IF Republicans Have Enough Sense to Nominate Rand, THEN the GOP is Guaranteed the White House

[acptulsa]

If Republicans have enough sense to nominate Rand Paul in 2016, then and only then is the Republican Party a guaranteed lock to win the the presidency.

Rand Paul has the wisdom to have strenuously opposed Obamacare from the start, the foresight to have voted against it, the integrity to spurn his immunity from that law and to refuse to put himself above us by signing himself and his family up for it anyway, and the street cred that could only come from being the first (and so far, the only) congress critter to do so.

Please note that I did not say the only Republican member of Congress. I said the only member of Congress.

This combination will play in Peoria--and in every other swing district--in the 2016 general election. And in 2016 there will be one unholy hell of a lot of swing districts. More than ever before.

If Republicans can avoid being stupid enough to let that Democrat Rupert Murdoch and his tool Fox News talk them out of nominating Rand Paul for the presidency, then the G.O.P. is guaranteed to win the White House.

This isn't a matter of you heard it here first. This is a matter of every rank and file Republican needs to hear this today, like in right now, before the Murdoch Spin Machine begins to counter this simple fact with their disingenuous propaganda.

Like in, right now!

There is no other Republican you can say that about. There will be no other Republican you can say that about. Even if another potential Republican candidate follows Rand's lead, he or she is still a follower, not the leader. Me too won't cut it.

That is all.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Rand Paul 2016, Republicans Join or Die.

[anaconda]

A lot of money, press, and influence will be used to keep a central bank/warfare puppet in the White House. Which party wins is far less important to the ruling class. Rand will be the underdog and will have powerful forces working against him.

[Matt Collins]

If Republicans have enough sense to nominate Rand Paul in 2016, then and only then is the Republican Party a guaranteed lock to win the the presidency.I think external factors will play less of a role for Rand than they did Ron.

This means we have to pony up, get him the money he needs, and be willing to work our asses off to get the job done. Between now and then, for people who want to see Rand elected, they need to take every campaign training course they can on how to win elections.

The future is in our hands.

[Working Poor]

Rand will be the underdog and will have powerful forces working against him.

The republican party is his biggest opposition.

[fr33]

The GOP desperately needs a populist candidate and Rand is the best option. I fear that their voters are too far gone to understand the reality of the situation and will be manipulated by the media yet again. I sure hope not though.

[acptulsa]

The republican party is his biggest opposition.

Yes. Well, yes and no. I don't think rank and file Republicans dislike him. nor do I think the Official GOP will dare to anger us by dissing him.

I think his biggest threat is Rupert Murdoch. Fox has proven over and over it's all tptb need to torpedo non-controlled candidates. That's what we have to prevent.

We can do this. The first step I outlined in the OP--tell all the rank-and-file Republicans now that Rand can and will win the White House now that everyone hates Obamacare.

The second step is to torpedo Fox when it tries to torpedo Rand. For those Republicans who won't listen to conspiracy theories, you simply say, 'Fox said McCain was electable and that Romney was electable. If we keep letting this bookie pick our horses, there won't be any Republican Party left by 2020.' And leave it at that.

For those Republicans who will listen to conspiracy theories, you say the same thing. Then you follow it up with this little tidbit from 2012:

http://i.imgur.com/OskYdl.jpg

That ought to do it. Provided we start now (their memories are often short) and are diligent.

[Working Poor]

Yes. Well, yes and no. I don't think rank and file Republicans dislike him. nor do I think the Official GOP will dare to anger us by dissing him.
All I see is the republican party pushing for Jeb Bush and Christie and the media is already behind them. I hate that thing about the plagiarism because that is all I see being talked about when ever Rand makes a statement in the media especially in comment sections.

I hate to think we are defeated but I have to face reality because I have been constantly disappointed with the past 4 elections. I cannot take it anymore. I believe in liberty and I will do whatever I can to promote liberty in the elections.

[acptulsa]

All I see is the republican party pushing for Jeb Bush and Christie and the media is already behind them. I hate that thing about the plagiarism because that is all I see being talked about when ever Rand makes a statement in the media especially in comment sections.

You're talking less about the Republican National Committee and more about Fox. And, of course, the powers that be's paid Troll Squad.


I hate to think we are defeated but I have to face reality because I have been constantly disappointed with the past 4 elections. I cannot take it anymore. I believe in liberty and I will do whatever I can to promote liberty in the elections.

Well, Ron Paul may have been able to win the general election in 2008. And several polls showed he definitely would have beten Obama in 2012 if only the Republicans had had enough sense to nominate him.

I think it's safe to say that if we can convince rank and file Republican primary voters that we're right about whether Rand Paul can win and Fox is wrong (or lying, or both) then he has it in the bag. And since Fox has been dead wrong about who is electable in the last two elections, I think we have a chance.

But we have to work at it. And Rand is helping us with brilliant moves like signing up for Obamacare. We just have to point out how well it will go over with the billions of swing voters, because few Republicans (be they libertarian or not) are very impressed.

[RickyJ]

The GOP is guaranteed the White House in 2016 no matter who they nominate.

[acptulsa]

The GOP is guaranteed the White House in 2016 no matter who they nominate.

Nonsense.

For example, they could nominate Rick Santorum. Or Chris Christie. In the latter case, no Republicans would vote for him. In the former case, nobody would vote for him at all.

Either way, Fox would pronounce him electable.

[Brian4Liberty]

Nothing is certain at this point. The media is pushing Hillary and Christie. We'll see how that pans out.

[Peace&Freedom]

The GOP is guaranteed the White House in 2016 no matter who they nominate.

Not if they put up another milquetoast moderate who alienates their own base, and angers the liberty faction enough that they stay home. Fewer Republicans voted for Romney in 2012 than voted for McCain in 2008, the trendline is rank-and-file GOPers being more apathetic than energized. The two-party paradigm siren call is increasingly not working. Too many are also becoming aware of how the pro-war dogma has cost the party the White House twice, and too many remember the GOP leadership caving on the budget and Obamacare.

