3 Reasons the Rand Paul Campaign Failed

[LibertyEagle]

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), seen by many as the political heir to a libertarian Republican revolution started by his father Ron Paul's 2008 and 2012 presidential runs, has suspended his campaign after just one state voted: an Iowa caucus in which Rand pulled less than half of what Ron did in 2008 in percentage terms, and less than a quarter of what Ron Paul pulled in 2012.

What went wrong, and why? Insiders and outsiders, libertarians and conservatives, journalists and social networking thread commenters, have set theories a-flying. Based on wide reading and talking with people from the Paul world, throughout the campaign and since it collapsed, here are the dominant theories (though many observers think more than one was likely at play).

read more here..
http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/05/3-reasons-the-rand-paul-campaign-failed

[Brian4Liberty]

IMHO, 1 and 3 are the kind of minor things that insiders obsess over. Minor tweeks.

Number 2 is right on the head. It was the biggest factor, and it was completely out of the control of Rand and his campaign. A loudmouthed billionaire celebrity entering the race is uncontrollable. ISIS attacks in Paris were another uncontrollable event.


2) Rand Paul Didn't Get to Campaign in the Political Environment He Wanted and Expected

[Dianne]

I think it was number 1. Rand decided to play ball with the establishment; i.e., endorse Mitch McConnell, endorse Mitt Romney, something his Dad would have never done. Also, Rand did not include his Dad in the campaign until the very end, which was too late. I don't know why he didn't embrace his Dad and use Ron to campaign. That would have given him 22% in Iowa plus the extras he would pick up for being younger than his Dad and some of the good legislation he has proposed in the Congress.

[jmdrake]

IMHO, 1 and 3 are the kind of minor things that insiders obsess over. Minor tweeks.

Number 2 is right on the head. It was the biggest factor, and it was completely out of the control of Rand and his campaign. A loudmouthed billionaire celebrity entering the race is uncontrollable. ISIS attacks in Paris were another uncontrollable event.

If your winning the presidency depends on events that you cannot control then you are not ready to be president because being president depends on dealing with events that you cannot control. The rise of ISIS should have helped Rand Paul because he predicted it and the two top GOP candidates for president have adopted the same position with regards to Syria and not putting boots on the ground nor going along with a crazy "no fly zone" that most of the rest of the GOP field endorsed. But Rand has been hamstrung by a lack of understanding by people within and without the liberty movement of the difference between non-interventionism and pacifism. He should have early on, after saying "I told you so" with regards to ISIS, put out a clear plan on what to actually do about ISIS from a non-interventionist, but non-pacifist, point of view.

People kept saying "Rand is playing chess and not checkers." But politics is not checkers. It's high stakes poker. And in poker there is skill interleaved with chance. Or as Kenny Rogers put it in the song "The Gambler".


Every gambler knows
That the secret to surviving
Is knowing what to throw away
And knowing what to keep

Cause every hands a winner
And every hands a loser
And the best you can hope for
Is to die in your sleep.
......
You've got to know when to hold em.
Know when to fold in.
Know when to walk away.
And no when to run.
You never count your money.
When you're sitting at the table.
There'll be time enough for counting.
When the dealings done.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj4nJ1YEAp4

[cocrehamster]

I think it was number 1. Rand decided to play ball with the establishment; i.e., endorse Mitch McConnell, endorse Mitt Romney, something his Dad would have never done. Also, Rand did not include his Dad in the campaign until the very end, which was too late. I don't know why he didn't embrace his Dad and use Ron to campaign. That would have given him 22% in Iowa plus the extras he would pick up for being younger than his Dad and some of the good legislation he has proposed in the Congress.

Including Ron Paul in the campaign would not come anywhere close to guaranteeing him a repeat of Ron Paul's performance four years ago. This was against a different, larger and stronger field; in an entirely different environment. It's different this time. Always.

[jmdrake]

Edit: It is clear that "Reason" was a big part of the problem rather than the solution. Look at this crap linked from their OP article.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/04/what-happened-on-friday-afternoon-that-b

On Tuesday I asked, "Does Rand Paul think the beheading of American journalists justifies war against ISIS?" The answer, it seems, is yes. Since American journalists, students, businessmen, and diplomats live and work in nearly every country on Earth, this strikes me as a dangerously open-ended rationale for military intervention. Furthermore, the certainty that Paul now expresses about the threat posed by ISIS was not at all apparent at a Q&A session in Dallas last Friday. Here is what he said at that event, which was sponsored by the Republican Liberty Caucus:

What the hell? He morons at Reason magazine. Most "governments" around the world do not wantonly behead Americans living abroad precisely because they know that there likely would be hell to pay. ISIS is not a "government." At attacking ISIS, in coordination with the Iraqi government and the Syrian government, is not "interventionism" by any reasonable definition. Vladimir Putin isn't engaged in wanton interventionism by helping Assad defeat ISIS and other Syrian rebel groups. Don't forget. Ron Paul voted to give a blank check to Bush to go after Al Qaeda post 9/11. While I think the AUMF was overbroad and Bush abused the power, that doesn't mean that going after non state actors who kill Americans in coordination with the countries that are playing host to these non state actors against their will is interventionism.

But here's more crap from "reason."

To his credit, Paul insists that any military action against ISIS must be authorized by Congress, and he continues to highlight the unintended consequences of U.S. intervention in Libya and Syria (as he did on Hannity). Furthermore, his endorsement of war against ISIS may provoke an illuminating debate among libertarians and others who tend to be skeptical of foreign intervention about what counts as a threat to national security. But given his sudden conversion and the weakness of the reasons he has offered, it is hard to take Paul seriously on the subject.

Addendum: In a Time essay posted today, Paul cites, in addition to the safety of the American embassy in Iraq, "the plight of massacred Christians and Muslim minorities" as a justification for war against ISIS, which he describes as "a global threat." Now he is getting even further afield from something that could legitimately be described as a threat to U.S. national security. In Dallas last week, Paul ridiculed President Obama's justification for war in Libya, which hinged on the threat that Muammar al-Qaddafi's forces posed to the residents of Benghazi. Why is "the plight of massacred Christians and Muslim minorities" a more valid argument for attacking ISIS in Iraq? "A more realistic foreign policy," Paul wrote in The Wall Street Journal last week, "would recognize that there are evil people and tyrannical regimes in this world, but also that America cannot police or solve every problem across the globe." Paul still has not explained why the problem of ISIS is one the U.S. has to solve.

Earth to stupid people at Reason. Overthrowing a legitimate government and causing chaos in Libya has absolutely no relation to going after terrorists like ISIS. None whatsoever. These people are so stupid, I guess they think that when the U.S. freed Americans held by Somali pirates somehow that was an act of war against Somalia. :rolleyes:

[Brian4Liberty]

Edit: It is clear that "Reason" was a big part of the problem rather than the solution. Look at this crap linked from their OP article.

There's no doubt that Reason has always been subtly or not so subtly against the Pauls. My point is that the vast majority of voters don't read Reason, and could care less what Reason says. Other factors are far more important.

[jmdrake]

There's no doubt that Reason has always been subtly or not so subtly against the Pauls. My point is that the vast majority of voters don't read Reason, and could care less what Reason says. Other factors are far more important.

If the reason Rand had a problem early on articulating a clear anti-ISIS strategy is because he was worried about people who think like the idiots at Reason, then that's a part of the problem. Indeed early on I got attacked here at RPF for saying Rand should say "bomb ISIS controlled oil fields" since oil is (was?) of ISIS funding. Some people simply do not realize that non-interventionism is not the same as pacifism. Rand failed to clarify that distinction. At times Ron fails to clarify that distinction as well. Michael Scheurer is a non-interventionist and he came up with the CIA rendition and torture program.

[Matt Collins]

#1 is pretty much spot on... also, lack of fundraising effort. The depth of Rand's loss was not due to external factors.

[Luieburger]

I'd like to add a 4th item to that list. Ron Paul's message resonated so greatly in 2008 and 2012 that very few candidates this year are in favor of nation building anymore. Isn't it refreshing? We might not have won the elections, but we won ideologically. The GOP is no longer the democracy spreader it once was.

[GunnyFreedom]

I'd like to add a 4th item to that list. Ron Paul's message resonated so greatly in 2008 and 2012 that very few candidates this year are in favor of nation building anymore. Isn't it refreshing? We might not have won the elections, but we won ideologically. The GOP is no longer the democracy spreader it once was.

