He has a voting record equal or better, from my perspective, to Ron Paul's. What vote do you object to? He is tops on every liberty scorecard. What vote could you be thinking of that he made to play to a general election?Originally Posted by jkob
Yes Rand needs to change. Not his views but in his deliverance of the issues.
Don't believe me? Watch a Judge NAP speech.
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 can't control the circumstances (Trump, Bernie, ISIS), which undoubtedly hurt him.
But he can control his communication/messaging. Unless he accepts communication coaching, he shouldn't bother running again. To wit:
1) He doesn't drive home his points so that the sheeple understand how his policies would be to their benefit:
a. He expresses noninterventionism militarily, so the sheeple perceive him as weak; he needs to close the sale by explaining that wars are expensive, and if we change course we can eliminate the income tax/IRS, while actually being safer from absence of blowback. Those things
are left unsaid by Rand.
b. He expresses opposition to the NSA surveilance, so the sheeple perceive him as weak; he needs to close the sale by explaining that the NSA is expensive, and if we abolish it we can eliminate the income tax/IRS, while regaining our privacy from a government we cannot trust. Those things are left unsaid by Rand.
c. He expresses concern for a national debt of 19 million, but the sheeple can't count so their eyes glaze; he needs to close the sale by explaining that debt is expensive, and if we change course we can eliminate the income tax/IRS. That is left unsaid by Rand.
d. He says end the drug war, so the sheeple perceive him as soft on crime; he needs to close the sale by explaining that the drug war is expensive, and if we change course we can eliminate the income tax/IRS, while actually being more humane. Those things are left unsaid by Rand.
e. Insert dozens of other examples.
2) He must lose the uninspiring 'Read the bills', 'we need a party that looks like America', etc....it's just a waste of breath and comes off as pandering. He can complain that politicians don't read the bills, and that he's been to Detroit, in a stump speech, but he has to stop leading with it in interviews and on a debate stage.
3) He has to remember that he's running in a Republican primary, not a Democrat primary. A main reason he didn't do better is that people wonder why he's not running as a Democrat. He needs to lead with the red meat - smaller government, elimination of the Income Tax/IRS, government corruption/cronyism - and save much of the rest for the general election.
Last edited by gee_blee; 02-09-2016 at 09:39 AM.
Rand cannot run in 2020 if a Republican wins this year.
Every cycle's different, different field, different top issues, etc, so in that sense of course Rand 2020 would have to be different from Rand 2016.
But the problem this time was basically outside Rand's control: ISIS and immigration were made into top issues, and they don't play to his strengths.
To win in 2020, we need that cycle to be more like 2012/2008 - focused on economic issues, shrinking government, and w/ a healthy dose of war weariness. The odds of that are good, IMO, as it looks like we're heading into another severe recession/crisis, and 4 more years of failure in the ME should turn the foreign policy pendulum back in our direction once again.
Never say never.
If things go totally FUBAR in the next few years, economically in particular, there might be an opening: esp. if Trump's the incumbent.
I have great admiration for everything Rand tried to do and it was a fantastic effort, but he was playing a part that can't succeed. Here's the archetypes one can win with in modern presidential politics:
1. No-holds-barred, "can't be bought," advocate-for-extreme-change, fiery truth tellers (Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders)
2. Entertaining personalities (Trump)
3. Dependable, dry, "safe" establishment choices
Rand will never be #3. He is not #2. Therefore he needs to be #1 or stay on the sidelines.
That's reality, in a nutshell.
Your examples show another way Rand can finesse communicating the issues (by leaving most of his beliefs unsaid). The problem, though, is that we've already been through a campaign where Rand finessed communicating the issues. We found out that doesn't work, in terms of building a winning coalition. And the candidates who did do better talked mainly about issues other than taxes and fiscal restraint of government---they spoke about immigration, protecting the national interest from trade to refugee policy, and cultural issues.
Our next liberty candidate needs to talk about the issues the voters actually want to talk about (not the stereotypical ones we think they want to talk about), BUT to talk straightforwardly to them with pro-liberty answers, NOT finesse them. If they want to talk about jobs, talk about liberty approach to job creation and a growth economy. If they want to talk about health care, talk about the liberty approach to health care and health freedom. And so on---talk plainly about what issue comes up, and when it does, things are not to be left unsaid.
-----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/
I think the root problem is people were just voting wrong this election. I think with some coaching & advice they can vote better in 2020
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
I don't see Rand ever winning the Presidency.
Hope he concentrates 100% on being the best Senator he can be & truly becomes a legend in that position.
Not with that attitude he won't. It's all about positive thinking, making it real.
Which is why it was a good thing the mods didnt allow any negative posts in Rand Paul Forum. Next election we just need to institute that rule over this entire forum, and as much of the internet as we can, really.
And keep it positive.
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
I agree with those who don't think he'll run in 2020, but if I were giving advice to a hypothetical Rand Paul 2020 campaign it would be this: pick a side and stick with it.
The big problem I saw with Rand's campaign is something I noticed very early on (and Carlybee and I spoke of it often)...he wanted to keep his Dad's libertarian base, while courting those who shunned his Dad. That presented him with a conundrum: he had to (and did) say some things that were hard to swallow for those of us libertarian Ron Paul supporters. We were told -- well, I was told -- have patience, you'll see. He's only saying these things to get the attention of those GOP voters. Once he has it, he'll switch back and become the Rand Paul I want him to be....just like his Dad.
