CNN poll: Rand Paul in 3rd among GOP presidential candidates with 13%

[jct74]

Poll was conducted from Sept. 6-8, 2013.


BASED ON 218 RESPONDENTS WHO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS REPUBLICANS AND 234
WHO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS INDEPENDENTS WHO LEAN REPUBLICAN, FOR A TOTAL
OF 452 REPUBLICANS -- SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 4.5 PERCENTAGE PTS.

34. I'm going to read a list of people who may be running in the Republican primaries for president in
2016. After I read all the names, please tell me which of those candidates you would be most likely
to support for the Republican nomination for president in 2016, or if you would support someone
else. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Texas Senator Ted
Cruz, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, Texas Governor Rick Perry, Wisconsin Congressman Paul
Ryan, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, or former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. (RANDOM
ORDER)


Christie 17%
Ryan 16%
Paul 13%
Bush 10%
Rubio 9%
Cruz 7%
Perry 6%
Santorum 5%
Someone else (vol.) 6%
None/No one (vol.) 4%
No opinion 6%


http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/09/16/2016poll.pdf

[ObiRandKenobi]

ryan and bush are purely name recog.

but trailing christie sucks.

[anaconda]

This is quite different from PPP.

[Gage]

CNN's rigged "polling" before the Iowa caucus that influenced Santorum to win: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/28/cnn-poll-romney-on-top-gingrich-fading-santorum-rising-in-iowa/

[anaconda]

CNN's rigged "polling" before the Iowa caucus that influenced Santorum to win: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/28/cnn-poll-romney-on-top-gingrich-fading-santorum-rising-in-iowa/

Someone should start a website that calls upon pollsters to explain the differences in their apparent results.

[jkob]

Means nothing right now.

[mwkaufman]

ryan and bush are purely name recog.

but trailing christie sucks.

Eh, none of this polling is bad for Rand Paul.

It's important to note than it took Ron Paul four and a half years of campaigning before he broke 10% in the RCP average 12/15/11. Since his filibuster, he's basically started his campaign at Ron's peak.

There's good reasons to believe Christie is toast in a Republican primary for all sorts of issues. He's more Giuliani than Romney in some people's eyes. Paul Ryan is more of a threat IMO, but all signs point to him not running in 2016.

[helenpaul]

if ryan and christie are 1 and 2 rand paul needs to leave the GOP and run third party.

[Cleaner44]

if ryan and christie are 1 and 2 rand paul needs to leave the GOP and run third party.

This is MSM polling... question the credibility.

[Cleaner44]

oh, I forgot...

FUCK YOU FRANK!

[asurfaholic]

if ryan and christie are 1 and 2 rand paul needs to leave the GOP and run third party.

Yup. Lets just give the fuck up and run in a loosing / non existent party.

[fisharmor]

Good to see all that nuzzling up to the GOP base is paying off.

[Peace&Freedom]

Yup. Lets just give the fuck up and run in a loosing / non existent party.

Or, make the same mistake as all the others before us, and think running within one of the two major statist parties necessarily improves the odds. The whole point of the two party duopoly is to EQUALLY frustrate alternatives, crushing them from without by marginalization, or from within by co-opting or neutralizing them. Most likely, the move is on to neutralize Paul and the liberty movement within the GOP.

[ObiRandKenobi]

Good to see all that nuzzling up to the GOP base is paying off.

im sure the nuzzling up to felons and liberal drug addicts will pay off shortly.

i kid! i only kid.

[krugminator]

Good to see all that nuzzling up to the GOP base is paying off.

It kind of is. So far so good.

[malkusm]

BASED ON 218 RESPONDENTS WHO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS REPUBLICANS AND 234
WHO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS INDEPENDENTS WHO LEAN REPUBLICAN

What is the rationale for this sample selection? Surely there aren't going to be more independent voters than Republican voters in a Republican primary, right?

[malkusm]

Also, if any of you are interested, Nate Silver has been taking PPP to task over the last week or two regarding things they recently revealed about their polling methodology: https://twitter.com/fivethirtyeight

377851070363762688

378238249325457408

378238343445626880

378326251658027008

[Occam's Banana]

[...] SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 4.5 PERCENTAGE PTS. [...]

Christie 17% +/- 4.5% = 12.5% to 21.5%
Ryan 16% +/- 4.5% = 11.5% to 20.5%
Paul 13% +/- 4.5% = 8.5% to 17.5%


That is not third place. That is a three-way tie.