You know who else campaigned on no nation building? George W. Bush.

[idiom]

Hunter raises the question (that has also been haunting me as author of Ron Paul's Revolution, a history of Paul's political career and presidential campaigns) of whether the Ron Paul movement might have been less about libertarian ideas, and more about scorched-earth anti-establishment outsiderism, than we'd thought or hoped.

This is very true I think. A lot of people didn't like RP's platform so much as the sheer number of times he was the only "no" vote.

I think it has been less of a liberty movement and more of a pure rage movement which is why people so easily swing from the Tea Party, to Obama, to OWS, to Trump and to Sanders.

They don't actually give a shit about the policy, they just want to stop being fucking lied to for once. That is the thing Rand couldn't deliver. You couldn't be sure Rand would flick the bird to the establishment when elected. You know Ron would.

People really wanted Obama to do that, they are really blindly hoping Trump will.

[jmdrake]

#1 is pretty much spot on... also, lack of fundraising effort. The depth of Rand's loss was not due to external factors.

Welcome back! I agree with #1 in part but vehemently disagree with this part.

Thus, things like Rand's seeming to repeat anti-Iranian talking points or seeming willingness to wage war against ISIS deflated their desire to give money, time, or talk him up everywhere on the Internet as so many did for Ron. This is an idea that you were likely most exposed to not from the mainstream media either print or digital but from following old Ron Paul fans on social networking.

Ron voted for the AUMF for war against Afghanistan. Which made perfect sense at the time and still looks like the correct vote despite the FUBAR that the Afghan was has become. It only looks wrong if you are a total pacifist or you don't believe Al Qaeda was in anyway involved in 9/11. So being "willing to wage war against ISIS" doesn't make Rand different from Ron. At least not Ron of 2003. The more recent Ron seems incoherent on the issue of ISIS.

[jmdrake]

You know who else campaigned on no nation building? George W. Bush.

True. But that was pre-9/11. The significant thing about Trump and Cruz is that post 9/11 and post San Diego, the top two GOP contenders are still pushing a non-interventionist foreign policy. And bombing the hell out of ISIS is NOT interventionism. I will keep hammering that point home until people here get it. Interventionism in the interference in the internal affairs of a state that has not attacked you. Trying to overthrow Assad is classic interventionism. Trying to take out ISIS, a "state" that's not a legitimate state and that has attacked us, is not interventionism.

Rand was slow in articulating a clear plan to isolate and destroy ISIS. And looking back, I think that's because some peaceniks in the liberty movement kept blurring the lines between non-interventionism and pacifism. You can be non-interventionist and not pacifist but you can't be pacifist and interventionist. And you can't be pacifist in the face of a clear and present threat to America like ISIS and expect to get elected POTUS.

[CPUd]

True. But that was pre-9/11. The significant thing about Trump and Cruz is that post 9/11 and post San Diego, the top two GOP contenders are still pushing a non-interventionist foreign policy. And bombing the hell out of ISIS is NOT interventionism. I will keep hammering that point home until people here get it. Interventionism in the interference in the internal affairs of a state that has not attacked you. Trying to overthrow Assad is classic interventionism. Trying to take out ISIS, a "state" that's not a legitimate state and that has attacked us, is not interventionism.

Rand was slow in articulating a clear plan to isolate and destroy ISIS. And looking back, I think that's because some peaceniks in the liberty movement kept blurring the lines between non-interventionism and pacifism. You can be non-interventionist and not pacifist but you can't be pacifist and interventionist. And you can't be pacifist in the face of a clear and present threat to America like ISIS and expect to get elected POTUS.

I think Rand (like many on this forum) considered ISIS to be a manufactured threat, and since he was winning the anti-war arguments at that time, he could get the GOP rank-and-file to follow suit. It worked when they tried the WMD thing against Assad and wanted to start a new war in Syria.

[jmdrake]

I think Rand (like many on this forum) considered ISIS to be a manufactured threat, and since he was winning the anti-war arguments at that time, he could get the GOP rank-and-file to follow suit. It worked when they tried the WMD thing against Assad and wanted to start a new war in Syria.

Oh sure ISIS is a manufactured threat. It's still a threat. What's wrong will killing some CIA payroll thugs? The reason Rand was able to make the case that war against Assad was a bad idea is from a national security standpoint. "If we do that while have to fight terrorists armed with our weapons." Very compelling argument in the wake of Benghazi. And Obama continued sending weapons to the Islamic militants in Syria and guess what? ISIS is using our weapons against us. (Well...indirectly us as we aren't actually there..but kinda sorta.)

I mean really. What the morons at Reason did was say "Okay. Our guy told you that cigarettes cause cancer. And now you have cancer. So just suck it up America!" Yes the first thing the cancer patient needed to do was to stop smoking (quit trying to overthrow Assad). And Rand needed to hammer that point home over and over again. He did do that somewhat. But the next thing is to give the patient something to inspire hope, a sugar pill if nothing else. (Though there is a clear way to actually defeat ISIS that nobody is talking about.) But instead, at first Rand kept talking about the diagnosis over and over again. "Yep. You smoked and now you have cancer." And when he finally started to at least prescribe a sugar pill Reason was like "What are you doing? That's interventionism! Just let the cancer grow. It's not so bad." Seriously. Reason really was like "Okay. So ISIS beheaded some Americans. Is that really a justification for war against ISIS? I mean there are Americans all over the world that could be beheaded." Yeah. But the Reason retards didn't factor in that one of the things that keeps those Americans safe is that is that most groups don't want to needlessly bring down the wrath of uncle Sam.

Edit: And here's something else wrong with the "It's a manufactured threat so let's just ignore it and hope it goes away" argument. Did it not cross people's minds that the powers that manufacture threats always ramp them up when they aren't getting their way? That's what happened with 9/11. So an attack inside the U.S. from ISIS was coming. Nobody at all should have been surprised by that. Rand should have been counting on it during his entire run for POTUS.

[Liberty74]

1. You will not win the nomination going after the "student vote" only which accounts for maybe 5% of the voters. In a Republican caucus/primary, the vaster majority will be 45 and up and for the most part religious. But I am sure many of you will be back here in 4 years screaming "it's all about the youth vote."

2. You will not win the nomination when making your top issues about problems in which the Republican electoral does not care about no matter how right you are i.e. criminal justice reform, nsa spying, etc. Those are barely on the Republican voter's radar.

3. You will not win the nomination by being the great statesmen that both Paul's are. The sheep and cattle do not want to be educated. They want to be LEAD.

Rand's campaign message was muddled. Not sure if this was Rand's fault or Chip's fault. Rand should have stuck to the original idea that he is a "different kind of Republican." He could have ran multiple important issues around the philosophy of nonviolence. That people also have a right to live their life as they see fit. Nonviolent ---> anti-abortion. Get those older religious voters. Attack Planned Parenthood. Nonviolent ---> bring home the troops. That would have been a great rallying cry to us who believe in peace, no nation building, saving money overseas while saying we are going to DEFEND America and our borders. Say America comes first! Nonviolent ---> end of the war on drugs. About 30% of Americans smoke the Mary Jane. Sub issue would be criminal justice reform if you wanted to go there which is more of a general election issue. Hell, Rand could have even gone after the hemp voters and used that example how government meddles in the market place which stifles competition.

A different kind of Republican on the size of government and how government meddles in your life and business way too much i.e. you have a right to keep your income, you have a right to choose your child's education, you have a right to privacy, you have a right to defend yourself - guns, etc. etc. etc. Rand is a different kind of Republican on these issues because HE FREAKING MEANS it. Rand isn't giving lip service like Cruz, Rubio, Bush, etc. He had a great opportunity to pound away that he was the real deal and the rest were fakes.

Rand might need to work on his deliverance of these issues especially on TV which your time is very limited. Again, be less like a philosopher and talk in general terms how Rand will fight for the people. Use articles, speeches and rallies for the details.

I think Judge NAP would be an excellent choice in 2020. If anyone has ever seen his speeches, you get wowed!

[LibertyEagle]

I think it was number 1. Rand decided to play ball with the establishment; i.e., endorse Mitch McConnell, endorse Mitt Romney, something his Dad would have never done. Also, Rand did not include his Dad in the campaign until the very end, which was too late. I don't know why he didn't embrace his Dad and use Ron to campaign. That would have given him 22% in Iowa plus the extras he would pick up for being younger than his Dad and some of the good legislation he has proposed in the Congress.

