PDA

View Full Version : If Johnson is doing as well as he is, just imagine how Ron or Rand would have done




cindy25
10-08-2016, 06:22 PM
15% easily. and after a decent debate who knows.

such a waste

69360
10-08-2016, 06:45 PM
Probably not as well. Johnson is pulling centrists and former Bernie voters that Ron or Rand never could. We'll probably never know for sure. I doubt either will run again.

HVACTech
10-08-2016, 07:23 PM
as disgusting. (literally embarrassing) as this election cycle is, it is no wonder. Porky Pig could probably get 20%.

most people are inherently Libertarian. as it just makes sense.

TPTB use the Anarchists against us. to make us look stupid, and it works. (Anarchy IS stupid, MinArchy is not)
for this reason... I think the Paul's decided to base the question in a simple way. "Democracy? or a Republic?"
which do you wish to live in?

this simple question... is to complex for your average American. :(
9 years later... this question remains too complex for even RPF's. :eek:

does this website have a position on this question? NO. it does not....
here is where it gets real... I have actually met quite a few people who are still active here....
do you know where I met them? at a "Rally for the Republic" how FUCKING funny is that? :p;):cool::eek::toady:

I was a Maroon for attending this event. it was billed as an event to... "bring the Republican party back to it's roots"
I still have a T shirt to validate my assertion...

perchance... what do YOU suppose the "roots of the Republican party " might be?

what are the "roots of the Libertarian party"?

Jordan Liberty
10-08-2016, 07:55 PM
I think either Paul as the Libertarian candidate would have been a game changer. Throwing a sane person into this craziness would have been refreshing for the voters.

RJ Liberty
10-08-2016, 09:13 PM
If Johnson is doing as well as he is, just imagine how Ron or Rand would have done. 15% easily. and after a decent debate who knows.

such a waste
We already know how well Rand would have done. Rand averaged a 2-3% in polling leading up to the Iowa Caucuses. His highest poll was a 6%, and his lowest was literally a 0%. With those numbers, he would not have been invited to a presidential debate, and in fact he was already being relegated to the "undercard" debates and was given debate spaces the other candidates didn't want: bathroom areas and unfinished-basement-looking facilities. No way would he have "reached 15% easily" when he couldn't get past 6% even among Republicans.

nikcers
10-08-2016, 09:39 PM
We already know how well Rand would have done. Rand averaged a 2-3% in polling leading up to the Iowa Caucuses. His highest poll was a 6%, and his lowest was literally a 0%. With those numbers, he would not have been invited to a presidential debate, and in fact he was already being relegated to the "undercard" debates and was given debate spaces the other candidates didn't want: bathroom areas and unfinished-basement-looking facilities. No way would he have "reached 15% easily" when he couldn't get past 6% even among Republicans.

Dude that would of all changed after Sander's campaign got caught colluding with the Clinton's. If you look at the polling overlap you would understand just how much they rigged this election against Rand Paul.

cindy25
10-08-2016, 09:46 PM
We already know how well Rand would have done. Rand averaged a 2-3% in polling leading up to the Iowa Caucuses. His highest poll was a 6%, and his lowest was literally a 0%. With those numbers, he would not have been invited to a presidential debate, and in fact he was already being relegated to the "undercard" debates and was given debate spaces the other candidates didn't want: bathroom areas and unfinished-basement-looking facilities. No way would he have "reached 15% easily" when he couldn't get past 6% even among Republicans.

Johnson got nowhere in 2012 GOP primaries, when Ron was 2nd or 3rd. different times bring different results.

RJ Liberty
10-08-2016, 10:04 PM
Johnson got nowhere in 2012 GOP primaries, when Ron was 2nd or 3rd. different times bring different results.
They sure do. But in this case, we have polling results from both Gary and Rand from this election. And Rand just didn't poll well. PRRI polled Republicans in November 2015, and Rand received 0% of that poll. That's the same number he got in the Emerson College poll in October 2015, and the Economist poll in August 2015. It's crazy to think Rand would somehow have been polling at 15% when we already know what he polled earlier this year and late last year.

nikcers
10-08-2016, 10:56 PM
They sure do. But in this case, we have polling results from both Gary and Rand from this election. And Rand just didn't poll well. PRRI polled Republicans in November 2015, and Rand received 0% of that poll. That's the same number he got in the Emerson College poll in October 2015, and the Economist poll in August 2015. It's crazy to think Rand would somehow have been polling at 15% when we already know what he polled earlier this year and late last year.

