Rand Has a Better Shot at POTUS than Ron Ever Did

[presence]

Yea?

Nay?

[Brett85]

Why post this poll? It's like asking whether the sky is blue.

[Christian Liberty]

I voted no just to troll TC. BTW: The sky is currently black;)

[r3volution 3.0]

Does the Pope wear a funny hat?

[fr33]

Of course he does. I'm skeptical about whether he could beat the powers that be who will be out in full force but he's already viewed as "more sensible" than his old man by the average Republican voter.

[Occam's Banana]

I voted "abstain" - because it amuses me to abstain from voting in a poll by ... well, voting "abstain" in a poll ...

[anaconda]

I voted no just to troll TC. BTW: The sky is currently black;)

Why was Robert Paul not included in the poll?

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/195741_148303935230977_6488319_n.jpg

[fr33]

Why was Robert Paul not included in the poll?

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/195741_148303935230977_6488319_n.jpg

Or Judge Nap?

[cindy25]

if Ron had not run in 2008 Rand would not be in the senate

[Peace&Freedom]

The answer is no. As things now stand, Rand has laid the campaign groundwork better, and may pick up a few actual primary victories, but is not in a better position to win the GOP nomination than Ron was. As I asked a few days ago:


What is the pathway for Rand winning the Republican primaries, following the GOP-only template of '08 and '12? At least in '12, we could say "Ron to win Iowa, to prove he can win, and to get a wave of momentum to place first or a very close second in NH. Then he sweeps through most of the caucuses, and as the other contenders beside Romney drop out, win a one-on-one primary race against Mitt during the spring."

It didn't work out that way, but at least the sequence was plausible. As it now stands for '16, I see Rand being blocked in Iowa by Santorum and Huckabee, then blocked in NH by Bush and perhaps Romney, then unable to fight the money/media battle in SC and FL, etc., after which the frontloaded primaries will steamroll establishment candidate x to a nomination victory. So this highly likely pathway to defeat for Rand running only as a Republican, is why I have suggested the fusion alternative.

Can anybody answer this, and provide a succinct plausible scenario as to how Rand overcomes the above obstacles, to be on track to winning the GOP nomination, running only as a Republican?

[Vanguard101]

Ron never had a chance. Rand does. Duh

[alucard13mm]

It was a lot easier to marginalize a Congressman. Not so easy to marginalize a Senator.

[anaconda]

Or Judge Nap?

Point well taken. Judge Nap has a better chance than his dad ever did. Mike Huckabee also has a better chance than his dad, as his Dad was a fireman and a mechanic and opted to not seek the presidency for even one term.

[robertwerden]

In a perfect world the voters would decide who will win, but the system being pay to play as it is requires Rand to do exactly what he is doing. Ron never played the games, and that is what cost him the crucial endorsements and favorable media coverage. Being president requires a person to play the same games on a world stage, and because Ron never did the dance he was never invited to the ball.
Rand will have a much better chance than Ron.

[William Tell]

The answer is no. As things now stand, Rand has laid the campaign groundwork better, and may pick up a few actual primary victories, but is not in a better position to win the GOP nomination than Ron was. As I asked a few days ago:

What is the pathway for Rand winning the Republican primaries, following the GOP-only template of '08 and '12? At least in '12, we could say "Ron to win Iowa, to prove he can win, and to get a wave of momentum to place first or a very close second in NH. Then he sweeps through most of the caucuses, and as the other contenders beside Romney drop out, win a one-on-one primary race against Mitt during the spring."

It didn't work out that way, but at least the sequence was plausible. As it now stands for '16, I see Rand being blocked in Iowa by Santorum and Huckabee, then blocked in NH by Bush and perhaps Romney, then unable to fight the money/media battle in SC and FL, etc., after which the frontloaded primaries will steamroll establishment candidate x to a nomination victory. So this highly likely pathway to defeat for Rand running only as a Republican, is why I have suggested the fusion alternative.

Can anybody answer this, and provide a succinct plausible scenario as to how Rand overcomes the above obstacles, to be on track to winning the GOP nomination, running only as a Republican?
You raise a very important question.

