3 Reasons the Rand Paul Campaign Failed

[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.

[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 $#@!ed 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/2014/0...ant-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.

Bull$#@!. 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.