What is the make-up of Rand Paul's base?

[Smitty]

I've seen him trying to gain an advantage with African Americans, I've seen him attempting to appeal to the Israeli lobby, I've seen him throw a few crumbs to the liberty movement, but I've yet to see him nail down an ideology that would garner him large scale favor with any of those groups.

So,...what is Rand Paul's base?

[Natural Citizen]

Meh. I think that the GOP is just turning him loose a bit in order to leech off of his popularity and perhaps to give mainstream cable news a utility to try to reel in some sort of credibility. They need him more than we need them. Rand likely knows his role in all of that. But, hey...If he runs and gets a nomination, I'd vote for him.

[CaptUSA]

Meh. I think that the GOP is just turning him loose a bit in order to leech off of his popularity and perhaps to give mainstream cable news a utility to try to reel in some sort of credibility. They need him more than we need them. Rand likely knows his role in all of that. But, hey...If he runs and gets a nomination, I'd vote for him.

Yep. I agree with this. It may happen that they give him a little too much rope and he wins the nomination, though. If that happens, the establishment will start blaming each other and each piece will try to gain an new angle. Let's hope that happens. Good things happen when the establishment is in disarray.

[philipped]

I'm Rand's base. A young different kind of Republican that wishes to make his party look like the rest of America.

[r3volution 3.0]

I've seen him trying to gain an advantage with African Americans, I've seen him attempting to appeal to the Israeli lobby, I've seen him throw a few crumbs to the liberty movement, but I've yet to see him nail down an ideology that would garner him large scale favor with any of those groups.

:rolleyes:


So,...what is Rand Paul's base?

The liberty movement

;)

[Krugminator2]

The liberty movement



This.

Kind of a bizarre original question.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Rand Paul is doing what he's doing with the Israel lobby and black voters in order to insulate himself from criticism that he's racist, anti-Israel or antisemitic. I've been saying this forever. The Israel-firsters are never going to vote for him in large numbers, neither will blacks. He's smart enough to know this, so that's not why he's doing it.

To the point, his base are generic conservatives, paleocons, small government neocons, libertarians, libertarian leaning Republicans, capitalists tea partiers and sensible ancaps. In other words, the liberty movement plus a couple other groups.

[Natural Citizen]

The liberty movement

;)

The problem with that is that there exists a stalking horse that functions from within it. So many times I see the phenomenon where entities who want nothing to do with liberty function from within the liberty movement in a way in which, really, what they are doing is promoting the freedom of the entity to practice tyranny against humanity. Is just a fact. And there are many, many, many examples of this here on the forum. Are they worth bumping? likely not. But we could.

[CaptUSA]

Rand Paul is doing what he's doing with the Israel lobby and black voters in order to insulate himself from criticism that he's racist, anti-Israel or antisemitic. I've been saying this forever. The Israel-firsters are never going to vote for him in large numbers, neither will blacks. He's smart enough to know this, so that's not why he's doing it.

To the point, his base are conservatives, libertarian Republicans, capitalists and tea partiers.Yeah, this is a good point, too. He doesn't need these people to vote for him, he just needs to make it not worth their time to vote against him. The playbook of the Democrats has been to paint the GOP as evil monsters in order to drive up their turn-out. It's their election model. It's a proven strategy and it works. Rand can undercut that.

[Natural Citizen]

I'm Rand's base. A young different kind of Republican that wishes to make his party look like the rest of America.

You're very enthusiastic. Is why I like your postings. You remind me of what was during Ron's last significant public work there during the 2012 cycle. You're an example of a renaissance that comes and goes. Changing the course of history is critical. And social energy is critical to that. Getting elected? Meh. Not sure. I think that model is a roadblock to the renaissance. One that may be put in place by design. And then you get the stalking horse in the corral once that happens. Need to put a lasso on that sominabitch one of these days.

[r3volution 3.0]

Changing the course of history is critical. And social energy is critical to that. Getting elected? Meh. Not sure.