[mwkaufman]

That is not third place. That is a three-way tie.

It might be, but it's more likely it's 3rd place. There's not enough data to call an election on it, but Christie and Ryan are more likely to win said election based on the poll.

By your logic, Santorum is tied with Paul.

[asurfaholic]

Or, make the same mistake as all the others before us, and think running within one of the two major statist parties necessarily improves the odds. The whole point of the two party duopoly is to EQUALLY frustrate alternatives, crushing them from without by marginalization, or from within by co-opting or neutralizing them. Most likely, the move is on to neutralize Paul and the liberty movement within the GOP.

Very much likely, but only by certain factions.

The real truth of the matter is, the VOTERS can be won over, and the election can be WON by shaping the message to appeal to the masses, and being an attractive option on the poll sheet.

The very real truth is that RAND PAUL is taking the GOP and turning it over and shaking all the ants out, and is doing an impressive job so far - Its the only chance at winning, and its a very good chance.

Some of you people here must just want to lose. Or reject winning because that would mean you are not cool anymore because everyone else is voting the same way. 3rd party, freaking REALLY?

At this point to get a lousy poll from a lousy and biased pollster showing rand in 3rd with 13% probably means the actual number is much higher - I don't believe for second that anything the media says or does is fair or honest reporting. The plain fact of the matter is that RAND IS WINNING (the hearts and minds of voters everywhere) and that my friends is what it takes to WIN.

[satchelmcqueen]

we have a new top tier....crispy cream, paul ryan and the other guy who isnt rand paul... - MSM

[klamath]

Is Christy or Ryan leading in Iowa NH or SC? Nothing else matters. Christy probably has huge majorities in NJ, NY and which skews the national percentages. Do they have early primaries? No. By the time those states vote the person that won the majority of the first three will be wrapping it up.

[SilentBull]

CNN's rigged "polling" before the Iowa caucus that influenced Santorum to win: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/28/cnn-poll-romney-on-top-gingrich-fading-santorum-rising-in-iowa/

Yup: How The Media Won Iowa (http://www.truthinexile.com/2012/01/04/how-the-media-rigs-elections/)

[Brett85]

Rand does a lot better with Republican leaning independents in this poll than with Republicans. I guess Rand's run in 2016 might be similar to Ron's Presidential runs in that regard.

[PSYOP]

we have a new top tier....crispy cream, paul ryan and the other guy who isnt rand paul... - MSM
Well played.

[Peace&Freedom]

Very much likely, but only by certain factions.

The real truth of the matter is, the VOTERS can be won over, and the election can be WON by shaping the message to appeal to the masses, and being an attractive option on the poll sheet.

The very real truth is that RAND PAUL is taking the GOP and turning it over and shaking all the ants out, and is doing an impressive job so far - Its the only chance at winning, and its a very good chance.

Some of you people here must just want to lose. Or reject winning because that would mean you are not cool anymore because everyone else is voting the same way. 3rd party, freaking REALLY?

At this point to get a lousy poll from a lousy and biased pollster showing rand in 3rd with 13% probably means the actual number is much higher - I don't believe for second that anything the media says or does is fair or honest reporting. The plain fact of the matter is that RAND IS WINNING (the hearts and minds of voters everywhere) and that my friends is what it takes to WIN.

Delusion time, on steroids. We don't want to lose, but are just pointing out the current system is rigged to make us lose whether within or without the major party structure. In trumpeting token interim victories, you're saying only what every other liberty faction has past said, that tried to take back the Republican Party from the elite controllers at the top. They all failed, freaking really. The party is controlled by big banks, big business, big military contractors and big lobbies, NOT the masses. It's going to stay that way, just as with the Democratic party, at the top.

Rand is winning over the rank and file during the off season. Not the controlling establishment. At crunch time, they will rig primaries, gag journalists, smash fingers, pour hundreds of millions onto establishment frontrunners, and run conventions by teleprompter instead of by Robert's Rules to stop the liberty reformers. And then they're going to get nasty. Afterwards, the rank and file will follow the next milquetoast statist moderate the PTB shove to the top in 2016, straight to another defeat.

So instead of fostering the useless GOP vs 3rd Party divisiveness, try thinking beyond the current box that is designed to beat us in either direction, and has already done so repeatedly. Building a liberty establishment that is NOT dependent on ANY party, or any corporate media in order to flourish, is how we have been winning. Running liberty candidates in open seat primaries (be they as Democrats or Republicans, depending on the area) is the winning approach. Displacing the old order altogether, instead of pretending to ourselves to be taking a part of it over, is how we will win going forward.

