Questions for those around in 08 and 12

[tsetsefly]

So I come on here every 2 years but mostly during the primaries, been around since 07 and want to get a perspective on how things are going right now. I have a few questions I was hoping some of you could answer:

1. Does it seem like most Ron supporters will support Rand this time around?

2. I remember how caucuses and primaries come down to local politics. So how are we doing in that regard? I remember last elections (2012) we made some gains in Iowa, Nevada and some other states. Is that still the case?

3. Comparing to Ron in 2012 what do you think Rand's chances are in the early primaries this year?

My very uninformed .02 :
-If we came damn close to winning Iowa, Rand certainly has a good chance this year to take it (or at least that's my impression)
- not sure what polling in NH shows, but you would think he has good chance there as well
- Rand is much more liked by SoCons and mainstream republicans than his father was and if we were able to put up a good fight with the media, establishment and mainstream republicans against us in 12 I think we certainly have a good shot this election, or at least I hope.

Thoughts?

[Anti Federalist]

1 - Depends. If we get shit on and told to hit the road and lied to, like what happened in 2012, probably not. If we are embraced as a valuable asset and listened to and not looked at like a bunch of kooks, then yes.

2 - Rand will probably be able to do well in IA and NH (especially with Mutt gone). Unless he gathers a ton of momentum, (meaning he wins both handily) he will die in the Warvangelical South.

3 - Better, at least so far. His "Big Tent" appeasement stances seemed to have helped slightly with the "mainstream" GOP crowd.

[Keith and stuff]

1. Does it seem like most Ron supporters will support Rand this time around?
Among the people I know in NH, I cannot use the word most. 1 or 2 people were just hired in NH to help with that issue.


3. Comparing to Ron in 2012 what do you think Rand's chances are in the early primaries this year?
Ron never had a chance in NH in 2012 because of all the work Mitt Romney had done in NH for so many years. Now that Romney isn't running Rand actually had a chance at winning. The field is open and 4 or 5 other candidates could also win.

[acptulsa]

I think this has been and is evolution, not the r3VOJution we envisioned. I think we are softening enough socon hearts that it's getting hard to define 'us' and 'them' in many county GOP organizations. I think it's encouraging that the powers that be seem more interested in causing us to lose faith, and in making people think that Rand's message won't actually appeal to independents and the tens of millions of betrayed Democrats in the general election (even though there's no question that it will).

I think it's now us against the mudslinging media. And unless they flat shut down the internet, we stand a very good chance of pulling this off.

[CaptUSA]

First, Welcome back! + rep

To answer you questions as I see them:
1. Most will, however probably not with the same fervency.
2. We've made some gains, but we quickly lost a lot of them. Seems that once Ron Paul dropped out of politics, the apathy returned in many regards. Our activism died out a little. Hopefully, it will pick back up with Rand. Of course, Rand should also be able to attract a decent amount of people who are already insiders.
3. Rand's chances are incredibly better. He actually has one. We all know the reasons, but Ron was not even acceptable to a large swath of GOP voters. Rand is. The trick is not to win over every voter 100%, but to keep him as an acceptable alternative.

[NoOneButPaul]

1 - Depends. If we get shit on and told to hit the road and lied to, like what happened in 2012, probably not. If we are embraced as a valuable asset and listened to and not looked at like a bunch of kooks, then yes.

2 - Rand will probably be able to do well in IA and NH (especially with Mutt gone). Unless he gathers a ton of momentum, (meaning he wins both handily) he will die in the Warvangelical South.

3 - Better, at least so far. His "Big Tent" appeasement stances seemed to have helped slightly with the "mainstream" GOP crowd.

I also agree with this assessment. I will only add that I think Rand's people will give two shits about Ron's supporters coming to help him. They are going to bank on large donors to drive them and will really dismiss all of us imo. I can personally say i'm not going to donate to his campaign until I see him prove otherwise (the fact Benton is back on board I think pretty much proves my point). If he doesn't do well in Iowa and NH he's going to find himself in a world of hurt until we get to Nevada.

[fisharmor]

1. Does it seem like most Ron supporters will support Rand this time around?
Not to the extent that Ron was supported. There will be few spontaneous groups.
The message for the last three years seems to have been "Rand is going to win by hoodwinking the Republican establishment into following him".
Some Ron supporters think this is a good idea.
Some others are wondering how bait-and-switch is a good political philosophy.
Others realize that time, talent, and money need not be given to Rand, since the point is to get the Republican rank-and-file behind him. So message received: we're not needed.