How exactly would we change the course of history without winning elections?

Education? Yes, that's important, but if these newly educated people don't vote and the Lindsey Grahams of the world keep getting elected - what's changed? Civil disobedience? ....doesn't work in a democracy except as a means to changing voting behavior. Violent revolution? Good luck.

[Natural Citizen]

How exactly would we change the course of history without winning elections?

Education? Yes, that's important, but if these newly educated people don't vote and the Lindsey Grahams of the world keep getting elected..

..what's changed?

I'm not talking abut elections themselves. And I was just getting ready to edit that post to clarify my thought on that. What I'm talking about are enterests that operate counterintuitive to what actually generates enthusiasm with regard to becoming active toward one's principles. I would use those classes that Matt brings up once in a while as an example. The problem with that is that you get an enthusiastic kid who believes and agrees with everything that he just heard Ron Paul say but then when he goes up to Ron and asks what he could do to become a part of that in a productive way, Ron sends him to some dolt who tells the kid to forget about all of those principles and...oh, btw...here....I need you to help me get my right to work meme rolling. Foreign policy? Meh...we won't worry with that. And so the kid never gets to act upon anything that brought him to want to advance his principles. In fact, he does that which is quite the opposite. And, of course, Ron doesn't know what is going on. You know?

Of course, I agree with you in that we need to work to ensure that the Lindsey Grahams of the world do not keep getting elected. It's a tough road, man.

[CPUd]

Not women. At least not yet.

[francisco]

Smart people. Reasonable people. People with a fervent desire to be free.

[willwash]

The Collinz will tell you. As an added bonus, he will break down which of those constituents matter and which should just keep their mouths shut (but still give RandCo money).

[Vanguard101]

His base: Young millenials that despise government.

The majority: Constitutionalists.

[Natural Citizen]

His base: Young millenials that despise government.

The majority: Constitutionalists.

How do you define government, Vanguard101? I'm thinking that it is a body representative and made up of, by and for the people of the United States of America.

[TheTexan]

Not women. At least not yet.

Agreed.


Smart people. Reasonable people. People with a fervent desire to be free.

CPUd already covered that, see above.

[eleganz]

I/WE are his base

/end divisivethread

[TheGrinch]

I'd imagine those who support him will comprise his base. However its a strong bet that those who opppse him will not.

My prediction for the NCAA tournament, I think the team that scores the most points has a great chance to win.

[Vanguard101]

How do you define government, Vanguard101? I'm thinking that it is a body representative and made up of, by and for the people of the United States of America.

????

[Smitty]

The reason I asked the question is because Rand seems to spend a totally inordinate amount of time attempting to appeal to Boobus. Boobus will vote for who he's told to vote for,..and he won't be told to vote for Rand. (Bill O'Reilly and Rachel Maddow will see to that) As for the Liberty voters, this forum makes it very clear that even those who still choose to inhabit this forum are deeply divided about a Rand Paul candidacy.

Personally, I'm not a fan of Rand,..but I'm not a fan of anyone else who has expressed a desire to run for the Presidency.

I won't work against a Rand Paul nomination, but I honestly don't understand where he thinks he will come up with enough votes to make a serious run at the nomination.

Rand doesn't generate nearly as much enthusiasm as Ron did, and even that wasn't enough.

Rand isn't an idiot. He understands this.

So,...I guess my ultimate question is, "Is Rand truly serious about running for President?"

I don't think so. And if he's not, what are his motives?

[Vanguard101]

The reason I asked the question is because Rand seems to spend a totally inordinate amount of time attempting to appeal to Boobus. Boobus will vote for who he's told to vote for,..and he won't be told to vote for Rand. (Bill O'Reilly and Rachel Maddow will see to that) As for the Liberty voters, this forum makes it very clear that even those who still choose to inhabit this forum are deeply divided about a Rand Paul candidacy.

Personally, I'm not a fan of Rand,..but I'm not a fan of anyone else who has expressed a desire to run for the Presidency.