[Occam's Banana]

It might be, but it's more likely it's 3rd place.

Not with a sampling error of +/- 4.5% and a range of 4% between the top three placers, it isn't.
Given only the information provided in the OP, there is no way to say which of the three is "more likely" to win.


There's not enough data to call an election on it, but Christie and Ryan are more likely to win said election based on the poll.

No they aren't. If this particular poll had actually been an election and only the particular 452 respondents to this poll had voted, Christie would have won and Paul would have placed third. That is all. There is not merely "not enough data to call an election" (within a much larger population) here - there is no data at all for that purpose here. The sampling error is too large and the separation between the candidates/options is too small.


By your logic, Santorum is tied with Paul.

"My logic" has got nothing to do with it. It's what these numbers as presented mean (to whatever extent, if any, that they actually mean anything at all).

So yes: Santorum is indeed "tied" with Paul for second place - as are all the other options shown after Paul.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Very much likely, but only by certain factions.

The real truth of the matter is, the VOTERS can be won over, and the election can be WON by shaping the message to appeal to the masses, and being an attractive option on the poll sheet.

The very real truth is that RAND PAUL is taking the GOP and turning it over and shaking all the ants out, and is doing an impressive job so far - Its the only chance at winning, and its a very good chance.

Some of you people here must just want to lose. Or reject winning because that would mean you are not cool anymore because everyone else is voting the same way. 3rd party, freaking REALLY?

At this point to get a lousy poll from a lousy and biased pollster showing rand in 3rd with 13% probably means the actual number is much higher - I don't believe for second that anything the media says or does is fair or honest reporting. The plain fact of the matter is that RAND IS WINNING (the hearts and minds of voters everywhere) and that my friends is what it takes to WIN.

Great post. I'm tired of the libertarian hipsters as well. It's funny how they keep promoting the failed 3rd party route even after Ron showed us the way.

Using a major party has allowed us to get these guys into office, which only energizes me to get even more people like Amash, Massie, Paul, etc into office.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAhQyCtYe5A

[Peace&Freedom]

Great post. I'm tired of the libertarian hipsters as well. It's funny how they keep promoting the failed 3rd party route even after Ron showed us the way.

Using a major party has allowed us to get these guys into office, which only energizes me to get even more people like Amash, Massie, Paul, etc into office.



This misdescribes the issue. Paul showed the way by running as a third party themed candidate in a winnable major party primary race, while building a grassroots network that was independent of either. The alternative mentioned is not "the third party route," but one that is based on the movement being independent from parties, using them as a means only, and not as a home.

E.g., use the third party universe as a means of vetting true liberty candidates, while using the major parties (both of them) as a means of leveraging them into office, as the opportunities arise. Thus, no marginalization from being outside a major party, AND no neutralization from within. That's the winning way going forward.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Delusion time, on steroids. We don't want to lose, but are just pointing out the current system is rigged to make us lose whether within or without the major party structure. In trumpeting token interim victories, you're saying only what every other liberty faction has past said, that tried to take back the Republican Party from the elite controllers at the top. They all failed, freaking really. The party is controlled by big banks, big business, big military contractors and big lobbies, NOT the masses.

Rand is winning over the rank and file during the off season. Not the controlling establishment. At crunch time, they will rig primaries, gag journalists, crush fingers, pour hundreds of millions onto establishment frontrunners, and run conventions by teleprompter instead of by Robert's Rules to stop the liberty reformers. And then they're going to get nasty. Afterwards, the rank and file will follow the next milquetoast statist moderate the PTB shove to the top in 2016, straight to another defeat.

So instead of fostering the useless GOP vs 3rd Party divisiveness, try thinking beyond the current box that is designed to beat us in either direction, and has already done so repeatedly. Building a liberty establishment that is NOT dependent on ANY party, or any corporate media in order to flourish, is how we have been winning. Running liberty candidates in open seat primaries (be they as Democrats or Republicans, depending on the area) is the winning approach. Displacing the old order altogether, instead of pretending to ourselves to be taking a part of it over, is how we will win going forward.

That way hasn't worked and won't ever work. You know how I know? Because there's no liberty movement within the DNC and no third party candidate elected higher than dog catcher anywhere in the country. Besides, the democratic party is fundamentally flawed, central planning will always trump individual liberty within their ideology. Even the diehard progressives like that that lady from the Green party and Ralph Nader answer the issue of government abuse and overreach by seeking to empower government even more. Never mind the fact that they are utterly hopeless on economic liberty and economics in general.

