WAPO: What the heck happened to Rand Paul?

[jllundqu]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/02/what-the-heck-happened-to-rand-paul/

At the beginning of the year when people asked me which of the umpteen Republican candidates running for president actually had a shot at the nomination, Rand Paul was the second or third name out of my mouth.

My thinking went like this: (1) Paul was the inheritor of the libertarian political legacy of his father, former congressman (and three-time presidential candidate) Ron Paul (2) That meant he would have real organizations in Iowa and New Hampshire, not to mention the capacity to raise tens of millions of dollars (3) He was reaching out to the establishment in ways his father never did, meaning that if he did look like the nominee, people wouldn't throw their bodies in the way to keep him from it.

Boy, did things play out differently.

On Friday, a Pew poll came out that showed Paul at 2 percent, which put him in tie for seventh place with former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. Earlier this week, Paul announced he had raised a meager $2.5 million over the last three months — a total dwarfed by one-time long shots like Ben Carson ($20 million) and Bernie Sanders ($26 million.)

"He is out of money," said Republican strategist Ed Rollins of Paul. "His ideas are not taking hold, and he is the odd man out in the presidential debates."

Even the most loyal Paul allies admit that things have not gone according to plan — although they argue that he's already bottomed out and is on his way back. "Our fundraising was at twice the rate [after the CNN debate in September] as it was before," said Doug Stafford, chief strategist for Paul's campaign. "Our organizations and crowds in the early states are doing nothing but getting larger."

So, okay. In a race in which Donald Trump is in the lead and Jeb Bush is at 4 percent — that's the state of affairs in that new Pew poll — anything is possible, up to and including a Paul comeback.

But, there's plenty of reasons to think it won't happen — and many of those reasons also explain why Paul hasn't lived up to his potential in the race so far. Let's go through them.


1. The libertarian strain in the GOP peaked in 2014. The rise of the Islamic State and the group's high-profile beheadings and burnings stopped the momentum that seemed to be growing behind a less hawkish national security and foreign policy approach to the world within the GOP. Suddenly, the views that Paul held, which seemed poised to move closer to the mainstream of the GOP in 2016, were back at the fringes. And he was stuck running on a message that felt like it's time had come and gone — or never really come at all.

2. Paul's move to court the establishment cost him among libertarians. The theory of Rand was that he would have all of his dad's support among libertarians AND enough support from the establishment to keep himself relevant throughout the early-state votes. Didn't happen that way. Instead, Paul not only proved unable to convince any real chunk of the establishment to be for him but also wound up alienating parts of his libertarian base who didn't like that he was trying to move beyond them. Lose-lose.

3. Paul has been a very weak fundraiser. He's been in the race since April and has raised a total of $7 million. How bad is that? Consider that Ron Paul raised $8 million in this same fundraising quarter in 2011 despite the fact that no one thought he had any chance of winning. Part of Rand's problem is, per point No. 2 above, he doesn't feel as much like a "cause" candidate as his father did, so he gets fewer small-dollar contributions over the Internet. This is also a more crowded field than 2012 with lots of people trying to raise money from the same donors.

4. Rand hasn't been a good candidate. He comes across as prickly and aloof at least as often as he comes across as cerebral and revolutionary. He quite clearly doesn't have a rapport with major donors — see point No. 3 — and he lacks the I'm-everybody's-revolutionary-grandpa vibe that worked so well for his dad. (That's understandable since Rand is only 52 years old.) He hasn't found ways to connect with voters in early states or, really, any state.

Add it all up, and you see why he is where he is, which is nowhere. Stranger things have happened in politics than a Rand Paul comeback. But with pressure likely to ramp up on him to return home and make sure the party doesn't lose his Senate seat next November, it may become increasingly hard for Paul to hold on to his presidential dreams.

 

[nayjevin]

Opinion piece

1. The libertarian strain in the GOP peaked in 2014. The rise of the Islamic State and the group's high-profile beheadings and burnings stopped the momentum that seemed to be growing behind a less hawkish national security and foreign policy approach to the world within the GOP. Suddenly, the views that Paul held, which seemed poised to move closer to the mainstream of the GOP in 2016, were back at the fringes. And he was stuck running on a message that felt like it's time had come and gone — or never really come at all.

