but it comes down to the way that he intimidates peoples the way he talks. Stupid people think that he is speaking in double speak, they want someone to talk down to them but in a non condescending manner. Also this i posted in the buzzfeed thread, but this is the impression I got from talking to people.

People think of rand as a "compromiser" but Rand actually ran a campaign on a clear message that didn't minse words. People think that every policy he stands for is a compromise, not his true stance. Oddly people have a harder time pinning down Rand's stances on things then Ron, so that's why they think of him more principled. What makes people mad is not only do they think that he has alterior motives, but most people think of compromise as no one is happy. He has a hard time of describing that compromise or tolerance is a good thing because otherwise nothing gets done, because the person next to him is selling them a campaign where things magically get done and people would prefer to live in a world of magic then in a world where they have to compromise.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Agreed

I'll just add that Ron benefited greatly from the the fact that it was 2012, & people were tired of war, & ISIS hadn't come along yet, and GOPers still remembered Bush.

This means there was a big anti-war vote, and a big general contrarian vote within the GOP. That was essentially non-existent this cycle.

Ron, running a typical Ron-like campaign, would have gotten about the same number of voters as Rand if not less.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

@OP, I heard Levin talking tonight about Fox bringing in Carson to talk about the Cruz thing about him despite them talking very little about Carson overall over time, if at all in recent times [hence the blackout that Rand got] - as if they would bring Carson on at all in the recent past for publicity. He said folks should just turn it off and we already knew about that option so hopefully another bunch of conservatives got the same takeaway message or boost Rubio. Hello Mark, Fox is going after your guy for spreading disinfo about Carson to get more votes towards your your guy. Levin just shamed Fox and then lamented them in the next breath.

tldr: Levin just got payed beyond belief to let Fox rerun the circular joke that is Carson, while the benefactor is Cruz - all at the behest of Trump w/ Rubio the estab winning the day - making hay. Hello!

 

[idiom]

I didn't have a problem with Rand's purity or his team. He just wasn't loud enough.

 

[nikcers]

I didn't have a problem with Rand's purity or his team. He just wasn't loud enough.

Maybe if he just yelled everything then like Sanders does? I just wish that bastard would stop yelling at me.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I didn't have a problem with Rand's purity or his team. He just wasn't loud enough.

You're correct, it seemed very half assed if you ask me.

 

[nikcers]

You're correct, it seemed very half assed if you ask me.

To me its not loud its tone. Most people react more to tone then rhetoric. It's not what you say its how you say it. Rand's tone was presidential 2/10, and even when he sounded right he sort of double takes himself because he looks so surprised that he sounded like that.

 

[thoughtomator]

The real reason is that he did nothing to claim attention so he faded out of the conversation. And the reason he did nothing to gain attention is that he has been so busy sucking establishment wang that he was afraid to rock the boat as much as was needed to get that attention.

To consider that the same man that forcefully gripped the nation's attention in his famous filibuster went from that to invisible while running a Presidential campaign is mind-bending.

This campaign was an epic failure on so many levels it's hard to even enumerate them all.

 

[nikcers]

The real reason is that he did nothing to claim attention so he faded out of the conversation. And the reason he did nothing to gain attention is that he has been so busy sucking establishment wang that he was afraid to rock the boat as much as was needed to get that attention.

To consider that the same man that forcefully gripped the nation's attention in his famous filibuster went from that to invisible while running a Presidential campaign is mind-bending.

This campaign was an epic failure on so many levels it's hard to even enumerate them all.

I will disagree on this line alone, without Paul our ideas would of never been debated. He is our last voice in our democracy and he was at risk of losing his senate seat. I was disheartened and as sad as the next pualite, but I was also proud that he did the right thing in the end, instead of falling over his pride.

 

[CPUd]

Aside from the obvious TRUMP factor~

No it had much less to do with his not being pure like his dad and had much more to do with the news cycle and the timing of how long the media takes to bring up a candidate and take them down.

For so many people who have personally experienced so many GOP candidates rise and fall in the 2012 cycle and again in 2016, you would think that there would be some common understanding that there is a huge block of voters that fluctuate from candidate to candidate.

WAKE UP CALL : There aren't nearly enough libertarian voters to take on the GOP electorate.

The only reason why Ron got 21k votes and 3rd place in Iowa, wasn't because Libertarians suddenly decided to come out of the shadows and back him, it didn't have to do with his libertarian purity, he did well because he was next in line for Republicans to support. Ron was FORTUNATE enough to be toward the end of the candidate fluctuation cycle. If Iowa 2012 took place just a few days earlier, Ron might've been the winner. If Rand did well in Iowa, I don't think anyone would be complaining about Rand's version of libertarianism.

Have any of you wondered if Iowa 2016 took place a few days or a week later, what might've happened? The press loves airing dirty laundry like the Ted Cruz voter shaming tactic and maybe just a few days of a NORMAL news cycle covering that would've brought Ted down.

Look, if you're a purist and you want Rand to be a purist, thats fine but to think that libertarian purity of issues means success in the GOP, well then you're simply just not being realistic.

I know people were (are still) just venting, but frankly, they've been venting all over RPFs for 4 years about how Rand was not following their personal Guaranteed Strategy for Success, and at some point it becomes unhealthy to do so. You were one of the handful of people on this site who 1) "got" what Ron 2012 was all about, which was to show people how to use the party to bring the message of liberty into mainstream politics, and 2) followed through by staying active in your local GOP and continuing to build/maintain coalitions on like issues. An environment like that makes it extremely hard for an authoritarian or populist mindset to come back in and take hold,but it's not the kind of thing that can be put on autopilot. The support for the state/county GOPs in Iowa, Maine, Minnesota and Nevada evaporated after 2012, and most all of that leadership was forced out within 2 years. On a positive note, there are still some local GOPs out there going strong, plus some really good state and US reps who are now solid incumbents running for reelection.