[Bastiat's The Law]

This misdescribes the issue. Paul showed the way by running as a third party themed candidate in a winnable major party primary race, while building a grassroots network that was independent of either. The alternative mentioned is not "the third party route," but one that is based on the movement being independent from parties, using them as a means only.

E.g., use the third party universe as a means of vetting true liberty candidates, while using the major parties (both of them) as a means of leveraging them into office, as the opportunities arise. Thus, no marginalization from being outside a major party, AND no neutralization from within. That's the winning way going forward.

I disagree with your characterization of Paul as a "third party themed" candidate. Now that aside, you only change the political landscape by being political and in a major party. This is why the tea party and liberty movement have enjoyed success and Occupy Wall Street went the way of the Dodo bird.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Listen to what Matt Kibbe says here.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usC4RQDRWvg

[Peace&Freedom]

That way hasn't worked and won't ever work. You know how I know? Because there's no liberty movement within the DNC and no third party candidate elected higher than dog catcher anywhere in the country. Besides, the democratic party is fundamentally flawed, central planning will always trump individual liberty within their ideology. Even the diehard progressives like that that lady from the Green party and Ralph Nader answer the issue of government abuse and overreach by seeking to empower government even more. Never mind the fact that they are utterly hopeless on economic liberty and economics in general.

"There you go again." I didn't suggest there was a liberty movement within the DNC, or that any should be attempted from within to reform it, anymore than it can ultimately the reform the GOP. The US establishment is hardwire designed (through gerrymandered seats at all levels) for only the major parties to win, and that is why 3rd parties don't win elections. Within the major parties, the cost of winning electorally is losing legislatively, which is why both parties have failed to reverse a single aspect of the growth of the Total State in almost a century. After all those decades of losing, I have suggested we try something else.

I'm saying, if we really believe there's no real difference between the leadership of both parties on liberty issues (other than rhetoric), we'll run a liberty candidate as a Republican in an open seat primary race in a GOP leaning district, AND we'll run a liberty candidate as a Democrat in an open seat primary race in a Dem district. We won't ignore 50% of the winnable races on the table, simply because we don't want the candidate to run on the D line. We will emphasize the liberty candidate, not the D or R label they happen to slap on to win office.

[Peace&Freedom]

I disagree with your characterization of Paul as a "third party themed" candidate. Now that aside, you only change the political landscape by being political and in a major party. This is why the tea party and liberty movement have enjoyed success and Occupy Wall Street went the way of the Dodo bird.

Paul was and is an uncompromising constitutionalist and libertarian, and that is why his candidacy stood out in two GOP primary races stacked with statists. So let's not re-write history, he ran a principled 3rd party campaign in a major party race, using resources from outside a party establishment. That is the core method, not the save the GOP holy grail that came later, that the establishment knows how to beat.

That establishment otherwise has two modes with regards to alternatives--they either co-opt and/or neutralize it from within, or they marginalize it and/or crush it from without. The Tea Party has been basically co-opted or neutralized, it 'enjoys success' from the Republican hip pocket. Occupy refused to be co-opted, so the establishment crushed it. Either way, be it crushed or neutralized, a movement is defeated from changing the landscape.

The liberty movement is so far succeeding (fitfully) because its infrastructure (the grassroots, CFL, the Paul mailing list, alternative media, money bombs, etc) remain OUTSIDE Republican control. Your examples illustrate my point, not rebut it.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

CNN's rigged "polling" before the Iowa caucus that influenced Santorum to win: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/28/cnn-poll-romney-on-top-gingrich-fading-santorum-rising-in-iowa/

I love how Santorum was basically the runner-up to Romney in the 2012 GOP primaries, but is already back in low single digit land. It's like 2012 never even happened for him.

[RickyJ]

The real truth of the matter is, the VOTERS can be won over, and the election can be WON by shaping the message to appeal to the masses, and being an attractive option on the poll sheet.

Unfortunately, the real truth of the matter is your vote doesn't count. The elite will not let anyone win that is not going to do their bidding, it just won't happen.

[TheTyke]

Unfortunately, the real truth of the matter is your vote doesn't count. The elite will not let anyone win that is not going to do their bidding, it just won't happen.

/facepalm We had people posting repeatedly saying that "they" wouldn't let Rand win his senate race either. We did it anyhow. Rand's opponent was Sec. of State, running the election. There are ways to counter voter fraud. It all comes down to tactics. What that mentality says though is: "They won't let us win. If we win, it means we sold out." or in other words "There's no way to win! Deessspaaaiiir."