2. I remember how caucuses and primaries come down to local politics. So how are we doing in that regard? I remember last elections (2012) we made some gains in Iowa, Nevada and some other states. Is that still the case?
Again, all I've heard is that this is a media game at this point and we're just going to ignore the fact that they broke people's hips and shut down entire state conventions to keep his father out of power, and just hope it doesn't happen to Rand, too.


3. Comparing to Ron in 2012 what do you think Rand's chances are in the early primaries this year?
I think anything other than a 1st place finish in every one the first 10 primaries/caucuses is going to get written off.
The mainstream media will crown their champion - perhaps a new one every month, like in 2012, but a champion will be crowned nonetheless.
And it will not be Rand.
So anything less than a 1st place finish in 10 consecutive primaries - or something equally unignoreable (and equally ridiculously impossible) stands a good chance of being swept under the carpet.

[tsetsefly]

Thanks for your answers. There certainly doesn't seem to be much optimism here, I do think Rand will needs his father's supporters if he wants to win.

[Jeremy]

So I come on here every 2 years but mostly during the primaries, been around since 07 and want to get a perspective on how things are going right now. I have a few questions I was hoping some of you could answer:

1. Does it seem like most Ron supporters will support Rand this time around?

2. I remember how caucuses and primaries come down to local politics. So how are we doing in that regard? I remember last elections (2012) we made some gains in Iowa, Nevada and some other states. Is that still the case?

3. Comparing to Ron in 2012 what do you think Rand's chances are in the early primaries this year?

My very uninformed .02 :
-If we came damn close to winning Iowa, Rand certainly has a good chance this year to take it (or at least that's my impression)
- not sure what polling in NH shows, but you would think he has good chance there as well
- Rand is much more liked by SoCons and mainstream republicans than his father was and if we were able to put up a good fight with the media, establishment and mainstream republicans against us in 12 I think we certainly have a good shot this election, or at least I hope.

Thoughts?

1. Yes, but many are busy with other things at the moment. We need to reach out to them.

2. Can't answer this as I'm not in an important or very active state. It might be a little too early to tell.

3. Based on early polling and organization, Rand seems to be in a better position than Ron was.

[Jeremy]

There certainly doesn't seem to be much optimism here

Not sure if we are reading the same posts?

[Uriah]

1. Mostly yes. The Ron supporters I know personally support Rand but not with the same intensity. I hear of some people that will not support Rand but they are few and I wonder if they're blowing off steam and will come around.

2. I can only speak to Iowa. In my county we infuriated most of the establishment in 2008 and 2012. Things have calmed down now and bridges have been mended. The party regulars know our names and faces and generally like and respect us. Much will be determined by the campaigns of the presidential candidates. Messaging is key. If Rand screws that up then it will be hard for us to bring people to his side. I have not heard any outspoken dislike for Rand. I have heard much support for Carson and Cruz. Now with Walker in the mix things could be tough for Rand to gain a plurality. We've made tons of gains in Iowa but have lost many of those gains. Most of those losses were with the make-up of state party leadership. On a local level most of our success is still intact as far as I can tell.

3. I don't see Rand doing worse, relatively, than his father in Iowa. I think that is his 'floor' of support barring some sort of catastrophe.

[CPUd]

So I come on here every 2 years but mostly during the primaries, been around since 07 and want to get a perspective on how things are going right now. I have a few questions I was hoping some of you could answer:

1. Does it seem like most Ron supporters will support Rand this time around?

2. I remember how caucuses and primaries come down to local politics. So how are we doing in that regard? I remember last elections (2012) we made some gains in Iowa, Nevada and some other states. Is that still the case?

3. Comparing to Ron in 2012 what do you think Rand's chances are in the early primaries this year?

My very uninformed .02 :
-If we came damn close to winning Iowa, Rand certainly has a good chance this year to take it (or at least that's my impression)
- not sure what polling in NH shows, but you would think he has good chance there as well
- Rand is much more liked by SoCons and mainstream republicans than his father was and if we were able to put up a good fight with the media, establishment and mainstream republicans against us in 12 I think we certainly have a good shot this election, or at least I hope.

Thoughts?

