Just a thought on the Establishment's strategy on defeating Rand

[rich34]

With all the candidates jumping into the fold, it doesn't seem in their best interest to be dividing their own base of support when Rand seems to be consolidating the liberty wing of the party. Debate the size of that wing all you want, but when you divide the other side as much as it's going to be divided even a small consolidating faction of the party could very well conceivably win. So with that said, do you guys think their strategy could be to make sure they win a majority stake of delegates and beat Rand at the convention? That's the only thing that makes since to me as to why they're doing this. They have to know that diluting their voter pool gives them a less likely chance of one candidate winning a plurality of delegates so the only other logical option is that they're banking on beating Rand at the convention. Your thoughts, and if so, how can Rand ensure he does enough to capture a plurality of delegates?

[libertyplz]

I think they are going to try to create an illusion that Rand is way out of the mainstream and is "nutty". They are going to try and say that since no others on the debate stage are in agreement with Rand, he is in the wrong party and is "fringe" and they are going to try and scare away support for Rand because supporters will be shamed and labeled as fringe as well. Sounds a lot like what happened with Ron Paul :P. Now whether they are successful with that idk, we will see. I don't think the establishment really cares too much who gets the nomination as long as it's not Rand.

[timosman]

They have no strategy except for intimidation. Rand should go into BOSS mode and attack. I would start with reminding them about Constitution and who they represent. The providing security for the homeland meme should be put to rest quickly.

[r3volution 3.0]

With all the candidates jumping into the fold, it doesn't seem in their best interest to be dividing their own base of support when Rand seems to be consolidating the liberty wing of the party. Debate the size of that wing all you want, but when you divide the other side as much as it's going to be divided even a small consolidating faction of the party could very well conceivably win. So with that said, do you guys think their strategy could be to make sure they win a majority stake of delegates and beat Rand at the convention? That's the only thing that makes since to me as to why they're doing this. They have to know that diluting their voter pool gives them a less likely chance of one candidate winning a plurality of delegates so the only other logical option is that they're banking on beating Rand at the convention. Your thoughts, and if so, how can Rand ensure he does enough to capture a plurality of delegates?

I don't think that would ever be their Plan A, since a brokered convention in which the candidate with the most popular vote (Rand per this scenario) doesn't get the nomination would win them the battle but lose them the war; could even cause the GOP to split, with the neocons left holding the small part of the wishbone.

Rather, I think the strategy (Plan A anyway) is like last time - run one serious candidate who you intend to back to the hilt (Jeb IMO) and then gaggles of idiots who you can pretend are competing to be the anti-Jeb, to distract from the one genuine anti-Jeb (Rand). One of those idiots becomes the anti-Jeb, naive conservatives follow him to a devastating loss, and Jeb becomes the nominee. It worked last time (actually every time since 1980), Ron got crowded out as the media pumped one loser after another right into Iowa, and then Santorum became the anti-Romney. But this time, I predict Rand becomes the anti-Jeb, with all the others dropping by Super Tuesday (or be cruising along with 0 delegates and no prospects just to repay campaign debt, prolong book tours, etc). Then the establishment is going to have a real fight on their hands, mano e mano between us and them, for which I don't think they're at all prepared. They're soft, senile, and filled with hubris. They forget how to beat an opponent who's too big to ignore, like Rand in a two-man race with Bush.

[rich34]

I think they are going to try to create an illusion that Rand is way out of the mainstream and is "nutty". They are going to try and say that since no others on the debate stage are in agreement with Rand, he is in the wrong party and is "fringe" and they are going to try and scare away support for Rand because supporters will be shamed and labeled as fringe as well. Sounds a lot like what happened with Ron Paul :P. Now whether they are successful with that idk, we will see. I don't think the establishment really cares too much who gets the nomination as long as it's not Rand.

I agree with this assessment. Although I would think they know they are not going to push away his hardcore support which is still a sizeable portion of the party given that they're choosing to dilute their pool by so much. While it's true they may prevent the "traditional republican" from voting for him, but concerning Iowa and NH Ron Paul still got over 20% of the vote. So if this level of support can hold they're going to lose the first two states possibly. That's an awful lot of momentum they would be giving up to Rand. Because of this they must be gunning for something else. A delegate fight at the convention at this point imo is what they could be flooding the field for.

[rich34]

I don't think that would ever be their Plan A, since a brokered convention in which the candidate with the most popular vote (Rand per this scenario) doesn't get the nomination would win them the battle but lose them the war; could even cause the GOP to split, with the neocons left holding the small part of the wishbone.

Rather, I think the strategy (Plan A anyway) is like last time - run one serious candidate who you intend to back to the hilt (Jeb IMO) and then gaggles of idiots who you can pretend are competing to be the anti-Jeb, to distract from the one genuine anti-Jeb (Rand). One of those idiots becomes the anti-Jeb, naive conservatives follow him to a devastating loss, and Jeb becomes the nominee. It worked last time (actually every time since 1980), Ron got crowded out as the media pumped one loser after another right into Iowa, and then Santorum became the anti-Romney. But this time, I predict Rand becomes the anti-Jeb, with all the others dropping by Super Tuesday (or be cruising along with 0 delegates and no prospects just to repay campaign debt, prolong book tours, etc). Then the establishment is going to have a real fight on their hands, mano e mano between us and them, for which I don't think they're at all prepared. They're soft, senile, and filled with hubris. They forget how to beat an opponent who's too big to ignore, like Rand in a two-man race with Bush.

