All this talk about Rand keeping his poll numbers down until later, while he waits for other candidates to surge and drop... BUT earlier in the year Rand was polling as high as 20%... Are we sure this is the master plan? Maybe Rand was really the one to surge too soon?
Being one of the first five in is not the same thing as surging.
Surges are manufactured, and the media has no intention of manufacturing one with Rand Paul's name on it.
When we need him to peak is Super Tuesday. March Madness. Pace yourself.
Originally Posted by Swordsmyth
What's the game plan? What can Rand say or do shortly before then to have the media declare him a winner? They always say he's a loser at all the debates, and the sheeple (voters) listen.
Build up slowly while other candidates drop like flies and covertly win in Iowa (a la 10,000 students for Rand, etc)
I think Rand is fine (as far as surging too early goes anyways), he just needs to find his groove and present his message well. His unfavorables lately are a bit discouraging, but those are things that can be turned around. Trump also had high unfavorables but then turned them around. Most candidates get a bump when they first enter, so I don't feel too bad about Rand falling from his point when he first announced. Also, keep in mind that last year and the start of this one I don't think anyone really expected so many candidates to jump into the race. Another thing to keep in mind is that Rubio's polling has been like a yoyo, he seems to constantly be up and down, so just becuase a candidate starts losing support doesn't mean they can't/ won't get it back. Of course in the case of Rubio he has the benefit of a media establishment that is friendly towards him and his views.
Yeah. ^^ That.
that was before peaking mattered.. he still can peak during this season.
The ultimate minority is the individual. Protect the individual from Democracy and you will protect all groups of individualsRightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. - Thomas JeffersonI must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
- Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
No, he hasn't surged. He was just in first and it was entirely based on name recognition.
Rand needs to do well in Iowa and hopefully New Hampshire. I'm hoping for a win in at least one. Worst case I think he needs to be top 2 - 3 in both states. If this happens, combined with a weaker showing from other candidates who are seen as "anti-establisment" (Cruz/Fiorina/Trump/Carson), hopefully we see several candidates dropping out and a coalescence of the anti-Bush vote in Rand's favor. He should then be able to ride that momentum into Nevada for a potential win or at least another strong showing. I think at that point he'll have solidified his position for the rest of the race and he'll at least be at the convention.
For real candidates there's no such thing as "surging too early." This is a concept that applies to "fling" candidates.
Walker just dropped out...good news for Rand!
Just saw!
"Freedom, then Pizza!" - Oklahoma State GOP Convention 5/11/2012
Do you guys sometimes think that Rand needs more controversy? On the balance of things that "shushing incident" was pretty awesome for him. He looked cool, the media covered it, talk radio came to his defense. In the modern world it seems controversy is the name of the game.
20% where? Please show me that national poll? More like 10-12% if that. I don't recall even Iowa or NH having Rand at 20% or higher.
If Rand does not win the Republican nomination, he should buck the controlled two party system and run as an Independent for President in 2016 and give Americans a real option to vote for.
We are all born libertarians then something goes really wrong. Despite this truth, most people are still libertarians yet not know it.
20% nationally, Rassmusen, November 2013 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tion-3823.html
It's absurd to think that Rand wants his poll numbers to be low as part of some strategy; no doubt he'd much prefer to be at 20% right now.
But there's more to it than that. It matters why your poll numbers are high (because that determines how durable they are).
Rand no doubt hoped to gradually build up a base, and to be higher than now at this point.
This is different from "surging," which is a quick (unsustainable) bump created by some kind of manufactured situation.
I'm sure the campaign is saving a few plays for later, to generate "surge" at the opportune moment (like the week before New Hampshire, e.g.).
Note that the same goes for negative advertising. If you have some really juicy material on your opponent, you wait till the day before the primary to release it.
We were on the wrong side of that last time (newsletters, Jon "motherfucker" Huntsman's fake RP video).
TL;DR -- the small size of Rand's base is not intentional, but the absence of a "surge" probably is
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 09-21-2015 at 06:20 PM.
2013 polls are completely irrelevant and the OP said 20% earlier this year which is simply not true as I stated above.
If Rand does not win the Republican nomination, he should buck the controlled two party system and run as an Independent for President in 2016 and give Americans a real option to vote for.
We are all born libertarians then something goes really wrong. Despite this truth, most people are still libertarians yet not know it.
Rand's "real" number was probably around 9% for most of this year, 6% since June/July when everyone started jumping in.
This is definitely plausible. Neveda could be Rand's path to pulling a Santorum. 2012 taught us that the primary/caucus electorate doesn't want a quick nomination process; they won't settle down for a while, so Rand has an opportunity to work off of later wins.
Benton/Collins 2016
Not necessarily...the last two debates really helped with Paul's base, which isn't big enough... Now we need more.
I wouldn't blow off SC...Mulvany is endorsing Rand!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us