1. Not everyone will immediately be on board. There are 2, maybe 4 people who won't support Rand if he goes on a run.

2. Most of the 2012 Paul supporters elected to the state GOPs and some of the locals have since been removed, but there are some exceptions. Some of these people (like AJ Spiker) have been hired for what will become Rand 2016.

3. If Huck or Walker is in, Rand will have a tough time doing anything better than 2nd in Iowa. I think he could beat Jeb in Iowa, and Jeb, Walker in NH.

[fr33]

There certainly doesn't seem to be much optimism here, I do think Rand will needs his father's supporters if he wants to win.

I don't necessarily want you to answer this question. I just want you to consider it...

What did all that optimism from the past 2 presidential elections really accomplish?

In my opinion optimism can be a positive factor as long as it doesn't become delusion. It's one thing to say "we're gonna win!" at the beginning. It's another thing to continue saying that when it's already a lost cause, and the campaign quits, and Ron's son endorses the obvious nominee, which is what many of us did.

[tsetsefly]

Not sure if we are reading the same posts?

In this thread I mean.

[Sola_Fide]

1. Does it seem like most Ron supporters will support Rand this time around?

Probably.


2. I remember how caucuses and primaries come down to local politics. So how are we doing in that regard? I remember last elections (2012) we made some gains in Iowa, Nevada and some other states. Is that still the case?

Not too good.


3. Comparing to Ron in 2012 what do you think Rand's chances are in the early primaries this year?

Very good.



My very uninformed .02 :
-If we came damn close to winning Iowa, Rand certainly has a good chance this year to take it (or at least that's my impression)
- not sure what polling in NH shows, but you would think he has good chance there as well
- Rand is much more liked by SoCons and mainstream republicans than his father was and if we were able to put up a good fight with the media, establishment and mainstream republicans against us in 12 I think we certainly have a good shot this election, or at least I hope.

Thoughts?

I agree.

[tsetsefly]

I don't necessarily want you to answer this question. I just want you to consider it...

What did all that optimism from the past 2 presidential elections really accomplish?

In my opinion optimism can be a positive factor as long as it doesn't become delusion. It's one thing to say "we're gonna win!" at the beginning. It's another thing to continue saying that when it's already a lost cause, and the campaign quits, and Ron's son endorses the obvious nominee, which is what many of us did.

Nothing, but the uphill battle Ron had was much more than Rand has, and he came 7-8 points away from winning Iowa. I thought that was a big accomplishment as well as gains made in local GOP positions (which might have been lost already).

What I am hoping for is the same people that were on these boards in 12 for Ron will be here for Rand in 16.

[fisharmor]

In my opinion optimism can be a positive factor as long as it doesn't become delusion. It's one thing to say "we're gonna win!" at the beginning. It's another thing to continue saying that when it's already a lost cause, and the campaign quits, and Ron's son endorses the obvious nominee, which is what many of us did.

I think the "optimism" behind Ron was the idea that we didn't have to play by the established rules.
We could, instead, play by the written rules - the ones that were were actually supposed to be using, not the ones that the powers-that-be were enforcing - and actually have a chance of getting somewhere.
The idea that we could learn the system and game it, and not feel bad about it, because the people who wrote those rules intended the system to be gamed this way.

The idea that we could organize on the internet in ways never seen before, could choose not to do fundraising the normal way and still succeed.

Things were moving. Progress was being made. We all knew our original guy wasn't going to win. But it wasn't about that - it was always about redefining everything. And redefining the way people get elected was an important part of that.

Then our new messiah stood in front of a camera and announced that all of that would be done away with. All of our new rules were going to be immediately retired, and we'd start sticking with the old rules from now on - starting with an endorsement.

There's a lot of good in Rand. He will make a fine candidate. I do hope he lights a fire under some asses, but mine is cold out and wrapped in asbestos.

As I've said before - Rand is a damned fine bacon cheeseburger. And there's ordinarily nothing wrong with bacon cheeseburgers.
Unfortunately, his father is 45 day dry aged pan fried prime rib. I ate quite a lot of it, and I'm never going to be in the mood for bacon cheeseburgers again.

[HVACTech]

The idea that we could learn the system and game it, and not feel bad about it, because the people who wrote those rules intended the system to be gamed this way.

on this, we can agree.

what we cannot agree on... is quitting.

[rp08orbust]

Warvangelical South

And don't forget the (maybe bigger?) Warman Catholic South, where Gingerich and Santorum did well.