Rand Paul is indeed the best answer to the apathy, as he is consistent and principled, and can energize both the mainline conservatives and the pro-liberty plus tea party factions. As a Senator from Kentucky, which borders Ohio and Virginia, he is the best chance the party has to recover those states. His approach to social issues may be attractive enough to bring back some cultural conservative Democratic votes and younger voters, while still satisfying the GOP social right, as Reagan accomplished in the '80's.

The elite interests behind the GOP (and Democratic party) do not want any more Reagan landslides based on the above coalition. They want pro-war, pro-Fed, pro-NSA compliant hacks to prevail, and plan to rig the game against Rand as they did to Ron the last two times. They will paint Jeb Bush and Chris Christie as the only true top-tier, "electable" candidates, and the MSM will monopolize the primary race coverage with those two, in order to freeze out Rand. Most likely, primary voters will follow the pied piper as before, and choose either hack 1 or hack 2.

The only real way to beat this syndrome, as I have suggested before, is to have Ron Paul run on the LP line in order to destroy the hypnotizing narrative that the hacks are "electable." When the de-hypnotized rank and file realize the choice is "pick Paul in the primary, or lose again in November when the other Paul splits the conservative vote," they will likely vote Rand in as the Republican nominee (whereupon Ron withdraws his third party bid). This is the most credible scenario for Rand getting past the elite opposition and winning in 2016.

[acptulsa]

The only real way to beat this syndrome, as I have suggested before, is to have Ron Paul run on the LP line in order to destroy the hypnotizing narrative that the hacks are "electable." When the de-hypnotized rank and file realize the choice is "pick Paul in the primary, or lose again in November when the other Paul splits the conservative vote," they will likely vote Rand in as the Republican nominee (whereupon Ron withdraws his third party bid). This is the most credible scenario for Rand getting past the elite opposition and winning in 2016.

I was with you every step of the way, right from the top, point by point, word for word, until you got to this paragraph.

Republicans won't vote for a non-team player, no matter how much better a plan he has than what the team has.

So, Rand just can't do this and win. And he won't. He saw how the media lambasted his father for running as the candidate for aome party other than the GOP thirty years before and actually get traction with it.

But that's not to say that you can't mention, as you talk about how important it is to nominate Rand Paul, that if they don't nominate him, both libertarian conservatives and disaffected Democrats will vote Libertarian Party rather than vote for some 'moderate' tool like Christie, or for another damned Bush. And, yes, that would be a handy way to lose the White House to the Democrats for a third time in a row. In spite of how completely the Democrats have been screwing up.

[Peace&Freedom]

If RON Paul runs third party in 2016 and becomes a "non team player" in the eyes of some, it does not impact RAND Paul's status AS a team player. Two different guys---it wouldn't be RAND doing it, but it would give Rand leverage to get past the "hack frontrunner is electable, but Paul isn't" spell placed on primary voters. That's the beauty of this technique. It exacts political pain if Rand is not chosen, thus wakes voters up to the stakes early during primary season, unlike the last two races, where Republican voters didn't face the pain of their mistaken choice until being defeated on Election day.

It's important to keep in mind we've already tried doing things twice the other way, to no avail. Primary voters didn't reward Ron staying loyal to the GOP by giving him primary wins. They voted for the frontrunner, who party leaders and pundits told them was the "serious" candidate, or "the one who could in November." Under this notion, every other contender becomes irrelevant, or viewed as a nuisance, liberty candidates included.

Going into the next cycle, as of right now, Rand has NO leverage to defeat being similarly boxed out by "the establishment guy is electable" narrative. NONE. Based on this consideration, the liberty candidate is positioned to lose again. Just saying "well, you guys lost the last two times running moderates" will not defeat that narrative. What is an effective alternative? Please describe another plan that would actually work in getting around this real problem. Otherwise, doing the same thing as before, is going to result in the same defeat as before.

[Tod]

I thought we concluded that the GOP doesn't really CARE whether they win or lose. So why would they take a chance with Rand? Besides, Rand's wife says no.

[Tod]

If RON Paul runs third party in 2016 and becomes a "non team player" in the eyes of some, it does not impact RAND Paul's status AS a team player. Two different guys---it wouldn't be RAND doing it, but it would give Rand leverage to get past the "hack frontrunner is electable, but Paul isn't" spell placed on primary voters. That's the beauty of this technique. It exacts political pain if Rand is not chosen, thus wakes voters up to the stakes early during primary season, unlike the last two races, where Republican voters didn't face the pain of their mistaken choice until being defeated on Election day.

It's important to keep in mind we've already tried doing things twice the other way, to no avail. Primary voters didn't reward Ron staying loyal to the GOP by giving him primary wins. They voted for the frontrunner, who party leaders and pundits told them was the "serious" candidate, or "the one who could in November." Under this notion, every other contender becomes irrelevant, or viewed as a nuisance, liberty candidates included.

Going into the next cycle, as of right now, Rand has NO leverage to defeat being similarly boxed out by "the establishment guy is electable" narrative. NONE. Based on this consideration, the liberty candidate is positioned to lose again. Just saying "well, you guys lost the last two times running moderates" will not defeat that narrative. What is an effective alternative? Please describe another plan that would actually work in getting around this real problem. Otherwise, doing the same thing as before, is going to result in the same defeat as before.

Why would he run 3rd party? He has already clearly said that a 3rd part stands NO CHANCE of winning? How many times have you heard the man waffle on a subject? (I've only heard of one time.....capital punishment)

[Working Poor]

You're talking less about the Republican National Committee and more about Fox. And, of course, the powers that be's paid Troll Squad.


