- Joined
- May 20, 2010
- Messages
- 14,304
[Video] Rand Paul on CNN New Day 1/31
- Thread starter jct74
- Start date
I don't think it was a big fail, he is starting to look exhausted and you really can't blame him.
I think it's fine, the journalist pulled some silly nonsense there. I mean you can tell it was either super early or super late for a guy already not getting much sleep. Good video nonetheless, especially with the focus on the minority vote. So remember every youtube video you see, go to youtube link on bottom right and like and comment.
I certainly hope that you're wrong. It's not even Iowa and he is too exhausted to handle a pretty easy curveball? That's the case, then the general and presidency would kill him. Ron seemed to handle exhaustion better.
adam220891
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2015
- Messages
- 592
He has had the most appearances in the media past week in addition to his crazy campaign schedule. If he loses Iowa it will not be for a lack of effort
Agreed. I can't imagine the strain of such a rigorous campaign schedule.
Alldayallie
Member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2016
- Messages
- 59
Atleast he didn't pull a Ron who wasn't in Iowa for the 3 days before the 2012 caucus. Really cost Ron the caucus.
I hear you. It's still nothing compared to what would be required should he continue on through. That is a part of it. Say what you want about the awful people who have, or have almost become president. They have wills of iron.
mello
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2007
- Messages
- 2,001
Well, the interview started at 6:51am so he probably woke up 1.5-2 hours ago.
Plus he's still doing his job in the Senate.
Theocrat
Member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 9,550
Of Course We're "In It to Win It"
Obviously, Sen. Paul's goal is to win. That's the goal for all campaigns. That should be understood, at the outset.
So, that news anchor's question was really unnecessary, unless he was trying to imply that Sen. Paul's campaign has no reason to still be in the Presidential race.
Obviously, Sen. Paul's goal is to win. That's the goal for all campaigns. That should be understood, at the outset.
So, that news anchor's question was really unnecessary, unless he was trying to imply that Sen. Paul's campaign has no reason to still be in the Presidential race.
euphemia
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 10,784
My husband, the Cruz boy, has commented that Rand looks way less exhausted than all the rest of the candidates.
I will say that this video shows Rand looking very good. He can't back off on looking sharp and Presidential, no matter how tired he is.
I will say that this video shows Rand looking very good. He can't back off on looking sharp and Presidential, no matter how tired he is.
If he does well in Iowa he will find the energy to carry on.
He maybe doesn't have the ego to burn himself up in a chase for something that seems objectively unlikely to succeed which is indeed a core requirement in a Presidential candidate. We will see.
In all the interviews he did today and where he's discussing his current poll numbers, he's actually stating wrong information. Though Rand could in fact turn out voters that exceed his current poll numbers and match his father's 2012 performance, Ron never performed well above his poll numbers in 2012 (especially polling something like 5% and then having a 22% on Caucus night as Rand claims), and had in fact matched those poll numbers (polls averaged 21.3% on HuffingtonPost, 21.5% on RealClearPolitics and Iowa Caucus results were 21.4%):
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-iowa-gop-primary
And in 2008, Ron only did 2.6% better in the Caucus than what his average poll numbers indicated (average poll numbers were 7.3% and Ron got 9.9%).
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html
Not that I myself can recall specific facts and numbers like I just posted, but I do remember that the polling pretty much matched how Ron ended up doing. How could Rand not get this basic fact right? And if getting this fact wrong, what does it indicate about Rand and his campaign?
luctor-et-emergo
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2012
- Messages
- 7,420
That's not the point.
The point is Ron got some 22% of the caucus straw poll. Yet when people are asked [in polls] this year who they voted for 4 years ago only about 5% respond they voted for Paul. Which is odd, since he got 22% last time. Where's the other 17% ? They aren't being polled.
CPUd
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2012
- Messages
- 22,978
You should totally email that to the campaign and ask them to correct it.
euphemia
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 10,784
My husband just said, "When the Republicans get down to five candidates, and Rand Paul is one of them, we are going to see a different kind of debate."I picked my jaw up off the floor and said, "You are so sexy."
That's one more vote on Super Tuesday.
JSBach
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
- Messages
- 19
I was in the fight then also... in fact for the last 50 years since first learning of the Austrians.
Rand is spot on. Forget those sources. They are still lying. FOrget the sign-in vote, which most voters will check in for and then leave! Ron actually won the caucuses and a majority of delegates from Iowa! But this was not announced until a few weeks later... on the back page of course. He even won 20% of the sign-in vote with 26,000 votes. They average about 120,000 voters in the caucuses there.
On the other hand, the media kept right on telling the couch potatoes the lie... it's called disinformation. And, this campaign is equal to or even better at that same disinformation tactic. Disinformation is the breakfast of tyrants, and the Neocon gangs are just that.
Never forget that the whole Donald Ross the Trumpet Buffoon Perot campaign, including all the other Neocon pro-FED candidates, are but one in purpose: they are the un-Paul side of the two party race, and every strategy each candidate performs is orchestrated to that end. Think of all the wars of the 20th century, their importance to the world, that they were the offspring of the FED, and you will have only a slight idea of how impotant it is for them all together to defeat anyone named Paul!
It is Paul vs. un-Paul! All the rest including the Hun and her obligatory Socialist counterpart, and including the Fascist Buffoon running for the first time as a republican, are part of the un-Paul single candidate opposition to the Paul... the pro-FED vs. the anti-FED!
Rand is spot on. Forget those sources. They are still lying. FOrget the sign-in vote, which most voters will check in for and then leave! Ron actually won the caucuses and a majority of delegates from Iowa! But this was not announced until a few weeks later... on the back page of course. He even won 20% of the sign-in vote with 26,000 votes. They average about 120,000 voters in the caucuses there.
On the other hand, the media kept right on telling the couch potatoes the lie... it's called disinformation. And, this campaign is equal to or even better at that same disinformation tactic. Disinformation is the breakfast of tyrants, and the Neocon gangs are just that.
Never forget that the whole Donald Ross the Trumpet Buffoon Perot campaign, including all the other Neocon pro-FED candidates, are but one in purpose: they are the un-Paul side of the two party race, and every strategy each candidate performs is orchestrated to that end. Think of all the wars of the 20th century, their importance to the world, that they were the offspring of the FED, and you will have only a slight idea of how impotant it is for them all together to defeat anyone named Paul!
It is Paul vs. un-Paul! All the rest including the Hun and her obligatory Socialist counterpart, and including the Fascist Buffoon running for the first time as a republican, are part of the un-Paul single candidate opposition to the Paul... the pro-FED vs. the anti-FED!
Similar threads
- Featured