I won't work against a Rand Paul nomination, but I honestly don't understand where he thinks he will come up with enough votes to make a serious run at the nomination.

Rand doesn't generate nearly as much enthusiasm as Ron did, and even that wasn't enough.

Rand isn't an idiot. He understands this.

So,...I guess my ultimate question is, "Is Rand truly serious about running for President?"

I don't think so. And if he's not, what are his motives?
Hell no. Rand, by far, generates more enthusiasm.

[Smitty]

Just to illustrate a point,..at this moment there are 41 people in the Ron Paul forum and 18 in the Rand forum.

[philipped]

Just to illustrate a point,..at this moment there are 41 people in the Ron Paul forum and 18 in the Rand forum.

Rand is talked about WAY WAY WAY more in various circles then Ron ever was. This is factoid. This site should not be your determinant in seeing if Rand has support nationwide. People on this site don't like how far he goes to be "anti-war but willing to fight for the nation" and things of the sort. But what that has done is opened up Rand to be an option for people I didn't think I'd come across as being pro-Paul. As a lady in Republican club a couple miles Northeast from me. Yes, boobus is real but Rand's style of outreach can break to them.

[Smitty]

Yes, boobus is real but Rand's style of outreach can break to them.

Well,...that might be a possibility if it wasn't for the fact that the media is in control of what Boobus thinks,...and YKW controls the media.

[Crashland]

I'm not talking abut elections themselves. And I was just getting ready to edit that post to clarify my thought on that. What I'm talking about are enterests that operate counterintuitive to what actually generates enthusiasm with regard to becoming active toward one's principles. I would use those classes that Matt brings up once in a while as an example. The problem with that is that you get an enthusiastic kid who believes and agrees with everything that he just heard Ron Paul say but then when he goes up to Ron and asks what he could do to become a part of that in a productive way, Ron sends him to some dolt who tells the kid to forget about all of those principles and...oh, btw...here....I need you to help me get my right to work meme rolling. Foreign policy? Meh...we won't worry with that. And so the kid never gets to act upon anything that brought him to want to advance his principles. In fact, he does that which is quite the opposite. And, of course, Ron doesn't know what is going on. You know?

Of course, I agree with you in that we need to work to ensure that the Lindsey Grahams of the world do not keep getting elected. It's a tough road, man.

What do you mean by "never gets to act upon anything that brought him to want to advance his principles"? What acts did you have in mind?

[Krugminator2]

Just to illustrate a point,..at this moment there are 41 people in the Ron Paul forum and 18 in the Rand forum.

I have no idea what that even means.

Just to put things in perspective. If Rand ran against Ron in the Republican Primary, Rand would win by a minimum of 85 points. He actually has the capability of winning a head to head match up against an establishment candidate.

Enthusiasm isn't the goal. Winning and making the country more free is the goal. A lot of the enthusiasm for Ron comes purely because is an outsider. If he actually had a chance to win, those same people would drop him like a hot potato.

[Smitty]

Well,...good luck.

But it's a bit perplexing to me that so many people aren't able to process what transpired during the 2012 GOP primary.

It should be obvious to all who watched that the political process in national GOP political matters is highly corrupt,..and those who corrupt the process will not be swayed by Rand Paul.

[r3volution 3.0]

The reason I asked the question is because Rand seems to spend a totally inordinate amount of time attempting to appeal to Boobus. Boobus will vote for who he's told to vote for,..and he won't be told to vote for Rand. (Bill O'Reilly and Rachel Maddow will see to that)

Q. If the media is all powerful, how did Rand get elected to the Senate in the first place?

[Smitty]

State election, not federal.

The apparatus which controls what passes for the federal government these days doesn't really care who goes to Congress.

It owns Congress. For that matter, it owns the executive branch also,...but it prefers someone who is easy to work with in the executive branch. And it doesn't want the liberty movement to become any more troublesome than it already is. So,..anyone who even hints at being genuinely predisposed to liberty will be eliminated from contention during the primaries.

