PDA

View Full Version : How to save Rand's senate seat




jmdrake
10-28-2014, 12:15 PM
Has anybody thought about this? It doesn't look like Rand will be able to run both for president and for senate.

See: http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/09/07/run-for-president-election-senate-rand-paul-doesn-want-choose/j48MIJbTjF1enwSVKRYutO/story.html

Failing a law change, and that failure is pretty certain unless KY Democrats lose control of their state's house, Rand will only be able to run for one or the other. Now I'd like to just say "Well he'll win the POTUS so it won't matter." But......

Here are the options as I see it.

1) Wage a write in campaign.

2) Ensure some other liberty candidate takes his senate seat.

On # 2 I'm thinking Thomas Massie. Recruit some other pro liberty candidate to run for Massie's seat in 2016 and let Massie run for Rand's senate seat. If we win the trifecta than president Rand has a pro liberty ally from Kentucky in both the house and the senate. If Rand loses then we haven't automatically lost a very important senate seat. Then Rand would have another choice to make. Challenge McConnell his senate seat in 2020 or take another stab at the POTUS.

Matt Collins
10-28-2014, 12:17 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favorite_son ?

specsaregood
10-28-2014, 12:21 PM
If Rand loses then we haven't automatically lost a very important senate seat. Then Rand would have another choice to make. Challenge McConnell his senate seat in 2020 or take another stab at the POTUS.

You are missing out on a possible (and possibly enticing) 3rd option.

He could retire and go back to his medical practice and enjoy life.

jmdrake
10-28-2014, 12:23 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favorite_son ?

From your link:

At the quadrennial American national political party conventions, a state delegation sometimes nominates and votes for a candidate from the state, or less often from the state's region, who is not a viable candidate. The technique allows state leaders to negotiate with leading candidates in exchange for the delegation's support. The technique was widely used in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Since nationwide campaigns by candidates and binding primary elections have replaced brokered conventions, the technique has fallen out of use.

That seems to only work for presidential nominations. How would one have a "brokered convention" for a senate nominee? :confused:

jmdrake
10-28-2014, 12:24 PM
You are missing out on a possible (and possibly enticing) 3rd option.

He could retire and go back to his medical practice and enjoy life.

Well yeah. But hopefully only if Massie or someone else that good takes his senate seat.

specsaregood
10-28-2014, 12:26 PM
Well yeah. But hopefully only if Massie or someone else that good takes his senate seat.

Yeah, just saying 6 years is a lot of time to take out of your life to fight the good fight. He clearly enjoys being a doctor. If I was him and my POTUS run failed I'd be inclined to say "screw it" good luck suckers and go back to doing what I enjoy.

William Tell
10-28-2014, 12:29 PM
Yeah, just saying 6 years is a lot of time to take out of your life to fight the good fight. He clearly enjoys being a doctor. If I was him and my POTUS run failed I'd be inclined to say "screw it" good luck suckers and go back to doing what I enjoy.

I bet he runs for President again in 2020, if he loses the 2016 primary.

CaptUSA
10-28-2014, 12:39 PM
That seems to only work for presidential nominations. How would one have a "brokered convention" for a senate nominee? :confused:

I think he was suggesting that he forego the nomination run in KY and just run for the Senate.

The problem with that, though is that it only gets you to the nomination. Once the general starts, he'd have to drop his Senate run.

Really, though, I think he should just go all-in.

jmdrake
10-28-2014, 12:40 PM
Yeah, just saying 6 years is a lot of time to take out of your life to fight the good fight. He clearly enjoys being a doctor. If I was him and my POTUS run failed I'd be inclined to say "screw it" good luck suckers and go back to doing what I enjoy.

If only the Lindsey Grahams, John McCains, Mitch McConnells, Dianne Feinsteins and Hillary Clintons of the world felt that way.....

jmdrake
10-28-2014, 12:45 PM
I think he was suggesting that he forego the nomination run in KY and just run for the Senate.

The problem with that, though is that it only gets you to the nomination. Once the general starts, he'd have to drop his Senate run.

Really, though, I think he should just go all-in.

Ah. I get it. Yeah, that strategy would get him through the primary but not (as I read it) through the general.

TaftFan
10-28-2014, 01:58 PM
Matt Bevin?

Vanguard101
10-29-2014, 08:13 PM
I'm pretty sure if he loses the presidential nomination, he won't run again. For both Senate or the President seat. It takes a toll on you when you water down an moderate your opinion. Rand would probably end up like Goldwater and Taft. Supporting stuff that they had no business supporting.

ctiger2
10-29-2014, 08:59 PM
Rand will never be allowed to win the presidency. Might as just run for senate again cause that's as high as he'll be allowed to go.

r3volution 3.0
10-29-2014, 09:17 PM
Rand will never be allowed to win the presidency. Might as just run for senate again cause that's as high as he'll be allowed to go.