Where this is most true is among establishment republicans. Those who have a tendency to distrust foreigners and approve of war for the sake of security and hegemony were starting to think that maybe it wasn't worth it, for everything from 'I wish those boys were home' reasons to 'It costs a lot of money' reasons. Not for 'It's not okay to bomb innocent children' reasons.

The folks who tend to think American media is Idiocracy and that Team America: World Police is a documentary, there has been no change - but there is no voice for these people on the media outlets that the author of this article keeps tabs on.

2. Paul's move to court the establishment cost him among libertarians.

Where this is true, it is among folks who would not and will not support politicians in general. Ron Paul is a rare case to be able to bring out these intellectually disenfranchised people. If someone equally as good as Ron ran this time, (which doesn't exist), there would be a big falloff anyway. Add that to the fact that Rand is in politics in a way distasteful to this minority, and the statement is somewhat true. There is also the effect that many people who threw down $2300 for Ron now throw down $2300 for a SuperPac instead. Some now throw down $2300 on entrepreneurial efforts, or volunteer organizations, or silver.

Add to that the active intent to sow discord among libertarians, exagerrating Rand's misses and underplaying Rand's homeruns.

3. Paul has been a very weak fundraiser.

Doesn't count SuperPACS. Speaks too soon. Exagerrates. Where it is true, some can be explained by the fact that moneybombs are not as fresh and exciting, and as above, a third go around would have a dropoff of excitement anyway.

4. Rand hasn't been a good candidate.

Silly. Matter of opinion. Kennedy was correct on the economic effect of taxation. GW pandered non-interventionist. Moderates win elections.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I tend to doubt the coincidental nature of things like this.

1. The libertarian strain in the GOP peaked in 2014. The rise of the Islamic State and the group's high-profile beheadings and burnings stopped the momentum that seemed to be growing behind a less hawkish national security and foreign policy approach to the world within the GOP. Suddenly, the views that Paul held, which seemed poised to move closer to the mainstream of the GOP in 2016, were back at the fringes. And he was stuck running on a message that felt like it's time had come and gone — or never really come at all.

 

[hells_unicorn]

I checked the Google news feed on a whim a couple hours ago and everything at the top was talking about Rand Paul being an absolute failure. This stuff is like clockwork, and it made me want to put my fist through the monitor, it was so brazenly biased.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Meanwhile, on talk radio:

http://www.mofopolitics.com/2015/09/30/mark-levin-to-rand-paul-conservatives-have-had-enough-of-you/

 

[klamath]

There are a quite a number of candidates below Rand that would make the "once high but now failing" article more inline. How about santorum? How about Huck? These guys actually won primaries that they are now doing terrible in?

 

[Chester Copperpot]

Meanwhile, on talk radio:

http://www.mofopolitics.com/2015/09/30/mark-levin-to-rand-paul-conservatives-have-had-enough-of-you/

Wait... so Mark Levin .."...stands up for the one guy who will say NO in congress (Ted Cruz) ...and he does it as an act of courage"

WHERE THE FUCK WAS MARK LEVIN WHEN RON PAUL WAS SAYING NO IN CONGRESS.... WHY DIDNT HE SUPPORT RON PAUL AS AN ACT OF COURAGE???

INSTEAD HE CALLED RON PAUL A KOOK.


FUCK YOU MARK LEVIN...

YOU GOOD NORTH AMERICAN YOU

 

[William R]

Meanwhile, on talk radio:

http://www.mofopolitics.com/2015/09/30/mark-levin-to-rand-paul-conservatives-have-had-enough-of-you/

Levin is an unhinged Neocon.

 

[William R]

Rand was doing pretty well in May and June. I think he was 3rd in New Hampshire for example. Then Trump entered the race and it's been downhill since.

He really has run a bad campaign and his flip flop on immigration really hurt him with tea party type voters. Plus he started using liberal talking point when talking about immigration.

"What we have now is de facto amnesty" "Lets make taxpayers out of them" Telling Howard Fineman of the Huffington Post he'll provide cover for McConnell to get amnesty through the Senate.

Trump comes in and says I'll build a wall and the rest is history. Rand badly misjudged the anger Republican voters have towards the establishment. I can't stand Cruz but it was a dumb for Rand to attack him like that.

Bottom line. Rand isn't a very good politician.

 

[Working Poor]

There are several commenters at the OP article defending Rand. The media worms need to know we are not gone.

 

[PCKY]

Rand was doing pretty well in May and June. I think he was 3rd in New Hampshire for example. Then Trump entered the race and it's been downhill since.