Yeah, his Dad only endorsed Lamar Smith, a Repub. POS from Texas. Say, how many times has that video been posted over the years where Ron was asked about this and he said this is something YOU HAVE TO DO. ie. endorse sitting Republicans.

[LibertyEagle]

I think perhaps, at least in Iowa, that thing with Kent Sorenson might have impacted Rand. That would have been a big deal within the state I would think. This was running in the Des Moines Register just a few short months ago. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2015/10/22/split-verdict-ron-paul-endorsement-trial/74252782/

[Occam's Banana]

If your winning the presidency depends on events that you cannot control then you are not ready to be president because being president depends on dealing with events that you cannot control. The rise of ISIS should have helped Rand Paul because he predicted it [...]

The rise of ISIS is as perfect an example of the consequences of interventionism as could be asked for.

Rand should have capitalized on it by presenting ISIS as Exhibit A in the case against an interventionist foreign policy.


[...] and the two top GOP candidates for president have adopted the same position with regards to Syria and not putting boots on the ground nor going along with a crazy "no fly zone" that most of the rest of the GOP field endorsed. But Rand has been hamstrung by a lack of understanding by people within and without the liberty movement of the difference between non-interventionism and pacifism. He should have early on, after saying "I told you so" with regards to ISIS, put out a clear plan on what to actually do about ISIS from a non-interventionist, but non-pacifist, point of view.

Pacifism is the rejection of the use of force, even in self-defense.

Non-interventionism is the rejection of the use of force, except in self-defense.

Since the distinction between pacifism and non-interventionism in this context rests upon the issue of self-defense, and since ISIS has not attacked us (its brutal and barbaric murder of some few American citizens notwithstanding), I do not understand what "a clear plan on what to actually do about ISIS from a non-interventionist, but non-pacifist, point of view" [underline emphasis added] is supposed to mean.

[69360]

I'm already bored with reading and discussing these.

It failed because his ideas are not popular and probably never will be.

[LibertyEagle]

I'm already bored with reading and discussing these.

It failed because his ideas are not popular and probably never will be.

That's not true. Not at all. But, you do need to address what the people are the most concerned about now.

He could have talked about the horrible trade deals, Glass-Steagall, the debt, are trashing the economy... People are really worried about that. He could have brought up the tpp/tpa, the traitorous stuff in them and how some on that stage voted for it.

[69360]

That's not true. Not at all. But, you do need to address what the people are the most concerned about now.

He could have talked about the horrible trade deals, Glass-Steagall, the debt, are trashing the economy... People are really worried about that. He could have brought up the tpp/tpa, the traitorous stuff in them and how some on that stage voted for it.

Honestly only maybe 5% of voters care about that or even know what any of that is. The rest see that the Donald made fun of somebody on twitter and vote for him.

It's a lost cause until it all falls apart. Which could be next week or never.

[Luieburger]

You know who else campaigned on no nation building? George W. Bush.

I'm aware of that, and he handed the congress and senate to the democrats.

[enhanced_deficit]

Lengthy analysis may point to multiple reasons.. but the short answer will have only one reason. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?487242-Can-Rand-win-GOP-base-without-fiercely-attacking-Obama&)

[Anti Federalist]

Yeah, his Dad only endorsed Lamar Smith, a Repub. POS from Texas. Say, how many times has that video been posted over the years where Ron was asked about this and he said this is something YOU HAVE TO DO. ie. endorse sitting Republicans.

His own father was not running against Lamar Smith.

You want three reasons?

Most people hate freedom.

They want three things:

To be fed.

To be entertained.

To boss around their fellow man.

That's most people.

The "dregs" that are left are so disparate and diverse, that unless you have a record and persona and the "gravitas" of a Ron Paul, you will never draw them out.

Especially if you make it clear early on that you don't want any "kooks" hanging around.

[Anti Federalist]

It failed because his ideas are not popular and probably never will be.

Yes, this.

Perhaps with a modification:

Freedom (his ideas) are not popular with the people he was courting for votes.

[jmdrake]

The rise of ISIS is as perfect an example of the consequences of interventionism as could be asked for.

Rand should have capitalized on it by presenting ISIS as Exhibit A in the case against an interventionist foreign policy.



Pacifism is the rejection of the use of force, even in self-defense.

Non-interventionism is the rejection of the use of force, except in self-defense.

Since the distinction between pacifism and non-interventionism in this context rests upon the issue of self-defense, and since ISIS has not attacked us (its brutal and barbaric murder of some few American citizens notwithstanding), I do not understand what "a clear plan on what to actually do about ISIS from a non-interventionist, but non-pacifist, point of view" [underline emphasis added] is supposed to mean.

You have a very bizarre definition of the word "attack." Hello? San Bernardino? That was an attack on U.S. soil the same as 9/11 was an attack on U.S. soil. An attack doesn't have to have a 4 figure body count to be an attack. An attack doesn't have to ultimately be successful to be an attack. And when Thomas Jefferson took on the barbary pirates they hadn't attacked the U.S. homeland. They had "only" attacked U.S. shipping, capturing ships and holding American sailors for ransom or selling them into slavery. And before you say "Well Thomas Jefferson was an interventionist" let me cut you off at the pass. Jefferson insisted on a strict neutrality regarding the war between Britain and France so much so that he barred all foreign trade lest we get caught up in the middle of it. He actually deserved the "isolationist" label stuck on Ron Paul. James Madison, thankfully, relaxed the policy to only affect nations at war.

So, it's hard to answer your question when you are basing it on the false premise that "we weren't attacked." We were and more than once. ISIS is a real threat (well was a real threat. Russia is taking them out.) It warranted real attention and a clear plan of action. Does ISIS warrant U.S. boots on the ground? Hell know. And neither the legitimate government in Syria nor the legitimate government in Iraq, that we helped come to power, wants U.S. troops on the ground. They prefer Iranian troops which further goes to show what a disaster "regime change" in Iraq was. We basically created another Shiite Islamic Republic. That doesn't mean action can't be taken. When Jefferson took on the Barbary pirates he used naval forces and marines operating in a special operations capacity. Just 8 marines led hundreds of Muslim mercenaries in the assault. We've got a lot more options now, some that Rand ultimately named but never in a coherent soundbite fashion. Rand talked about army the Kurds and eventually agreed to expanded airstrikes. That's the formula Putin is using. Find local or regional allies on the ground and give them air cover. Pick and actual side (Assad) and don't worry about whether everybody else is supposedly "moderate" or not. Go after their money supply and that means cutting off their oil trade.

Going to war to overthrow a toothless dictator who's never attacked the U.S. in any way shape or form? Interventionism. Going to war against a country that's harboring terrorists who've blown up two embassies and who is deemed responsible for an attack on U.S. soil that kills 3,000 people? Not so much interventionism. You are doing regime change but for a good reason. Taking out some criminal thugs who aren't even an actual country but who have brutally murdered Americans and gleefully broadcast the video, are the spawn of the same criminal thugs you attacked post 9/11, and ultimately found a way to bring the fight to the U.S. homeland? Not interventionist by any stretch of the imagination especially when you consider the fact that this should be done with the cooperation of the legitimate governments of Iraq and Syria! Interventionism is what we have been doing since before the Syrian civil war started. Paying "peaceful" protest groups to undermine the Assad regime was interventionism. Helping the Assad regime and the regime in Iraq take out ISIS is not interventionism.

Seriously, I want Kenny Rogers to run for president. Sometimes you have to fight when you're a man or a country run by real men.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR2VC9Tl1Fs

[TheNewYorker]

Reason 4:

The media intentionally censors Rand Paul


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QcbaMCfzW0

[jmdrake]

Okay. Before going any further let's define what the hell we are talking about.

noun
1.
the policy or doctrine of intervening, especially government interference in the affairs of another state or in domestic economic affairs.

ISIS is not a state. So taking out ISIS is not interventionism. Now you might say "Well ISIS is inside Iraq and Syria and they are states." Yep. And if Iraq and Syria don't want our help taking out ISIS and if they show a willingness and ability to contain the problem themselves and/or with the help of their allies then sending in troops and/or airstrikes is interventionist. What Vladimir Putin is doing is not interventionism. He's coordinating his attacks with the legitimate governments of Iraq and Syria. Americans complain that he's going after the enemies of Assad? Well he should be and so should we. The "moderate" rebels are just as brutal as ISIS and have been killing civilians and using civilian women and children as human shields in metal cages on top of important buildings to prevent Russian airstrikes. They share the same goal as ISIS which is a Sunni Islamic state in Syria. They cooperate with ISIS at times and coordinate attacks against Assad.