[Smitty]

Rand and his followers will be allowed to participate long enough for them to get used to being a part of the system. Then Rand will be cut loose and his followers will be encouraged to throw their support to whatever pro war/Israel firster seem to have the best chance at the nomination.

Rand will be asked to endorse whoever that is.

My guess is that it will be Cruz,...but it's too early to say.

[EBounding]

If Rand doesn't win Iowa and/or New Hampshire I hope he concedes and doesn't drag it out like the 2012 campaign. The one thing I regret about 2012 is donating after New Hampshire. Ron was on the cusp of winning Iowa but then he let Santorum run away with it. We can blame the media, but the fact is Santorum ran an aggressive retail politics campaign. If I remember correctly, Ron pretty much left the state shortly before the caucus.

Fortunately, even with the stronger candidates this time, Rand has already been campaigning and has the strategy and resources necessary to win the straw poll & delegates. The base might not be as energized, but Rand will have a greater variety of supporters. If he actually does get the nomination, I think that's when you'll see all the "Ron Paul People" come back.

[economics102]

Personally, while I'm less excited about a President Rand than a President Ron, that is counterbalanced by my excitement that Rand has so much better of a chance of winning than Ron did. So in that regard, I'm excited.

I think a lot of the people who are not currently excited to fight for Rand in this election cycle, once things get moving and there's events and debates and caucuses and it's us against the rest of the GOP again, I think a lot of them will rediscover their inner politico.

[Sola_Fide]

If Rand doesn't win Iowa and/or New Hampshire I hope he concedes and doesn't drag it out like the 2012 campaign. The one thing I regret about 2012 is donating after New Hampshire. Ron was on the cusp of winning Iowa but then he let Santorum run away with it. We can blame the media, but the fact is Santorum ran an aggressive retail politics campaign. If I remember correctly, Ron pretty much left the state shortly before the caucus.

Fortunately, even with the stronger candidates this time, Rand has already been campaigning and has the strategy and resources necessary to win the straw poll & delegates. The base might not be as energized, but Rand will have a greater variety of supporters. If he actually does get the nomination, I think that's when you'll see all the "Ron Paul People" come back.

I think Rand wins both Iowa and NH. The reason Ron couldn't get over the hump in Iowa, even with the best ground game, was because he didn't have practically any religious conservatives or establishment conservatives. Rand has both of those.

[Sola_Fide]

Also, when you mix Rand's high ranking in the polls with his unconventional foreign policy views, he is going to be the one in the primaries that everyone is talking about and everyone is going after. It's going to be the Rand show in the primaries.

[HVACTech]

Also, when you mix Rand's high ranking in the polls with his unconventional foreign policy views, he is going to be the one in the primaries that everyone is talking about and everyone is going after. It's going to be the Rand show in the primaries.

yeah, that is what I thought also. back in 07.
by the time that I joined this site, we had our asses handed to us.

I joined both the DP and RPF's at about the same time.
to meet people for the Rally for the Republic and make plans..

we all knew that we had lost. we did it anyhow.

what were we fighting for Sola_fide?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VkqQj8Z_aVY

[Sola_Fide]

yeah, that is what I thought also. back in 07.
by the time that I joined this site, we had our asses handed to us.

I joined both the DP and RPF's at about the same time.
to meet people for the Rally for the Republic and make plans..

we all knew that we had lost. we did it anyhow.

what were we fighting for Sola_fide?

Hard to say. For everyone I'm sure it's different. I personally don't think that change will come from politics, but if Rand can slow the approach of leviathan to any degree, it would be good. I think there may be value in having Rand provide a reason that others may look into the ideas of freedom, and when they do that, they will see the sham this whole system really is. I just view Rand as a (distant) ally in a quest for freedom.

[HVACTech]

Hard to say. For everyone I'm sure it's different. I personally don't think that change will come from politics, but if Rand can slow the approach of leviathan to any degree, it would be good. I think there may be value in having Rand provide a reason that others may look into the ideas of freedom, and when they do that, they will see the sham this whole system really is. I just view Rand as a (distant) ally in a quest for freedom.

Liberty and Freedom are NOT the same thing.

Rand is NOT doing this to "Save his soul" and yes. that is the ONLY thing that is important to you.

I would have wrote more.. but I am being Jacked with by a
" debug script" thing.