So the argument is would Rand be doing better if he were the libertarian nominee. If you look at the polls for Gary Johnson, he pulls slightly more from democrats then Republicans to the extent that a lot of the establishment democrats say that he is going to give the election to Trump. Now if you look at the polling for Bernie Sanders supporters who said they would vote for Rand Paul- you will see that there is a significant overlap.

You have to remember Rand Paul did shut down the patriot act ext which is really important to millenials. I would argue that Rand Paul would do better than Gary on that front, and that he would hella do better than Gary drawing conservatives. I think the big hurdles in this election were Trump, Sanders, and Ted Cruz. If Rand had made it over the hurdle he would of won the general election in a rand slide.

CPUd
10-08-2016, 11:21 PM
I has a theory that when they were polling Rand Paul, a significant number of respondents thought he was Paul Ryan, and it helped him or hurt him, depending on the month.

luctor-et-emergo
10-09-2016, 01:11 AM
Probably not as well. Johnson is pulling centrists and former Bernie voters that Ron or Rand never could. We'll probably never know for sure. I doubt either will run again.

Commies for Johnson ?

eleganz
10-09-2016, 01:18 AM
Probably not as well. Johnson is pulling centrists and former Bernie voters that Ron or Rand never could. We'll probably never know for sure. I doubt either will run again.

What we know from Iowa is that Bernie was Rand's top competitor for young (and college) voters.

Rand wouldn't be pulling as much from Hillary but he would be devastating Trump's base right about now and take around half or more of Hillary's independents.

A lot of people knew that Rand had a good shot in 2012 but Trump was the joker in the deck. Without another wild card, I think Rand may do it again. If he doesn't Justin said he would do it anyway if nobody else did.

RJ Liberty
10-09-2016, 07:47 AM
So the argument is would Rand be doing better if he were the libertarian nominee.

But Rand, unlike Ron and Gary, isn't a member of the Libertarian Party, and endorsed Donald Dump, the least-libertarian Republican candidate.



If you look at the polls for Gary Johnson, he pulls slightly more from democrats then Republicans to the extent that a lot of the establishment democrats say that he is going to give the election to Trump. Now if you look at the polling for Bernie Sanders supporters who said they would vote for Rand Paul- you will see that there is a significant overlap.

You raise good points. There is definitely significant overlap.



You have to remember Rand Paul did shut down the patriot act ext which is really important to millenials. I would argue that Rand Paul would do better than Gary on that front, and that he would hella do better than Gary drawing conservatives.

But Rand wasn't able to draw any conservatives in this election. We know exactly how he "would do" because we saw his poll numbers among conservatives, and they were literally the bottom of the barrel. At least three times, he received 0% in the polls.



I think the big hurdles in this election were Trump, Sanders, and Ted Cruz. If Rand had made it over the hurdle he would of won the general election in a rand slide.

I like the "Rand slide" pun, but I'm not otherwise convinced. We saw how his polling was going over a five-month period. Rand was gaining no traction over conservatives, and decided to focus on his seat in Kentucky, because he could see where things were going.

Krugminator2
10-09-2016, 09:28 AM
They sure do. But in this case, we have polling results from both Gary and Rand from this election. And Rand just didn't poll well. PRRI polled Republicans in November 2015, and Rand received 0% of that poll. That's the same number he got in the Emerson College poll in October 2015, and the Economist poll in August 2015. It's crazy to think Rand would somehow have been polling at 15% when we already know what he polled earlier this year and late last year.


If Rand would have run in the Republican Primary and then run as a Libertarian (which is brain-dead on so many levels), I don't think he would do appreciably better than Gary. I don't know that he would do worse but it is possible. Immediately after you have a poor showing, your stock goes down at least temporarily. Candidates go in and out of popularity. Rand started running in 2012 and people just lost interest. He did the most appearances of any politician by far on Fox. The longer exposure candidates get the less popular they become. It happens to every candidate. It is happening to Cruz. Donald Trump will done immediately after the election if he loses.

If Rand had not run, kept a lower profile, and then now ran as a Libertarian, I think he would be better than 50/50 to be above 15%. He is more well-spoken, smarter, more libertarian, has an infinitely more authoritative grasp of the issues than Gary. The support Gary has is because of his resume and because people don't know anything about him. He's Herman Cain. He is just somebody different that people will learn to hate. The fact of the matter is Gary comes across as a goofy, unprincipled, intellectually lazy dunce. After this election, he will be done representing libertarians, whereas Rand will still be a main spokesman.

farreri
10-09-2016, 01:33 PM
Nothing preventing Ron or Rand to run for the Libertarian nominee, so why didn't they? :confused:

Jordan Liberty
10-09-2016, 08:54 PM
^Rand didn't want to burn bridges with the GOP. There are also sore loser laws in some states. Ron is retired.