[KingNothing]

if Ron had not run in 2008 Rand would not be in the senate

And if the laws of physics had developed differently immediately after the Big Bang, we would not be communicating over the internet.

What's your point?

[Bergie Bergeron]

The answer is no. As things now stand, Rand has laid the campaign groundwork better, and may pick up a few actual primary victories, but is not in a better position to win the GOP nomination than Ron was. As I asked a few days ago:



Can anybody answer this, and provide a succinct plausible scenario as to how Rand overcomes the above obstacles, to be on track to winning the GOP nomination, running only as a Republican?
I'd be interested in that answer as well. You should make a different topic.

[Peace&Freedom]

I'd be interested in that answer as well. You should make a different topic.

I could, but since I have not seen an answer to it when raised on two occasions, it would unlikely be answered on a third. Asking the 85%+ polling here in the affirmative to explain exactly HOW Rand is in any better position to win than Ron, seems to me to be relevant for this thread. The same obstacles that existed last time, exist this time--so how will they be addressed? It's much more appropriate to deal with this matter now, than 17-18 months from now, when we're all pounding sand, emotionally spent over why things didn't go our way, yet again.

[presence]

I could, but since I have not seen an answer to it when raised on two occasions, it would unlikely be answered on a third. Asking the 85%+ polling here in the affirmative to explain exactly HOW Rand is in any better position to win than Ron, seems to me to be relevant for this thread. The same obstacles that existed last time, exist this time--so how will they be addressed? It's much more appropriate to deal with this matter now, than 17-18 months from now, when we're all pounding sand, emotionally spent over why things didn't go our way, yet again.



For one... Rand is much better composed with and accepted by the media; Ron in 08 and 12 was largely heckled. Did you see Rands Nov 2 CBS ABC CNN performances? Second Rand is much more of a libertarian moderate than Dr No. Most Americans do not fully embrace the liberty revolution. So we have inroads which were never available before... and we have time.

[presence]

Why post this poll? It's like asking whether the sky is blue.

sis boom bah

:D

[specsaregood]

Can anybody answer this, and provie a succinct plausible scenario as to how Rand overcomes the above obstacles, to be on track to winning the GOP nomination, running only as a Republican?

I'd suggest than Randal is following a much closer model to Romney's campaign than his fathers. He is staking out the 90% middle positions, picking and choosing issues to make a name for himself on and positions which are "moderate" to most americans. he also keeps painting the impression in interviews that it is those positions that will help the GOP beat the Dems.

Also one underreported thing that Romney did was he donated money to influential politicians, local GOPs, gop leaders in nearly every state and certainly in the early states. Those are how he got so many endorsements so early and quickly. Randal is doing something similar, whereas he doesn't have the cash to donate to those same people he is buying their support by going and doing speaking engagements, fundraisers and campaigning all over the US.

Randal has been working relentlessly both in the political sphere and media to make his image as the "new face of the GOP". It's in every single interview and speech. his father was not that, if anything his father was the "old face of the GOP".

There is really no comparison to the amount of advance work Ron did vs. Randal. *admittedly the son had his fathers legacy, platform and base to build upon and expand.

[Peace&Freedom]

I'd suggest than Randal is following a much closer model to Romney's campaign than his fathers. He is staking out the 90% middle positions, picking and choosing issues to make a name for himself on and positions which are "moderate" to most americans. he also keeps painting the impression in interviews that it is those positions that will help the GOP beat the Dems.

Also one underreported thing that Romney did was he donated money to influential politicians, local GOPs, gop leaders in nearly every state and certainly in the early states. Those are how he got so many endorsements so early and quickly. Randal is doing something similar, whereas he doesn't have the cash to donate to those same people he is buying their support by going and doing speaking engagements, fundraisers and campaigning all over the US.

Randal has been working relentlessly both in the political sphere and media to make his image as the "new face of the GOP". It's in every single interview and speech. his father was not that, if anything his father was the "old face of the GOP".

There is really no comparison to the amount of advance work Ron did vs. Randal. *admittedly the son had his fathers legacy, platform and base to build upon and expand.

