What's wrong with the Rand Paul campaign?

[Torie]

The article is here. I put this up, because I am kind of surprised Paul is losing traction (not that I ever thought he would get the nomination). Anyone have opinions as to what has gone wrong with his campaign? Does he any much prospect of recovering, at least to some degree? Does the state of the world, and ISIS and all, make his dovish/non-interventionist perspectives less appealing at the moment, at least in the GOP?

I understand that with so many candidates, some of the new ones, might nip away at Paul's following, but on the other hand, Paul's views are very distinctive, so it is not as if he is particularly fungible with any of the other candidates.

[Vega]

He really hurt himself by trying to please the neo-cons while also trying to please the Libertarians. He just can't please everyone, and he should have realized that.

[Maxwell]

I think it was because he has been hedgeing his bets a little too much, especially in a field this large and diverse. I definitely think he will come back from this (primary politics is notably unpredictable), but he needs to bet a little more on his original libertarian values. The Neocons will never like him, he has to make them like him by winning.

[Potus]

He was on to something with the whole "realist" foreign policy thing. If you'll remember, Mitch Daniels and Haley Barbour both won the hearts and minds of the establishment in 2012 with defense cuts to help balance the budget.

Expressing his foreign policy in pragmatic terms rather than values terms will get him more mileage in the Republican primary.

[eric82oslo]

Maybe some sexy videos? Only problem is of course that except of Lindsay Graham and Ted Cruz, and Mitch McConell, they're all the least sexy person I've ever seen.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

He really hurt himself by trying to please the neo-cons while also trying to please the Libertarians. He just can't please everyone, and he should have realized that.

[ElectionsGuy]

He needs to return to pleasing his libertarian-ish base. Maxwell is right, the neoconservatives will always be against him, being inconsistent is not going help him. The fact that Ron Paul was doing better in 2011 shows that his strategy of running away from his base not only isn't working, its making things worse. At least people knew what Ron Paul firmly stood for.

[Mr. Morden]

Maybe some sexy videos? Only problem is of course that except of Lindsay Graham and Ted Cruz, and Mitch McConell, they're all the least sexy person I've ever seen.

Um.... what?

Don't tell me this doesn't scream sex appeal to you:

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

He's unfocused, a different theme every week.  He's responding to the news cycle, not making it like he did with his filibusters.  He needs to let himself stick out from the rest of the pack.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

He's unfocused, a different theme every week.  He's responding to the news cycle, not making it like he did with his filibusters.  He needs to let himself stick out from the rest of the pack.

Exactly. As Iowa approaches, he will (hopefully) realize this. Trump's eventual implosion will help Cruz, Carson, and Paul in particular.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

I think it was because he has been hedgeing his bets a little too much, especially in a field this large and diverse. I definitely think he will come back from this (primary politics is notably unpredictable), but he needs to bet a little more on his original libertarian values. The Neocons will never like him, he has to make them like him by winning.

I agree with this reasoning.  I would also note that by doing so, Paul lost one of his advantages; the advantage of polling stronger against Hillary Clinton than any other Republican. 

Aside from the shift toward being a bit of a conventional Republican, and away from being a libertarian Republican, Paul suffers from a rather unimaginative campaign.  This may be OK in the longer run, but Paul does need jolts NOW (or, more specifically, as Iowa and New Hampshire come around). 

[HAnnA MArin County]

Rand Paul is the problem with the Rand Paul campaign.

[Mr. Morden]

Not sure if this has already been posted here, but Politico also has a story on this:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/rand-paul-2016-downward-spiral-gop-campaign-120716.html?ml=po

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On fundraising:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Maxwell]

I can't say I blame him, but I'm not the one running for President.

[Skye]

Not sure if this has already been posted here, but Politico also has a story on this:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/rand-paul-2016-downward-spiral-gop-campaign-120716.html?ml=po

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On fundraising:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I read the article. I feel he peaked too early, and now it's too late for his campaign.

[The Last Northerner]

His father had unique advantages in 2012 that Rand is currently missing-

+ There was no Democrat primary, freeing single issue voters (like civil liberties or non-interventionists) who would otherwise lean Democrat to support Ron Paul. Ron had a unique appeal to some of these people, especially the younger ones, who will probably support Sanders or (hilariously) Clinton.

+ 2011/2012 was a particular dangerous time on the world stage, fresh off Arab Spring and Obama's bombing of the Libya. Much of the non-interventionist crowd had a strong motivation to express their discontent. While these issues still exist, the Iran deal and percieved threat of ISIS weaken their rationale.

+ Ron Paul was percieved as the most anti-establishment candidate on the GOP field. Today, that position is occupied by Trump.