If it were a matter of what the establishment "allowed" there would be no Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.

Crashland
10-29-2014, 09:52 PM
If the GOP doesn't take control of the Kentucky legislature then Rand needs to forget about running for Senate. Having to fight tooth and nail in court in order to be able to hedge your bets is terrible PR, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. And he can't afford to risk losing electoral votes in the presidential election. There's still plenty of time to do a 180 on this.

anaconda
10-29-2014, 10:06 PM
I think he was suggesting that he forego the nomination run in KY and just run for the Senate.

The problem with that, though is that it only gets you to the nomination. Once the general starts, he'd have to drop his Senate run.

Really, though, I think he should just go all-in.

Are we sure of this? Can't Rand decide to not be on the ballot for President in KY even if he wins the primary? Just have Kelley Paul run as an independent in KY. It will be obvious to all of the voters. Then she goes to the convention and signs over her KY delegates if necessary.

TheTyke
10-29-2014, 10:07 PM
If it were a matter of what the establishment "allowed" there would be no Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.

lol, exactly! I remember people on this very board telling us we couldn't win, all through the senate campaign. It's a matter of strategy, learning to beat them, will to succeed, and tons of hard work! Not some all-powerful enemy which reduces us to helpless victims who can only lament our fates on the internet.

puppetmaster
10-29-2014, 10:27 PM
On a side note wouldn't it be nice to be a liberty loving congressman, senator with a president Rand Paul in charge.

Crashland
10-29-2014, 10:44 PM
Are we sure of this? Can't Rand decide to not be on the ballot for President in KY even if he wins the primary? Just have Kelley Paul run as an independent in KY. It will be obvious to all of the voters. Then she goes to the convention and signs over her KY delegates if necessary.

That could be a possibility but even so, doesn't it show a bit of lack of character if you run for an office that you do not actually intend to serve? Kentucky should be allowed to do it if they choose, knowing in advance what could happen, but still...

NOVALibertarian
10-29-2014, 10:47 PM
lol, exactly! I remember people on this very board telling us we couldn't win, all through the senate campaign. It's a matter of strategy, learning to beat them, will to succeed, and tons of hard work! Not some all-powerful enemy which reduces us to helpless victims who can only lament our fates on the internet.

Establishments will always eventually fall--mostly through their own arrogance--which clouds their judgment after being in power for so long. It's happened in the past, it's currently happening in Europe (once again), and the seeds are being planted that will allow it to happen in the United States. They've ignored and discredited Ron and Rand Paul for so long that they completely ignored the gains they were making. By the time they decided to take Rand Paul somewhat seriously, he had already gained a firm foothold amongst the population. Compounded with the failure of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, the Establishment has begun to lose control.

They've begun to fight Rand Paul, but it might be too late for them. What are the final lines of that infamous Gandhi quote? "...Then they fight you, and then you win?"

First they ignore you= Ron Paul, 2007-2008
Then they laugh at you= Ron Paul, 2012
Then they fight you= Rand Paul, 2014-2015
And then you win= Rand Paul, November 8th, 2016

The hubris of the Establishment will be their downfall. By the time the Establishment takes a threat to their power seriously, it's usually too late.

anaconda
10-29-2014, 11:21 PM
doesn't it show a bit of lack of character if you run for an office that you do not actually intend to serve?

Supporters of Rand want him in at least one or the other position, so he is really just responding to a mandate and arguably forming the best strategy to serve the people against the corrupt leviathan of special interests. It just makes good practical sense. I don't see any "lack of character" issues here. The establishment would like to paint him that way, but it's not about Rand - it's about promoting liberty. I chuckle when I see Huffington Post type comments that Rand "only cares about himself."

Bastiat's The Law
10-30-2014, 01:28 AM
If it were a matter of what the establishment "allowed" there would be no Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.

Exactly.

NOVALibertarian
10-30-2014, 02:58 AM
Exactly.

I've never understood those who think that the establishment would let Rand Paul in the Senate, yet wouldn't let him win the Presidency. If the establishment has as much say in elections as people think that they do, why would they have allowed Rand Paul in the Senate in the first place? What's the point of putting someone in power who is a threat to your OWN power? I could perhaps get this line of thinking if Rand was some uncharismatic drone who stumbled over his words every other sentence, but he's a well-spoken, likable, and charismatic politician.

jmdrake
10-30-2014, 05:07 AM
I've never understood those who think that the establishment would let Rand Paul in the Senate, yet wouldn't let him win the Presidency. If the establishment has as much say in elections as people think that they do, why would they have allowed Rand Paul in the Senate in the first place? What's the point of putting someone in power who is a threat to your OWN power? I could perhaps get this line of thinking if Rand was some uncharismatic drone who stumbled over his words every other sentence, but he's a well-spoken, likable, and charismatic politician.

