Rand harmed himself attacking Christie, NOT Trump.

[erowe1]

People Look at this chart of average polls on RCP, scroll down to the graph. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tion-3823.html

What the hell happened around the fall of 2013? I maybe wrong in my analysis but finding out what went wrong is not negative. I have heard a hundred different causes on what went wrong with Rands polling and so far the events people cite do NOT match up to any changes in polling.

From that chart, the more important factor in late 2013 appears to be the entrance of Huckabee, who started out with high poll numbers that look like they accompany big dips in both Cruz'z and Rand's. Rand came back a bit after that, but then went down again. But so did Christie. Both Rand and Christie have trended down pretty much in unison since early 2014.

[klamath]

From that chart, the more important factor in late 2013 appears to be the entrance of Huckabee, who started out with high poll numbers that look like they accompany big dips in both Cruz'z and Rand's. Rand came back a bit after that, but then went down again. But so did Christie. Both Rand and Christie have trended down pretty much in unison since early 2014.

Good point. They did start adding Huck about that time. Christie's surge might have been just the neocons rallying around him against Rand. It can be very volatile when everyone is running in the single digits and teens.

[klamath]

It really does bring out the attempt to destroy rand in the media. Who really should have had all the articles written about how their campaign collapsed? CHRISTIE. Christie went from the highest polling to the mud.

[YesI'mALiberal]

What's plagiarismgate? I follow Rand closely and I've never heard of it.

https://www.google.com/webhp#q=rand+paul+plagiarism 184000 hits

Apparently you had no access to any network, any newspaper, any magazine, or any website in late 2013.

And apparently you weren't reading here, either.

https://www.google.com/search?q=site...m=122&ie=UTF-8 557 hits

[jonhowe]

People Look at this chart of average polls on RCP, scroll down to the graph. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tion-3823.html

What the hell happened around the fall of 2013? I maybe wrong in my analysis but finding out what went wrong is not negative. I have heard a hundred different causes on what went wrong with Rands polling and so far the events people cite do NOT match up to any changes in polling.

https://www.google.com/trends/explor...=Etc%2FGMT%2B4

Zooming in on the time in question, the biggest headlines were his Chris Christie feud, and Syria.

[YesI'mALiberal]

https://www.google.com/trends/explor...=Etc%2FGMT%2B4

Zooming in on the time in question, the biggest headlines were his Chris Christie feud, and Syria.

LOL. July - November is "zooming in?" NO. THIS is zooming in:

https://www.google.com/trends/explor...=Etc%2FGMT%2B4

Oh, and check this one out:

https://www.google.com/trends/explor...=Etc%2FGMT%2B4


n.b. note also - even on your link, check the Related Searches at the bottom. You won't see "Chris Christie." You will see "Rand Paul plagiarism," though.

[klamath]

LOL. July - November is "zooming in?" NO. THIS is zooming in:

https://www.google.com/trends/explor...=Etc%2FGMT%2B4

Oh, and check this one out:

https://www.google.com/trends/explor...=Etc%2FGMT%2B4


n.b. note also - even on your link, check the Related Searches at the bottom. You won't see "Chris Christie." You will see "Rand Paul plagiarism," though.

There are two things wrong with your analysis. First Rand was the leading republican at the time so just reading google trends is very likely yourself and other democratic operative searching to get dirt on the leading republican.
Second off you are not creditable because this thread is about fixing a problem with a candidate that the majority supports around here but it is in your best interest to lead everyone too the wrong conclusion so the problem can't be fixed.

[YesI'mALiberal]

Second off you are not creditable because this thread is about fixing a problem with a candidate that the majority supports around here but it is in your best interest to lead everyone too the wrong conclusion so the problem can't be fixed.

Yeah, well as for fixing the problem, you have to identify it first. And it is clearly NOT Paul's feud with Christie. After taking on the King of Pork in mid-2013, Paul's polling was going up (that's how you get to a peak, as in "Rand Paul peaked in November"). The plagiarism issue exposed things about Rand Paul that continue to dog him - one of which YOU already alluded to, his petulance. Others would be his lack of authenticity ("I never said I would reduce aid to Israel" - what about this budget you proposed that eliminates it entirely?) and his habit of blaming others for his own shortcomings ("This $190 billion defense increase is not a change from the $110 billion defense cut I proposed earlier, you're just too dumb to see the nuance.")

p.s. You don't even have to give Maddow any blame/credit; if she hadn't started the ball rolling, Buzzfeed probably would have. But no, Rand's wound from the plagiarism scandal was entirely self-inflicted, just like almost all of his wounds.

[klamath]

Yeah, well as for fixing the problem, you have to identify it first. And it is clearly NOT Paul's feud with Christie. After taking on the King of Pork in mid-2013, Paul's polling was going up (that's how you get to a peak, as in "Rand Paul peaked in November"). The plagiarism issue exposed things about Rand Paul that continue to dog him - one of which YOU already alluded to, his petulance. Others would be his lack of authenticity ("I never said I would reduce aid to Israel" - what about this budget you proposed that eliminates it entirely?) and his habit of blaming others for his own shortcomings ("This $190 billion defense increase is not a change from the $110 billion defense cut I proposed earlier, you're just too dumb to see the nuance.")

p.s. You don't even have to give Maddow any blame/credit; if she hadn't started the ball rolling, Buzzfeed probably would have. But no, Rand's wound from the plagiarism scandal was entirely self-inflicted, just like almost all of his wounds.

