What's wrong with the Rand Paul campaign?

[tpfkaw]

1. He's alienated his father's base.  Rand has overcorrected in attempting to repudiate his father's more controversial views on foreign and monetary policy, and left his most passionate supporters feeling like they've been betrayed.  Meanwhile, it's not as if neocon pundits (who are single-issue fanatics unable to tolerate the smallest of perceived slights; most backed Clinton over Bush I, so why would they ever support Rand even in a general?) or Wall Street donors will ever trust or like him, especially when they have many more agreeable options.

He keeps shifting to more and more hawkish positions on foreign policy and making "me too!" statements without clearly outlining his differences with the other candidates.  He doesn't need to be sounding like a crypto-ISIS supporter, or even take a wildly different tack than the one he's been charting, but at the least he should not have flip-flopped on eliminating all foreign aid, including to Israel.  Big red meat for 08/12 Paulites, acceptable, even popular, to Republican voters except for ones who would never vote for him anyway, and in any event since he had already taken a position he should've had the foresight to know what Harriet Harman et al are currently learning over in the UK - trying to be two things at once on an emotionally charged issue just serves to infuriate both sides.

And, while he shouldn't have followed his father in going on long debate tangents about the Federal Reserve (which just confuses 90%+ of voters and alienates most who do know what that is), he should have endorsed returning to the gold standard, which most voters do understand, isn't particularly unpopular (especially in a GOP primary), draws a distinction with the other candidates, still wins him all the goldbugs, and isn't outside the bounds of acceptable opinion amongst the Wall Street crowd (Larry Kudlow and Art Laffer remain welcome at their parties, as far as I can tell).

1b. Related to his refusal to offer up any red meat on foreign or monetary policy, Rand seems to be running a distant third amongst the alt-right/conspiracy theorist crowd(s).  Perhaps not necessarily the voting bloc you most want to have, but still a significant one and made up at least half his father's base.

2. He went left on the wrong issues, "Black Lives Matter"/crime and immigration.  The first is just about the most wildly unpopular thing he could possibly have gone left with amongst both GOP primary voters *and* GE swing voters.  At first I thought his "black outreach" plan was meant to make him look moderate and neutralize the Civil Rights Act attack, but it seems like he was delusional enough to think that he was actually going to attract significant black support, and developed his campaign strategy based on this assumption.  And he didn't get the memo (failure of the '06/'07/'13 amnesties, Romney putting the squeeze on Perry and Gingrich, Rubio's collapse of support after his flip-flop, Trumpmentum) that amnesty is nigh-on the political kiss of death with the GOP rank-and-file.

What he should have gone left on were gay marriage and marijuana legalization.  30-40% of Republicans support both, and yet not one of the GOP candidates support either (none of the Democrats support legal weed, even).  Once again, he needs to be drawing an ideological distinction.  And, he needed to keep the college students and tech industry workers who were a huge part of his fathers '08/'12 base.  They appear to be nearly entirely for Sanders this time around.

3. He doesn't have the "regular guy" appeal that his father, or Trump, have.  Ron Paul does not seem like a politician - politicians do not give half-hour speeches devoted entirely to the elimination of the Federal Reserve.  Ron and Donald Trump also share the perceived ability to say whatever they want, what they really think, without worrying about whether it's popular or not or who is offended.  Everything Rand says seems to be carefully scripted and focus-grouped like any other politician, and it doesn't have the same kind of exciting, electric energy that a lot of people feel when a politician is a "truth-teller" who is perceived not to sugar-coat the bullshinks and isn't afraid to say things the media or even the public dislikes.  When Ron Paul or Donald Trump speak, you know it's really what they're thinking and not some rehearsed consultant-driven talking point.  The "pox on both your houses" disaffected types found Ron attractive in 2012, and Trump this time, not Rand.

4. With withdrawal from Afghanistan, ISIS, and Ukraine, it is indeed a lot harder to get very enthusiastic about non-interventionism this time around than the last two.

[DDGE]

I seriously think Rand is trying to learn from his dad's previous runs and is crafting a different campaign that most of Ron's supporters weren't used to in 2008 and 2012.

We're days away from the first debate/forum in the Presidential Primary season and I seriously think that, given the way the race has been shaping up with the rise and fall of most of the favorite candidates, it's pretty hard to put your finger on this.

Rand might be trying to put most of his cards in winning voters by his debate performances. The dynamics in the primary shape differently, day in and day out. One day you're on top, the next day you're going for scraps.

But, if I could make one suggestion to the Rand campaign, it would be the following:

Remember how you won your U.S. Senate race in 2010 and be the unique candidate. Don't sound-bite things all the time, that's why Ron got a great deal of respect and admiration, because he could speak his mind as if there were no tomorrow. If you show your authenticity, it's possible that you could get on top again, but it won't be easy.

[dudeabides]

Rand Paul has made some strategic missteps. His strategy seems to have been to try and unite libertarians and conservatives. On several issues, conservatives and libertarians have some common views. This is especially true on economic issues, both conservatives and libertarians are proponents of free markets, though libertarians are more likely to oppose safety net programs than conservatives. The problem is, conservatives and libertarians are very different when it comes to foreign policy. Conservatives have believed in investing in the military and maintaining an international presence for national security purposes. Libertarians are more isolationist and are less likely to support foreign interventions, just like the left. Paul has tried to play both sides. He would have been better off sticking to his libertarian convictions and trying to convince independent voters that he's right and the "neo-cons" are wrong. His pandering to both sides is the reason some of his father's pure libertarian supporters are against him, and his foreign policy is the reason many conservatives stop short of supporting him for President.

That being said, Ron Paul did better in 2012 in places like New Hampshire and Nevada than anyone expected, so maybe I'm wrong but right now, Paul has no momentum.

[Senator Spark]

He seems to be up in some of the polls, he must not follow in the footsteps of his father with campaigning.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

It amazes me how wrong you guys are

It amazes me how hackish you are about Rand Paul. I was a Rand Paul supporter for God's sake, and I want to agree with you, but you are just wrong about the man.