[jbauer]

Means nothing right now.

We're three years before it matters. Who thought frothy would win any states prior to January 12?

[KingNothing]

This is MSM polling... question the credibility.

This again? Really, guys?

[KingNothing]

/facepalm We had people posting repeatedly saying that "they" wouldn't let Rand win his senate race either. We did it anyhow. Rand's opponent was Sec. of State, running the election. There are ways to counter voter fraud. It all comes down to tactics. What that mentality says though is: "They won't let us win. If we win, it means we sold out." or in other words "There's no way to win! Deessspaaaiiir."

Some posters are this message board are insane.

[July]

/facepalm We had people posting repeatedly saying that "they" wouldn't let Rand win his senate race either. We did it anyhow. Rand's opponent was Sec. of State, running the election. There are ways to counter voter fraud. It all comes down to tactics. What that mentality says though is: "They won't let us win. If we win, it means we sold out." or in other words "There's no way to win! Deessspaaaiiir."

Probably because a lot of people aren't aware of or don't follow the "invisible primary" process...so when it comes time to vote, the field is usually already narrowed down and party leaders and donors already have clear favorites in mind (who they will naturally want to help win). But by then the voting can feel like just a formality, or like it doesn't matter...and they are probably right, in a sense because most of the real heavy lifting all happens long before the voting, building up coalitions, raising money, gaining support, etc. That said, Rand has definitely been participating in this process, and I would guess that's the main reason why he is being taken as seriously as he is, even if begrudgingly.

[whoisjohngalt]

The liberty movement is so far succeeding (fitfully) because its infrastructure (the grassroots, CFL, the Paul mailing list, alternative media, money bombs, etc) remain OUTSIDE Republican control. Your examples illustrate my point, not rebut it.

You can make what argument you like and develop your best laid plans, but the truth is that this issue was resolved organically a long time ago. Regardless, of what you say, we will be working within the frame of the GOP trying to imbue it with our values. If you don't like this tack, you are free to use your time in the way you see most valuable. But if you think you are going to convince anyone to change course at this point, I have some ocean front property in Arizona for you.

[limequat]

Poll includes more independents then republicans. This is not how the primaries play out.
Over-representing independents favor christie who scored 28% with "moderates". In this poll, Paul didn't do any better with independents than he did overall.

Encouraging: Paul leads the south with 19%.

[mwkaufman]

Poll includes more independents then republicans. This is not how the primaries play out.
Over-representing independents favor christie who scored 28% with "moderates". In this poll, Paul didn't do any better with independents than he did overall.

Encouraging: Paul leads the south with 19%.

This is all wrong. Christie is at 18% with Independents and 17% with Republicans. He leads the poll either way. But who it does favor is Rand Paul who is second with Independents at 17%, and fifth with Republicans at 9%. Who it hurts is Jeb Bush who is 6% with Independents and 13% with Republicans.

It may well oversample moderates, amongst conservatives the number looks like:

16% Paul
16% Ryan
11% Bush
11% Rubio
8% Christie

The challenge for Christie is the challenge Giuliani and Huntsman have faced... there just aren't many moderates in Iowa or South Carolina.

McCain pulled it off in 2008 with a coalition of foreign policy hawks and moderates, but even then, they were a plurality in South Carolina, not a majority, and they had weak opponents in Huckabee, Thompson, and Romney.

[Peace&Freedom]

You can make what argument you like and develop your best laid plans, but the truth is that this issue was resolved organically a long time ago. Regardless, of what you say, we will be working within the frame of the GOP trying to imbue it with our values. If you don't like this tack, you are free to use your time in the way you see most valuable. But if you think you are going to convince anyone to change course at this point, I have some ocean front property in Arizona for you.

What you mean "we," Galt man? It's not clear which direction most of the movement is going, or just who decided "organically" what was to be done. You are as well free to use your time in the way you see most valuable, I have just pointed out where the 'party reform' path leads. You can also ask the last dozen stalled reform movements where it leads.


PS: Readers belatedly reading this thread please note, how Bastiat, in subsequent rebuttal posts, keeps carefully omitting the legislative failure of the 'reform from within the GOP' approach, and only wants the issue discussed within the context of the electoral failure of the 3rd party side of the ledger. IAW, only one side gets to be held accountable for any losses. Just like the establishment wants it, as the alternative movement thinks it's 'winning' when it takes a few offices relying on the current system, meanwhile no aspect of policy changes, because the infrastructure of statism remains dominant. Until this short-sighted mindset changes, nothing else will change.