[Sola_Fide]

Liberty and Freedom are NOT the same thing.

Rand is NOT doing this to "Save his soul" and yes. that is the ONLY thing that is important to you.

I agree that Rand isn't doing this to "save his soul". Most people lose their soul when they seek power. But to say that other things are not important to me is not correct. For a Biblical Christian, yes, salvation is the most important issue, but freedom is also important, because the Bible teaches property and individual sovereignty.

So while salvation is the most important thing to a Biblical Christian, it is not the only thing he cares about.

[Sola_Fide]

HVACTECH, here is a primer on the Biblical Christian view of freedom and capitalism:

John Robbins Lecture Series On Christian Free Market Economics
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?425186-John-Robbins-Lecture-Series-On-Christian-Free-Market-Economics

[HVACTech]

So while salvation is the most important thing to a Biblical Christian, it is not the only thing he cares about.

I will take you at your word.

can you tell which "Ken" I am? :p


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xW_PD3Kvr_0

[orenbus]

Ron was on the cusp of winning Iowa but then he let Santorum run away with it. We can blame the media, but the fact is Santorum ran an aggressive retail politics campaign. If I remember correctly, Ron pretty much left the state shortly before the caucus.


Although I agree more could have been done in Iowa 2012, have to somewhat disagree with the idea that Ron Paul let Santorum run away with it, because Santorum had an aggressive retail politics campaign that could not be matched.

The media did have a HUGE part to play into what happened in Iowa, if you watched what had unfolded the weeks before and the critical 72 hours prior to the caucus what was in the news was massively disturbing with its wall-to-wall overwhelmingly positive reports regarding Santorum. He and his support was hardly talked about before December 2011 (the months prior) and polling didn't show he was a strong competitor to win Iowa or even place well, I'm not a big conspiracy theory guy, but I could see why after that some would have serious thoughts about what happened only because the turn around was so extreme including literally hours leading up to caucus night that it was so sad one could only laugh. Santorum literally went from a 4.0% polling in Iowa based on RCP average to a 16.3% with a final of 24.6 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html) IN LESS THAN A MONTH!

Based on polling and voting data one has to surmise to some extent that the majority of potential voters being polled would have previously gone with Gingrich, Cain, and Bachman and decided to swing towards Santorum in the last month leading up to the caucus, the question is why? Santorum and his team may have been geniuses when it came to Iowa retail politics, but this type of turn around seems so beyond the pale to be believable. One might argue perhaps it was a mixture, the efforts locally to win over voters and groups combined with a media quick to pounce on stories to fill a news cycle that generated an unintended snowball effect with Santorum being the beneficiary, but then this again could only have been possible with the loud speaker of the media involved.

The truth is, and this is something no one especially here should doubt, the other candidates are not the only opposing force in a presidential race. Regardless of how good their retail politics are there is another entity at play that has much greater tools of influence than any candidate possibly could imagine and that is the media. Again I'm not a big conspiracy guy and I think bottom line the media's end goal is all about money and survival of their companies and industry above all, but never the less all it takes is a series of "mistakes" by the media or intentional drama reporting to drum up viewers and the next thing you know a bottom tier candidate ends up winning a caucus without actually gaining delegates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Iowa,_2012# Results) with a difference of three thousand votes. The Media has as much influence (if not more) in Iowa and New Hampshire as it does in any other state in the country and people have and will continue to rely on what the talking heads are saying to "help" them determine what to think and who to vote for in the weeks, days, and hours leading up to caucuses/primaries, I really don't see how this can be refuted.

From wiki:


The Washington Times reported in November 2011 that conservatives had gone on a "carousel" of supporting different candidates against Mitt Romney, from Michele Bachmann to Rick Perry to Herman Cain to Newt Gingrich. As such, Santorum would be next on the "carousel".

Gee I wonder what generated that "carousel", are we to believe that the voters were so indecisive that they intentionally bounced between one candidate to the next when asked, could it be that some outside force was influencing who they were considering to vote for at the time and in this case before it even happened predicted as such? The media really has our fellow citizens all screwed up, it really is sad, can anyone say WMD-smoking-gun-mushroom-cloud?

So what is the take away from this? Of course the candidate, his staff and volunteers should work as much as they can with the goal of beating the other candidates by as far as a vote margin as possible, but never underestimate the power of the media to help push you competitor even one you may consider a dark horse across the finish line in the most ridiculous way imaginable with less than a month leading up to the caucus/primary.