The establishment underestimated Rand in 2010. Or has everybody forgotten how Rachel Maddow went from basically being a Rand Paul cheerleader to the wicked witch of the west once Rand Paul won the GOP primary? But by the time the attacks from her and others kicked in it was too late. Kentucky is very much a red state and whoever wins the GOP primary wins the general election. That's very different from a presidential election.

Bastiat's The Law
10-30-2014, 09:36 AM
I've never understood those who think that the establishment would let Rand Paul in the Senate, yet wouldn't let him win the Presidency. If the establishment has as much say in elections as people think that they do, why would they have allowed Rand Paul in the Senate in the first place? What's the point of putting someone in power who is a threat to your OWN power? I could perhaps get this line of thinking if Rand was some uncharismatic drone who stumbled over his words every other sentence, but he's a well-spoken, likable, and charismatic politician.

These people think there's a conspiracy behind every bush.

jmdrake
10-30-2014, 09:48 AM
These people think there's a conspiracy behind every bush.

:rolleyes: Or the people with some freaking common sense. While I think Rand can win the presidency, if you think the race for the POTUS will be anything like Rand's senate race you are kidding yourself. Again, Rachel Maddow practically fawned over Rand until he won the GOP senate nomination. Now she and others are already attacking Rand before the GOP primary has even started. The establishment miscalculated in 2010. It won't again.

jmdrake
10-30-2014, 09:50 AM
On a side note wouldn't it be nice to be a liberty loving congressman, senator with a president Rand Paul in charge.

^This. I think the best strategy is to work the bench and grow more stars.

jmdrake
10-30-2014, 09:54 AM
Matt Bevin?

I didn't follow him in the primary (wish I had) but yeah, he looks good. He was at a severe disadvantage with Rand endorsing Mitch McConnell. But if Rand endorsed him for Rand's seat he might have a decent shot.

CaptUSA
10-30-2014, 10:05 AM
On a side note wouldn't it be nice to be a liberty loving congressman, senator with a president Rand Paul in charge.

If Rand wins the nomination, I think you'll be surprised at how many congressman and senators suddenly find their "liberty-lovin' " side. Remember he will not only become the party's nominee, but the de facto leader of the GOP.

NOVALibertarian
10-30-2014, 10:13 AM
It won't again.

Unless they will be done in by their arrogance, much like many other "establishment" governments in the history of mankind.

jmdrake
10-30-2014, 10:25 AM
Unless they will be done in by their arrogance, much like many other "establishment" governments in the history of mankind.

They've shown their hand. They're coming full tilt boogie and Rand this time, no punches pulled. But he may have already passed the tipping point.

Peace&Freedom
10-30-2014, 11:13 AM
Kentucky Democrats almost certainly have their marching orders to not budge on denying Rand the ability to also run for his Senate seat. Rand may have to settle for a deadline strategy, where he runs for President up until it's clear he won't win the Republican nomination (this could be plain by March 2016, if the frontloaded primaries once again essentially coronate the establishment candidate by February, as in the last two cycles). Depending on KY rules Rand could then choose to drop his POTUS run and announce he's running for reelection in the Senate.

CPUd
10-30-2014, 12:02 PM
That's probably how it will play out. He will drop his presidential campaign a lot earlier than some of the others if the numbers don't look like a sure thing.

Vanguard101
10-30-2014, 12:16 PM
If it were a matter of what the establishment "allowed" there would be no Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky.

There comes a point where the establishment cannot prevent something. They can easily prevent the presidential election

philipped
10-30-2014, 06:10 PM
First they ignore you= Ron Paul, 2007-2008
Then they laugh at you= Ron Paul, 2012
Then they fight you= Rand Paul, 2014-2015
And then you win= Rand Paul, November 8th, 2016

YIKESSSSSS

jmdrake
10-31-2014, 03:27 AM
Establishments will always eventually fall--mostly through their own arrogance--which clouds their judgment after being in power for so long. It's happened in the past, it's currently happening in Europe (once again), and the seeds are being planted that will allow it to happen in the United States. They've ignored and discredited Ron and Rand Paul for so long that they completely ignored the gains they were making. By the time they decided to take Rand Paul somewhat seriously, he had already gained a firm foothold amongst the population. Compounded with the failure of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, the Establishment has begun to lose control.

