Watching the caucus, they kept flashing back to 2012 and I'm reminded of how solid Ron Paul did in Iowa. Ron didn't quite get the Sanders level of frenzy, but I think he could've if there were only 2-3 GOP candidates from the get-go (like Bernie lucked out with). Ron actually enjoyed plenty of support from Millenials.

So for those more in the know, what went wrong for Rand? He had the golden opportunity to keep up the rEVOLution his old man started as a younger, smoother man. Did he go too neocon? Not charismatic enough? Where did he go wrong?

None of the front runners on either side are fiscal conservative, social liberals. Awful slate of candidates

As a 23 year old man, I can tell you, a lot of people my age are on the Sanders bandwagon, as sad as that is.

(02-01-2016 11:05 PM)Blazer4Life14 Wrote:  As a 23 year old man, I can tell you, a lot of people my age are on the Sanders bandwagon, as sad as that is.

You may dislike the politics but that's the politics of the future.

(02-01-2016 11:07 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:05 PM)Blazer4Life14 Wrote:  As a 23 year old man, I can tell you, a lot of people my age are on the Sanders bandwagon, as sad as that is.

You may dislike the politics but that's the politics of the future.

Which is pathetic on the part of my generation.

A socialist will be in the 'Final Four' for POTUS, even if he doesn't win the whole thing. It's only a matter of time before someone does.

No one wants to hear about pesky "debt" or dry terms like "capital flight."

Still, I can't help but think that a libertarian had his strengths in twenty somethings. Are Milennials just confused?

(02-01-2016 11:07 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:05 PM)Blazer4Life14 Wrote:  As a 23 year old man, I can tell you, a lot of people my age are on the Sanders bandwagon, as sad as that is.

You may dislike the politics but that's the politics of the future.

The politics of the future is the ideology that has historically failed and continues to fail all over the world today? Oh goody.

(02-01-2016 10:58 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Watching the caucus, they kept flashing back to 2012 and I'm reminded of how solid Ron Paul did in Iowa. Ron didn't quite get the Sanders level of frenzy, but I think he could've if there were only 2-3 GOP candidates from the get-go (like Bernie lucked out with). Ron actually enjoyed plenty of support from Millenials.

So for those more in the know, what went wrong for Rand? He had the golden opportunity to keep up the rEVOLution his old man started as a younger, smoother man. Did he go too neocon? Not charismatic enough? Where did he go wrong?

None of the front runners on either side are fiscal conservative, social liberals. Awful slate of candidates

He lost a ton of the libertarian vote by pandering, and didn't really win much of the establishment vote. Doubt he wins if he ran as the liberty option but he'd have had his corner and a bigger voice.

(02-01-2016 11:14 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  A socialist will be in the 'Final Four' for POTUS, even if he doesn't win the whole thing. It's only a matter of time before someone does.

No one wants to hear about pesky "debt" or dry terms like "capital flight."

Still, I can't help but think that a libertarian had his strengths in twenty somethings. Are Milennials just confused?

No, a majority of us just want to hear the word "free" over and over. Along with, "Tax the rich more".

Those that are conservative (such as myself) do tend to lean towards the Libertarian route.

(02-01-2016 11:14 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  A socialist will be in the 'Final Four' for POTUS, even if he doesn't win the whole thing. It's only a matter of time before someone does.

No one wants to hear about pesky "debt" or dry terms like "capital flight."

Still, I can't help but think that a libertarian had his strengths in twenty somethings. Are Milennials just confused?

A libertarian will never found his campaign on the idea he is going to mug some rich guy and give you his stuff.

Unfortunately the leftist in our public schools have been selling that as the ideal government for two generations.

What does a libertarian offer a 20 something that a socialist does not?

(02-01-2016 11:18 PM)Blazer4Life14 Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:14 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  A socialist will be in the 'Final Four' for POTUS, even if he doesn't win the whole thing. It's only a matter of time before someone does.

No one wants to hear about pesky "debt" or dry terms like "capital flight."

Still, I can't help but think that a libertarian had his strengths in twenty somethings. Are Milennials just confused?

No, a majority of us just want to hear the word "free" over and over. Along with, "Tax the rich more".

Those that are conservative (such as myself) do tend to lean towards the Libertarian route.

This.... I consider myself more libertarian than conservative. But aside from one or two pesky social issues the two line up quite well.

(02-01-2016 10:58 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Watching the caucus, they kept flashing back to 2012 and I'm reminded of how solid Ron Paul did in Iowa. Ron didn't quite get the Sanders level of frenzy, but I think he could've if there were only 2-3 GOP candidates from the get-go (like Bernie lucked out with). Ron actually enjoyed plenty of support from Millenials.

So for those more in the know, what went wrong for Rand? He had the golden opportunity to keep up the rEVOLution his old man started as a younger, smoother man. Did he go too neocon? Not charismatic enough? Where did he go wrong?

None of the front runners on either side are fiscal conservative, social liberals. Awful slate of candidates

Some is timing. A Paul did well in 2012. So did Santorum. Its not 2012 anymore.

Some is Trump getting the anti-vote.