He really has run a bad campaign and his flip flop on immigration really hurt him with tea party type voters. Plus he started using liberal talking point when talking about immigration.

"What we have now is de facto amnesty" "Lets make taxpayers out of them" Telling Howard Fineman of the Huffington Post he'll provide cover for McConnell to get amnesty through the Senate.

Trump comes in and says I'll build a wall and the rest is history. Rand badly misjudged the anger Republican voters have towards the establishment. I can't stand Cruz but it was a dumb for Rand to attack him like that.

Bottom line. Rand isn't a very good politician.

Levin overreacted because he is in the tank for Cruz... Period. What Paul said was just fact...unless every single senator gets ousted immediately ( except Cruz) Cruz is pretty much done in the Senate. I'm not sure how Rand answers that question, but protecting Cruz will get him knifed in the back at some point.

 

[Anti Federalist]

There are several commenters at the OP article defending Rand. The media worms need to know we are not gone.

The media worms do not care.

 

[klamath]

Rand was doing pretty well in May and June. I think he was 3rd in New Hampshire for example. Then Trump entered the race and it's been downhill since.

He really has run a bad campaign and his flip flop on immigration really hurt him with tea party type voters. Plus he started using liberal talking point when talking about immigration.

"What we have now is de facto amnesty" "Lets make taxpayers out of them" Telling Howard Fineman of the Huffington Post he'll provide cover for McConnell to get amnesty through the Senate.

Trump comes in and says I'll build a wall and the rest is history. Rand badly misjudged the anger Republican voters have towards the establishment. I can't stand Cruz but it was a dumb for Rand to attack him like that.

Bottom line. Rand isn't a very good politician.

Bottom line, I am sure we will get a REAL politician like Bush, Rubio, Kasich. I sure you will feel glad a REAL politician won.

 

[Occam's Banana]

"Lets make taxpayers out of them"

That's a horrible thing to do to anyone ...

 

[Spikender]

Rand is not out yet, dammit.

 

[Crashland]

Rand is not out yet, dammit.

I know, but it seems like every day there is another bullshit story about how his campaign is over. I don't recall hardly any of the relentless beating in the media for Walker or Perry even leading right up to their leaving the race.

 

[hells_unicorn]

I know, but it seems like every day there is another bullshit story about how his campaign is over. I don't recall hardly any of the relentless beating in the media for Walker or Perry even leading right up to their leaving the race.

That's because the media doesn't get paid to try and get Walker or Perry out of the race. Rand, it seems, is another matter altogether.

 

[Spikender]

I know, but it seems like every day there is another bullshit story about how his campaign is over. I don't recall hardly any of the relentless beating in the media for Walker or Perry even leading right up to their leaving the race.

Can't argue there. It's just a bit aggravating for them to be lambasting him when to me it still feels like this has all just begun. I understand there's a lot of competitors in this race and they're likely looking for a lot to drop off before the core of the race starts, but it's clear that the media wants to specifically demoralize Rand's current supporters and shore up against any potential supporters he might gain. Even those who are sympathetic to libertarians and Rand Paul might think twice because they view him as not having a chance due to these pint-sized pituitary gland-having neanderthals in our media.

 

[Crashland]

Can't argue there. It's just a bit aggravating for them to be lambasting him when to me it still feels like this has all just begun. I understand there's a lot of competitors in this race and they're likely looking for a lot to drop off before the core of the race starts, but it's clear that the media wants to specifically demoralize Rand's current supporters and shore up against any potential supporters he might gain. Even those who are sympathetic to libertarians and Rand Paul might think twice because they view him as not having a chance due to these pint-sized pituitary gland-having neanderthals in our media.

It is quite aggravating indeed. But the good thing is even so, you're still right. It is STILL very early and the race can completely turn on a dime, a single news event, a single sentence uttered by a candidate. It has happened before and will happen again.

 

[Spikender]

It is quite aggravating indeed. But the good thing is even so, you're still right. It is STILL very early and the race can completely turn on a dime, a single news event, a single sentence uttered by a candidate. It has happened before and will happen again.

Thanks, I just want to see a bit more positive thinking when it comes to Rand's current outlook. We can do our part to verbally fight against the media, whether it's in person around peers or in Internet comment sections and social media. I'm already a pretty glass half-empty sort of guy, so when I want to feel positive about something, it's a strong feeling, bro.