All of the above falls under generally laying a good foundation. Jeb will also lay a good foundation, as will Christie. My QUESTION settled on explaining a plausible pathway for Rand winning the nomination, and addressing the obstacles, especially given the track record of the last two cycles. "As it now stands for '16, I see Rand being blocked in Iowa by Santorum and Huckabee, then blocked in NH by Bush and perhaps Romney, then unable to fight the money/media battle in SC and FL, etc., after which the frontloaded primaries will steamroll establishment candidate X to a nomination victory." That is a specific, plausible scenario about what will actually happen, instead of generalities.

What is the counter to the social right vote being split up in Iowa by the other candidates, with that vote-splitting thereby running resistance for the establishment frontrunner? How does Rand deal with said establishment's full court press to present Bush et al as electable coming out of NH, compared to Rand not being electable? Where is the money coming from to contest SC and FL? Where will the victories come from for Rand to offset the juggernaut momentum of the frontrunner coming out of the frontloaded contests of January through February? Walk us through a month by month primary counter-scenario that favors Rand.

[William Tell]

I keep saying Rand needs social conservatives.

[specsaregood]

All of the above falls under generally laying a good foundation.
Right and I'm saying its all about foundation. Santorum basically lived in IA for the year up until the caucus. Romney spent the 4 years after McCain, buying support from GOP leaders.


Walk us through a month by month primary counter-scenario that favors Rand.
That's out of my realm of expertise; but I see everything Randal has been doing and see that he does have a plan, rather than just going out there and throwing haymakers like his dad. I would assume such a scenario/strategy is the purpose of Randals' upcoming generals meeting right after this election.

[r3volution 3.0]

Walk us through a month by month primary counter-scenario that favors Rand.

Here's the (tentative) schedule through the end of February...

Jan 18 - IA

Jan 26 - NH

Feb 2 - CO, MN, MO, UT

Feb 6 - NV

Feb 13 - SC

Feb 16 - NC

Feb 23 - AZ, MI

The underlined states are one's where I think Rand has an excellent shot - based on recent polling as well as Ron's performance in 2012.

Let's run with that for a moment and suppose Rand wins those four states: IA, NH, MN, and NV.

Who wins the other states?

MO, CO, and SC will likely go to The Santorum. Not sure how UT goes sans Mormon (been 14 years since the last Mormon-free GOP primary). That means The Romney could very well be shut out of the first 8 states. The Romney's first good chance at winning is NC, followed by AZ and MI - but since The Romney's platform is always 95% electability, and he just lost 8 straight contests, maybe not. This is Rand's chance. Make it a two man race with The Santorum, so that The Romney's fair-weather fans get disillusioned and go to their second choice: which will be Rand, both because of his more moderate social stance and because he'll be perceived as more electable.

If that happened, The Santorum would sweep the deep South, and Rand would pretty well mop up everything else.

--> pop the champagne


What is the counter to the social right vote being split up in Iowa by the other candidates, with that vote-splitting thereby running resistance for the establishment frontrunner?

Who needs a counter, we want the socon vote split, because it's not going to Rand.


How does Rand deal with said establishment's full court press to present Bush et al as electable coming out of NH, compared to Rand not being electable?

He wins NH


Where is the money coming from to contest SC and FL?

SC is likely unwinnable.

FL is not going to the fourth contest this time, it will come much later. The fourth contest will be NV.


Where will the victories come from for Rand to offset the juggernaut momentum of the frontrunner coming out of the frontloaded contests of January through February?

See above

[helmuth_hubener]

And if the laws of physics had developed differently immediately after the Big Bang, we would not be communicating over the internet.
Not necessarily. They could have developed somewhat differently but in a way still consistent with the eventual development of an internet.

[CaptUSA]

Can anybody answer this, and provide a succinct plausible scenario as to how Rand overcomes the above obstacles, to be on track to winning the GOP nomination, running only as a Republican?

The problem with Ron Paul was that he was nobody's second choice. He was unacceptable. He was never even considered an option by too large a swath of the GOP.

Rand does not have that problem. As we know, the tides ebb and flow during the primary. The trick is to make sure Rand stays near the top. Not the top, but near it.

