538: Paul polling worse nationally than his father was at this point in 2011

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/whats-wrong-with-rand-pauls-campaign/

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Trump blowing up has killed Paul's campaign.  Before Trump entered the race Rand was the guy everyone was attacking and that was good for him in a lot of ways; it made him look strong, like he's taking on the establishment, etc.  Now that Donald has sucked up all the oxygen, Rand can be ignored, and it's much more difficult to look like an outsider as a sitting Senator when you're standing next to Trump.

Exactly. Plus Rand is failing to excite both his own base and potential Paul voters who were turned off by Ron in 2012. At this point, he needs to double down and be the candidate that Ron Paul was in 2012 and hope for Trump to implode.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

While he isn't his father, he should have tried to look like him, rather than moving more towards the establishment. Ron Paul's niche was on the fringes going inwards. Rand seems to be trying to get the fringes from a base in the establishment.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Paul's problem is that he's trying to straddle the establishment as well as trying to hold onto his father's support base.

Once Rand shifted on a number of issues to be a standard GOPer, he undermined his narrative.

[King]

Rand was dead long before Trump.

He bombed his announcement and flopped with his supporters by pandering to the RNC on rhetoric. Sanders populist edge attracting youngs dropped the hardest blow.

[Hydera]

Trump blowing up has killed Paul's campaign.  Before Trump entered the race Rand was the guy everyone was attacking and that was good for him in a lot of ways; it made him look strong, like he's taking on the establishment, etc.  Now that Donald has sucked up all the oxygen, Rand can be ignored, and it's much more difficult to look like an outsider as a sitting Senator when you're standing next to Trump.

Trump's base doesn't really cross over with Paul's base which is libertarian+economic conservatives/social moderates?(AKA: Establishment/Moderate republicans).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

Rand went from 9-10% to 5%. Which seems to have more correlation with Scott Walker entering the race. With that establishment GOP support going towards Walker.

OR perhaps its just that the GOP primary being really interesting is pushing more interest. And Rand's base which is basically Ron Paul's base in 2008/2012. Was not going to hold up much against potentially higher GOP turnout.

Rand was dead long before Trump.

He bombed his announcement and flopped with his supporters by pandering to the RNC on rhetoric. Sanders populist edge attracting youngs dropped the hardest blow.

Its insane if you think Sanders's socialist-leftwing base overlaps with Ron Paul's libertarian base.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Trump has no doubt eaten into his support a bit, but the real damage to the campaign has been inflicted by Rand himself.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Trump blowing up has killed Paul's campaign.  Before Trump entered the race Rand was the guy everyone was attacking and that was good for him in a lot of ways; it made him look strong, like he's taking on the establishment, etc.  Now that Donald has sucked up all the oxygen, Rand can be ignored, and it's much more difficult to look like an outsider as a sitting Senator when you're standing next to Trump.

Trump's base doesn't really cross over with Paul's base which is libertarian+economic conservatives/social moderates?(AKA: Establishment/Moderate republicans).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

Rand went from 9-10% to 5%. Which seems to have more correlation with Scott Walker entering the race. With that establishment GOP support going towards Walker.

OR perhaps its just that the GOP primary being really interesting is pushing more interest. And Rand's base which is basically Ron Paul's base in 2008/2012. Was not going to hold up much against potentially higher GOP turnout.

Rand was dead long before Trump.

He bombed his announcement and flopped with his supporters by pandering to the RNC on rhetoric. Sanders populist edge attracting youngs dropped the hardest blow.

Its insane if you think Sanders's socialist-leftwing base overlaps with Ron Paul's libertarian base.

I think there's more of an overlap than you realise. Sander's base is not socialists, it's educated whites and some college kids. The same college kids who liked Ron and to some extent his son. Ignoring his views on healthcare, women's rights, social security etc etc but focusing on his positions on drugs and war. It's not an ideological bunch, it's an issues-based group.

[Skye]

His announcement was too early, and he made questionable decisions. Plus, Trump happened.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

His announcement was too early, and he made questionable decisions. Plus, Trump happened.

Basically, Rand is trying to have it both ways and he's discovered it's a great way to get hit by traffic going in both directions.

[Fuzzy Bear]

His announcement was too early, and he made questionable decisions. Plus, Trump happened.

Basically, Rand is trying to have it both ways and he's discovered it's a great way to get hit by traffic going in both directions.

I agree with most of what has been said.

What Rand Paul needed to do was to adhere to his father's positions while endorsing (but not actively campaigning for) the 2012 national ticket.  He should have said something like "I'm a Republican, and while I disagree with a number of positions Mr. Romney has taken, I will vote for the Romney-Ryan ticket come November." and done nothing more than that.  If asked about his father's refusal to support a number of GOP nominees, he should have said something like, "As a Republican Senator, and a member of the Republican caucus, I have promised to support the Republican nominee for President, and I intend to vote for him in November."  If pressed, he should have said "Except for 1988, when my own father was a candidate for President, I have voted for the Republican candidates for President." 