When I'd argue, someone would inevitably tell me that I'd be eating crow when I see Ron campaigning all over Iowa for Rand -- that would show me just how much like Ron Rand is!! And I would think to myself, that will defeat the whole purpose of what he's doing, wouldn't it? He can't very well bring Ron on the campaign trail if he's trying to make these GOP voters think he's shunning his Dad's opinions. Early on I wondered how many of you could be so sure of yourselves that he was playing a game on these GOP voters. If he could so easily play a game on them, how can we know he's not playing a game on us?
Eventually, I stopped fighting all of you....mainly because there was no alternative to Rand. As much as I would have preferred Rand to be Ron's clone, as things were he was still miles ahead of his competition. I got on board, but it still made me uneasy to see Rand straddling this fence. I understood by then why he was doing it...but I always believed it was a bad strategy. Carly and I agreed that Rand would end up pissing off both sides, libertarians, and the GOP voters he was trying to attract by hiding his more libertarian principles. Given that he got less votes than his Dad did 4 years ago in Iowa, I don't think we were wrong. I'm sorry to say that, but I think it's true.
Rand should not run for President again. He proved beyond any reasonable doubt that he is not the man for the job.
Liberty supporters who think a successful run at President can be had should put "find the right candidate" at the top of the to-do list.
Rand's not a super " positive " guy. He just ain't. I think everybody kinda knows that, but some are overly invested & can't see big picture.
On a high & "SUPER POSITIVE" note he is a current Senator of the United States & there is a LOT of honest work to do in DC.
Can't wait to see what he does & fully support his efforts.
Exactly, but the other key missing piece here is the "seat at the table". We need to make sure our candidate not only has passion and liberty talking points, but a seat at the GOP table. If you don't have a seat at the GOP table, you aren't going to win a single state. Ask Donald Trump. The GOP hates him apparently, and how many states has he won? EXACTLY! He couldn't even finish first in Iowa!
If we have the candidate with a seat at the table. A passion. And liberty. 2020 is a win.
This will be addressed easily with the first moneybomb. Fundraising won't be a problem, just as it wasn't for Rand. It was just not enough time to educate and market to the masses the right message.
We now have 4 years to get the educating and marketing done though.
WHAT'S STOPPING US?!
I might run, if my advisers think I have a good chance of winning
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
My advisors Jim Beam and Jack Daniels say I'm a lock for President-for-Life in the 2020 cycle.
I have Pappy Van Winkle on my side. Pretty sure I have you beat.
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
If your advisers are positive, happy, people, I would probably listen to them!
If your advisers are positive, happy, profitable people, I would probably listen to them.
I would vote so hard for you!!
TheTexan for president 2020
Please don't. I don't want my core supporters associating me with fringe extremists as yourself.
I'm trying to win an election here.
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
I don't think I could ever vote for a Texan.
Pfizer Macht Frei!
Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.
Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!
Short Income Tax Video
The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes
The Federalist Papers, No. 15:
Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.
yea, thats the problem with libertarians, not very positive and also not telling people what they WANT to hear like Bernie and Trump.
I think he shouldn't run soon. He also is unlikely to ever win. But he is also the best liberty candidate, who could conceivably win, ever to run. The odds of finding someone better in your lifetime are close to zero.
Actually, my post suggests that Rand remove the 'finesse' and "talk straightforwardly with pro-liberty answers."
Yes, the candidates that did better talked about other issues, like immigration, but they did so 'straightforwardly', spelling out the impact on voters ("illegal immigrants will rape you and take your jobs, so we must stop them from coming"). Rand, conversely, didn't consistently spell out the impact of policy he opposes or policy he supports. That's my point.
For example, too many voters don't care (or understand) that "removing a secular dictator will create a power vacuum that ISIS will fill." That's just too nuanced for too many voters. And whether or not there's a power vacuum half way around the world doesn't affect someone in Cedar Rapids - they're much more inspired by "we'll carpet bomb them." I'm not suggesting that Rand should cease conveying the 'power vacuum' point - I'm suggesting that to reach the less sophisticated voter (the majority) he needs to add, if not lead with, the point that 'interfering in the Middle East is expensive, it's a main reason your taxes are too high, and if you ever want your wish that your taxes would be reduced drastically realized, we must stop spending trillions of dollars interfering there. It's not worth your high taxes. In fact, it makes things worse over there.'
Even the most unsophisticated voter would understand that.
"ISIS" didn't hurt Rand. That is just a media talking point used to discredit his foreign policy, when he was already polling at 2% before the big attacks.
The enemy of my enemy may be worse than my enemy.
I do not suffer from Trump Rearrangement Syndrome. Sorry if that triggers you.
Yeah, I get it...that would definitely hurt you. I promise not to campaign for you, or publicly support you. Voting is secret though; they'll never know. We can ask the mods to remove this post when you announce.
..
Last edited by jkob; 02-12-2016 at 12:19 PM. Reason: lol I already responded to this thread my bad
I think Rand went Romney on us. My understanding is that he didn't enjoy himself and he seemed to not want to rock the boat. I think a future candidate needs to channel Michael Scheuer on foreign policy. He needs to channel his father's plan on restructuring the US economy and welfare system with a transition period to a free market. Maybe we need a plutocrat like Trump that can garner their own publicity. They need not associate with Lewciferians, the Kochtopus, or Alex Jones. We need a guy who isn't for sale. He needs to have his own money.
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us