RonPaulMall
10-12-2016, 06:18 AM
Ron would be doing much better than Gary. Rand I don't really see doing better at all since he's really indistinguishable from Gary in both personality and policy. Rand could stand in for Gary rest of the campaign and I doubt anybody would notice the difference.

Jesse James
10-12-2016, 06:54 AM
I agree, either Paul would have done better.

The roots of the GOP is starting a large war against the South, destroying the land, and then tormenting the Southerners for the next 40 years.

I would prefer we start a new party, but I don't like the direction the LP is going in.

nikcers
10-13-2016, 04:28 PM
Hey kids, Obama says don't vote for Johnson.


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

enhanced_deficit
10-13-2016, 10:18 PM
Yea Libertarians / alternatives to tired R-D are gaining popularity. But Rand would have been put on hot seat as a threat, Johnson is not really seen as a threat by media/neocons and is coasting easy.

LibertyEagle
10-14-2016, 12:58 AM
Johnson was on CSPAN's Washington Journal a couple of days ago. Accepted phone calls, etc. Figured you guys knew about it. You would have loved it. He was advocating for the EPA, etc. Mentioned he and Bill Weld were "best friends". Good stuff.

:rolleyes:

jmdrake
10-14-2016, 01:46 AM
Probably not as well. Johnson is pulling centrists and former Bernie voters that Ron or Rand never could. We'll probably never know for sure. I doubt either will run again.

Are you kidding? Ron pulled many former Bill Clinton supporters including myself. Ron is more principled in his antiwar stance than Johnson. Plus Johnson supports the TPP which many on the left hate. After the first debate even Obama henceman Van Jones had to admit that he agreed with Trump in opposing the TPP rather than Clinton's wishy washy "I was for it now I'm against it" approach.

jmdrake
10-14-2016, 01:47 AM
Nothing preventing Ron or Rand to run for the Libertarian nominee, so why didn't they? :confused:

Ron did once already. Rand doesn't want to burn his GOP bridges.

Jesse James
10-14-2016, 07:09 AM
Gary Johnson is more libertarian than Donald Trump.

seems some people need to be reminded this. I see why one would vote for Donald Trump, but don't piss on my cat and tell me it's raining!

osan
10-14-2016, 08:54 AM
15% easily. and after a decent debate who knows.

such a waste

Methinks you mis-measure the average man.

The Pauls would, IMO, do worse. Why? Because Johnson is far more conventional in his positions. Were he an actual libertarian, he would be relegated to the slag heap along with the good doctors because he might pose a threat to the status quo, however remote.

Always remember and never forget: The vast and overwhelming majority of Americans want absolutely nothing to do with freedom, except to deny this truth. We love to talk about it. We don't like to do much to get it, and most would be scared sheet-white were actual freedom to descend upon their lives. All that risk, choice, and responsibility for oneself. There would be a revolution to return to what we now have.

Remember the dufus Russians, who by 1991 were already pining for the good old days of 5-hour bread lines, KGB and Lubyanka?

What's familiar is comfortable and most humans would murder your children, eat them uncooked, and drink their blood in order to keep their mitts on whatever it is with which they are comfy. That's why beaten women stay with their abusers. The known is less scary than the unknown. Dependence is less scary than independence. Someone else doing the thinking is less scary than thinking for yourself. And so on...

TheTexan
10-14-2016, 09:01 AM
The Pauls would, IMO, do worse. Why? Because Johnson is far more conventional in his positions. Were he an actual libertarian, he would be relegated to the slag heap along with the good doctors because he might pose a threat to the status quo, however remote.

The Pauls would do way worse.

Johnson is doing OK because he's a Republican

Rand Paul would do terrible because he's a Libertarian

Ron Paul would never even get the chance because roads

Jesse James
10-14-2016, 09:01 AM
Rand would do better than Johnson but as a result Hillary would win in a landslide

TheTexan
10-14-2016, 09:06 AM
Rand would do better than Johnson but as a result Hillary would win in a landslide

Trump would shut down Rand Paul so fast, like he did in the debates


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpUe9bh-5qM

Jesse James
10-14-2016, 09:09 AM
he didn't shut Rand down he favored from the media that rigged it for Trump and Cruz and Carson.