Had he done so, professing loyalty to the ticket in terms of VOTING for the ticket without CAMPAIGNING for the ticket or ENDORSING the ticket, Paul would have shown just enough party loyalty to have it both ways.  I agree that he has made too many accomodations to the leadership in order to keep all of Ron's base AND win over a few liberal Democrats who are civil libertarian/antiwar types who view Hillary as a Neocon.  You have to be a loyal Republican to win their Presidential nomination, but loyalty can be nuanced.  Rand Paul seemed to not nuance it enough.

[Likely Voter]

He is fine.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Trump, more people in the race. Of course his numbers would go down. It's not that serious. He is fine as of now.

The problem for Rand is that not long ago, he was polling better against the Democrats than any other candidate.  That was a real edge for Rand vis a vis the other candidates; a selling point for those who seek GOP Victory over all things.  Rand appears to have lost this edge, and I don't know that he'll get it back. 

I like Rand.  I may well vote for him in the GOP primary, as he is the most sincerely anti-war, whereas Trump is the most sincerely anti-free trade.  On the other hand, nothing would please me more than a Trump victory over Bush and Scott Walker, two of the lowest forms of life running in the GOP primary.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

I myself am lukewarm to Rand, but he's the closest to my views and only Republican I'd vote for. My problem with him is that he is trying too hard to pander to the conservatives in the party and for the most part pretending like those of us who supported his father in 2008 and 2012 don't really exist, plus Trump happened....

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Opposing the Iran deal makes him yet another hack for the MIC.

[Blair]

I thought Paul was out of it this January, it always goes in cycles and Paul had his months of fame as the 'GOP heir' in 2013 when he was still relatively sane on issues. The problem in my view isn't even the balance with his father supporters-it's the fact that he's a pretty bad campaigner from what I've read, he doesn't have enough money and he says stupid things such as the comment about vaccination, civil rights and other areas. His best bet is 2020

[Hydera]

Trump blowing up has killed Paul's campaign.  Before Trump entered the race Rand was the guy everyone was attacking and that was good for him in a lot of ways; it made him look strong, like he's taking on the establishment, etc.  Now that Donald has sucked up all the oxygen, Rand can be ignored, and it's much more difficult to look like an outsider as a sitting Senator when you're standing next to Trump.

Trump's base doesn't really cross over with Paul's base which is libertarian+economic conservatives/social moderates?(AKA: Establishment/Moderate republicans).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

Rand went from 9-10% to 5%. Which seems to have more correlation with Scott Walker entering the race. With that establishment GOP support going towards Walker.

OR perhaps its just that the GOP primary being really interesting is pushing more interest. And Rand's base which is basically Ron Paul's base in 2008/2012. Was not going to hold up much against potentially higher GOP turnout.

Rand was dead long before Trump.

He bombed his announcement and flopped with his supporters by pandering to the RNC on rhetoric. Sanders populist edge attracting youngs dropped the hardest blow.

Its insane if you think Sanders's socialist-leftwing base overlaps with Ron Paul's libertarian base.

I think there's more of an overlap than you realise. Sander's base is not socialists, it's educated whites and some college kids. The same college kids who liked Ron and to some extent his son. Ignoring his views on healthcare, women's rights, social security etc etc but focusing on his positions on drugs and war. It's not an ideological bunch, it's an issues-based group.

Right... So Ron Paul's base is actually made up of liberals of which 70% hated him in 2012....




Dude theres no overlap.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Right... So Ron Paul's base is actually made up of liberals of which 70% hated him in 2012....




Dude theres no overlap.

There's going to be some overlap. I'd imagine some would be soldiers or vets. They liked Ron Paul because he wasn't going to start pointless wars for them to fight in. Sanders is similar on wars. and last year a major Veterans Healthcare bill of his was passed.

[dudeabides]

I myself am lukewarm to Rand, but he's the closest to my views and only Republican I'd vote for. My problem with him is that he is trying too hard to pander to the conservatives in the party and for the most part pretending like those of us who supported his father in 2008 and 2012 don't really exist, plus Trump happened....

Libertarians hate the idea of a 14% wealth tax, universal health care, ending free trade, and ending property rights - basically they are in opposition to Donald Trump's views. Unlike Trump's supporters, libertarians are well read and educated. While Trump's supporters are generally older and less educated, Paul's are likely young professionals. I don't see Trump hurting Paul at all.

[Donald Trump 2016 !]

There's a huge difference between Ron's base, and people that actually supported Ron Paul in 2012. Ron's base are generally libertarian and conservative republicans. These people are both young and old. Now, it is primarily young people involved in organizations such as Students for Liberty, Young Americans for Liberty, and etc. These people overwhelmingly support Rand, or never supported him to begin with. This is Ron's base and it was always a small percentage. The rest were people dissatisfied with every other candidate and loved Ron's anti-establishment rhetoric. He was his from both sides. Those aren't real supporters or his base. Let's be clear on this. Rand Paul has not lost his father's base. I do admit his campaign does need to do something or it will end up like Reagan or Taft's first run

What do you think of the possibility that Rand is testing the waters to see what kind of coalition he can and should build in order to make a run in 2020?