They are the ones who will sway public opinion. Look at how the newsletters were brought up with Ron Paul at almost every turn do you not think the same will be done with Rand over the plagiarism when it comes to the primaries? Oh come on. I know Rand has better support than Ron did in the media but many are labeling him a racist especially on the liberal side. Being labeled a racist is death to a presidential candidate. Rand knows the black and minority vote is important but every out reach he does to them is put down just about every where but here. TPTB do not want the people to not want drone attacks or for their 4th amendment right to be restored they want to keep the poor voting democrat and to increase the dependency of the people on government.

Believe me I will stand for freedom I look to people here for support to clear the BS from my eyes and ears so I can keep talking and acting for freedom. So I can confront the people who say oh well if you are not doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about..

[Peace&Freedom]

Why would he run 3rd party? He has already clearly said that a 3rd part stands NO CHANCE of winning? How many times have you heard the man waffle on a subject? (I've only heard of one time.....capital punishment)

After 2008, Ron also said he had no plans of running in 2012 when asked about it---and his wife was reluctant too. There are other metrics justifying a third party run than direct victory. In this case, it's a positioning tool. Liberty voters need to give Rand a more level playing field to prevail in the primaries. That doesn't exist now, as the entire establishment will be brainwashing the voters with the "Bush/Christie is electable, so Rand and the others don't matter" meme. Primary voters feel no pain associated with falling for this meme again, and the GOP hacks also don't see a downside to cheating Rand Paul as before.

The prospects of a RON Paul running third party damages the "establishment frontrunner is electable" presumption because it gives the RAND Paul supporters a place to go once the leadership and media rigs Rand out of primary victory, thereby splitting the non Hillary vote. The Republican leadership may not care about losing in 2016, but the rank and file does, as they will sense the GOP can't win if Ron is also on the ballot---thus breaking the spell of them falling for the establishment "electability" meme. Apart from this strategy, Rand will have no leverage to break that spell of that brainwashing, and we'll be stuck with a choice of Jeb-Hillary come the election.

[acptulsa]

The prospects of a RON Paul running third party damages the "establishment frontrunner is electable" presumption because it gives the RAND Paul supporters a place to go once the leadership and media rigs Rand out of primary victory, thereby splitting the non Hillary vote. The Republican leadership may not care about losing in 2016, but the rank and file does, as they will sense the GOP can't win if Ron is also on the ballot---thus breaking the spell of them falling for the establishment "electability" meme. Apart from this strategy, Rand will have no leverage to break that spell of that brainwashing, and we'll be stuck with a choice of Jeb-Hillary come the election.

And the non-Hillary vote (or non-Democratic-Tool of Choice vote) will be very, very, very large after this Obamacare crap. And it will not go to another Bush, be it Jeb, Neil or Otherwise, and it will not go to any Republican perceived as just another Bush.

Yes, I see your strategy. No, I don't disagree completely. But I do perceive a problem. It positions us in an 'us vs. them' mentality against the rest of the GOP. You don't think that can be avoided. I'm not saying I can be sure you're wrong. But I think we have an opportunity if we start early--like right now--to avoid that and sidestep the trap Fox and the Powers that Be are planning to set for us.

If we say, 'Vote for our man or we'll vote Libertarian (or we'll vote whatever), then that will cause a knee jerk reaction among most Republicans very much like the knee jerk reaction you get when you say, 'We don't negotiate with terrorists.' It will make us the enemy, and put them in a mood to fight us. What Rand Paul is obviously trying to do, and what I'm trying to find a way to do, is to gain sway over them, to give them good ideas which (ideally) they can convince themselves are their own, and not to make them feel like they're being held hostage.

I'm not so sure they like to win the White House better than they like to feel like they're in charge. They do like to win the White House, yes, but (for instance) I think they like sex, beer, eight point bucks and vehicles with eight cylinders better than winning the White House, and I think they like fooling themselves into believing they're in charge better too. They stick with Fox even as Fox repeatedly leads them astray and causes them to fail to get the White House by making them feel like they're in charge. They aren't, of course. But Fox is good at making them feel that way.

The best way to win the White House is to help them win the White House. 'Hey, you're in charge, guys, not Fox. They're a crappy bookie. They keep recommending losing horses. Stop listening to them and back our horse, and together we will be in the winner's circle.' That's a sales pitch that can work.

They don't know what swing voters want. They've been slapped in the face with this fact often enough that they have to know it by now. Fox doesn't know what swing voters want--or, at least, Fox is pretending they don't know what swing voters want. Perry? Santorum? Really? Seriously?

We know what swing voters want better than Fox does. Listen to us, and join, or die. Listen to the smart people who are on your side or continue to be a bunch of losers. That simple.

I think this is a better idea than trying to hold them hostage and expecting them to like it. Is it not worth a try? Especially since we can start now, and hold onto that hostage strategy for later in case this doesn't work?

[Peace&Freedom]

I guess we'll agree to disagree, but I will re-state that we've already tried the sweet reason approach. Twice. As with the foreign policy debate, it's hard for "the smart people" to talk rationally about non-intervention and blowback to a crowd who won't hear it, because they're sound asleep. A rational argument does not destroy a framework, and it's the "electability" meme framework that keeps the rank and file asleep, until it's too late. Yes, they can get slapped awake from this sleeping spell after the election loss, but then Fox and friends will have a fresh four years to lull them back to sleep---which is exactly what happened between 2008 and 2012.

"Where there is no pain, there will be no political change," says Gary North. I'm just saying the best time to wake them up is to do the slapping at primary time, not after losing the election. I think Rand could start the primaries without the "hostage scenario" to see what happens in January and February 2016. If/when it's clear the establishment is rigging Rand out of winning, Ron should announce he is running for the LP nod. Then (when it matters) the rank and file can wake up and choose to vote for Rand. If they don't, we would still be able to vote for a Paul in November. But if the pain is not introduced to the voters during the primaries, there will probably be no change in their framework, or their votes.

[acptulsa]

I guess we'll agree to disagree, but I will re-state that we've already tried the sweet reason approach. Twice.