This is the USSA, folks.

[William Tell]

State election, not federal.

The apparatus which controls what passes for the federal government these days doesn't really care who goes to Congress.

It owns Congress. For that matter, it owns the executive branch also,...but it prefers someone who is easy to work with in the executive branch. And it doesn't want the liberty movement to become any more troublesome than it already is. So,..anyone who even hints at being genuinely predisposed to liberty will be eliminated from contention during the primaries.

This is the USSA, folks.

Give me a break, U.S Senate is a federal election.

[Smitty]

Well,..it's federal to the extent that it's a federal office,..but the senate is chosen by voters in the state they hail from.

Like I said. The apparatus which controls the federal government doesn't care who comes to its congress. Congress is owned by the powers that be,..as is the executive branch,..as is the judicial.

Like I said,...the USSA.

[Krugminator2]

Well,...good luck.

But it's a bit perplexing to me that so many people aren't able to process what transpired during the 2012 GOP primary.

It should be obvious to all who watched that the political process in national GOP political matters is highly corrupt,..and those who corrupt the process will not be swayed by Rand Paul.

The biggest reason Ron Paul didn't become the nominee wasn't the GOP. Ron Paul had no chance of winning from start. There is a reason no one attacked him in the debates even when he was doing well in states. There is a reason no one attacked him and the media didn't vet him until a couple weeks before Iowa. A septuagenarian, minor House Rep. that has views that are out of step with most of the party is not becoming President. If Romney or someone wanted to firebomb Ron Paul with ads of Alex Jones clips and doomsday predictions and newsletter quotes, they could have nuked him in a week if he became a threat.

Rand Paul is doing his best to preemptively address issues that he will be harshly attacked on if he becomes a serious threat. It isn't an accident that Rand Paul is addressing Israel so much and minorities.

[Smitty]

The biggest reason Ron Paul didn't become the nominee wasn't the GOP.

As I said, it's perplexing to me that so many people can't process what transpired during the 2012 GOP primary.

[torchbearer]

https://pp.vk.me/c12876/u53792243/video/l_7de208c9.jpg

[William Tell]

I heard this same defeatism when Rand was running for Senate: "They don't care who's in the U.S House, but they will never let a Paul be in the Senate" We heard a lot of that, but Rand won in a landslide. There's always people telling us we can't get up the next hill. So far they have been wrong. Will Rand win? I don't know. But he has more of a chance than any grassroots candidate in a long time.

To say they don't care who is elected to congress is absurd. Of course they do, that's why they try so hard to defeat good candidates. And to oust people like Justin Amash and Walter Jones.

[Krugminator2]

As I said, it's perplexing to me that so many people can't process what transpired during the 2012 GOP primary.

Good point. I forgot the role the Builderbergers and Rothchilds played in keeping him from exposing the New World Order.

[Smitty]

obviously

[osan]

Give me a break, U.S Senate is a federal election.

Civics "education" FAIL.

If it were a federal election, everyone in the nation would be voting on every senator in the land. It is a state election of their "representatives" in DC.

Jesus... are you serious?

No soup for you.

[Ronin Truth]

Revlon.

[Millennial Conservatarian]

Rand Paul is doing what he's doing with the Israel lobby and black voters in order to insulate himself from criticism that he's racist, anti-Israel or antisemitic. I've been saying this forever. The Israel-firsters are never going to vote for him in large numbers, neither will blacks. He's smart enough to know this, so that's not why he's doing it.

To the point, his base are generic conservatives, paleocons, small government neocons, libertarians, libertarian leaning Republicans, capitalists tea partiers and sensible ancaps. In other words, the liberty movement plus a couple other groups.
I absolutely can and do believe that the son of Ron Paul truly does, in his heart, believe in real criminal justice reform and is doing that for the right reasons.

I can't for even one second believe that the son of Ron Paul signed that ridiculous, grandstanding Tom Cotton Iran letter for any reason other than to shut the NeoCons up and because he felt he had to for political reasons.