[MrGoose]

we have a new top tier....crispy cream, paul ryan and the other guy who isnt rand paul... - MSMOh god don't remind me.

In PolySci you need the 3 Ms

Media
Money
Momentum

I think we're starting to get Media on our side (hopefully it's not just for show). We'll have money and groundwork. ANd I know we'll do good in Iowa (hopefully win). Then and only then will we see if we can win.

[JohnM]

Is Christy or Ryan leading in Iowa NH or SC? Nothing else matters.

This.

To be honest, I think this poll looks pretty good for Rand.

[mosquitobite]

"There you go again." I didn't suggest there was a liberty movement within the DNC, or that any should be attempted from within to reform it, anymore than it can ultimately the reform the GOP. The US establishment is hardwire designed (through gerrymandered seats at all levels) for only the major parties to win, and that is why 3rd parties don't win elections. Within the major parties, the cost of winning electorally is losing legislatively, which is why both parties have failed to reverse a single aspect of the growth of the Total State in almost a century. After all those decades of losing, I have suggested we try something else.

I'm saying, if we really believe there's no real difference between the leadership of both parties on liberty issues (other than rhetoric), we'll run a liberty candidate as a Republican in an open seat primary race in a GOP leaning district, AND we'll run a liberty candidate as a Democrat in an open seat primary race in a Dem district. We won't ignore 50% of the winnable races on the table, simply because we don't want the candidate to run on the D line. We will emphasize the liberty candidate, not the D or R label they happen to slap on to win office.

That's the idea behind Get Out of Our House (GOOOH.com)

[Bastiat's The Law]

"There you go again." I didn't suggest there was a liberty movement within the DNC, or that any should be attempted from within to reform it, anymore than it can ultimately the reform the GOP. The US establishment is hardwire designed (through gerrymandered seats at all levels) for only the major parties to win, and that is why 3rd parties don't win elections. Within the major parties, the cost of winning electorally is losing legislatively, which is why both parties have failed to reverse a single aspect of the growth of the Total State in almost a century. After all those decades of losing, I have suggested we try something else.

I'm saying, if we really believe there's no real difference between the leadership of both parties on liberty issues (other than rhetoric), we'll run a liberty candidate as a Republican in an open seat primary race in a GOP leaning district, AND we'll run a liberty candidate as a Democrat in an open seat primary race in a Dem district. We won't ignore 50% of the winnable races on the table, simply because we don't want the candidate to run on the D line. We will emphasize the liberty candidate, not the D or R label they happen to slap on to win office.

It's not just gerrymandering. It's 150 years of a third party candidate never winning. That leads to voter psychology being attuned to third parties being a waste of time, money, and a vote. You will never overcome that barrier, not even a popular former President could overcome it. You can't even get to the meat of the issues because voters have already labeled you a loser (and rightly so) within 0.2 seconds.

Liberty candidates running in the DNC are simply DOA and a drain of time, resources and bandwidth. Don't be hardheaded here, stick with what has been working.

http://www.anunews.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/aa-Rand-Paul-w-Ron-Paul-cheering-behind-him.jpg

[mosquitobite]

It's not just gerrymandering. It's 150 years of a third party candidate never winning. That leads to voter psychology being attuned to third parties being a waste of time, money, and a vote. You will never overcome that barrier, not even a popular former President could overcome it. You can't even get to the meat of the issues because voters have already labeled you a loser (and rightly so) within 0.2 seconds.

Liberty candidates running in the DNC are simply DOA and a drain of time, resources and bandwidth. Don't be hardheaded here, stick with what has been working.

http://www.anunews.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/aa-Rand-Paul-w-Ron-Paul-cheering-behind-him.jpg

What say you about Dennis Kucinich?

I wouldn't vote for him, but California might. Why wouldn't we at least go for liberals that are strong on civil liberties?

[libertygrl]

ryan and bush are purely name recog.

but trailing christie sucks.

I think this is BS. Republicans I know hate Christie for believing he aligned himself with Obama. I don't trust polls. They're just another tool to lead the population on, and build momentum toward a particular candidate.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Paul was and is an uncompromising constitutionalist and libertarian, and that is why his candidacy stood out in two GOP primary races stacked with statists. So let's not re-write history, he ran a principled 3rd party campaign in a major party race, using resources from outside a party establishment. That is the core method, not the save the GOP holy grail that came later, that the establishment knows how to beat.