If people think, "I'd like Cruz or Paul" or "Either Huckabee or Paul"... That's what you want. Always be the acceptable second choice. This is why Rand stands a much better chance. When candidates start dropping out, their support will go somewhere. If Rand has a stronger showing than their preferred candidate, they may even jump ship ahead of time. If he racks up top 3 finishes in the first few states, he stands a good chance of coalescing support behind him. If people see him as the most likely to defeat Hillary (And to this point, no one else has gone after her like he has), then that will boost his numbers even more.

Rand has a very plausible chance. We just need to make sure the other supporters of other candidates aren't turned off by our over-zealous push. "No One But Paul" is a great rallying cry for us, but it drives a wedge from other bases of support.

[Peace&Freedom]

Here's the (tentative) schedule through the end of February...

Jan 18 - IA

Jan 26 - NH

Feb 2 - CO, MN, MO, UT

Feb 6 - NV

Feb 13 - SC

Feb 16 - NC

Feb 23 - AZ, MI


This is more like what I'm talking about. I would add the caveats to your comments that 1) Paul needs a plan B if he doesn't win IA and NH, as we were all excited about Ron leading in Iowa two weeks before the caucus, until he lost (or was rigged out of victory). 2) We don't know if Rand will be the frontrunner, we need to face the issue of what the realistic path to victory is if Bush/Christie/Romney is the victor of the key early primaries.

We also don't know if the "parachuting billionaires" will make their return in 2016, jumping in to supply torrents of money to keep the husks of Santorum or other opponents afloat in the primaries, to prevent the race from being a clean one-on-one between Paul vs his main establishment opponent. These lingering XYZ, 'on life support' candidates may in turn give the MSM the excuse to marginalize Rand by covering it as a XYZ vs establishment guy race, instead of Paul vs establishment guy, as in '12. Based on past experience, let's expect such obstacles to re-surface in '16, and assess if there is a realistic way to overcome them.

[William Tell]

We need to use Rand 16 as a rallying ground/launching pad for local candidates and grassroots endeavors. Try for victory, but make sure even defeat is a great success. Rand 2020 is likely as well.

[Peace&Freedom]

The problem with Ron Paul was that he was nobody's second choice. He was unacceptable. He was never even considered an option by too large a swath of the GOP.

Rand does not have that problem. As we know, the tides ebb and flow during the primary. The trick is to make sure Rand stays near the top. Not the top, but near it.


Rand has made himself more acceptable to the rank and file GOP, but the main obstacles are the elite interests who run or dominate the GOP (Big banks, Big biz, Big military contractors, AIPAC, etc) to whom Rand remains unacceptable, and not their second choice. They are the ones who direct the party leadership and MSM to push the 'electability' of the establishment guys onto the rank and file.

Their choice is ONLY a pro-war, pro-bailout, pro-Likud establishment surrogate. The parachuting billionaires who swooped in and poured millions of dollars on keeping Santorum and Newt alive in the primaries, just to keep Paul from winning anything or ever getting momentum, represent those interests. Rand's plan has to be good enough to overcome that problem, upstream from the voters, not just winning their hearts and minds downstream.

[fatjohn]

Nay.
Ron had a better shot in 2012 5 days before the Iowa caucus. He was polling first in Iowa, second in NH and 12% or so nationally. He could have won NH with the Iowa win boost. Then the letters came...

Back then if you would ask people here what a shot Ron had then, we'd say 10-20%, that's about the same I'd give to Rand.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Nay.
Ron had a better shot in 2012 5 days before the Iowa caucus. He was polling first in Iowa, second in NH and 12% or so nationally. He could have won NH with the Iowa win boost. Then the letters came...

Back then if you would ask people here what a shot Ron had then, we'd say 10-20%, that's about the same I'd give to Rand.

Rand has the establishment now though. It's like the assault on the castle walls failed, but Rand got inside in his Trojan horse and is opening the gates for us.

[enhanced_deficit]

I will only vote in this poll if RP approves it.

[satchelmcqueen]

rand has a better shot not because of substance, but rather his ability to speak to the dumb masses in a soothing way without lying. this will help him over anyone in his way.