+ Romney was seened as the 'inevitable' candidate, freeing (some) parts of the conservative electorate to protest by votting for Ron Paul. The GOP's field in 2016 is much more crowded and competitive with less incentive for a 'wasted' protest vote.

[Likely Voter]

This is a big part of the problem...


Paul's lame attempts to reach out to the hawks with calls for increasing defense spending turned off his base and didn't really bring any new people on board.

[dudeabides]

When this campaign began, I saw Rand Paul as the worst possible candidate to challenge Hillary Clinton because he is to the left of her on foreign policy (if that's even possible) and because he flip-flops. But with Donald Trump in the race, I have come to the conclusion that Paul would actually have a chance. He has some appeal to centrist voters on criminal justice reform, and he's not a hard liner on immigration completely like Cruz.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This is a big part of the problem...


Paul's lame attempts to reach out to the hawks with calls for increasing defense spending turned off his base and didn't really bring any new people on board.

Well, of course the hawks aren't going to be impressed, when Scott "I'd bomb Iran on my first day" Walker is polling well, and there's also Lindsay "I'm McCain's warmongering sidekick" Graham and Rick "Let's invade Iraq" Perry running. Not to imply that Jeb wouldn't follow in the footsteps of his father and brother and give us another Iraq war.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

This is a big part of the problem...


Paul's lame attempts to reach out to the hawks with calls for increasing defense spending turned off his base and didn't really bring any new people on board.

Well, of course the hawks aren't going to be impressed, when Scott "I'd bomb Iran on my first day" Walker is polling well, and there's also Lindsay "I'm McCain's warmongering sidekick" Graham and Rick "Let's invade Iraq" Perry running. Not to imply that Jeb wouldn't follow in the footsteps of his father and brother and give us another Iraq war.

I really believe that at this point, Rand Paul has no choice but to go all out as the anti-war candidate and take the rest of the GOP on.  The GOP is far more receptive to the anti-war message now than in, say, 2007, when a Republican President needed to be defended for partisan reasons.  It's his niche, and it's what makes him attractive as a candidate.  The GOP warmongers scare people, and rightly so.  Rand needs to gamble on this; he could change the course of history by changing the direction of his party IF HE GETS OUT AND SELLS HIS BIGGEST ASSET, which is his anti-war position.

[Likely Voter]

Paul's problem is the rise of ISIS. His antiwar message would have worked up until a year ago when ISIS started beheading Americans and westerners. Paul is like Rubio, candidates who had the right message to win in 2013.

[The Mikado]

Maybe this is an example of the old cliche that you should never ask a Democrat to read the GOP primary and never ask a Republican to read the Democratic primary, but I was pretty sure a few months back that, while he wouldn't be the nominee, Rand Paul would be a major player in this race. i had Rand combining a big chunk of his dad's base with more mainstream supporters given Rand's efforts at placating the GOP establishment while still making quirky libertarian gestures to the old faithful.

It appears Rand has neither the support of his dad's people nor the support of...well...anyone else. Rand Paul is constantly around 5% in national polls, numbers his father was more than doubling this time four years ago.

Where are the Randroids?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This subject has been done to death, but the criticism of Paul is not unfair. At this point, he ought to drop out and have Ron Paul get in the race in his place. Clearly Rand is not up to the task.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

When this campaign began, I saw Rand Paul as the worst possible candidate to challenge Hillary Clinton because he is to the left of her on foreign policy (if that's even possible) and because he flip-flops. But with Donald Trump in the race, I have come to the conclusion that Paul would actually have a chance. He has some appeal to centrist voters on criminal justice reform, and he's not a hard liner on immigration completely like Cruz.

You are honestly an idiot if you thought Rand would be the worst possible candidate to challenge Hillary Clinton.

Well, he thought that.

Just sayin' . . .

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Maybe this is an example of the old cliche that you should never ask a Democrat to read the GOP primary and never ask a Republican to read the Democratic primary, but I was pretty sure a few months back that, while he wouldn't be the nominee, Rand Paul would be a major player in this race. i had Rand combining a big chunk of his dad's base with more mainstream supporters given Rand's efforts at placating the GOP establishment while still making quirky libertarian gestures to the old faithful.

It appears Rand has neither the support of his dad's people nor the support of...well...anyone else. Rand Paul is constantly around 5% in national polls, numbers his father was more than doubling this time four years ago.

Where are the Randroids?

The son always disappoints the fans of the father.  Rand Paul is the Frank Sinatra, Jr. of politics.  He's like Franklin Graham and Jonathan Falwell, both of whom will always be compared to their fathers and coming up short.  It's unfair, but it's the way of the world.