That establishment otherwise has two modes with regards to alternatives--they either co-opt and/or neutralize it from within, or they marginalize it and/or crush it from without. The Tea Party has been basically co-opted or neutralized, it 'enjoys success' from the Republican hip pocket. Occupy refused to be co-opted, so the establishment crushed it. Either way, be it crushed or neutralized, a movement is defeated from changing the landscape.

The liberty movement is so far succeeding (fitfully) because its infrastructure (the grassroots, CFL, the Paul mailing list, alternative media, money bombs, etc) remain OUTSIDE Republican control. Your examples illustrate my point, not rebut it.

I don't even know what that means. Sounds like you're trying to put Ron's run as a REPUBLICAN and him spearheading reforming the GOP in your third party win column. He wouldn't have even been on stage if he wasn't in the Republican party. No debate appearances means no viral Youtube videos being shared and nobody even knowing he exists. This website wouldn't exist. Are you dizzy from that spin mastery?

The tea party is getting even more brazen and libertarian. I believe like Matt Kibbe said that the tea party, Paul supporters, and genuine conservatives will encompass an even bigger liberty movement. I can see the tea party name being dropped shortly and everyone that wishes to reform the GOP will be under the Liberty Movement umbrella.

The liberty movement is succeeding because Ron woke people up initially and then gave us the historic base to defend our liberty ideals and most importantly a viable path to change things for the better, and what do you know we started elected candidates within the GOP we can be proud of. Those candidates then took the baton and ran with it giving our liberty movement messengers to rally around and a bigger voice on the national stage. Rand Paul is the de facto leader of the Republican party and liberty movement now. We now have a realistic chance at becoming a force to be reckoned with nationally and win the Presidency in 2016 which will cement our standing for a generation and could usher in a libertarian awakening this country hasn't seen since its founding.

[Bastiat's The Law]

/facepalm We had people posting repeatedly saying that "they" wouldn't let Rand win his senate race either. We did it anyhow. Rand's opponent was Sec. of State, running the election. There are ways to counter voter fraud. It all comes down to tactics. What that mentality says though is: "They won't let us win. If we win, it means we sold out." or in other words "There's no way to win! Deessspaaaiiir."

Great post. The naysayers have been proven wrong time and time again. They are caught in a whirlpool of despair and wish to suck us down with them. I look forward to proving them wrong again in 2014 and 2016.

[Brett85]

What say you about Dennis Kucinich?

I wouldn't vote for him, but California might. Why wouldn't we at least go for liberals that are strong on civil liberties?

How can Kucinich be strong on civil liberties when he supports banning guns and wants the feds to have our health care data?

[Bastiat's The Law]

What you mean "we," Galt man? It's not clear which direction most of the movement is going, or just who decided "organically" what was to be done. You are as well free to use your time in the way you see most valuable, I have just pointed out where the 'party reform' path leads. You can also ask the last dozen stalled reform movements where it leads.

Your idea of reform is what fails and fizzles out, your way of thinking is fossilized. You would rather us go the way of the Reform Party or some other fruitless 'outside' endeavor. Sorry, but we're much smarter these days. The evangelicals reformed the GOP in the 80's without the benefit of the internet. Taking a page out of their playbook we're not only going to imbue the GOP with our ideals, we're going to fundamentally change this country.

[mosquitobite]

How can Kucinich be strong on civil liberties when he supports banning guns and wants the feds to have our health care data?

I said I wouldn't vote for him.

But will California vote for Rand Paul?

[pacelli]

I wonder if Rand's campaign has any plans for what to do when the media just skips over him entirely in the polls, kind of like they did with Ron's campaigns.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I wonder if Rand's campaign has any plans for what to do when the media just skips over him entirely in the polls, kind of like they did with Ron's campaigns.

Hard to skip the front runner. Rand is building an enormous base of support. You should've heard them introduce him in Kentucky, they were salivating over him running for President and brought it up several times. And I didn't get the impression these were young Paulbots. These were mostly older folks. Rand is winning and we haven't even really started anything yet. If things keep going this way there might be such a groundswell nationally for Rand that the GOP nomination might be just a formality.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I said I wouldn't vote for him.

But will California vote for Rand Paul?

California is a hard nut to crack. I think Nevada, and to a lesser degree Oregon, and Washington are in play out west.

