Just a few questions and about Rand Paul 2016

[ssunlimited]

It seems anybody can post here. Okay I have a few questions. I was a Ron Paul supporter since 2008 and since I heard Rand is Ron's legacy and has a good chance of winning the GOP nomination, I really want him to run in 2016. Ron did well in the first 2 states: Iowa and New Hampshire. This could easily carry over to Rand. These 2 states matter the most and are good to the Pauls. Rand won NH poll today for nomination. But if Rand runs and wins either or both of these states, what should he do next? He would need to concentrate on the next states. Should he skip Florida if Bush runs? What should the plan be? Money must be spent wisely. Today I saw something disturbing to me. I looked at 1992 Democratic nomination election and noticed Bill Clinton didn't win a single primary/caucus until the 6th one. Then in March he went on to win a bunch of them and by far won the nomination than any other candidate. One thing is a second place in NH. But Ron Paul won NH in 2012 and he didn't even come close to winning the nomination. How did Bill Clinton make such a come back? I thought you have almost no chance of winning if you fail the first 4 states. How can Rand stay strong if he wins the first few states or if he gets strong second places?

[CaptUSA]

Listen. if it's going to be a Rand Paul win, then the states won't matter. It would mean a turn in the party. And while it's early, things seem to be turning our way. 40% of Republicans voted against the NSA wiretapping. That's a huge swing. The GOP is giving up the fight against marijuana. Who'da thunk that?

Some of them won't go easy, but if things keep going this way - and the trends seem to be in our favor. Then Rand will completely alter the current state of play. The map will look like nothing you have ever seen. This could really be a randslide year. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but we'll see.

[rpfocus]

General Politics gets enough Rand Paul spam. This thread obviously belongs in the Rand Paul subforum.

[69360]

It seems anybody can post here. Okay I have a few questions. I was a Ron Paul supporter since 2008 and since I heard Rand is Ron's legacy and has a good chance of winning the GOP nomination, I really want him to run in 2016. Ron did well in the first 2 states: Iowa and New Hampshire. This could easily carry over to Rand. These 2 states matter the most and are good to the Pauls. Rand won NH poll today for nomination. But if Rand runs and wins either or both of these states, what should he do next? He would need to concentrate on the next states. Should he skip Florida if Bush runs? What should the plan be? Money must be spent wisely. Today I saw something disturbing to me. I looked at 1992 Democratic nomination election and noticed Bill Clinton didn't win a single primary/caucus until the 6th one. Then in March he went on to win a bunch of them and by far won the nomination than any other candidate. One thing is a second place in NH. But Ron Paul won NH in 2012 and he didn't even come close to winning the nomination. How did Bill Clinton make such a come back? I thought you have almost no chance of winning if you fail the first 4 states. How can Rand stay strong if he wins the first few states or if he gets strong second places?

Ron did not win NH. Florida is a lost cause for Rand. Strange things happen in a crowded field and these things are won in the media, it's all about scandals and dirt now. If you have it and the media finds out you're done.

[erowe1]

But Ron Paul won NH in 2012

No he didn't.

[ssunlimited]

Ron did not win NH. Florida is a lost cause for Rand. Strange things happen in a crowded field and these things are won in the media, it's all about scandals and dirt now. If you have it and the media finds out you're done.

I mean RP got second place in NH and didn't end up winning the nomination whereas Bill Clinton lost many states and got NH second place and won the nomination strongly.

[erowe1]

Florida is a lost cause for Rand.

That depends on what happens in the earlier states.

[Mr.NoSmile]

Listen. if it's going to be a Rand Paul win, then the states won't matter. It would mean a turn in the party. And while it's early, things seem to be turning our way. 40% of Republicans voted against the NSA wiretapping. That's a huge swing. The GOP is giving up the fight against marijuana. Who'da thunk that?

Some of them won't go easy, but if things keep going this way - and the trends seem to be in our favor. Then Rand will completely alter the current state of play. The map will look like nothing you have ever seen. This could really be a randslide year. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but we'll see.

Most of that I agree with, but you still have the factor of names like Huckabee, Rubio, Bush, Christie and so on being talked of as front-runners. Now I'm not saying this will be a 'No One But Paul' GOP primary. Challengers are to be expected, but the aforementioned are still spoken of as winnable and without blemish or flaw. Huckabee is trying to bounce back from what he said about women, same with Christie and the bridge scandal. While the RNC may have denounced the NSA, they still allowed their new rules change to be crammed through. And someone like Priebus is still an opportunist. It'd take a major turnaround in a short amount of time when there's still a lot of resistance and when the 'Tea Party' label is still seen as obstructionist. Never mind the fact that someone like Boehner just lays down and accepts fate without much of a fight, and people look to him as a type of leader.

[erowe1]

Listen. if it's going to be a Rand Paul win, then the states won't matter. It would mean a turn in the party. And while it's early, things seem to be turning our way. 40% of Republicans voted against the NSA wiretapping. That's a huge swing. The GOP is giving up the fight against marijuana. Who'da thunk that?