Very good points! I do remember the fake CNN poll that propelled Santorum from obscure to house hold name which eventually gave him the title of the "anti establishment" candidate even though he was establishment. I was leaning with this argument for most of the time until more and more of these people kept jumping in. It would seem with a larger more well funded field of candidates with each seemingly having a billionaire in their pocket that would make it even more difficult for them to even crown the "anti establishment" candidate. We know politicians, and we know they're all going to gang up on Rand, but when their own internal polling says if they go after said candidate they may gain their support they will eventually turn on each other. Attacking Rand at this point would not differentiate them from the others or more simply put, cause voters to pick them over the other establishment stooge. They have to know this. Of course maybe they do and that's why they're picking the strategy you put on the table. You could very well be correct, and this is what I thought for a long time, but with so many candidates and so much money I'm beginning to wonder.

[acptulsa]

Rather, I think the strategy (Plan A anyway) is like last time - run one serious candidate who you intend to back to the hilt (Jeb IMO) and then gaggles of idiots who you can pretend are competing to be the anti-Jeb, to distract from the one genuine anti-Jeb (Rand). One of those idiots becomes the anti-Jeb, naive conservatives follow him to a devastating loss, and Jeb becomes the nominee. It worked last time (actually every time since 1980), Ron got crowded out as the media pumped one loser after another right into Iowa, and then Santorum became the anti-Romney. But this time, I predict Rand becomes the anti-Jeb, with all the others dropping by Super Tuesday (or be cruising along with 0 delegates and no prospects just to repay campaign debt, prolong book tours, etc). Then the establishment is going to have a real fight on their hands, mano e mano between us and them, for which I don't think they're at all prepared. They're soft, senile, and filled with hubris. They forget how to beat an opponent who's too big to ignore, like Rand in a two-man race with Bush.

Rand set himself up beautifully to do this, and continues to. He's also doing the right things to poll better against Clinton in future surveys. Before the smorgasbord of candidates gave people who liked Ron because of x someone else who believes in x, and someone who liked Ron because of y someone else who believes in y. But this time, Rand is offering the whole package, and the candidate buffet seems to be all set to divide up only the votes of those Republicans who are afraid to vote for anyone Fox doesn't approve of. Which, thanks in no small part to us, is a smaller subset every day.

[The Northbreather]

Don't kid your self into thinking that many in the GOP would rather have a democrat win than to see someone in the white house who actually wants to reduce government power.

The establishment on both sides of the isle are both pro big gov, they are allies in this sense and will always try to keep the current structure in place.

[acptulsa]

Don't kid your self into thinking that many in the GOP would rather have a democrat win than to see someone in the white house who actually wants to reduce government power.

The establishment on both sides of the isle are both pro big gov, they are allies in this sense and will always try to keep the current structure in place.

Absolutely. The powers that be know Republicans find much to admire in the Pauls. They fight that with, 'Boogity boogity he won't protect you from scary brown non-Judaeo-Christians!'

As if Dubya would--or did...

[r3volution 3.0]

As we speak, FOX is flailing about with the same old marginalization strategy they used on Ron, and mistakenly thought would work on Rand.

'Rand's way off message here, really alienating people....O, outside Washington? Well yea most of the American public agrees with him, but like, pfft, ISIS n stuff, like, comon,..."

And they show the clip of Miss Linzi rolling his eyes and declare him the anti-Rand.

With enemies like these, who needs friends?

Thanks Fox!

Hitch your wagon to Lindsey Graham and hand us the nomination on a silver platter.

*If they can't marginalize him, they don't know how to beat him.*

...and they can't marginalize him any more.

[rich34]

Absolutely. The powers that be know Republicans find much to admire in the Pauls. They fight that with, 'Boogity boogity he won't protect you from scary brown non-Judaeo-Christians!'

As if Dubya would--or did...


Ain't that the damn truth, as if, is that all they got? Imo, Rand will eventually turn to the second amendment to secure New Hampshire. Timing is everything...

[Ronin Truth]

Not voting for him might work.

[EBounding]

With all the candidates jumping into the fold, it doesn't seem in their best interest to be dividing their own base of support when Rand seems to be consolidating the liberty wing of the party.

I think it's ego and they see an opportunity to fill the vacuum that is the GOP primary with whatever their vision is for the presidency. A lot of them will rally around one or two candidates before Iowa.

[RonPaulMall]

"The Establishment" is not some organized cabal that runs the world with discipline of a Prussian General Staff. They can't control who does or doesn't enter the race. People like Huckabee, Carson, and Santorum put their hats in the ring because it is win/win for them. Best case scenario they get the nomination, worst case scenario they get more book deals, TV shows, and speaking gigs. Everybody that gets involved in politics is a megalomaniac. They all dream of being President. So if a scenario arises like this year where there is pretty much an open field, lots of people are going to enter and it has nothing to do with some organized plan.

The Establishment plays the cards they are dealt. They'll take the filed that has been given to them (and that they can't control) and then at that point they will use their control of the media to manipulate what happens. Look for them to push their dream candidates (either Jeb or Rubio) hard. Graham and that asshat Peter King will get plenty of airtime since although they have no shot at winning, they'll spend 99% of their time espousing extreme neocon views and attacking Rand. In Iowa and New Hampshire the Establishment will figure out who can hurt Rand the most and artificially prop them up.

[Leaning Libertarian]

Taking a quote from Professor John Dobson in an ethics article he wrote for the Financial Analysts Journal (http://www.cfapubs.org/doi/abs/10.2469/faj.v61.n3.2728).

Rand should point out both within his Republican party and within the Democratic party:

"[There are] People who really are **** Economicus. They are personal wealth maximizing opportunists who will lie, cheat, or steal whenever their personal calculus indicates that such behavior will maximize their own personal wealth. These so-called rational people will certainly, on occasion, cooperate or build a reputation for some cooperative trait, but they will do so only to the extent that such activity furthers their own personal material ends."

This is exactly what is wrong with the vast majority of politicians regardless of party affiliation. An honest application of this as a standard should reveal who does and does not deserve a vote.