[orenbus]

I think Rand wins both Iowa and NH. The reason Ron couldn't get over the hump in Iowa, even with the best ground game, was because he didn't have practically any religious conservatives or establishment conservatives. Rand has both of those.

How do you know Rand has the backing of religious conservatives in Iowa, what are you basing this on?

[CPUd]

If Rand doesn't win Iowa and/or New Hampshire I hope he concedes and doesn't drag it out like the 2012 campaign. The one thing I regret about 2012 is donating after New Hampshire. Ron was on the cusp of winning Iowa but then he let Santorum run away with it. We can blame the media, but the fact is Santorum ran an aggressive retail politics campaign. If I remember correctly, Ron pretty much left the state shortly before the caucus.

Fortunately, even with the stronger candidates this time, Rand has already been campaigning and has the strategy and resources necessary to win the straw poll & delegates. The base might not be as energized, but Rand will have a greater variety of supporters. If he actually does get the nomination, I think that's when you'll see all the "Ron Paul People" come back.

I have a feeling he will run until Super Tuesday before dropping out if he is not ahead. It would probably be the right thing to do (so he can ensure he gets reelected to the Senate), but people are gonna be pissed off either way.

[Peace&Freedom]

If Bush/Walker is considered "electable" compared to Rand next January by the Republican rank and file, he has no chance, unless he destroys that narrative. Rand should run a fusion candidacy seeking the GOP, LP and CP in order to transfer the campaign from being about just the Republican nomination, to one of having a true alternative with a serious national organization on the ballot on Election day. This would give him the leverage during the GOP primaries, as it would no lomger make the establishment frontrunner a sure thing.

[acptulsa]

If Bush/Walker is considered "electable" compared to Rand next January by the Republican rank and file, he has no chance, unless he destroys that narrative. Rand should run a fusion candidacy seeking the GOP, LP and CP in order to transfer the campaign from being about just the Republican nomination, to one of having a true alternative with a serious national organization on the ballot on Election day.

But he won't destroy that narrative by attacking it directly, and calling out the mainstream mafia for trying to use that crap to 'disqualify' eligible candidates. But this needs to be done anyway.

Can't be his job. Must be our job.

[Todd]

Nothing, but the uphill battle Ron had was much more than Rand has, and he came 7-8 points away from winning Iowa. I thought that was a big accomplishment as well as gains made in local GOP positions (which might have been lost already).

What I am hoping for is the same people that were on these boards in 12 for Ron will be here for Rand in 16.


A lot of those people are gone. Some never came back after 08'. Some were banned.

It would be complete miracle to get the same makeup here that parused these forums brainstorming ideas back in the earlier days. I think a lot of the people that made up Ron's core supporters probably won't support Rand. I hope I'm wrong. I can't see the same number of voluntaryists coming out and actually considereing casting votes for Rand.

[Thor]

Being that every other POS lies his ass off to get elected, I am hoping that some of what Rand is doing is the same, only in reverse. And once/if he is elected, I hope he is more like his dad when he is in office.

If he does not get elected (or past the primary), we are screwed.
If he does get elected and is not hiding his dads beliefs only to reveal them later, we are screwed.
If he does get elected and then says "Surprise, I am more like my dad then I let on", then there is a chance... and that is the only hope I see.

A lot of IF's...

[Peace&Freedom]

But he won't destroy that narrative by attacking it directly, and calling out the mainstream mafia for trying to use that crap to 'disqualify' eligible candidates. But this needs to be done anyway.

Can't be his job. Must be our job.

If Rand is solely seeking the Republican nomination, no matter whose job it is, neither Rand nor we have the ability or positioning to stop the establishment narrative. THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF SIMPLY REASONING. A framework or expectation, once locked into the minds of primary voters, requires a change of circumstances to alter the mindset.

People who believe Bush can win as of early 2016 will ignore those who merely say this notion is false, as they ignored us in the cases of McCain and Romney. Only if the situation is changed (to knowing Paul will be on the ballot in November regardless, splitting the conservative vote) will change that frame work to "Bush can't win" in time to change their vote in the primaries.

Only the prospect of the pain of losing or actually losing, can realistically cause a change in political outcomes. Only when the tea party cost the GOP some elected incumbents did anything begin to change in recent election cycles, to cite another example.