Rand should have proposed the Putin plan before Putin. Yes use the ISIS crisis as "exhibit A" against interventionism. But then declare that we needed an absolute reversal of the policy of regime change in Syria to supporting, at least for now, the regime in Syria and Iraq. At the beginning of the ISIS crisis the Obama administration was also putting pressure o our Iraq "allies" to "be more inclusive of the Sunnis". Translation? "We're worried about you becoming too close to yhour Shia brothers in Iran."

[Peace&Freedom]

The rise of ISIS is as perfect an example of the consequences of interventionism as could be asked for.

Rand should have capitalized on it by presenting ISIS as Exhibit A in the case against an interventionist foreign policy.



Pacifism is the rejection of the use of force, even in self-defense.

Non-interventionism is the rejection of the use of force, except in self-defense.

Since the distinction between pacifism and non-interventionism in this context rests upon the issue of self-defense, and since ISIS has not attacked us (its brutal and barbaric murder of some few American citizens notwithstanding), I do not understand what "a clear plan on what to actually do about ISIS from a non-interventionist, but non-pacifist, point of view" [underline emphasis added] is supposed to mean.

Excellent breakdown. The true path to a real non-interventionist approach in the modern world consists of calling out the covert intervention at work to create the "threat" pretexts for overt military intervention, and advocating actions that do not require military intervention to address actual threats. To repeat, one does not have to conduct intervention in order to "take action" on a situation, or accept that something is a "threat" in the first place, just because there are dead bodies, as those bodies are too frequently the result of a black op. Those false flags and bodies have in turn been used to justify military actions (either against states, or non-state actors), which once started, continue indefinitely or are escalated so that the Empire ends up dominating states anyway, thereby obliterating the difference between the classes of intervention.

ISIS was not, and is not a threat to the US. They are mercenaries, funded, trained, and documented to be materially supported by US and Western intelligence past and present, hired to portray themselves as extremists as per central casting (as radical fighters abroad, or controlled patsies at home). The US knows who they are selling the oil to finance their ops, but won't squeeze or shut down those parties or their banks. The US knows any actual political motives behind many of them could be resolved by conceding their territorial claims and withdrawing the Empire from that region, but it won't do either. These alternative actions do not involve military or covert operations, which have only invited blowback.


You have a very bizarre definition of the word "attack." Hello? San Bernardino? That was an attack on U.S. soil the same as 9/11 was an attack on U.S. soil. An attack doesn't have to have a 4 figure body count to be an attack. An attack doesn't have to ultimately be successful to be an attack.

San Bernadino was a false flag, to sell the threat narrative. Where's the outside security video showing the patsy Muslim couple entering the local government building with weapons, or inside video showing them shooting up the place? Have the multiple witnesses recanted their accounts that it was three big white guys in black professional gear doing the shooting? How come no one seems to remember seeing a 90 pound woman packing serious heat? Just because there was a obligatory weird Muslim couple nearby ready to be patsied over it, doesn't mean they did it.

[AuH20]

1. Refusing to tap into the anger while the country is literally fall apart brick by brick.

You have to make your message engaging. Do you think people care about phone records when they are losing their homes and jobs? Who was advising Rand Paul? He fell into the same illusion that the GOPe has succumbed to, with this assumption that everything is hunky dory.

[Joeinmo]

How about somebody getting 25 times more media time than all the other candidates combined, and btw Rand was last in media attention, it makes all the difference. In addition, the Paul folks were burned out, 3 Presidential elections cycles..I heard from many..I just don't have the time now, I have kids now, I'm not making the money I once was... Etc etc....

A 4 year break could make a huge difference, Rand not needing to worry about Senate re-election.

[Peace&Freedom]

How about somebody getting 25 times more media time than all the other candidates combined, and btw Rand was last in media attention, it makes all the difference. In addition, the Paul folks were burned out, 3 Presidential elections cycles..I heard from many..I just don't have the time now, I have kids now, I'm not making the money I once was... Etc etc....

A 4 year break could make a huge difference, Rand not needing to worry about Senate re-election.

Trump brought immediate value to the media in terms of ratings and publication sales, which Rand and the others simply did not. Trump's brand had 25+ years of burned-in name recognition and popularity to draw from, to earn the 25X 'free' publicity he got.

4 year break? Exactly what happened to the sense of urgency, the "there may not be an election four years from now," that used to animate our desire to get a liberty guy elected President? Perhaps we just need a new, non-Paul national candidate, who is more energizing than Rand was.

[AuH20]

Trump brought immediate value to the media in terms of ratings and publication sales, which Rand and the others simply did not. Trump's brand had 25+ years of burned-in name recognition and popularity to draw from, to earn the 25X 'free' publicity he got.

4 year break? Exactly what happened to the sense of urgency, the "there may not be an election four years from now," that used to animate our desire to get a liberty guy elected President? Perhaps we just need a new, non-Paul national candidate, who is more energizing than Rand was.

Very true. We're dealing with a master manipulator of the media while Rand was naturally introverted.

[RonPaulMall]

1. Refusing to tap into the anger while the country is literally fall apart brick by brick.

You have to make your message engaging. Do you think people care about phone records when they are losing their homes and jobs? Who was advising Rand Paul? He fell into the same illusion that the GOPe has succumbed to, with this assumption that every is hunky dory.

I think Paul's problem was that he spent too much time in the Washington bubble and socializing with the out of touch loons who write for Reason Magazine. Nothing about Paul's campaign suggested he understood the suffering or depth of anger among the American middle class. It was like Rand thought the country was still in the middle of the dot com boom or something. He chose to run as the "happy warrior" at a time the American electorate was angrier than any time in modern history.

[CPUd]

1. Refusing to tap into the anger while the country is literally fall apart brick by brick.

You have to make your message engaging. Do you think people care about phone records when they are losing their homes and jobs? Who was advising Rand Paul? He fell into the same illusion that the GOPe has succumbed to, with this assumption that everything is hunky dory.

Rand wouldn't run on a message of hate. Whenever you read somewhere "tapped into that anger", that is PC code for hatemongering.

[Brian4Liberty]

1. You will not win the nomination going after the "student vote" only which accounts for maybe 5% of the voters. In a Republican caucus/primary, the vaster majority will be 45 and up and for the most part religious. But I am sure many of you will be back here in 4 years screaming "it's all about the youth vote."

2. You will not win the nomination when making your top issues about problems in which the Republican electoral does not care about no matter how right you are i.e. criminal justice reform, nsa spying, etc. Those are barely on the Republican voter's radar.


Agree.

[Brian4Liberty]

I think Paul's problem was that he spent too much time in the Washington bubble and socializing with the out of touch loons who write for Reason Magazine. Nothing about Paul's campaign suggested he understood the suffering or depth of anger among the American middle class. It was like Rand thought the country was still in the middle of the dot com boom or something. He chose to run as the "happy warrior" at a time the American electorate was angrier than any time in modern history.

Trump and Sanders understood it well, and have taken advantage of it. The anti-establishment, pro-everyday American sentiment is probably the single most important factor in this race.

[Brian4Liberty]

If your winning the presidency depends on events that you cannot control then you are not ready to be president because being president depends on dealing with events that you cannot control.

You can't control the fact that a loud-mouthed, celebrity billionaire entered the race.


Paul's former assistant and co-author Jack Hunter lays the blame pretty solidly on the presence of Trump. (https://reason.com/blog/2016/02/05/3-reasons-the-rand-paul-campaign-failed)

[jbauer]

I think it was number 1. Rand decided to play ball with the establishment; i.e., endorse Mitch McConnell, endorse Mitt Romney, something his Dad would have never done. Also, Rand did not include his Dad in the campaign until the very end, which was too late. I don't know why he didn't embrace his Dad and use Ron to campaign. That would have given him 22% in Iowa plus the extras he would pick up for being younger than his Dad and some of the good legislation he has proposed in the Congress.

Didn't all the candidates short of trump endorse rmoney? I don't see it as a big deal.

[thoughtomator]

If an employee gave me these kinds of excuses for non-performance, he'd be fired on the spot.

The entire article embodies a loser mentality. Item #2 is especially disingenuous - the political environment was absolutely perfect. There will never be a better political environment for a libertarian candidate to run in.

