What's wrong with the Rand Paul campaign?

[Fuzzy Bear]

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). 

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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 Bear]

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.