Why Rand Paul is fizzling

W

William R

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
1,675
At least not yet. In the last debate Paul showed some hints of finding his convictions again. And he needs to find them fast. If he can survive until the field is smaller, then his opponents may start reminding libertarians why they liked Paulism in the first place. Instead of cringing before party mandarins or his ideological enemies, Paul needs to stand up and explain why he's different from the field, why that's exciting, and why he deserves to lead the party — even the parts of it that disagree with him.

Or he should go back to the Senate and be interesting there.


http://theweek.com/articles/581388/why-rand-paul-fizzling
 
vita3 said:
the doom & gloom around here is annoying.
Click to expand...

Isn't it, though?

But shills gonna spam. And if they can't be banned, then well, I guess they can't be banned. But it would be nice if they said nice things, you know, ten percent of the time. That would only be a modicum of civility, after all--hardly too much to ask for on our own forum.
 
Needs to be in spin, flak, etc...

Rand's campaign is lean and has staying power. "Fizzling" is the meme they're trying to sell. It scares off the big donors. Don't buy it. We'll see what happens when/if the field thins.
 
William R said:
n survive until the field is smaller, then his opponents may start reminding libertarians why they liked Paulism in the first place.
Click to expand...

Rand Paul isn't behind because he is losing libertarians. The fact of the matter is libertarians are virtually his only support. Libertarians are maybe 2% of the electorate and Rand is getting the majority of that vote. Probably 80-90% of the people who supported Ron Paul in places like Iowa were not libertarians in any meaningful sense of the word. I agree the rest of what you said.

This article has been my opinion for 8 years. Libertarians did not propel Ron Paul.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015...ul-and-libertarian-moment-that-never-was.html
 
Krugminator2 said:
Rand Paul isn't behind because he is losing libertarians. The fact of the matter is libertarians are virtually his only support. Libertarians are maybe 2% of the electorate and Rand is getting the majority of that vote. Probably 80-90% of the people who supported Ron Paul in places like Iowa were not libertarians in any meaningful sense of the word. I agree the rest of what you said.

This article has been my opinion for 8 years. Libertarians did not propel Ron Paul.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015...ul-and-libertarian-moment-that-never-was.html
Click to expand...

Ron got 20 percent in Iowa. Finished second in New Hampshire. Rand ain't close. Ron was truly an outsider.
 
William R said:
Ron got 20 percent in Iowa. Finished second in New Hampshire. Rand ain't close. Ron was truly an outsider.
Click to expand...

Okay? I said I completely agreed with that.

Being an outsider has nothing in and of itself to do with libertarianism. I am not really sure it is a virtue either other than some voters see it as a virtue.
 
William R said:
At least not yet. In the last debate Paul showed some hints of finding his convictions again. And he needs to find them fast. If he can survive until the field is smaller, then his opponents may start reminding libertarians why they liked Paulism in the first place. Instead of cringing before party mandarins or his ideological enemies, Paul needs to stand up and explain why he's different from the field, why that's exciting, and why he deserves to lead the party — even the parts of it that disagree with him.

Or he should go back to the Senate and be interesting there.


http://theweek.com/articles/581388/why-rand-paul-fizzling
Click to expand...

I thought you were one of the people complaining about him being too libertarian?
 
William R said:
Ron got 20 percent in Iowa. Finished second in New Hampshire. Rand ain't close. Ron was truly an outsider.
Click to expand...

Rand ain't close.

What part of neither was Ron do you shills have so much trouble comprehending? Ron didn't poll in double digits until it got close enough to the Iowa caucus that they had to poll accurately or lose everyone's confidence in their abilities as pollsters.

But then, what good are cooked polls if you have no chorus of paid morons wailing, 'Oh, it's over before it began, we have to give up now lest we, um, er, give up not as soon as we should or something!!'?
 
Last edited:
William R said:
Ron got 20 percent in Iowa. Finished second in New Hampshire. Rand ain't close. Ron was truly an outsider.
Click to expand...

Ron was in single digits in Iowa at this point too. It's very dishonest of you to use Ron's final caucus total to compare them with Rand 4 months before the caucus.
 
Bastiat's The Law said:
Want to bet who has higher numbers on caucus night?
Click to expand...

I believe Rand will have higher numbers in Iowa than Ron did, both total caucus votes and percentage. But reality is, his numbers could be a little less and he could still win Iowa if there are still more than 10 candidates in the race.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top