Trump eating Rand's lunch is a massive, epic failure by the Paul campaign - not some elemental force that couldn't be anticipated or reckoned with. If Rand & Company are too disconnected from the people to understand that the people desperately and in huge numbers want the rule of law to be applied to immigration chaos, and that applying it is 100% consistent with a limited government under the Constitution, then they're already lost in the swamps of DC corruption.

[Brian4Liberty]

Trump eating Rand's lunch is a massive, epic failure by the Paul campaign - not some elemental force that couldn't be anticipated or reckoned with. If Rand & Company are too disconnected from the people to understand that the people desperately and in huge numbers want the rule of law to be applied to immigration chaos, and that applying it is 100% consistent with a limited government under the Constitution, then they're already lost in the swamps of DC corruption.

Obviously it would have been much more popular (based upon the success of Trump and Sanders) if Rand had focused more on bad mouthing Wall St. and the establishment, and talked about the plight of the average American, especially addressing jobs, unemployment, under-employment, etc. All of that said, even if Rand said it perfectly, Trump was saying it, and he is a celebrity billionaire who got all of the attention. Nothing would have stopped that. The ignorant masses and the media would have still obsessed on Trump.

But Rand could have been in about the same position as Cruz right now if the campaign had played it's card better.

[CPUd]

If an employee gave me these kinds of excuses for non-performance, he'd be fired on the spot.

The entire article embodies a loser mentality. Item #2 is especially disingenuous - the political environment was absolutely perfect. There will never be a better political environment for a libertarian candidate to run in.

Trump eating Rand's lunch is a massive, epic failure by the Paul campaign - not some elemental force that couldn't be anticipated or reckoned with. If Rand & Company are too disconnected from the people to understand that the people desperately and in huge numbers want the rule of law to be applied to immigration chaos, and that applying it is 100% consistent with a limited government under the Constitution, then they're already lost in the swamps of DC corruption.

There are at least 12 campaigns this cycle getting fucked by the trump. None of them want to pander to the **********s, because it's a guaranteed loss in the general election. This is as good or better for to mobilize Dem turnout as same sex marriage ballot initiatives are for GOP turnout. Even the ones who can be counted on to show up to vote for a Mitt or a Kasich will vote D in the general against Trump.

[AuH20]

If an employee gave me these kinds of excuses for non-performance, he'd be fired on the spot.

The entire article embodies a loser mentality. Item #2 is especially disingenuous - the political environment was absolutely perfect. There will never be a better political environment for a libertarian candidate to run in.

Trump eating Rand's lunch is a massive, epic failure by the Paul campaign - not some elemental force that couldn't be anticipated or reckoned with. If Rand & Company are too disconnected from the people to understand that the people desperately and in huge numbers want the rule of law to be applied to immigration chaos, and that applying it is 100% consistent with a limited government under the Constitution, then they're already lost in the swamps of DC corruption.

Pretty Much. Rand had a significant headstart on Trump and had been involved in the game longer, yet he couldn't even put a small dent into Trump. Hell, he couldn't even beat Carson in freaking Iowa! The Paul Campaign and Rand Paul himself were apparently disconnected from the plight of the average American or at least that's what was being projected. Sometimes you need passion to carry a campaign and there wasn't much of it for whatever reasons.

[William R]

Why Rand failed?? Simple!! This is a very anti Establishment election and Rand decided to join the establishment so Mitch McConnell would help with changing the Kentucky primary into a caucus. Trying to appease Neocons instead of bashing them around the clock. And most of all doing a 180 on immigration. I got booted off this forum for 6 months because I kept screaming that Rand is blowing it by flirting with the cheap labor lobby. As recently as December 2015 he was still using liberal talking points on the Laura Ingraham show. We have defacto amnesty right now!! I shook my head in disbelief. No Rand what have is failure to enforce the law. Ron Paul was never bashful about blasting illegal immigration. Schools, hospitals and jails being overrun by illegal aliens.

In 2010 he ran a great campaign for Senate!!

[AuH20]

Why Rand failed?? Simple!! This is a very anti Establishment election and Rand decided to join the establishment so Mitch McConnell would help with changing the Kentucky primary into a caucus. Trying to appease Neocons instead of bashing them around the clock. And most of all doing a 180 on immigration. I got booted off this forum for 6 months because I kept screaming that Rand is blowing by flirting with the cheap labor lobby. As recently as December 2015 he was still using liberal talking points on the Laura Ingraham show. We have defacto amnesty right now!! I shook my head in disbelief. No Rand what have is failure to enforce the law. Ron Paul was never bashful about blasting illegal immigration. Schools, hospitals and jails being overrun by illegal aliens.

In 2010 he ran a great campaign for Senate!!

The aligning with the CoC was a huge strategic miscalculation. Remember that Rand was once virulently anti-CoC but then changed once he decided to run for POTUS.

[AuH20]

Rand Paul predicted his own demise ironically

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/rand-paul-chamber-of-commerce-republican-cant-win-107555


FORT WORTH, Texas — Rand Paul told GOP activists Saturday that the GOP can’t nominate another “Chamber of Commerce Republican” and expect to win the presidency in 2016. It’s time, he said, for a “libertarian moment.”

“Chamber of Commerce is fine, I was a member of the Chamber of Commerce, but a Chamber of Commerce Republican is not going to win a national election,” Paul (R-Ky.), the libertarian-leaning senator and likely presidential contender, said. “I’m not saying we give up on what we believe in, but we have to expand what we believe in.”

[wizardwatson]

From the OP article, under reason #3 ("Rand was trying to do something impossible, of course he failed")


At Pajamas Media, Walter Hudson also believes that it is a overwhelmingly a simple matter of the American people, whether in or out of the GOP, in 2016 having no demonstrated interest in what Paul is selling, that:

Right now, people don't want liberty. They may want a sense of freedom for themselves, but aren't willing to endure their neighbor's freedom. Modern Americans will sacrifice their own rights to wield control over others. If you doubt that, attend your town's next planning commission meeting. For freedom to reign, the culture must change, and a political campaign is not going to do that.

While Rand was running, I was hesitant to agree with those who expressed this same sentiment, but ultimately it is the primary factor in my mind.

Not only are people not tolerant of the rights of others these days, they are downright hateful in large numbers. Forget "liberty"-orienting the public, you can hardly change the public at all with sound advice. For a people to "change" as Walter suggests, people have to be aware of what they are. You can't change what you are unless you have some awareness of what you are. And any educating of the masses of USA would surely involve some criticism of either people's positions or their ignorance, neither of which the masses can stomach without lashing out at the messenger.

I agree with an above poster who said that if anything was missed by Rand is was the opportunity to hold out ISIS as exhibit A rather than take a passive stance and treat it as a "wedge" issue.

It was precisely the "blowback moment" in the 2007 debate that catapulted Ron into the liberty sweet spot.

But ultimately it's just cultural rejection of liberty that's arguably gotten much worse in the last 20 years.

[William R]

The aligning with the CoC was a huge strategic miscalculation. Remember that Rand was once virulently anti-CoC but then changed once he decided to run for POTUS.

Yep Rand was Mr Anti Chamber of Commerce. at one time. Chamber of Commerce =====Crony Capitalism. What a fugggin blunder

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

--

[Bastiat's The Law]

If an employee gave me these kinds of excuses for non-performance, he'd be fired on the spot.

The entire article embodies a loser mentality. Item #2 is especially disingenuous - the political environment was absolutely perfect. There will never be a better political environment for a libertarian candidate to run in.

Trump eating Rand's lunch is a massive, epic failure by the Paul campaign - not some elemental force that couldn't be anticipated or reckoned with. If Rand & Company are too disconnected from the people to understand that the people desperately and in huge numbers want the rule of law to be applied to immigration chaos, and that applying it is 100% consistent with a limited government under the Constitution, then they're already lost in the swamps of DC corruption.

Spot F'ing on!

[Bastiat's The Law]

Why Rand failed?? Simple!! This is a very anti Establishment election and Rand decided to join the establishment so Mitch McConnell would help with changing the Kentucky primary into a caucus. Trying to appease Neocons instead of bashing them around the clock. And most of all doing a 180 on immigration. I got booted off this forum for 6 months because I kept screaming that Rand is blowing it by flirting with the cheap labor lobby. As recently as December 2015 he was still using liberal talking points on the Laura Ingraham show. We have defacto amnesty right now!! I shook my head in disbelief. No Rand what have is failure to enforce the law. Ron Paul was never bashful about blasting illegal immigration. Schools, hospitals and jails being overrun by illegal aliens.