Yes, we have. But we haven't yet been able to take full advantage of the fact that Fox has now completely discredited themselves as a racetrack tout, because they hadn't picked so many losers yet. And we haven't been able to point out that Rand Paul, despite fighting Obamacare tooth and nail, is the only member of Congress populist enough to sign up for it (even though he's exempt) because none of that had happened yet. And if we combine those two things, I think we've put together one hell of a sales pitch. A better sales pitch than we had in 2008 or 2012.

Let's run it up the flagpole and see who salutes.


I'm just saying the best time to wake them up is to do the slapping at primary time, not after losing the election. I think Rand could start the primaries without the "hostage scenario" to see what happens in January and February 2016. If/when it's clear the establishment is rigging Rand out of winning, Ron should announce he is running for the LP nod. Then (when it matters) the rank and file can wake up and choose to vote for Rand. If they don't, we would still be able to vote for a Paul in November.

It's a thought. But I disagree about waiting until primary time to wake people up. You don't wait until the epidemic to vaccinate, and I don't want to wait until primary time to vaccinate Republicans against Fox's Sure-Fire Loser Pickin' Service. We did that twice, too, and I just didn't see it working for us.

The other thing about this approach is that it emphasizes that what we're offering is a candidate with integrity. It just might remind Republicans that they kind of like integrity a little bit too...

[Liberty74]

Rand Paul is not an establishment Republican. They didn't support him his KY Senate bid back in 2010. And I am willing to betcha that the establishment will use their tools (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Levin, O'Reilly) to make sure Rand is denied just like they did with Ron. I still remember Ron trailing in the polls, in single digits leading up to the Iowa caucuses and Rush always excluding his name from the list of candidates claiming Ron doesn't have a chance. Then out of nowhere within four weeks of the caucus, Ron shot up to about 26%, taking the lead in Iowa in early December. I can still see the Drudge headline with a pic of Ron freely riding his bike with no helmet. All HELL BROKE lose on Fox News, and every radio talk show above. The gloves came off and everyone declared nuclear war on Ron. Ron finished 3rd in Iowa and it was downhill from there. The damage by the establishment was done. Ron's favorables in the 50 percentile flipped to 60 percentile unfavorable by SC. After NH, it was basically over.

I fear the same will happen to Rand.

[Liberty74]

Why would he run 3rd party? He has already clearly said that a 3rd part stands NO CHANCE of winning? How many times have you heard the man waffle on a subject? (I've only heard of one time.....capital punishment)

To be frank, Ron is very wrong about a third party winning. I have already established the basic numbers and the fact that 70% of Americans would like a viable third party candidate. This person would have to run as an Independent. Back in 1992, the first year I voted, Ross Perot was neck and neck with Bush and Clinton until Perot dropped out, lose momentum to only jump back in gathering 19% of the final vote.

Changing ones opinion on political issues (philosophically speaking) is totally different than changing a political strategy to run or while running for office. Changing times and events can have an impact on whether one runs for office. Not that I am advocating Ron run here.

[acptulsa]

Rand Paul is not an establishment Republican. They didn't support him his KY Senate bid back in 2010. And I am willing to betcha that the establishment will use their tools (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Levin, O'Reilly) to make sure Rand is denied just like they did with Ron. I still remember Ron trailing in the polls, in single digits leading up to the Iowa caucuses and Rush always excluding his name from the list of candidates claiming Ron doesn't have a chance. Then out of nowhere within four weeks of the caucus, Ron shot up to about 26%, taking the lead in Iowa in early December...

All the more reason--together with the facts that he has been kissing mainstream Republican voter ass and he did this trick with Obamacare--that we can pull this off if we start working now to convince Republican voters we know swing voters better than the talking head brigade. And I don't know why we wouldn't.

They said Santorum was electable. They said McCain and Romney were electable. They have no credibility at all. None.

[philipped]

As a youth, I'm doing all I can to enlighten people on libertarianism, show the beauty of Ron Paul, and the potential with Rand. I also go about explaining my decision in voting for GJ last year, then showing them that in my opinion Rand IS electable and Christie is just gonna become another Romney. Hillary is not an option. People my age want non-interventionist foreign policy, sound money, constitutional based governing, economic and personal liberty. I guess people on this forum have been doing it longer so they're more familiar with mainline Republicans but I do hope the best of luck with you, maybe mentioning the youth and future generations and how conservatism still is within us can swing some people to.

And everybody I'm trying to sway is going to be @ a primary booth in 2016 so everybody here and off this site needs to be prepared for the resurgence of the youth vote.

[acptulsa]

And everybody I'm trying to sway is going to be @ a primary booth in 2016 so everybody here and off this site needs to be prepared for the resurgence of the youth vote.

Good plan! Younger people are a lot less likely to take Fox's opinion of what swing voters want in a candidate and go find out for themselves. So, they'll be the first to figure out Rand Paul is the GOP's only hope.

[fr33]

If RON Paul runs third party in 2016 and becomes a "non team player" in the eyes of some, it does not impact RAND Paul's status AS a team player. Two different guys---it wouldn't be RAND doing it, but it would give Rand leverage to get past the "hack frontrunner is electable, but Paul isn't" spell placed on primary voters.

The media and the GOP establishment would use it against Rand.

The GOPE has a track record of dismissing Ron Paul supporters even if it means they lose the general election.

Even without your plan put into place the media will try to marginalize Rand by using his father against him. Anything Ron says, they'll act upon as if Rand said it. We're already seeing some of that. They'll also play the "unelectable" card when describing Rand along with pointing out how he differs from the other candidates in his own party; just like they did with Ron. Having Ron running in another party will only embolden the media to use such tactics even more since they would be able to draw out Rand to to compete against his father.

[acptulsa]

The GOPE has a track record of dismissing Ron Paul supporters even if it means they lose the general election.

And the rank and file don't want to lose three in a row. I think they want to win badly enough to listen to us when we tell them what swing voters want.