(02-01-2016 11:14 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  A socialist will be in the 'Final Four' for POTUS, even if he doesn't win the whole thing. It's only a matter of time before someone does.

No one wants to hear about pesky "debt" or dry terms like "capital flight."

Still, I can't help but think that a libertarian had his strengths in twenty somethings. Are Milennials just confused?

I can't find it now, but RealClear Politics had an entrance poll. And if I remember correctly Paul did far better in 30-44 than any other group and very poorly in 17-29.

(02-01-2016 11:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 10:58 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Watching the caucus, they kept flashing back to 2012 and I'm reminded of how solid Ron Paul did in Iowa. Ron didn't quite get the Sanders level of frenzy, but I think he could've if there were only 2-3 GOP candidates from the get-go (like Bernie lucked out with). Ron actually enjoyed plenty of support from Millenials.

So for those more in the know, what went wrong for Rand? He had the golden opportunity to keep up the rEVOLution his old man started as a younger, smoother man. Did he go too neocon? Not charismatic enough? Where did he go wrong?

None of the front runners on either side are fiscal conservative, social liberals. Awful slate of candidates

Some is timing. A Paul did well in 2012. So did Santorum. Its not 2012 anymore.

Some is Trump getting the anti-vote.

I think you hit it. Trump is getting the spoon bender vote. Nothing left for the original spoon benders.

Ron went all in on the libertarian platform, which was great for his hardcore base but didn't really have enough widespread appeal to get elected. Rand on the other hand probably went into his campaign knowing he had to pick up some of the social cons, which I think is why he's moved to the right on some social issues. But then Trump came in and stole his thunder as the 'anti-GOP' candidate, thanks to his money and name recognition. That's left him in an awkward position. Without Trump, I think we'd have a three man race between Rand, Cruz, and Rubio with no one else seriously contending.

the only way rand paul winds up in a three man race is if 7 or 8 of the other candidates die in a plane crash, and even then I think a couple of the dead guys out poll rand.

I supported Rand early on but the more I watched His presentations , somehow I started to feel like I was listening to a Shakespearean play from His speech delivery. Where as Cruz, Trump and even Rubio were using an everyman speech delivery that is much easier to absorb . Unfortunately for Jeb, He always sounded and looked like someone whom was mad and taking His ball home with Him. Carson just lulls Me to sleep. I think watching and listening to Him, you spend more time watching Him close his eyes and rubbing His hands and not hearing what he is saying.

(02-02-2016 06:36 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  I supported Rand early on but the more I watched His presentations , somehow I started to feel like I was listening to a Shakespearean play from His speech delivery. Where as Cruz, Trump and even Rubio were using an everyman speech delivery that is much easier to absorb . Unfortunately for Jeb, He always sounded and looked like someone whom was mad and taking His ball home with Him. Carson just lulls Me to sleep. I think watching and listening to Him, you spend more time watching Him close his eyes and rubbing His hands and not hearing what he is saying.

I just don't think Rand's heart is really in this, not the way it has to be to succeed. Talking to him, it still sounds to me like he is running because he thinks he has to, rather than because of a burning passion. I think he enjoys the intellectual give and take, but not the down and dirty part. With him, I think it's more like a debate tournament, or your Shakespearian play example. I think that is showing through in his results.

(02-02-2016 12:24 AM)EagleX Wrote:  the only way rand paul winds up in a three man race is if 7 or 8 of the other candidates die in a plane crash, and even then I think a couple of the dead guys out poll rand.

No, you're thinking about Gilmore. 12 votes.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/01/no-ran...fifth-plac

Quote:What does this mean? It gives some weight to the conclusion of the anonymous Paul-watcher I quoted this morning who noted that for many voters in Iowa, Ron Paul was less the libertarian choice than the radical anti-establishment choice, and that that energy went to Trump.

Ron Paul was genuine no compromise libertarianism. Rand went along with the GOP time and again to not rock the boat and play the game from the inside rather than the outside. Rand bled away most of his father's serious support with moves like endorsing Mitch McConnell.

Let me explain it this way: I gave money to Ron until it hurt. Will I vote for Rand? Sure. Will I give Rand any money? Hell no. Ron Paul remains the only politician I've given real coin to. I've also given to Justin Amash, but not big bucks. Ron also remains the only person who is more accurately described as statesman than politician that I've been able to vote for in either of the major parties. I typically end up pulling the Libertarian lever on major races. I've only voted for a winning Governor once (Sanford's second term), a winning US House rep once (Trey Gowdy's second term), a winning US Senator once (Jim DeMint when random guy won the Democrat primary and there was no LP candidate fielded, deliberately, as DeMint was like the only guy trying to curb spending in the US Senate at the time). I have yet to cast a Presidential vote for either major party. I have voted Democrat once (former Ron Paul aide Flattop Bob who won the Democrat Primary, laughably, to run against Lindsey Graham in the general from the right out of the lefty party. Lindsey Graham did GOTV efforts to the most liberal parts of the state saying Flattop was coming for their medicaid and social security money. It was hilarious if you can divorce yourself from how broken the whole system is.)