In 2010 he ran a great campaign for Senate!!

It's an easy case to make and the solution is even easier; simply turn off the welfare spigot. Ron made that point numerous times. If Rand had done the same I think he'd still be in this race.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Pretty Much. Rand had a significant headstart on Trump and had been involved in the game longer, yet he couldn't even put a small dent into Trump. Hell, he couldn't even beat Carson in freaking Iowa! The Paul Campaign and Rand Paul himself were apparently disconnected from the plight of the average American or at least that's what was being projected. Sometimes you need passion to carry a campaign and there wasn't much of it for whatever reasons.

What made it worse was when Rand would attack Trump he looked like the establishment in doing so. Honestly, whenever he did that I always thought he was being their 'useful idiot'.

[Southron]

If you are going to put everything into Iowa, you are going to have to do a better job going after those core Iowa GOP voters, and this includes Evangelicals. This was true for Ron Paul as well. I don't feel like either of them really targeted the voters they needed to win.

[alucard13mm]

-said he would raise social security age. Obviously wouldnt go too well with the working people.
-pander to minorities. So going after minorities that make up very little of the caucus votes.
-pandering to children. It was established, children are not reliable voters nor do they have money to donate in 2012. They should be supplemental votes, not the main votes you are after.
-talking about stuff 90% of republicans dont care about or have as primary factor. NSA, drones, criminal justice.
-i couldve swore i heard him talk about path of citizenship in one of the last debates.

Those are the main things i thought hurt him. That and he had competition for anti establishment votes. Just sayin he panders to smaller groups... small percent pf a percentage.

-----
say stuff people want to hear, but then do something else when in office. That seems to be the standard motive of operation for every president in recent times.

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

What made it worse was when Rand would attack Trump he looked like the establishment in doing so. Honestly, whenever he did that I always thought he was being their 'useful idiot'.

Except that Trump is an actual idiot. Polishing Trump's knob like Cruz did is not what propelled him to where he is. Rand's positions with Cruz' showmanship did. The trademark Cruz slime is what is dragging him down now.

[The Rebel Poet]

Rand wouldn't run on a message of hate. Whenever you read somewhere "tapped into that anger", that is PC code for hatemongering.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CPUd again.

[alucard13mm]

Tell people what they want to hear to get elected :P then do the opposite.

[The Rebel Poet]

If an employee gave me these kinds of excuses for non-performance, he'd be fired on the spot.

The entire article embodies a loser mentality. Item #2 is especially disingenuous - the political environment was absolutely perfect. There will never be a better political environment for a libertarian candidate to run in.

Trump eating Rand's lunch is a massive, epic failure by the Paul campaign - not some elemental force that couldn't be anticipated or reckoned with. If Rand & Company are too disconnected from the people to understand that the people desperately and in huge numbers want the rule of law to be applied to immigration chaos, and that applying it is 100% consistent with a limited government under the Constitution, then they're already lost in the swamps of DC corruption.
Bullshit. Having a faux anti-establishment looser like trump bleeding off the low-information anti-establishment voters while Sanders has exactly the same foreign policy as us plus free hand outs to bleed off the youth vote, Ron Paul would be exactly where Rand was. If you really think that ferners are so scary that The Trumptard's whole campaign was not just a media bubble then I have a bridge to sell you.

[Working Poor]

I don't know what really happened but I feel very let down by the liberty movement. Trying to analyze it just makes me feel worse. Ron brought me out of my political cave and gave me some hope. I feel like I have been made a fool by believing in freedom.

[CPUd]

I don't know what really happened but I feel very let down by the liberty movement. Trying to analyze it just makes me feel worse. Ron brought me out of my political cave and gave me some hope. I feel like I have been made a fool by believing in freedom.

That's why these same people are in here constantly driving in wedges. They want you to feel helpless so they can sell you on their own personal Path to Liberty. Now that a few weeks have passed and peopel don't pay as much attention, they are trying to rewrite the narrative to suit their own goals.

[Working Poor]

That's why these same people are in here constantly driving in wedges. They want you to feel helpless so they can sell you on their own personal Path to Liberty. Now that a few weeks have passed and peopel don't pay as much attention, they are trying to rewrite the narrative to suit their own goals.

I am not too worried about it. If no other place in my mind, heart and spirit I am free and know what liberty is. I was really hoping it would become a physical reality for all.

Also I know that most people don't want liberty they are afraid of it.

[Smitty]

Only describing 3 reasons isn't even enough to begin the discussion.

[Peace&Freedom]

Only describing 3 reasons isn't even enough to begin the discussion.

My own analysis of why Rand failed is in the below blog post.

[idiom]

Inside Jeb Bush's $150 Million Failure

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/jeb-bush-dropping-out-set-up-to-fail-213662

Basically could be reading Rands obituary:


Most critically, the playbook, people who have read it tell POLITICO, contained nothing about Donald Trump, who would spend the next excruciating year turning Bush into his personal patrician piñata.
“The rules all changed this year. It was all about taking on the establishment,” said a Republican operative close to the Bush family. “When you’re the son and brother of former presidents, the grandson of a U.S. senator, how do you run in a year like this? It is just a year of personality, not message. All of a sudden, there was no path for him. They just kept falling back on his record as governor, which is all he has—and no one gives a shit.”

[notsure]

I have 2 reasons. 1) Ted Cruz and 2) Donald Trump.

[Anti Federalist]

I am not too worried about it. If no other place in my mind, heart and spirit I am free and know what liberty is. I was really hoping it would become a physical reality for all.

Also I know that most people don't want liberty they are afraid of it.

That's all you need to keep in mind.

Until the tiny minority that holds freedom, at all levels, to be the one and only true cause worth fighting for and is willing to drag the rest of Boobus along, kicking and screaming whether they want to or or not, we're pretty much doomed to the same old same old.

In the meantime, carve out as much of a free life as you can in an unfree world.

Reject the system and its institutions of control.

Reject the technological containment/convenience grid.

Reject the system's mind numbing conformity to the political winds of the day.

Be your own person.

[osan]

IMHO, 1 and 3 are the kind of minor things that insiders obsess over. Minor tweeks.

Number 2 is right on the head. It was the biggest factor, and it was completely out of the control of Rand and his campaign. A loudmouthed billionaire celebrity entering the race is uncontrollable. ISIS attacks in Paris were another uncontrollable event.

The real reason: the vast majority neither understand, nor want freedom. Many of those who have even a vague notion of it flee, hands flailing wildly with a look of complete terror in their eyes, screaming "ANARCHY... ANARCHY... RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!" They don't want the costs in terms of risk and responsibility. They want all the benefits, but none of the burdens. Therefore, Rand Paul becomes very uninteresting for them - hateful, even.
s
The rest simply have not the faintest clue as to what freedom actually is. They believe that they are free, perceiving their prison walls as something other than that.

For those who want actual freedom, I suggest you start praying for a meteor strike, freedom-friendly aliens to land on the South Lawn, or Jesus to hurry his ass up and get the hell back here, if he is coming at all, and straighten this shit right out, because I am sorry to say that it will not likely to be forthcoming by other means. The vast majority of humanity is against you to the point of being quite willing to kill you themselves if necessary, but far more amenable to having someone else do it for them.

I wish I had better news, and I do advocate for positive action no matter how futile. Crazy things happen and you never know with even this situation. Just don't expect the good outcome because so far as I can see, even that will be sorrow-laden because I see no way to achieve proper freedom without killing at least 3 billion human beings, worldwide. But with any luck, something I didn't see will make itself apparent - a miracle of sorts, and the race of men will claw its way back to something of decent life. Whatever the final outcome, it stands to be quite the adventure. :)

[JK/SEA]

too bad both party's don't adapt to having a 'let the chips fall where they may' philosophy...

[osan]

too bad both party's don't adapt to having a 'let the chips fall where they may' philosophy...

Too risky, and too honest. Both are hateful to them.

[UtahApocalypse]

It's my fault, after a divorce and losing my dad last year I wasn't active at all in liberty politics.

[CBC4L]

There were many reasons on why things didn't go as well as we would have liked.

Rand is an introvert, his campaign needed to accept this and adjust away from the standard event to accommodate it.