Some of them won't go easy, but if things keep going this way - and the trends seem to be in our favor. Then Rand will completely alter the current state of play. The map will look like nothing you have ever seen. This could really be a randslide year. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but we'll see.

I don't get what you're saying here.

Please don't tell me you're talking about some path to the nomination that isn't by way of winning the majority of the primaries and caucuses.

[boneyard bill]

It's not just New Hampshire. The new RNC rules make Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada the first four states. The Paul organization is very strong in three of those. South Carolina is a little questionable but even there has some significant supporters.

Bill Clinton could lose the first six states because he had a lot of money. These first few states could be very important to Rand Paul in enabling him to fund the rest of his campaign. In 2012, Ron Paul raised more money than any other candidate except Mitt Romney, but there's no way that he could come close to Romney without winning some primaries and caucuses.

For Florida to their primary up in defiance of the rules would cost them much more under the new rules than it did in 2012 so they'll probably vote late. But with Rubio and/or Bush likely to be on the ballot there, most candidates would probably skip that primary anyway.

[Shane Harris]

I don't get what you're saying here.

Please don't tell me you're talking about some path to the nomination that isn't by way of winning the majority of the primaries and caucuses.

I could be wrong but I believe he's saying that the phase change in which the R party is currently undergoing will alter the electoral map in 2016.

[erowe1]

It's not just New Hampshire. The new RNC rules make Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada the first four states. The Paul organization is very strong in three of those. South Carolina is a little questionable but even there has some significant supporters.

Bill Clinton could lose the first six states because he had a lot of money. These first few states could be very important to Rand Paul in enabling him to fund the rest of his campaign. In 2012, Ron Paul raised more money than any other candidate except Mitt Romney, but there's no way that he could come close to Romney without winning some primaries and caucuses.

For Florida to their primary up in defiance of the rules would cost them much more under the new rules than it did in 2012 so they'll probably vote late. But with Rubio and/or Bush likely to be on the ballot there, most candidates would probably skip that primary anyway.

Clinton didn't really lose the first 6 states. He lost the first 4. But two of those were, I think, really insignificant: Maine and South Dakota.

And then he won Georgia, which was the largest of 7 states and territories all to go on March 3 that year, as well as the largest of any state thus far in the race. It was also the only southern state up until that point, and he dominated the South.

Also, notice that Tom Harkin, who was not one of the top 3 contenders, dominated Iowa, so that you kind of need to bracket Iowa off when looking at the results in the early states. As a result New Hampshire was even more significant than usual for that contest, and Clinton did surprisingly well, considering that Tsongas was both a serious contender for the nomination and a local from MA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1992#Stat ewide_contest_by_winner

[69360]

That depends on what happens in the earlier states.

Let's not be delusional like last time. Either Bush, Rubio or Christie has FL in the bag.

[erowe1]

Let's not be delusional like last time. Either Bush, Rubio or Christie has FL in the bag.

Bush or Rubio only would if they were running, and if they were still contenders by the time the contest got to Florida, both of which are big ifs.

Why do you include Christie on the list?

Like I said, it will depend on what will have happened in the earlier contests. There's nothing delusional about that.

[FSP-Rebel]

General Politics gets enough Rand Paul spam. This thread obviously belongs in the Rand Paul subforum.

If Rand is spam to you, you shouldn't even be here. Rand is the biggest thing in liberty politics if you haven't noticed.:rolleyes:

[Bastiat's The Law]

Listen. if it's going to be a Rand Paul win, then the states won't matter. It would mean a turn in the party. And while it's early, things seem to be turning our way. 40% of Republicans voted against the NSA wiretapping. That's a huge swing. The GOP is giving up the fight against marijuana. Who'da thunk that?

Some of them won't go easy, but if things keep going this way - and the trends seem to be in our favor. Then Rand will completely alter the current state of play. The map will look like nothing you have ever seen. This could really be a randslide year. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but we'll see.

That's my feelings too. Things are blowing our way.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Ron did not win NH. Florida is a lost cause for Rand. Strange things happen in a crowded field and these things are won in the media, it's all about scandals and dirt now. If you have it and the media finds out you're done.

It's takes upwards of 10+ million to play in Florida. Rand might have to punt on that state, but you never know if he builds enough momentum winning Iowa, NH, SC, and Nevada then Florida might be a toss up even with Jeb Bush and/or Rubio in the race. Right now though, expect Florida to be 100% grassroots driven.

[jllundqu]

2016 is a long way off...

"There's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip!"

[Michael Landon]

As much as I hope Rand wins the nomination and ultimately the Presidency, I am highly pessimistic. Wall Street contributes to two candidates in the primary season, one is a democrat and one is a republican, most times both candidates win the nominations and in the event that only one of them wins the nomination then they put all their money behind that candidate regardless of which party they represent. I see Wall Street financing Clinton for the Democrats and Rubio/Bush/Christie for the Republicans. If they can't sell Rubio as the anti-establishment candidate and if Christie can't deflect his "bridgegate" kerfuffle then they'll probably support Bush. Either way, I think Clinton will ultimately be the candidate that gets their full financial support.