I admit we can't manipulate primary voters as well as the media can--on the 'left'. But Fox has been obviously disingenuous often enough, and obviously wrong often enough, that we can convince the 'right' that a 'moderate' fake liberal can never win against the real thing (we've tried that--didn't work), but the time is ripe for a real conservative now that government has proven it can't do anything right. It isn't just exactly what they want to hear; it also happens to be right and true.

But in order to work, that candidate has to have principle and integrity. Whether they or Fox thinks anyone on the 'left' cares about that stuff or not...

You know, it's really, really weird that Republicans, who aren't supposed to enable corruption by encouraging big government, don't much seem to care about corruption (unless, as Will Rogers says, they can get some of it). Democrats do despise corruption, but do their damnedest to enable a whole lot of it to happen anyway. Weird. But challenging as it may be, I think we can maybe convince Republicans to vote for an honest man for the good of the party. They may not be able to identify with an honest man, and they may not much like honest men, but they'll nominate him if that's the only way they can win the White House.

[Peace&Freedom]

The media and the GOP establishment would use it against Rand.

The GOPE has a track record of dismissing Ron Paul supporters even if it means they lose the general election.

Even without your plan put into place the media will try to marginalize Rand by using his father against him. Anything Ron says, they'll act upon as if Rand said it. We're already seeing some of that. They'll also play the "unelectable" card when describing Rand along with pointing out how he differs from the other candidates in his own party; just like they did with Ron. Having Ron running in another party will only embolden the media to use such tactics even more since they would be able to draw out Rand to to compete against his father.

Actually, that could be good thing if the media covered Rand vs Ron in that scenario, as it would keep the coverage focused on Rand, and give him more chances to discuss how his views vary from Ron's. The suggested plan is to first see if Rand can be fairly permitted to win the primary race, and when/if it's clear that's not going to be the case (say by late winter 2016---remember, the primaries are going back to being frontloaded delegate-wise, to try to lock the establishment moderate in sooner), Ron should announce an LP run.

This way, we see how the media treat Rand without Ron in the picture at all, and then with him in as a competitor. If Rand has clearly already been rigged out of winning by mid-February, he has really nothing to lose from his father running third party by that point, and all the political leverage from it to gain. Then it will be up to the rank and file to face the clear choice of winning with Rand, or losing in November, and hope that they choose to win.

[acptulsa]

Then it will be up to the rank and file to face the clear choice of winning with Rand, or losing in November, and hope that they choose to win.

But my hope is that we'll get busy and convince Republicans that when voters have to choose between a Democrat who admits to being a Democrat and a Democrat who claims to be a Republican, the voters will vote for the Democrat who calls himself or herself a Democrat every time. And that other voters--especially now--have learned to appreciate integrity more than they have.

Or, to put it another way, that they have a clear choice between winning with Rand or losing--again--even without Ron Paul helping us be the bad guys by destroying GOP unity and splitting the vote.

And the way to do that is to make them understand that are better friends to them, and will do them more good, than Fox News.

Fox said McCain was electable. Was Fox lying or just stupid? Fox said Romney was electable. Was Fox lying or just stupid? Fox said Santorum was electable! Was that a joke?!

What Fox did not tell anyone was Ron Paul could have beaten Obama in the general election. And we had some pretty good proof:



See? I told you that you can't fix stupid.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/ron-paul-would-best-obama-in-iowa-general-election-matchup/2012/02/18/gIQABoeUMR_blog.html

http://www.fitsnews.com/2011/09/27/ron-paul-leads-obama-in-new-poll/

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/318764

http://politicalnews.me/?id=12069

http://www.ibtimes.com/ron-paul-2012-rasmussen-poll-says-he-would-beat-obama-418358

http://politicalnews.me/?id=11876

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0228/Ron-Paul-poll-shocker-He-beats-Obama-head-to-head

What part of the independents outnumber you and us combined do you not understand? Would it help you do the math if you took your cotton pickin' shoes off?

Just damn! Somebody give me a 2x4. I gotta learn a mule somethin'.

Yes, the conclusion is clear. Listen to us and win. Or listen to Fox again and lose again. And it doesn't require a Ron Paul independent run for that to be true.

Fox has been trying to poison their wells against us for years and years. Well, Fox led them astray and gave us ammo to use against it. Why wouldn't we poisoning their wells against Fox? In fact, why aren't we?

Listen to Fox and lose. Again. Or listen to us. Rand Paul has the integrity, the record, and the wisdom to win the swing voters who will decide the next election. And if we have any sense at all, we'll give them what they want--because if we have any sense, and we're really conservatives, it's what we want too!

The Obamacare debacle is giving us a unique opportunity. Will we blow it by nominating someone so stupid voters have no faith he can figure out how to fix things? Will we blow it by nominating someone no one can tell from a crooked Democrat? Or will we nominate Rand Paul, laugh as the liberal media smears him as heartless and lies about him, and enjoy watching him get more and more popular the more the discredited liberals say we should all hate him, and smile as he wins the White House for the GOP?

A RINO couldn't win before Obamacare. Fox said they could but they couldn't. A RINO sure as hell can't win after Obamacare. Swing voters are crying for a genuine conservative with the kind of integrity they can trust. We have one, and his name is Rand Paul. Nominate him and win. Fail to nominate him and lose. No matter what Fox says. Period.

And the time to vaccinate is now, before Fox starts trying to create an epidemic of stupidity. Because we already know we can't fix stupid. But we don't yet know that we can't vaccinate against stupid.

[Peace&Freedom]

As important as FOX is as an influence, we should keep in mind it's a cable network with a few million viewers per day. It's not broadcast TV news, with dozens of millions of viewers a day. The bulk of the institutional shafting of Paul in '08 and '12 came from the ENTIRE MSM, and the ENTIRE national Republican machine. It is that entire establishment that pushed the "electability" meme in cross-reinforcing unison.