This cycle has been a circus, Trump and Sanders drew the attention which made Rand's lectures fall flat.

Rand's speeches didn't leave any room for applause or crowd participation.

The suggested speech sent out to caucus captains was an informational speech, not a persuasive speech.

At the end of the day, it was if they were giving features of a dictionary as opposed to trying to sell the dictionary.

[Peace Piper]

I think it was number 1. Rand decided to play ball with the establishment; i.e., endorse Mitch McConnell, endorse Mitt Romney, something his Dad would have never done. Also, Rand did not include his Dad in the campaign until the very end, which was too late. I don't know why he didn't embrace his Dad and use Ron to campaign. That would have given him 22% in Iowa plus the extras he would pick up for being younger than his Dad and some of the good legislation he has proposed in the Congress.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dianne again."

I remember the exact day and time when Rand endorsed Romney on Fox- I was shocked. People here were - at first - pretending it didn't happen. That was when the real Rand came out of the closet. "A different kind of Republican" all right- one who craps on the supporters that literally made his father. It's as if Rand started to believe it was all about him.

Both Pauls seem to have an arrogant standoffish kind of attitude towards their supporters. Rand reaped the rewards. Enough already.

[Peace Piper]

The real reason: the vast majority neither understand, nor want freedom. Many of those who have even a vague notion of it flee, hands flailing wildly with a look of complete terror in their eyes, screaming "ANARCHY... ANARCHY... RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!"

When all else fails, blame the dumb voters. And whatever you do, don't blame the snot nosed filth that both Pauls seem to insist take part in their campaigns. A winning strategy!

[TheTyke]

I apologize I didn't take the time to read the whole thread, but I find just the title annoying to see every time visiting the forum.

"Failed?" You do realize, practically every politician secretly aspires to president some day - and scheme, deal and compromise to enable even the slightest possibility. Even with that, each of these politicians would be lucky to have a 1% (1-in-100) shot of becoming president. And of the ones who openly try, realize also that the establishment doesn't have a problem with 98% of them because they are compliant, cooperative and embrace horrible policies for power, so the special interest money, the media machine, etc. are not arrayed against them to make it even more difficult.

Yes, there are things that could've been improved, and a different result that was hoped for. But to have tried something with such low odds to begin with, and to take on the entire establishment at the same time is not "failure." Indeed - to assist a first-term senator through those odds, to have once been thought the frontrunner, to have rallied an ideological minority and have come close to breaking through the might of the status quo should rightly be considered quite an accomplishment, or at least the most heroic of attempts.

It used to be just one constitutionalist in Congress, Ron Paul. Now we've multiplied our forces to include Rand, Thomas, Justin, Walter Jones, Curt Clawson, and a host of other potential allies like Dave Brat and Mike Lee who kick the establishment's butt every election and bringing liberty viewpoints forward. We should strive to build on that success, build the movement, and stick together when worthy but low percentage plays like winning the presidency or bumping off incumbents are finished, and go all out in every battle to maximize our chances and fan the flames of liberty.

Onward and upward!

[wmmonk]

When all else fails, blame the dumb voters. And whatever you do, don't blame the snot nosed filth that both Pauls seem to insist take part in their campaigns. A winning strategy!

It is pretty much exactly this. We can't blame the professionals, because they were paid and were doing a fantastic job, even when they weren't. Now, if you wanted to wait until after everything has fallen apart and blame them, but kept silent when it actually mattered the most, that is okay.

The voters doing what they have always done are to blame though, definitely not the politicians and people in campaigns designed to reach those voters.

So, now that we are blaming the voters, let me ask you.
HOW HARD HAVE YOU VOTED?
Did you vote twice? Three times? Maybe even four?
Is your freedom limited to only one vote?

WHO are you voting for?
If you aren't voting for Vermin Supreme, why are you voting?

[Matthanuf06]

This was the perfect set up for a candidate like Rand. He just failed miserably.

This political environment is ripe for a anti-establishment guy like Rand. It is why Cruz and Trump are killing it.

The problem with Rand was he focused on all the wrong topics and he wanted to make up for his fathers mistake by courting the establishment.

The key problem was the messaging. People don't care about stuff like spying or the FED. That is just reality.

If Paul or any liberty candidate focused there message on the following they'd have done awesome this excellent:
1. Stopping illegal immigration
2. Defeating ISIS while not nation building countries that haven't attacked us
3. Pro-Life/Guns
4. Reducing deficits, taxes, and Obamacare and tying all that into jobs

He would have appeared as a 'sane' and 'likeable' alternative to Cruz and Trump. Instead he ran the campaign on issues that literally don't even hit the survey of what is important to GOP voters.

[Matt Collins]

This was the perfect set up for a candidate like Rand. He just failed miserably.

This political environment is ripe for a anti-establishment guy like Rand. It is why Cruz and Trump are killing it.

The problem with Rand was he focused on all the wrong topics and he wanted to make up for his fathers mistake by courting the establishment.

The key problem was the messaging. People don't care about stuff like spying or the FED. That is just reality.

If Paul or any liberty candidate focused there message on the following they'd have done awesome this excellent:
1. Stopping illegal immigration
2. Defeating ISIS while not nation building countries that haven't attacked us
3. Pro-Life/Guns
4. Reducing deficits, taxes, and Obamacare and tying all that into jobs

He would have appeared as a 'sane' and 'likeable' alternative to Cruz and Trump. Instead he ran the campaign on issues that literally don't even hit the survey of what is important to GOP voters.Again you are failing to understand that Cruz will connect with the religious crowd better than Rand ever could and that Trump's personality cannot be competed with by Rand.

[wmmonk]

My own analysis of why Rand failed is in the below blog post.

What blog post is it?

[Matthanuf06]

Again you are failing to understand that Cruz will connect with the religious crowd better than Rand ever could and that Trump's personality cannot be competed with by Rand.

The fact of the matter is Rand is on the right side of all the major issues. He just chose not to focus on them.

Perhaps he still would have lost. But at least he would have given himself a fighting chance.

[Iowa]

How about somebody getting 25 times more media time than all the other candidates combined, and btw Rand was last in media attention, it makes all the difference. In addition, the Paul folks were burned out, 3 Presidential elections cycles..I heard from many..I just don't have the time now, I have kids now, I'm not making the money I once was... Etc etc....

A 4 year break could make a huge difference, Rand not needing to worry about Senate re-election.


This. You can't underestimate the Jewish influence in media.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Here (http://tinyurl.com/zwjqrzy) is the best analysis I have seen on the Rand presidential campaign thus far:



What Went Wrong With Rand Paul 2016

It has been a little over a month since Kentucky Senator Rand Paul dropped out of the presidential race, but for liberty activists across the country it has seemed like an eternity as we watch what has become a very depressing primary process unfolding. At this point most in the liberty movement are simply trying to gain a sense of what happened and how to fix it. Some have argued that this was the cycle of Trump and there was absolutely nothing that we could have done to change the outcome in the end, and that even Ron Paul would have run into a similar fate. While I believe there is some truth to the idea that Trump would have always won in the end, there is no doubt that mistakes were made on the campaign trail and build up to the campaign which prevented us from galvanizing the sort of donor base, social media prevalence and grassroots engagement that set Ron Paul’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns apart.

Before we get into it, I think it is important to make clear that I supported the strategy which was implemented 100% and have been conclusively proven wrong by what has unfolded. I have learned my lesson and believe it is imperative that we have a discussion as a movement about what sort of lessons must be learned from this major setback. In order for the liberty movement to not only have a better showing in 2020 (whether with Rand Paul or someone else) but also stop the lack of momentum we’ve experienced in recent congressional and senate elections we must learn these lessons and apply them to future election cycles. In the end, there were a few very clear things which went wrong with Rand Paul 2016 that prevented us from breaking out of our single digit polling status:

1. A Lack of Libertarian Engagement

The 2013 election cycle began with Rand Paul in a very strong polling position according to Real Clear Politics, placing in the top five of all potential candidates nationally, in Iowa and in New Hampshire. He was the only candidate other than Jeb Bush who was accomplishing this at the time. That being said, Rand began to reach out to other bases early on in his effort, and many in the liberty base felt that he was taking them for granted. If there was one thing that drew liberty activists to passionately advocate for Ron Paul in 2012 it was that he put our principles above absolutely everything else, even winning. When liberty activists began to feel like they were part of a triangulation effort many of them pushed back. Whether it was the war on drugs, foreign policy (whether Iran, Israel or Iraq), gay marriage, Edward Snowden, abortion, climate change or a host of other issues libertarian defenders of Rand Paul constantly found ourselves defending his position and clarifying his language amongst other libertarians.

