What is the best strategy for Rand (revised)?

[dude58677]

Default What is the best strategy for Rand?
A) Attack Donald Trumps hypocrisy and/or platform - Advantage: Works if voters are smart. Disadvantage: Voters might not be smart.

B) Attack Donald Trumps mob ties- Advantage: Works great if voters are moral. Disadvantage: Voters might not be moral.

C) Promote Rand running a doctors office in White House- Advantage: Could get low information voters. Disadvantage: Media might ignore it.

D) Promote Rand Paul's platform- Advantage: Educate the populace. Disadvantage: Might not capture voters attention.

E) Promote Rand's voting record- Advantage: Will show he truly is anti-establishment. Disadvantage: Might be too complex for voters.

F) Focus on Delegates at Conventions- Advantage: Could work with Mitch McConnell on his side. Disadvantage: Might turn off voters in General Election.

 

[acptulsa]

G) All of the above and more. Advantage: Liable to win over some of each of those groups, and stands a pretty damned good chance of working, considering these seventeen candidates sure look like they're all heading to a brokered convention in any case. Disadvantage: Even with all that newsworthy stuff going on, the media will still be talking about orange combovers all the time.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

He should come across with the zeal of Ronald Reagan such as here. This imo is one of the top 3 best speeches ever made in human history. Rand should emulate the energy and genuineness, something I know he's very capable of. With the issues important today of course. Reagan speaks to people directly, not in undefined terms. Powerful but meaningful words.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qXBswFfh6AY


In fact, after re-watching the speech again. Almost the entire speech is still relevant, sadly --. Change some numbers...

 

[devil21]

Gotta hit Trump on things that primary voters hate more than illegal immigration. Democrats! And Trump has a lot of dirt there to drag up.

Rand could also break from conventional tactics and go into things that the political class generally considers to be off limits. If Trump is going to break with custom, then a way to beat him is to also break with custom.

Here's an example. I'm sure Rand would quietly catch a lot of shit from the political class for bringing this up but the media wouldn't know how to handle it.
http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/251943-trump-hillary-are-distant-relations-experts-say

It’s all in the family for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton — the presidential front-runners are reportedly related.

The genealogy website Geni.com tells entertainment show “Extra” that the GOP and Democratic White House candidates are 19th cousins.

The first Duke and Duchess of Lancaster are Trump and Clinton’s 18th great-grandparents, according to the site's analysis.

“John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster, married Katherine Swynford, Duchess of Lancaster, and John and Katherine are Donald and Hillary’s shared 18th great grandparents,” reports “Extra.”

Author A.J. Jacobs, who studied the Geni.com research, told the television program of the two 2016 hopefuls, “Their 19th great grandfather is King Edward III so there is precedent for ruling a country; it’s in their genes.”

Of course this also applies to most of the candidates, having British royal lineage in common.

"Not only does Trump contribute huge money to the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons attend Trump's weddings, they're also related!"

Gotta hit Trump on the things that conservatives hate more than illegal immigration....

 

[jj-]

Gotta hit Trump on the things that conservatives hate more than illegal immigration....

My guess is they hate illegal immigration even more than Democrats.

 

[devil21]

My guess is they hate illegal immigration even more than Democrats.

Your guess would be stupid then.

 

[BGfree]

In 2015 anyone who wants to generate support in the Republican party needs to be a very strong advocate for Nationalism.

That may not be what Libertarians want to hear, but Nationalism is rising up in virtually all western societies simply because it's the most direct way to confront the Marxist multiculturalists who have been running roughshod over the people's will in so many western societies.

 

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

All the issues that voters seem to care about can be traced back to the economy and specifically monetary policy. Ron's campaigns showed that the average voter (if he even listens) doesn't really care about monetary policy. The biggest challenge that I see for Rand is to make the money issue acceptable to the masses. That would re-energize his base and steal quite a bit of thunder from the rest of the candidate crowd. Immigration, income inequality, deficit spending, etc. all can be solved through monetary reforms. Now, how to make the case in soundbites that resonate?

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

In 2015 anyone who wants to generate support in the Republican party needs to be a very strong advocate for Nationalism.

That may not be what Libertarians want to hear, but Nationalism is rising up in virtually all western societies simply because it's the most direct way to confront the Marxist multiculturalists who have been running roughshod over the people's will in so many western societies.

Nationalist-Socialism really (do I have to use the more usual term for this ?). It is as bad or worse than Marxism.