The cheating of Paul out of caucus victories was done by the GOP machine, the media just played getaway driver. The incredible snubs of Paul and Paul delegates at the state conventions and the national convention was done by the machine, not FOX. And the milquetoast frontrunners pushed on the voters and straw poll participants early and hard, were pushed by the entire elite, from the Republican leadership to all the networks.

Despite huge GOP gains made in Congress the 2010 midterm elections, largely based on Obamacare, the establishment still managed to maneuver into place the worst guy possible to oppose Obamacare and Obama in 2012---Romney, the author of Romneycare! So forgive me if I persist in believing in the power of the establishment to lull GOP voters back to sleep, making getting them to listen to another message (while they slumber) impossible. Ultimately, to wake people up, you have to stop talking to them while they sleep, and you have to jostle them up.

[acptulsa]

If Fox is strictly a cable/dish entity, how do I watch them courtesy of my rabbit ears every Sunday morning?

If the GOP machine is unstoppable, why do they need the media for a getaway driver?

If we can help the rank and file Republicans make up their minds right now, before they get stirred up, why would we worry about the media attempting to confuse them with 'facts' later? You and I know that attempting to confuse most Republicans with 'facts' after they've made up their minds just makes them mad. So, why wouldn't we start now and avoid the Christmas rush?

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

The GOP is guaranteed the White House in 2016 no matter who they nominate.

Sweet Jesus, I hope you're wrong, sir. Those dipshits might nominate Paul Ryan with McCain as Veep, or the other way around, and then I don't even

<Head Explodes>

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Having now read the thread, I'm happy to see that we are beginning to coalesce around Rand here at RPFs. As the resident most-jaded-sumbitch-here, however, I'm not seeing a cheery future for the country Wednesday, November 9, 2016.

Already in the comments section of news articles in which Rand has done something good, or taken a good stand, there's mention of some kind of Blue Cross/Blue Shield thing, and surely other bullshit I've not seen. The disinformation campaign is already in motion - sure, this shows the more conspiratorial mind, such as mine, that the establishment is choosing to fight a preemptive war against a Rand nomination for reasons that are obvious to everyone here.

I'm saying we need to get in front of it. Does there exist already here in the forums a short guide, authored to make it easy to refute the nonsense we see in article comments? People read that shit and remember it, take it as gospel...

Sad. So sad...the liberty movement first must fight the GOP establishment in the form of Grannies and Grandpas who haven't picked up a newspaper since Reagan was re-elected, next, must face down the GOP nominating process, in which the rules have been changed to de-fang the grassroots, then, must fight the media as well as those who will be paying attention to them during the primary season and are just so fucking informed about the candidates because they've been watching FOX, and only then after running that gauntlet, can the fight against Hillary begin.

It's gonna be a tough row to hoe. I wonder if we can get it done...I don't have faith in the average American anymore.

[acptulsa]

Sad. So sad...the liberty movement first must fight the GOP establishment in the form of Grannies and Grandpas who haven't picked up a newspaper since Reagan was re-elected, next, must face down the GOP nominating process, in which the rules have been changed to de-fang the grassroots, then, must fight the media as well as those who will be paying attention to them during the primary season and are just so fucking informed about the candidates because they've been watching FOX, and only then after running that gauntlet, can the fight against Hillary begin.

I can't imagine how your faith is so low, considering getting the party that loves to win to nominate the candidate that can win will be like pulling teeth. Especially if they're convinced that the Obamacare debacle means they can't lose, so they might as well nominate the dipstick born loser who they most want to have a beer with...

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

You're right, that post was a bit fatalistic, I suppose. I know that when the time comes, I will be active and vocal, and do what I view as "my part." I just can't get Tampa out of my mind. To know the enemy is one thing, to see its face, naked and raw, as Boener read from that teleprompter, is something I will carry with me for all my days. It colors my view of American politics, and chills me to the bone.

My fear is that the will of the people will be overcome once again by the will of the perpetrators of the silent, bloodless coup that has wrested the control of this nation from the hands of those rightfully entitled to hold it. By that, I mean you and me.

Granted, the winds of shit are a-blowin', aren't they? Love your sig, btw. Golden.

[Liberty74]

Ron should announce an LP run.


Why is it people in here don't have a clue? The only chance a third party has of winning the presidency is as an INDEPENDENT. Why? Because that is who MOST PEOPLE identify themselves as. Get it? Regardless of ones belief, identity politics play a huge role in how one votes. As a Libertarian myself, the Libertarian Party just doesn't have a prayer at the national level. Ron Paul was pulling 19% as an Independent in a 3 way with Romney and Obama. Run in as a libertarian candidate, not only would he get less than 2%, he would have no shot at getting in the debates with low poll numbers. It doesn't have to be Ron, it could be the Judge Nap himself.

[Peace&Freedom]

Why is it people in here don't have a clue? The only chance a third party has of winning the presidency is as an INDEPENDENT. Why? Because that is who MOST PEOPLE identify themselves as. Get it? Regardless of ones belief, identity politics play a huge role in how one votes. As a Libertarian myself, the Libertarian Party just doesn't have a prayer at the national level. Ron Paul was pulling 19% as an Independent in a 3 way with Romney and Obama. Run in as a libertarian candidate, not only would he get less than 2%, he would have no shot at getting in the debates with low poll numbers. It doesn't have to be Ron, it could be the Judge Nap himself.

We've never seen what the LP numbers would be for a truly nationally popular, grassroots backed, and seriously funded candidate who stayed in the race through Election day. Some estimates are that Ron Paul could, through a combination of money bombs and traditional fundraising, raise at least $100 million for his campaign based on his current resources, and that's a war chest we've simply not seen for past alternative candidates.

The above polls don't show what the real number would have been for a real candidacy as an independent, and were probably not done during the latter 2012, when people really would be making up their minds. A Paul candidacy would show what the true potential vote totals would be for a candidate meeting those criteria, instead of the containment field third parties are structurally bottled up in.