You made my point. You wouldn't want us to identify the problem. You would want to get Rand supporters to follow you down a rathole that would NOT help rand. Why should we trust YOUR analysis? Why would you tell us the right answer to help rand if you can't stand Rand? You maybe a liberal and believe you are altruistic and all but some how I don't believe you are that helpful

[hells_unicorn]

Honestly, I think the OP gives the fickle American public way too much credit when it comes to why Rand's numbers changed. Nobody that I have spoken to remembers anything major from 2013 apart from the rise of ISIS, which is probably the primary reason why Rand's numbers started to suffer. Having a sworn enemy that you worry might actually be able to hit you at home completely changes the equation, as matters of self-actualization and liberty take a backseat to survival instincts, whether they are based in reality or not.

The Neo-con wing of the GOP got a huge boost by the advent of ISIS, and focusing in on Chris Christie alone misses the point, though the fact that Graham, King and Christie all mounted a concerted attack on Rand's national security views probably helped significantly.

P.S. - The liberal guy who keeps yammering about Rachel Maddow is literally making the dumbest argument I've ever heard, pay attention to what he says at your own detriment.

[erowe1]

https://www.google.com/webhp#q=rand+paul+plagiarism 184000 hits

Apparently you had no access to any network, any newspaper, any magazine, or any website in late 2013.

And apparently you weren't reading here, either.

https://www.google.com/search?q=site...m=122&ie=UTF-8 557 hits

I vaguely remember that now that you mention it. That was a non-issue though, and I'm not sure why anyone would call it plagiarismgate.

[klamath]

Honestly, I think the OP gives the fickle American public way too much credit when it comes to why Rand's numbers changed. Nobody that I have spoken to remembers anything major from 2013 apart from the rise of ISIS, which is probably the primary reason why Rand's numbers started to suffer. Having a sworn enemy that you worry might actually be able to hit you at home completely changes the equation, as matters of self-actualization and liberty take a backseat to survival instincts, whether they are based in reality or not.

The Neo-con wing of the GOP got a huge boost by the advent of ISIS, and focusing in on Chris Christie alone misses the point, though the fact that Graham, King and Christie all mounted a concerted attack on Rand's national security views probably helped significantly.

P.S. - The liberal guy who keeps yammering about Rachel Maddow is literally making the dumbest argument I've ever heard, pay attention to what he says at your own detriment.

I also believe the rise of ISUS was a very big problem as well. What you said is spot on how people respond. Concern of NSA overreach went out the door.

[ifthenwouldi]

IMO, Rand "harmed himself" by running as a Republican presidential candidate. Winning over the GOP base was always going to be a more difficult struggle for him than convincing independents.

[CaptainAmerica]

This late in the game, Ron Paul was in a way better position and had way more support than Rand Paul. Rand doesn't seem to have any grassroots support these days, hes just a toothless tiger and his attempts of playing the political game just come across as really really weak. Rand should have been going for blood since day 1, and ignoring hillary

[LatinsforPaul]

This late in the game

Over four and half months till the Iowa Caucus.

[LibertyEagle]

IMO, Rand "harmed himself" by running as a Republican presidential candidate. Winning over the GOP base was always going to be a more difficult struggle for him than convincing independents.

And running as an Independent, he would not have been in ANY televised debates or gotten any national interviews.

Yeah, a brilliant idea you have there.

[acptulsa]

Others would be his lack of authenticity ("I never said I would reduce aid to Israel" - what about this budget you proposed that eliminates it entirely?) and his habit of blaming others for his own shortcomings ("This $190 billion defense increase is not a change from the $110 billion defense cut I proposed earlier, you're just too dumb to see the nuance.")

He never said he would cut aid to Israel before we had cut aid to all their hostile neighbors. And he made it clear his 190 billion dollar offense increase was a genuinely deficit-neutral troll of a bunch of RINOs designed to call, and successful in calling, their bluff. And you're smart enough to know this. Therefore, what we are seeing here is Rand Paul's real problem.

That, of course, would be the mainstream media monolith's fervent desire to dumb down the whole conversation. They leave out these vital parts of the narrative. And if Rand Paul has a major weakness, it's that he looks annoyed at the reporter without saying why (or with his why winding up on the cutting room floor), and people assume he's annoyed at them or misinterpret however else they're told to.

Now, a principled liberal with a modicum of maturity will see that dumbing down the narrative is not going to help get rid of this massive corruption. With that in mind, a principled liberal might realize that partisanship is not what is wanted, and that the nation would be healthier if the hyperbole were cut out and Americans remembered how to talk to each other. In this case, a principled liberal with no vested interest might decide playing mind games with the closest thing to principled conservatives he or she can find might not be as helpful as informing as many Democrats as possible that there are these three secret Democratic candidates in the race. And one of them might be pretty good. I know there are worse in the race than Jim Webb--no matter which side of the aisle you look at.

What's more, if this increasingly hypothetical liberal were principled, intelligent and sensible in the face of evidence, this liberal might work with us in every federal election. This liberal might wake up to the fact that the greatest Democrat of all, Thomas Jefferson, was right when he said that if every detail of American life were micromismanaged from Washington, it would be '...the most corrupt government on the face of the earth.' And that liberal might find it wiser to advocate for their beloved socialism only on the state and local level. You know, the way Europe did, back before it created a corrupt central government called the EU and began also to collapse around the edges. And the way Eastern Europe used to do, back when all those communist countries survived the fall of the centralized Soviet Union.

Or does a plan like that stand too much chance of actually working to suit you people?

'High ideals are fine, but they got to be about 33% plausible.'--Will Rogers