 

[BGfree]

Nationalist-Socialism really (do I have to use the more usual term for this ?)

If you want to remain in good standing with the SJW crowd, you're obligated to.

 

[adam220891]

I feel like there is a serious disconnect between posters here and the average voter.

Let's get this part out of the way - no one here is an 'average voter'. What I'm saying is, we are mostly deep-thinkers who do a lot of research and some of us engage in political activism and campaigning. This is not like 90%+ of voters. So, when you are considering how to attract people, you are going after the average voter which encompasses the overwhelming majority of people.

Here's my opinion:
-MAKE IT KNOWN THAT RAND IS AN OUTSIDER - Like it or not, most people view Rand as an establishment candidate now due to his attacks on Trump. Rand can attack Trump if he simultaneously disses the system/establishment. He road an anti-government wave into the White House but it's seemingly disappeared. If you don't believe me, go talk to people. Read article comments, browse social media, etc. The proof is in the pudding.
-PRIORITIZE FISCAL POLICY - People are tired of being poor. People want jobs. People do not trust Wall Street or the banks. How is Rand going to shake up the system? He needs to talk about balanced budgets, how he's returned money from his Kentucky budget, lowering taxes, etc.
-STOP COZYING UP TO THE ESTABLISHMENT - He's not getting their love or their money. Forget it. The people want an outsider and the establishment will try their best to prevent it, but Rand will never be the establishment candidate so why bother trying to win them over? Bush is clearly the guy, and the Koch brothers have suggested they will back Walker. Fuck the establishment.
-BETTER MESSAGE DELIVERY - Rand has been too wordy and his videos sometimes too lengthy. I know complex problems demand complex explanation and analysis, but those offerings are better served through Op-eds and whatnot. You want a good anti-Trump video? Jeb posted a 'liberal things Trump says' video on Twitter which was very to the point. Sound clip after sound clip with good editing that clearly showed what Rand has been trying to say (that Trump is fake conservative) in a less whiny and more easy to comprehend format. And the whole 'fake conservative' thing is a shit angle. Because again, it makes Rand look like an establishment candidate.

I know Ron's way didn't work. But the dynamics/landscape have changed and right now, an outsider and rebel has as good a chance as any. I don't think it's a bad thing to re-evaluate and try to re-ignite the dormant Ron Paul base that is hoping for a spark any day now. It's a mistake to assume these people will vote for Rand just because he's Ron's son. These voters are principled and will need the small-government, principled conservative/libertarian message to be repeated loudly and firmly for them to become mobilized.

I've got a giant sticker on my rear windshield and 2 lawn signs. I've yet to see any other sticker or lawn sign in my travels across 5 states this summer. I know it's early but last go around there was a ton of stickers and lawn signs because people were fired up. I'm not sensing that right now and it's concerning. I can't see how the current strategy is any good. I'm not talking about Students for Rand or the boots on the ground organization, but the message and delivery has got to evolve.

 

[alucard13mm]

If you attack trump for being cozy to democrats... trump will attack rand for being cozy to democrat senators and visiting jesse jackson. Seeing how unfair the debates is... trump will have last word and rand cant rebuttal.

 

[idiom]

Attack the Medical industry. NOT Obamacare.

All the horseshit that made Obamacare seem necessary. Oppose that.

Oppose the corruption and extortion in the medical industry and people will flock to your banner.

Healthcare is one dollar in five when it should be one in 20. Every American is touched by this. Way more than understand how the FED affects them.

 

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

They might start caring about the FED if *someone* explained that our monetary policy requires 1,000,000 people to hold and pay interest on $10,000 each so that Trump can be "really rich".

 

[libertariantexas]

Gotta hit Trump on things that primary voters hate more than illegal immigration. Democrats! And Trump has a lot of dirt there to drag up.

Rand could also break from conventional tactics and go into things that the political class generally considers to be off limits. If Trump is going to break with custom, then a way to beat him is to also break with custom.

Here's an example. I'm sure Rand would quietly catch a lot of shit from the political class for bringing this up but the media wouldn't know how to handle it.
http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/251943-trump-hillary-are-distant-relations-experts-say



Of course this also applies to most of the candidates, having British royal lineage in common.

"Not only does Trump contribute huge money to the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons attend Trump's weddings, they're also related!"

Gotta hit Trump on the things that conservatives hate more than illegal immigration....

If you go back enough generations and are white, Trump, you, me, Rand Paul, and your garbage man are probably related to British Nobility. It's just a matter of math.