An LP run has the advantage of giving Paul a ready-made infrastructure and platform that could assure he was on the ballot in almost all the states, whereas the logistical labor/time intensive problems in achieving ballot status as an independent would dissipate much of the money needed for Paul's campaign. In addition, If Paul only achieved a consistent 5% vote across the states, the number of states where the LP had regular or 'permanent' ballot status would double, making it much easier to run liberty candidates in the following 4 years.

[nobody's_hero]

The same people who were in control in 2012 are still in their seats. We need to throw John Boehner out of office if it is the only way to get him removed from the speakership. Take one for the team, Ohio. Mitch McConnell isn't quite as bad but I don't think he has the fortitude to support a libertarian or constitutional conservative over a corporate funded stooge. So, for good measure, I'd say Mitch needs to go too.

Priebus needs to go. Etc. etc.

Get these people out of positions of power or they will be erecting the very same obstacles they did in 2012.

[acptulsa]

Get these people out of positions of power or they will be erecting the very same obstacles they did in 2012.

We need just as much to beat some Democrats. If we can leverage Obamacare and do that, then it will not only give us more good voters in Congress, it'll give us more gravitas in the GOP.

[Bastiat's The Law]

If RON Paul runs third party in 2016 and becomes a "non team player" in the eyes of some, it does not impact RAND Paul's status AS a team player. Two different guys---it wouldn't be RAND doing it, but it would give Rand leverage to get past the "hack frontrunner is electable, but Paul isn't" spell placed on primary voters. That's the beauty of this technique. It exacts political pain if Rand is not chosen, thus wakes voters up to the stakes early during primary season, unlike the last two races, where Republican voters didn't face the pain of their mistaken choice until being defeated on Election day.

It's important to keep in mind we've already tried doing things twice the other way, to no avail. Primary voters didn't reward Ron staying loyal to the GOP by giving him primary wins. They voted for the frontrunner, who party leaders and pundits told them was the "serious" candidate, or "the one who could in November." Under this notion, every other contender becomes irrelevant, or viewed as a nuisance, liberty candidates included.

Going into the next cycle, as of right now, Rand has NO leverage to defeat being similarly boxed out by "the establishment guy is electable" narrative. NONE. Based on this consideration, the liberty candidate is positioned to lose again. Just saying "well, you guys lost the last two times running moderates" will not defeat that narrative. What is an effective alternative? Please describe another plan that would actually work in getting around this real problem. Otherwise, doing the same thing as before, is going to result in the same defeat as before.

Ron Paul running in 2016? More third party talk?

Okay, you're not a serious poster.

[Bastiat's The Law]

To be frank, Ron is very wrong about a third party winning. I have already established the basic numbers and the fact that 70% of Americans would like a viable third party candidate. This person would have to run as an Independent. Back in 1992, the first year I voted, Ross Perot was neck and neck with Bush and Clinton until Perot dropped out, lose momentum to only jump back in gathering 19% of the final vote.

Changing ones opinion on political issues (philosophically speaking) is totally different than changing a political strategy to run or while running for office. Changing times and events can have an impact on whether one runs for office. Not that I am advocating Ron run here.

It hasn't happened in 150 years and won't ever happen again in your lifetime. Let's get real here.

[acptulsa]

It hasn't happened in 150 years and won't ever happen again in your lifetime. Let's get real here.

It hasn't happened at all, and almost certainly won't.

Lincoln ran as a Republican, which back then was Third Party to the Democrats and the Whigs. The Whig Party was dying, and the Republican Party replaced it. If we were to abandon the GOP, that would probably eventually kill it, and then we could likely replace it with something or another (if we were on the ball). It would sure be easier to turn the GOP into something worth supporting.

[fr33]

It hasn't happened in 150 years and won't ever happen again in your lifetime. Let's get real here.

When has a liberty candidate won the presidency? Let's get real here.

[acptulsa]

When has a liberty candidate won the presidency? Let's get real here.

1800. He got reelected in 1804, too. Last good Democrat ever to serve in that office. There never has been a decent one in the White House.

I don't think Republicans realize just how much they have discredited themselves in the minds of most independent voters this millenium. Most people learned their lesson with the Dubya/Cheney dog and pony show. We really are the only thing standing between the GOP and the fate of the Whig Party. The American Voter may be a slow learner, but Washington will soon find out that this doesn't mean they don't learn at all.

[fr33]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again.

[Bastiat's The Law]

When has a liberty candidate won the presidency? Let's get real here.

The only offices that have evaded us are the Presidency and a Governorship and we got close to winning a Governorship last month. These are exciting times! We've only been seriously at this thing for 4-5 years, so we're really just getting started. We can elect liberty candidates to House and Senate when we put our mind to it. State races are fairly easy to win now. We also have a great shot at the Presidency in 2016. If Rand wins he's going to have long coattails and help other liberty candidates get elected down the ballot across the country.

[Bastiat's The Law]

The Liberty Movement infecting the GOP is a much more fruitful and hopeful endeavor than any third party talk or falling into apathetic anarchism.

[mad cow]

1800. He got reelected in 1804, too. Last good Democrat ever to serve in that office. There never has been a decent one in the White House.


Grover Cleveland.

[Peace&Freedom]

Ron Paul running in 2016? More third party talk?

Okay, you're not a serious poster.

Okay, you're not serious about Rand winning. My point was that the entire media and Republican establishment will do the same marginalizing routine to Rand in 2016 that they did to Ron in '08/'12, based on defining and covering Bush/Christie as the serious, "electable" frontrunners, and cast all the other contenders as at best, second tier, or irrelevant. The media will monopolize coverage of the race as a Bush/Christie conflict in order to reinforce that message. This WILL happen, based on the elite's established track record and MO. Their successful track record in lulling the GOP voters back to sleep after losing with the "electable" McCain, or now Romney on this basis is also well-established. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away.