[Ronin Truth]

Merle Norman?

[tangent4ronpaul]

Who is his base?
They may not realize it yet, but:

If you like the stuff to go away when you flush.
If you like lite bulbs that don't make your eyes go buggy and take a HAZMAT team to clean up if you drop one.
If you lost your doctor and just want health CARE you can afford and not health INSURANCE you can't.
If you lost your job or got cut back to half time because, well Obamacare.
If you are tired of seeing your relatives come back from the sandbox in body bags.
If you have a relative or friend wasting away their life in prison for a gram of crack or a pot seed.

So yeah, if any of the above and more resembles you, you are a Rand Paul supporter, but probably don't realize it yet.

-t

[whoisjohngalt]

I've seen him trying to gain an advantage with African Americans, I've seen him attempting to appeal to the Israeli lobby, I've seen him throw a few crumbs to the liberty movement, but I've yet to see him nail down an ideology that would garner him large scale favor with any of those groups.

So,...what is Rand Paul's base?

Concern trolling at it's finest.

You seem to think your opinion is more important than mathematical fact. I'm not sure if you were educated in basic statistics or if you've ever looked at any polls, but all of your claims aren't backed up by the numbers.

Sure, the depth of Ron's support might have been greater, meaning more fervent support, but the width of his support isn't even comparable. Rand's favorable/unfavorables are vastly superior to Ron's. Rand is a second choice for far more people than Ron ever was. Far fewer people say they could never vote for Rand than said the same for Ron.

You're just trying to foment trouble. Stop.

[Ronin Truth]

Last guess, Avon. :D

[Smitty]

You're just trying to foment trouble. Stop.

It was an honest question that Rand needs to ask himself.

As for causing him trouble,...I lack the influence to cause a small fraction of the trouble that Rand causes himself.

Good read:

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/03/10/rand-pauls-munich/

[Todd]

Concern trolling at it's finest.

You seem to think your opinion is more important than mathematical fact. I'm not sure if you were educated in basic statistics or if you've ever looked at any polls, but all of your claims aren't backed up by the numbers.

Sure, the depth of Ron's support might have been greater, meaning more fervent support, but the width of his support isn't even comparable. Rand's favorable/unfavorables are vastly superior to Ron's. Rand is a second choice for far more people than Ron ever was. Far fewer people say they could never vote for Rand than said the same for Ron.

You're just trying to foment trouble. Stop.

I have no idea how you got any of this from the OP's post. It's a legitimate question. One you obiviously can't answer.

At one time on these forums a long long time ago, this was the type discussions that needed to happen. Especially to hone the message.

[acptulsa]

Smart people. Reasonable people. People with a fervent desire to be free.


I'd imagine those who support him will comprise his base. However its a strong bet that those who opppse him will not.

My prediction for the NCAA tournament, I think the team that scores the most points has a great chance to win.


Who is his base?
They may not realize it yet, but:

If you like the stuff to go away when you flush.
If you like lite bulbs that don't make your eyes go buggy and take a HAZMAT team to clean up if you drop one.
If you lost your doctor and just want health CARE you can afford and not health INSURANCE you can't.
If you lost your job or got cut back to half time because, well Obamacare.
If you are tired of seeing your relatives come back from the sandbox in body bags.
If you have a relative or friend wasting away their life in prison for a gram of crack or a pot seed.

So yeah, if any of the above and more resembles you, you are a Rand Paul supporter, but probably don't realize it yet.

-t

Absolutely. These people are his base. The mainstream mafia is pretending he has no base because they are only interested in demographics, not individuals. Rand Paul's base are his base because they have no intention of sitting in a mainstream mafia pigeonhole.


Concern trolling at it's finest.

You seem to think your opinion is more important than mathematical fact. I'm not sure if you were educated in basic statistics or if you've ever looked at any polls, but all of your claims aren't backed up by the numbers.