Rand 2016 was the next phase, and it sorta worked. It didn't get Rand elected, or do a lot to reinforce what was left of the gains in the local/state GOPs, but from 2013 until ISIS, mexicans and Trump, the message dominated in the national press. Cantor got primary'd, Thad Cochran almost got primary'd, the guy who (at the national convention) reads the results of a voice vote from a teleprompter got removed, while the next in line got immediately rejected. The issue of government surveillance was taken seriously enough to marginalize people like Peter King and lindsey Graham, Chris Christie, Governor of 9/11 nearly gets booed off stage on national TV for saying things a GOP candidate would typically get standing ovations for. The US military didn't go full retard in Syria to remove Assad like every single president since GHWB would have been able to do with the support from Congress (whether they ask for it or not).

It wasn't just liberty people who made that happen, but liberty was able to lead on it and pick up support from other grassroots. Pretty much every day, the same group of people on here like to ridicule the idea of working within government as opposed to grassroots activism on a local scale. I don't see one side existing without the other, and if there were a manual on "how to bust up liberty", driving a wedge between the 2 would be on page 1. There are always going to be assholes in D.C., but it is good to have some liberty people there too.

 

[eleganz]

The real reason is that he did nothing to claim attention so he faded out of the conversation. And the reason he did nothing to gain attention is that he has been so busy sucking establishment wang that he was afraid to rock the boat as much as was needed to get that attention.

To consider that the same man that forcefully gripped the nation's attention in his famous filibuster went from that to invisible while running a Presidential campaign is mind-bending.

This campaign was an epic failure on so many levels it's hard to even enumerate them all.

Uhhhh ok Skipper~~

He didn't forcefully grip shit, he got lucky. The filibuster got attention not because of the issue but because of the rarity of occurrence. Americans don't care bout drone strikes on domestic soil but the MEDIA cares about interesting stories that will catch attention.

Of course compared to Trump everyone looks like they're timid of attracting attention. What would you have Rand done? State that he would ban the internet? Ban muslims? Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it?

Hey I got an idea, go follow Trump, that guys got a bunch of attention grabbing tweets DAILY.

 

[LibertyExtremist]

I think that there are many reasons, not just one. However, don't discount the fact that Iowa is heavily evangelical Christian and many evangelical Christians seem to love debt, wars, and restricting freedom.

Anyway, although I strongly supported Rand, I don't think he could have beat the Democrat in the general. The march toward "free stuff" has been strong and more and more people want their "fair share" of someone's earnings.

 

[CaptUSA]

I thought it was because he didn't put on a tutu and dance on the bar tables. If he would have done that, the media would have paid attention.


Seriously, folks, there is much truth in the OP. (Although, I think Ron did well in 2012 in spite of the media black-out because he was the only 'anti-establishment' candidate on either ticket which gathered up a lot of the contrarian voters. You know, those people who don't know anything about issues, but just want to give the finger to those in charge.)

But we are fooling ourselves to play Monday morning quarterback and say, "If only Rand did this or that..." The establishment knows who the real threat is. They would have still fought just as hard, if not harder.

 

[thoughtomator]

But we are fooling ourselves to play Monday morning quarterback and say, "If only Rand did this or that..."

For those of us who held our tongues and put faith in Rand to be competent and effective as a candidate and didn't try to second guess him during the whole process to date, this is the correct time to play Monday morning quarterback.

 

[July]

His team seems to have made the miscalculation that Jeb made, that Trump mania would fade out long before Iowa and voters would "get serious" looking for an electable alternative. But the appeal of Trump, Cruz, and Carson was underestimated. Voters did eventually start looking for an alternative but Rubio seems to have been the beneficiary however, with the last minute media buzz surrounding him, and managing to surge into third place. Following the vote, Trump, Cruz, and Carson are feuding, and becoming an embarrassment to those looking for someone respectable and plausable to run against Hillary.

 

[Todd]

I think this has a lot of truth to it. I think we need to put into perspective that the people who are strictly purists, are the minority of the electorate. (And some don't vote anyhow).

 

[twomp]

Yeah blame the media for the mediocre money bombs and lack of energy during this campaign too. Remember how the rEVOLution owned the internet? What happened with that? Must be the media right? Or how about all those sign bombs on bridges all across the country that was so prevalent during Ron Paul's campaigns? Oh must be the media too. Keep making excuses for Senator Paul.

He decided early on to distance himself from his dad and the movement in an attempt to appear more "mainstream" and this was the result. Sorry, the truth hurts.

 

[Edmunster]

you guys can blame the fact that it was the political environment, etc... but I know first hand many people who just did not have the same enthusiasm they did for Ron than they did for Rand. It was the purity element that attracted many to Ron Paul. I knew people that simply supported him because he was the most consistent politician. They would even disagree with him on certain key issues but the fact that you knew where he stood and would not all of a sudden sell out made people flock. You just didn't have that with Rand. People didn't trust him, simple as that. I don't know how many times I had to explain to people that he was 'playing the game".

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

Rand Paul ran a good campaign. Sure, he made mistakes like all candidates do. This was just the wrong year sadly.