In hindsight, it’s hard to look at this list and not see the concerns those activists had at the time. In many ways this stylistic departure from the principle driven advocacy of Ron Paul proved to be our downfall, as liberty activists (and more importantly conservatives at large) began to see Rand Paul as a triangulating politician rather than the man of principle his voting record has clearly shown him to be. This caused some of the liberty activists who are more stubborn about adherence to principle to leave the campaign early on, and caused many more who saw what Rand was doing but weren’t excited about it to lessen the depth and passion of their activism in comparison to what it was for Ron Paul in 2012. By the time Rand attempted to turn it around in the fall of 2015 by going full libertarian it was already too late, the damage with his base had been done. He was already relegated to the minor candidate status that his father avoided until the very end in the 2012 cycle.

2. A Campaign From A Cynical Premise

This criticism will probably rub some of my friends who have worked on the campaign the wrong way, and I hope they do not take it personally, but looking at the list of statements above from 2013 and 2014 paints a pretty clear picture of a candidate who was cynically taking his base for granted and attempting to distance himself from that base to appeal to voters who viewed them with suspicion. As a supporter of this strategy in 2013 and 2014 I distinctly remember thinking that even libertarians who were upset with Rand’s compromises would have no choice but to hold their nose and vote for him in the primary and that the outreach would pay off via people from other coalitions such as social conservatives and the tea party joining our campaign. As such, I cheered as Rand essentially attempted to fool people (very poorly) into thinking he was an interventionist on foreign policy, a defender of the governments role in drug policy and a fighter for “traditional marriage” among other things when he should have been focused on rejecting those premises all together in the strongest possible language. Likewise, I cheered as he stumped for the worst sort of political garbage the Republican Party has to offer. Ultimately, the social conservatives and tea partiers found candidates who embodied their values much more strongly and the liberty base had a large contingent either holding its nose or refusing to participate because our guy wasn’t speaking our language. This cynical approach was the antithesis of everything Ron Paul embodied, and more than anything else is the reason for the difference in the success of the two. If there is one lesson we must learn as a movement it is that campaigns operated from a cynical premise always fail. We must focus on building our tent and reaching out to people on the basis of the idea that our principles are the best method of achieving their desired goals, instead Rand Paul attempted to be everything to everybody and would up pleasing very few. If pursuing a “grow the tent” strategy means we cannot actually win for a few more cycles, so be it, but at least we will see growth. What we have instead is a major setback. The sort of setbacks we have endured cannot be tolerated going forward.

3. Attempted To Convince People He Was A Conventional Politician

Whether it was the Mitch McConnell endorsement, campaigning for RINO Republicans such as Susan Collins and Lamar Alexander or cutting commercials for the Chamber of Commerce, much of Rand Paul’s 2016 “pre-campaign” was spent attempting to convince establishment Republicans that he was not the scary anti politician that his father was and could be worked with. This brought us early success, as Rand Paul was #1 in the Real Clear Politics national polling average for virtually all of the 2014 midterm election cycle. I remember watching him speak at Fancy Farm in 2014 on Mitch McConnell’s behalf and having grand visions of the party establishment giving the liberty movement the green light. But ultimately that was a fantasy, and this advocacy was one of the biggest criticisms of Rand Paul as a candidate from liberty people and conservatives alike. Given the major anti establishment mood of the 2016 elections, this was the exact opposite of what Rand Paul should have been doing. We must learn an important lesson as it relates to politics that liberty people understand implicitly in foreign policy; no good can come from aligning with thugs. When you lay with dogs you come up with fleas, and any Rand Paul supporter who is honest will admit the McConnell endorsement was one of the single largest roadblocks to attracting the anti establishment vote. Rand should have been aggressively publicly distancing himself from people like Mitch McConnell and hammering people like John Boehner, instead he attempted to make peace with them and a conservative base that wants war with those people felt betrayed.

4. Ran A General Election Campaign During The Primary

One of the major strategies of Rand Paul 2016 going in was to convince the Republican voter that we were the candidate who was best positioned to defeat Hillary Clinton in the general election. When this strategy saw a lot of empirical backing in the form of Rand defeating Hillary in many state polls the campaign doubled down on the strategy, trying to brand themselves as a “different kind of Republican”. Ultimately this lead to the campaign pushing issues like criminal justice reform which, while admirable, do not motivate the liberty voter base nearly to the extent of issues such as reigning in the federal reserve or our reckless foreign policy. Furthermore, they do not motivate voters who should be easy converts such as tea party voters in the way that major spending cuts or tax reductions do. This is not to say Rand did not have the best answers on taxes and spending, his plans spoke for themselves. But ultimately people want a limited government Republican, not a different kind of Republican, and Rand emphasized the latter too much too early. This lead to us losing steam in primary polling and by late summer being left out of polls vs Hillary Clinton entirely, rendering the electability argument useless. That being said, even if polling companies kept putting Rand’s name in there I doubt it would have made a difference. Ultimately the voters who vote based on “electability” has been a much smaller share in 2016 than it was in 2012, which made this strategy a severe miscalculation.

5. The Liberty Movement propping up Ted Cruz

This is not a Rand Paul centric criticism, but it has become quite clear through numerous acts of betrayal that our movements support of Ted Cruz was ill advised and that we must be much more careful who we champion as a movement in the future. The liberty movement was instrumental in getting Cruz elected to the Texas senate, with several Cruz campaign staffers having come out of the movement and Cruz having received a coveted endorsement and a lot of activist support from Young Americans for Liberty. This continued into 2013 with YAL inviting Cruz to their convention on a panel alongside Rand Paul, and ultimately concluded in Cruz running for president and eliminating much of our opportunity to coalesce tea party support which the movement was counting on to push us over the top in the 2016 election. Additionally, this created the opportunity for a small number of people to create a narrative of liberty activists going to Ted Cruz which largely did not play out in reality. Even still, the narrative put the movement on the defensive and allowed Cruz to ride his advantages with evangelicals and tea party voters into a stronger position than where we were in the process. I am not saying we should avoid supporting candidates who may run against liberty people for president in the future, but I am saying that we should only support liberty movement people and by propping up Ted Cruz during his senate run we allowed a non liberty candidate to limit our potential for success in this primary to a devastating degree. Though I think Trump would still win in the end, had Cruz not been around to deal with Rand Paul may be the conservative alternative to Trump at this point, as the political calculation would have been fundamentally different.

6. A Core Campaign Staff of Non Liberty People

One of the fundamental miscalculations of Rand Paul 2016, as previously stated, had been the desire to triangulate the message rather than champion it. This problem was reflected in the campaign staff, which had very little prior connection to the liberty movement and very likely resulted in an unclear and watered down campaign message. Whether it was hiring a campaign manager who ended up going to Marco Rubio, a New Hampshire director who ended up working for John Kasich or a national political director who worked for Rick Santorum in 2012 there was a consistent theme of Rand Paul putting people in top positions who had no prior experience with the liberty movement. As we ended up seeing, the campaign ultimately had a lot of trouble understanding the liberty voter and effectively engaging them, I would argue as a result of this. Now, this was not a ubiquitous problem, we did have people such as Steve Grubbs in Iowa who did a very good job despite having no prior connection to the movement. That being said, ultimately you need a campaigns core to be comprised of people who passionately believe in the message the candidate is advocating, otherwise you will continue to have this problem of engaging and motivating a base that was historically highly engaged in the process. Some of this is going to mean we have candidates take their lumps in the future developing a “farm system” of staffers and strategists, but ultimately it is the only way to build the movement in a sustainable way.

There were many other factors which conspired to harm Rand Paul’s candidacy in 2016, but of all of them I believe these were at least a few of the major ones which we can learn from and prevent going forward. This is a very young political movement that is made up largely of very young people, and the idea that we were never going to experience a major setback was naive in hindsight. Conservative icon Morton Blackwell has always said “Don’t fully trust anyone until he has stuck with a good cause which he saw was losing”, and I do not believe he could have been more correct. Ultimately the liberty movement will either learn from these mistakes and move forward or ignore these lessons and repeat the mistakes until we do learn them. I sincerely hope that we have seen the last of cynical politicking, triangulation and disengaging from the base in libertarian presidential campaigns going forward.