Sure, the depth of Ron's support might have been greater, meaning more fervent support, but the width of his support isn't even comparable. Rand's favorable/unfavorables are vastly superior to Ron's. Rand is a second choice for far more people than Ron ever was. Far fewer people say they could never vote for Rand than said the same for Ron.

You're just trying to foment trouble. Stop.

This. There are dozens of facts not in evidence stated in the OP.

The Mainstream Mafia has not been around half a century. It's a baby. Hearst tried to do it, but failed. Luce built it, but didn't live long enough to see the independent voices strangled out. And then came the internet, which short-circuited the hell out of the new mainstream mafia.

The powers that be have trashed the economy, seemingly deliberately, and have kept printing FRNs until they are worth less than a nickel was in 1913. And people are starting to care, because the march of progress dictates that they should have better lives than their parents and they do not. There is a reason that when we and Ron Paul started talking about the Fed, hardly anyone knew and hardly anyone cared, but these things are no longer true.

Rand Paul does not know he can't win, and neither do I. History has thrown in some brand new variables, and the game is wide open until history determines that it is not. And I, for one, am determined to use those variables to help make history judge that the game has a whole new set of rules.

[SilentBull]

I heard this same defeatism when Rand was running for Senate: "They don't care who's in the U.S House, but they will never let a Paul be in the Senate" We heard a lot of that, but Rand won in a landslide. There's always people telling us we can't get up the next hill. So far they have been wrong. Will Rand win? I don't know. But he has more of a chance than any grassroots candidate in a long time.

To say they don't care who is elected to congress is absurd. Of course they do, that's why they try so hard to defeat good candidates. And to oust people like Justin Amash and Walter Jones.

Some in the movement way overestimate the control the establishment has on elections. When Rand won, I remember thinking it proved that they don't have as much control as we think they do, which is why Rand has been working on making friends all over. Rand will be able to get a lot of key endorsements. Those at the very top won't be able to control what happens.

[Smitty]

Yeah, well,.....good luck.

But pay attention this time. You're going to learn something that many in the liberty movement learned in 2008 and had reinforced in 2012.

[whoisjohngalt]

It was an honest question that Rand needs to ask himself.

As for causing him trouble,...I lack the influence to cause a small fraction of the trouble that Rand causes himself.

Good read:

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/03/10/rand-pauls-munich/

I've read it and almost every other piece ever written on Rand.

I think you know whose Rand base is. Hence I'm still going with concern trolling.

If you don't then you are severely lacking in the basic skills required to have any influence in the political process. Reading some articles is valuable. Reading polls much more so. They paint a clear, objective picture of "who his base is".

I think it's fairly obvious you are one of three things.

1. Supporter of another candidate
2. A purist who would only ever support Ron
3. A democrat

There is a fourth option that rhymes with "schmidiot" but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

[Smitty]

yeah,...that must be it.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

I don't know what to think about Rand. Part of ne is like "We'll he is just being smart to position himself as more of a "acceptable" politician rather than be an outcast like his father." but then again I wonder if he is willing to do that isn't he just more of the same? A guy that will fold to the Israel lobby, the DOD, etc? My biggest fear is he taints the name of libertarians just like guys like Bush did with conservatives. I don't know. But I just wish he would stop pussyfooting and state his position. Maybe I'm wrong though.

[Aspie Minarcho-Capitalist]

I'd say it's plausible that his base would conflate with pseudo-libertarian teapartiers, anti-federalists (decentralized collectivists) and "libertarian leaning" neo-conservatives, I find his stances on economic policy far too beltway as well as his inordinate interventionism abroad highly impertinent and nowhere near up to par with his father. He also expounds the deleterious Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement which like NAFTA and other so called multilateral "FTAs" will continue to undermine individual sovereignty and dwindle the middle classes but with even further stimulated intensification. Some people who voted for Ron Paul in 08 and 12 have expressed fervent skepticism towards him for these very reasons and consider him to be a LINO (Libertarian in Name Only) like Glenn Beck, Wayne Allen Root and the Koch Brothers.