Go back 20 generations, and you will find that you have about 359,000,000 "relatives." That would be most of the people alive in the world at the time. Odds are, you are related to almost everyone alive in the western world.

Hence the reason it turns out EVERY President, from "English" names like "Bush" to not so English names like "Obama" turn out to be related to "English Royalty" if you go back far enough.

Hell, go back far enough, your dog is probably related to English royalty.

 

[devil21]

If you go back enough generations and are white, Trump, you, me, Rand Paul, and your garbage man are probably related to British Nobility. It's just a matter of math.

Go back 20 generations, and you will find that you have about 359,000,000 "relatives." That would be most of the people alive in the world at the time. Odds are, you are related to almost everyone alive in the western world.

Hence the reason it turns out EVERY President, from "English" names like "Bush" to not so English names like "Obama" turn out to be related to "English Royalty" if you go back far enough.

Hell, go back far enough, your dog is probably related to English royalty.

It's politics, homeboy. Whether the above is true or not is irrelevant. Tying Trump to Clinton is the goal.

 

[jkob]

See: Ron Paul campaigns 2008 and 2012

Rand should of built upon those runs and not try to pander since voters respect a someone who speaks honestly about their beliefs and hate a mush. He would of been better off never allying with McConnell, this attempt to "mainstream" his image is a total failure since voters don't like that image.

Bernie Sanders is an insane 80 year old commie freak who looks like he's been working on a flux capacitor in his garage for the last 20 years but he hasn't been afraid of his non-mainstream beliefs and is catching on because the dissatisfaction with the ruling class of this country. Rand's spend all this time trying to look like a real politician forgetting that voters hate politicians. He could of been a clone of his dad the last 5 years and would of been in much better position.

 

[Krugminator2]

See: Ron Paul campaigns 2008 and 2012

Rand should of built upon those runs and not try to pander since voters respect a someone who speaks honestly about their beliefs and hate a mush. He would of been better off never allying with McConnell, this attempt to "mainstream" his image is a total failure since voters don't like that image.

Bernie Sanders is an insane 80 year old commie freak who looks like he's been working on a flux capacitor in his garage for the last 20 years but he hasn't been afraid of his non-mainstream beliefs and is catching on because the dissatisfaction with the ruling class of this country. Rand's spend all this time trying to look like a real politician forgetting that voters hate politicians. He could of been a clone of his dad the last 5 years and would of been in much better position.

Bernie Sanders has zero chance. Ron Paul had zero chance. How has that strategy worked? What President has been elected on that strategy-ever?

Maybe Rand isn't looking to be a cult leader. Maybe he is trying to give himself an actual chance to win. It is after all a huge sacrifice to run. Saying voters want someone who just says whatever pops into their head is based on nothing. Voters actually want a politician. Those people lose. That's why politicians win and why they should win. Supporting McConnell was the easiest and best decision he has made.

 

[jkob]

Bernie Sanders has zero chance. Ron Paul had zero chance. How has that strategy worked? What President has been elected on that strategy-ever?

Maybe Rand isn't looking to be a cult leader. Maybe he is trying to give himself an actual chance to win. It is after all a huge sacrifice to run. Saying voters want someone who just says whatever pops into their head is based on nothing. Voters actually want a politician. Those people lose. That's why politicians win and why they should win. Supporting McConnell was the easiest and best decision he has made.

Well I guess the proof will be in the pudding. Ron was this close to winning Iowa in 2012 and would of if it wasn't for dirty tricks from the media to ensure it didn't happen and who knows how that momentum would of carroed, lets see if Rand can even add up the totals he gets in Iowa/New Hampshire combined to match what his dad got in 2012 in just Iowa.

 

[Krugminator2]

Well I guess the proof will be in the pudding. Ron was this close to winning Iowa in 2012 and would of if it wasn't for dirty tricks from the media to ensure it didn't happen and who knows how that momentum would of carroed, lets see if Rand can even add up the totals he gets in Iowa/New Hampshire combined to match what his dad got in 2012 in just Iowa.

That proves absolutely nothing. The runner up last time was Santorum who is polling at *% this time. That was an extraordinarily weak field where Ron was a protest candidate and he still won zero states and only got 10% of the vote.

Getting votes isn't necessarily a sign of strength. Jon Huntsman and Tim Pawlenty did horribly last time. They were still stronger candidates than Ron Paul, because they had a scenario where they could win. There was no scenario where Ron Paul could win. Ron Paul did as well as he could in ideal conditions and finished 4th.