[BlackTerrel]

/facepalm We had people posting repeatedly saying that "they" wouldn't let Rand win his senate race either. We did it anyhow. Rand's opponent was Sec. of State, running the election. There are ways to counter voter fraud. It all comes down to tactics. What that mentality says though is: "They won't let us win. If we win, it means we sold out." or in other words "There's no way to win! Deessspaaaiiir."

The funny thing is I had friends on facebook in 2008 saying "they" wouldn't let Obama win. Then even after he won election they said that "they" would assassinate him. No one admits they were wrong 5 years later. Funny how that works...

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

Eh...nice poll.

5% of respondents supported a frothy mixture of ejaculate and fecal matter in this survey.

Dress it up in a nice suit and call it Mitt - worked well in '12, didn't it

[realtonygoodwin]

At this point, third place is right where we want to be. Let the two people in front of the polls beat each other up, and then make sure you are on top of the polls the day prior to the voting!

[KingNothing]

I said I wouldn't vote for him.

But will California vote for Rand Paul?


No, and California won't vote for Kucinich either.

[Peace&Freedom]

Your idea of reform is what fails and fizzles out, your way of thinking is fossilized. You would rather us go the way of the Reform Party or some other fruitless 'outside' endeavor. Sorry, but we're much smarter these days. The evangelicals reformed the GOP in the 80's without the benefit of the internet. Taking a page out of their playbook we're not only going to imbue the GOP with our ideals, we're going to fundamentally change this country.

The evangelicals were the ones who got fossilized and neutered by the GOP statist establishment, and did not reform it. After 30 years, the score card on the issues they care about still says, abortion/legalized child killing/Roe v Wade not overturned, homosexual sin and other sexual immorality increasingly normalized, prayer (and even incidental mentions of God) still banned from schools, etc. Meanwhile their views on Israel have been warped and co-opted by neo-cons into a hyper-interventionist foreign policy they never intensely held prior to their attempt to "reform the Republican Party." As usual, the reformers got converted into the mold, instead of the reverse.

Readers belatedly reading this thread please note, how Bastiat, in subsequent rebuttal posts, keeps carefully omitting the legislative failure of the 'reform from within the GOP' approach, and only wants the issue discussed within the context of the electoral failure of the 3rd party side of the ledger. IAW, only one side gets to be held accountable for any losses. Just like the establishment wants it, as the alternative movement thinks it's 'winning' when it takes a few offices relying on the current system, meanwhile no aspect of policy changes, because the infrastructure of statism remains dominant. Until this short-sighted mindset changes, nothing else will change.

[krugminator]

What say you about Dennis Kucinich?

I wouldn't vote for him, but California might. Why wouldn't we at least go for liberals that are strong on civil liberties?

Gun to my head, I would vote for Lindsay Graham over Dennis Kucinich. As vile as Graham is, the biggest threat to the country is socialism and Kucinich is solidly socialist.

[limequat]

Gun to my head, I would vote for Lindsay Graham over Dennis Kucinich. As vile as Graham is, the biggest threat to the country is socialism and Kucinich is solidly socialist.

Wrong. The biggest danger to our country is Tyranny and it comes in all flavors: socialist, fascist, authoritarian, whatever.
Some of the greatest friends of liberty are socialist: Chomsky, Greenwald, Orwell, etc.

[willwash]

There is a pretty strong contrarian streak in a lot of libertarians. It's been ingrained into them for so long that whatever is mainstream is bad. As long as libertarianism has been "fringe" they've felt right at home. As our movement becomes more mainstream (IE, as we start to WIN), some of these guys will jump ship. Where to, who knows, but they are the type of people whi will not participate in anything meainstream.

These are the guys with bunkers out in the mountains and caches of guns and gold buried in secret locations. They won't be on the red carpet with Rand. Inevitably Rand will become "part of the problem" for these types.

[Mr.NoSmile]

Won't top them all. Always room to go up when you're not first.

[BlackTerrel]

There is a pretty strong contrarian streak in a lot of libertarians. It's been ingrained into them for so long that whatever is mainstream is bad. As long as libertarianism has been "fringe" they've felt right at home. As our movement becomes more mainstream (IE, as we start to WIN), some of these guys will jump ship. Where to, who knows, but they are the type of people whi will not participate in anything meainstream.

These are the guys with bunkers out in the mountains and caches of guns and gold buried in secret locations. They won't be on the red carpet with Rand. Inevitably Rand will become "part of the problem" for these types.

Yep. They don't want to be conformists.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFsn9rNCtxA