I suggested a counter-strategy to neutralize this narrative, involving Ron Paul running on the LP line, which would have the perceived effect of making Bush and Christie unelectable, thus giving Rand a more level playing field to win the Republican nomination. If he still fails, it would serve to exact immediate pain on the GOP leadership for foisting another hack moderate on voters and for rigging the race against Rand, while at last giving the movement a chance to vote for a Paul on election day for a change. It is a serious solution, to a serious issue. What is your alternative to effectively dealing with the "X is electable, Rand is not" establishment meme?

[acptulsa]

It is a serious solution, to a serious issue. What is your alternative to effectively dealing with the "X is electable, Rand is not" establishment meme?

I thought I put forth a serious suggestion about that in the OP. We use their track record of complete failure and our direct connection with the public (being among them) to plant the idea that they don't know electable from corn dogs and we have the plan that will actually work.

These are changing times, and people are sick of the media. Even Faux.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Okay, you're not serious about Rand winning. My point was that the entire media and Republican establishment will do the same marginalizing routine to Rand in 2016 that they did to Ron in '08/'12, based on defining and covering Bush/Christie as the serious, "electable" frontrunners, and cast all the other contenders as at best, second tier, or irrelevant. The media will monopolize coverage of the race as a Bush/Christie conflict in order to reinforce that message. This WILL happen, based on the elite's established track record and MO. Their successful track record in lulling the GOP voters back to sleep after losing with the "electable" McCain, or now Romney on this basis is also well-established. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away.

I suggested a counter-strategy to neutralize this narrative, involving Ron Paul running on the LP line, which would have the perceived effect of making Bush and Christie unelectable, thus giving Rand a more level playing field to win the Republican nomination. If he still fails, it would serve to exact immediate pain on the GOP leadership for foisting another hack moderate on voters and for rigging the race against Rand, while at last giving the movement a chance to vote for a Paul on election day for a change. It is a serious solution, to a serious issue. What is your alternative to effectively dealing with the "X is electable, Rand is not" establishment meme?

Oh nos the media don't like us! The fact is, if it wasn't for the media and the Presidential debates nobody would know who Ron Paul is and this website wouldn't exist. Their smears work less and less by the day. Besides, Rand is a fighter. He won't sit there and allow the media or anybody to beat him up. He could pull a Newt and attack the media during the debates and primary voters will fawn over him even more! Ron Paul is 80 years old, let the guy retire in peace. He doesn't owe us anything. Not to mention your counter-strategy is just ridiculous with zero chance of working or being implemented.

[Peace&Freedom]

Oh nos the media don't like us! The fact is, if it wasn't for the media and the Presidential debates nobody would know who Ron Paul is and this website wouldn't exist. Their smears work less and less by the day. Besides, Rand is a fighter. He won't sit there and allow the media or anybody to beat him up. He could pull a Newt and attack the media during the debates and primary voters will fawn over him even more! Ron Paul is 80 years old, let the guy retire in peace. He doesn't owe us anything. Not to mention your counter-strategy is just ridiculous with zero chance of working or being implemented.

Rand has zero chance of winning, without something like this strategy being implemented. WE made the media know who Ron Paul is across 2007-2008 and this website preceded his breakthrough. The media's smears work less, except at each crunch time or primary season, as we've already seen---most rank and filers go back into a trance, and follow the frontrunner. And it's not whether "Ron owes us anything," it's about what Rand needs to prevail.

Whether Rand can fight back better or not, as of now he still has no leverage to defeat the "only the frontrunner guy is electable" narrative, that will be heavily pushed by the entire establishment and the GOP, not just Faux. At least acptulsa, understanding this, put up a counter-argument about preaching to rank and filers about the Fox et al failed track record (to which I replied that a rational message won't work against those who are still asleep). But you seem to be in denial about the problem.

[acptulsa]

Grover Cleveland.

Humpf. Do you realize how much J.P. Morgan paid for the ICC, and how much damage it did? Ever read up on the Pullman strike?

I do kind of appreciate the 22nd president. But not the 24th. He was competent enough during prosperity, but should never have been reelected.


At least acptulsa, understanding this, put up a counter-argument about preaching to rank and filers about the Fox et al failed track record (to which I replied that a rational message won't work against those who are still asleep). But you seem to be in denial about the problem.

No, you said they go to sleep at crunch time. I see it a little differently. I say they react to the overt and unceasing attempts to manipulate them by making a decision, then saying, 'Don't confuse me with facts, I've made up my mind!' They do this in self defense. And that's why I say the good psychology is to start the grassroots push right now, and help them lose their patience with being overwhelmed by a massive flood of so-called 'facts' before the deluge even begins.

We all rub elbows with these people. They all appreciate the personal touch more than most liberals do. 'Rand Paul is most likely to help us get rid of Obamacare because he knows best how bad it is--he signed up for it' is a mighty good argument. 'Independent voters will vote for him because he had the integrity to sign up for Obamacare and find out what the public is up against' is a good selling point. We have nothing to lose by using it now.

[Peace&Freedom]

The establishment has successfully lulled most GOP voters back to sleep over the course of the past election cycle. They know how to do this, while we merely hope that will no longer work. They double down on the sleeping spell during the campaign season, with the dominating emphasis in coverage being given to the designated "electable" candidates. I'm saying you can't "make a decision" while you're in a trance. It's a left/right brain thing. The logical part of a person could hear the message if the emotional framework was not overwhelming the issue. The prospect of a conservative vote-split will likely shake people out of the framework, while a grassroots pushed message will likely not.

[acptulsa]

They double down on the sleeping spell during the campaign season...

Which is why I say we should be working our asses off to get Rand nominated right freaking now! Neither side has tried that. I've lived in a 'Red State' all my life, and I see a lot of reason to believe it's well worth a try.

The media couldn't possibly convince them to make up their minds this early. We can. That's the difference in the way they react to media vs. the way they react to human contact.