They've begun to fight Rand Paul, but it might be too late for them. What are the final lines of that infamous Gandhi quote? "...Then they fight you, and then you win?"

First they ignore you= Ron Paul, 2007-2008
Then they laugh at you= Ron Paul, 2012
Then they fight you= Rand Paul, 2014-2015
And then you win= Rand Paul, November 8th, 2016

The hubris of the Establishment will be their downfall. By the time the Establishment takes a threat to their power seriously, it's usually too late.

Good analysis. I want a win on top of a win. Rand winning the presidency and a Rand-like candidate in his senate seat. Call me greedy for liberty. :D

Bastiat's The Law
10-31-2014, 01:44 PM
That's probably how it will play out. He will drop his presidential campaign a lot earlier than some of the others if the numbers don't look like a sure thing.

When's the cutoff point? The last day to register for KY Senate?

RandallFan
10-31-2014, 11:58 PM
When was the last time 2 people who hate eachother like Bevin and McConnell actually became Senators from the same state and from the same party?

I don't think Cruz and Cornyn hate eachother. Maybe Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee hate eachother now that Hatch has delusions that he can primary Mike Lee from the left and be successful.

CPUd
11-01-2014, 01:07 AM
When's the cutoff point? The last day to register for KY Senate?

He would have to file to run in the Senate primary if he wants to keep the option open. The deadline is in January 2016, and the KY primary will be probably in May. I think they'll probably make a decision after Super Tuesday about which campaign to drop.

cindy25
11-01-2014, 02:59 AM
He would have to file to run in the Senate primary if he wants to keep the option open. The deadline is in January 2016, and the KY primary will be probably in May. I think they'll probably make a decision after Super Tuesday about which campaign to drop.

the problem with this is if he drops out no one could take his place in the primary. better for Rand to be all in for president, and let Massie take the senate seat.

it is Rand's only chance at the presidency; 2016 will be GOP, 2020 will be re-election; 2024 will be Dem; next new Rep would be 2032.

it is important to elect a Rep gov in KY next year.

TheTyke
11-01-2014, 03:04 AM
it is important to elect a Rep gov in KY next year.

One that isn't McConnell's henchman, that is... or it won't be any liberty people getting appointed.

CPUd
11-01-2014, 03:18 AM
the problem with this is if he drops out no one could take his place in the primary. better for Rand to be all in for president, and let Massie take the senate seat.

it is Rand's only chance at the presidency; 2016 will be GOP, 2020 will be re-election; 2024 will be Dem; next new Rep would be 2032.

it is important to elect a Rep gov in KY next year.

They would have 1 or 2 possible replacements filing to run in the primary.

TaftFan
11-01-2014, 11:34 AM
When was the last time 2 people who hate eachother like Bevin and McConnell actually became Senators from the same state and from the same party?

I don't think Cruz and Cornyn hate eachother. Maybe Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee hate eachother now that Hatch has delusions that he can primary Mike Lee from the left and be successful.
Lee and Hatch don't get along at all, from what I can tell. Lee refused to back him in his primary.

anaconda
11-02-2014, 01:48 AM
let Massie take the senate seat.


Can Rand engineer some serious financial support for Massie for Senate through his presidential donors or Randpac? And, if Massie loses then we lose him as a House member, right? Will Republican voters in KY clearly see Massie as essentially a perfect Rand substitute? I see Democrats and the DNC frothing at the mouth to win that Senate seat. PPP August 2014 shows Massie trailing Beshear 30% to 45% for the 2016 Senate seat. Not bad for now, actually, I would think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2016

cindy25
11-02-2014, 05:54 AM
what about Massie for gov. no risk of the house seat.

RonPaulMall
11-02-2014, 03:19 PM
Kentucky is not a competitive state at the Presidential level. So if it comes to it, why does Rand have to have his name on the ballot in Kentucky for President? His wife, Bunning, or any other GOP stand in can run for President there.

TaftFan
11-02-2014, 04:09 PM
what about Massie for gov. no risk of the house seat.

James Comer (current Ag Commish and former state legislator) (close ally of Paul and Massie) is already running

anaconda
11-02-2014, 08:12 PM
His wife, Bunning, or any other GOP stand in can run for President there.

Heartily agree. This seems like a no-brainer. I don't understand why so few speak of it. It's like The Twilight Zone that no one in the media talks about this option, nor very few here on the RPF.

r3volution 3.0
11-02-2014, 08:55 PM
Kentucky is not a competitive state at the Presidential level. So if it comes to it, why does Rand have to have his name on the ballot in Kentucky for President? His wife, Bunning, or any other GOP stand in can run for President there.

Exactly

This really isn't anything to worry about.