I can see the media reporting lies and distorting the facts to make Rand Paul look extreme to the voters, much like they did when Goldwater received the nomination in 64.

I hope I'm wrong.

- ML

[ssunlimited]

As much as I hope Rand wins the nomination and ultimately the Presidency, I am highly pessimistic. Wall Street contributes to two candidates in the primary season, one is a democrat and one is a republican, most times both candidates win the nominations and in the event that only one of them wins the nomination then they put all their money behind that candidate regardless of which party they represent. I see Wall Street financing Clinton for the Democrats and Rubio/Bush/Christie for the Republicans. If they can't sell Rubio as the anti-establishment candidate and if Christie can't deflect his "bridgegate" kerfuffle then they'll probably support Bush. Either way, I think Clinton will ultimately be the candidate that gets their full financial support.

I can see the media reporting lies and distorting the facts to make Rand Paul look extreme to the voters, much like they did when Goldwater received the nomination in 64.

I hope I'm wrong.

- ML

I think and feel the same way. I mean I am concerned(worried a little) that the media might either marginalize or make him appear negative all over the news. Rand Paul certainly has a chance and a good chance but the media might not like him as president. But Ron Paul wasn't treated so badly in 2012. He did well in Iowa and NH. If those votes carry to Rand and Rand gets more votes then he can win those states.

[CPUd]

I think and feel the same way. I mean I am concerned(worried a little) that the media might either marginalize or make him appear negative all over the news.

LOL, the bad news is that you can go ahead and count on that to happen.

The good news is that if he runs they will not ignore him the way they did his father.

[ssunlimited]

LOL, the bad news is that you can go ahead and count on that to happen.

The good news is that if he runs they will not ignore him the way they did his father.

I am thinking that there is a chance that the media might actually like Rand or at least be unbiased about his media coverage if he runs.

[CPUd]

I am thinking that there is a chance that the media might actually like Rand or at least be unbiased about his media coverage if he runs.

Some probably will try to, but it's bad for ratings.

[MrGoose]

Assuming it goes Iowa, NH, SC, then Florida. Rand will probably win the first two then head to SC and campaign hard there. Then skip Florida and head to Nevada (if that's next).

[69360]

Bush or Rubio only would if they were running, and if they were still contenders by the time the contest got to Florida, both of which are big ifs.

Why do you include Christie on the list?

Like I said, it will depend on what will have happened in the earlier contests. There's nothing delusional about that.

Were do you think all the old people in FL came from? NY/NJ area mostly.

[erowe1]

Were do you think all the old people in FL came from? NY/NJ area mostly.

Got any actual numbers there? Specifically for NJ.

Giuliani staked his campaign on winning Florida after losing the earlier states and it turned out badly for him.

[ssunlimited]

NY Here polls 40% Christie and 10% Rand Paul :(.

[specsaregood]

./

[politics]

Assuming it goes Iowa, NH, SC, then Florida. Rand will probably win the first two then head to SC and campaign hard there. Then skip Florida and head to Nevada (if that's next).

Not so sure.
Assuming Rand can't win Florida, the campaign will have to decide if wants a Bush or someone else winning Florida (taking in consideration what happend in eariler states)
In a scenerio where Bush loses Florida, It would mean a Bush out of the race, but if you think that the one winning there is Christie -for instance- instead, you may prefer Bush wining that State.

Accepting this thesis would mean that you can choose to have an active rol and take votes from some particular candidate helping another candidate strategically choosen.

[Jamesiv1]

I am thinking that there is a chance that the media might actually like Rand or at least be unbiased about his media coverage if he runs.
"the media" is not the talking heads. "the media" is the guy who signs their paychecks. More accurately, "the media" is the folks who put the $$ into the bank accounts of the guys who sign their paychecks.

Rand will get some talking head support, just like Ron did. But "the media" will never willingly relinquish their power, it must be taken away.

[erowe1]

He's correct about that, especially the west coast of FL. Pull up to anywhere with a NJ license plate and you'll get people asking you what your exit # is. FL is just a where NJ people go to die. Seriously.

What percent of Florida's population does that make up?

People from lots of states retire to Florida. And a lot of other people live there too.

[specsaregood]

/.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I think and feel the same way. I mean I am concerned(worried a little) that the media might either marginalize or make him appear negative all over the news. Rand Paul certainly has a chance and a good chance but the media might not like him as president. But Ron Paul wasn't treated so badly in 2012. He did well in Iowa and NH. If those votes carry to Rand and Rand gets more votes then he can win those states.

People in the flyover states are listening less to the beltway media everyday. The early states are fertile ground for us.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I don't care enough to go look; but its a LOT. Hell, during the winter months in some areas it seems a full half of the plates you see on cars are NJ.

He's right. Rudy campaigned in Florida for a reason. You didn't see him out in Iowa.