What is left for the liberty movement if Rand Paul cannot win the nomination?

[Saint Milei]

I honestly see nothing. We have consistently failed. We failed with Taft, Goldwater, Reagan, and both Pauls.
None of these issues:
-Fed
-Drug War
-Civil Liberties
-Foreign intervention
-Legitimate spending cuts

have been addressed since Taft. Are our views too extreme? Should we lower our standards?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Try again in 2020.  If Rand Paul fails twice then the torch will be passed to Massie or Amash.

[Senator Spiral]

Start small, like any other social/political movement of value. Reaching for the presidency is too ambitious at the moment given how there is plenty of opposition from both parties. Winning local and state offices, plus gaining control of state parties, is what you need to do to build infrastructure and be more formidable down the road. I'm doubtful that Paul will win the nomination, but there are other promising figures like Amash to look up to in the future. With that said, I'm deeply cynical about the political process in general, but if you at least want to try, that's what you should do.

[Maxwell]

It depends on Rand Paul's performance in comparison to expectations. If Rand Paul wins a good deal of primaries but doesn't win the nomination, then the liberty movement will carry onward, probably with Rand Paul running in 2020 (Especially if whoever Paul ran against for the nomination loses to Clinton). However, if Rand Paul underperforms what people expect of him, then the Liberty movement will have some trouble. The bench is okay but not great - an older and more mature Amash could be very potent though.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Another run in 2020 after Hillary stomps Jeb/Walker/Rubio/generic Republican. The GOP didn't learn their lesson from 2012, though, so the odds of them learning from 2016 are fairly low.

Alternatively, secession.

[Likely Voter]

This is Rands first go.  GOP rarely nominate first time candidates. The fact that he fought so hard to simultaneously run for Senate shows he knows odds are against him.   His realistic goal should be to make it past Super Tuesday and a strong second place in delegates.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think you should support Bernie Sanders. He'll end the drug war, protect civil liberties, isn't a warmonger, and would cut military spending. And he did support the audit the fed thing.

[King]

The best thing for the party is a Ted Cruz blowout loss. Everything he represents is why the party is terrible and it needs to be burned with the fire of a Hillary Clinton blowout. Then someone like Rand Paul can rebuild the party in 2020 in his image. The GOP will never embrace libertarians unless the fundie  Christian corporatism nut monster is thoroughly embarrassed. 

[bedstuy]

.
None of these issues:
-Fed
-Drug War
-Civil Liberties
-Foreign intervention
-Legitimate spending cuts

have been addressed since Taft. Are our views too extreme? Should we lower our standards?

The Federal Reserve Bank: is not an issue.  It's a central bank.  Stop demonizing normal currency and banking regulation because of your ignorance and silly conspiracy theories.

Drug War:  Is slowly winding down and Democrats are more on board for that than Republicans.

Foreign intervention:  Very complicated set of issues.  But, as long as the US is a super-power, we're going to have a role.

Legitimate spending cuts:  Non-issue.  We don't have a spending problem.  We have a healthcare cost problem, a defense spending problem and an economic growth problem, all of which Obama has bravely tackled.  If we got Medicare under control and cut defense, and invested in infrastructure and modernizing our economy, we'd be fine.

I think you should support Bernie Sanders. He'll end the drug war, protect civil liberties, isn't a warmonger, and would cut military spending. And he did support the audit the fed thing.

Really?  That's disappointing. 

[Ebsy]

The title of this thread should be changed to "What is left for the liberty movement when Rand Paul cannot win the nomination?"

[Phony Moderate]

Maybe he'd be more successful as a 'crazy old Grandpa' candidate when he reaches old age, just like his father. Certainly, after seeing some old footage of his father on C-SPAN (around the time of his run for the Libertarians), he came off as much blander than he did in '08 and '12 despite saying the same things.

[Thunderbird is the word]

I honestly see nothing. We have consistently failed. We failed with Taft, Goldwater, Reagan, and both Pauls.
None of these issues:
-Fed
-Drug War
-Civil Liberties
-Foreign intervention
-Legitimate spending cuts

have been addressed since Taft. Are our views too extreme? Should we lower our standards?

I'm with you on opposing the drug war, civil liberties and foreign policy. On the fence about the Fes ans certainly for legitimate spending cuts if by that you mean cutting funding for the drug war, military, NSA spying, and other more intrusive aspects of government. As a leftist I also empathize with a general feeling of political marginalization.

[Zioneer]

Gary Johnson?

[NeverAgain]

I supported Rand Paul before he started flip floping. Now that he's a presidential candidate I think it will be hard for moderates and real Libertarians to stand behind him in 2020...

[ElectionsGuy]

Gary Johnson?

Eh, he's not a very good speaker and is less attractive to voters than Ron Paul. He can run for the Libertarian nomination again but he won't gain much traction.

I'm pretty pessimistic myself. I think that if the media and establishment actually gave Ron Paul a fair chance he could've advanced the movement far greater than it is now. We'll see how it turns out with Rand. He's already sold out on some things though, and already most of the attention he's had is mostly negative (the ridiculous Savannah Guthrie thing, criticizing his foreign policy, etc.). If he doesn't get anywhere, ultimately it will be the Republican Party and its resistance to change, not the country itself, that holds back the movement.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Start small, like any other social/political movement of value. Reaching for the presidency is too ambitious at the moment given how there is plenty of opposition from both parties. Winning local and state offices, plus gaining control of state parties, is what you need to do to build infrastructure and be more formidable down the road. I'm doubtful that Paul will win the nomination, but there are other promising figures like Amash to look up to in the future. With that said, I'm deeply cynical about the political process in general, but if you at least want to try, that's what you should do.

The thread should end here. This is the best advice that libertarians consistently fail to take.

The best thing for the party is a Ted Cruz blowout loss. Everything he represents is why the party is terrible and it needs to be burned with the fire of a Hillary Clinton blowout. Then someone like Rand Paul can rebuild the party in 2020 in his image. The GOP will never embrace libertarians unless the fundie  Christian corporatism nut monster is thoroughly embarrassed. 

This is the other straight truth in here. As long as there is a candidate far, far to the right who can be latched onto as the Lost Cause, Republicans will never learn their lesson. It's always, "Oh, we would have won if only we'd nominated a TRUE conservative."

[DS0816]

Rand Paul is a Republican politician. And he won't win the 2016 presidential nomination.

[Slander and/or Libel]

That's the other piece of this. If you look at Rand's rhetoric, he looks like a libertarian iconoclast. If you look at his voting record, he's a down-the-line run-of-the-mill Republican.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Sorry, I misstated things. I shouldn't have said he was a run-of-the-mill conservative. He's a very, very conservative conservative. But the point about the distance between his public statements and his votes remains.

[Zioneer]

That's the other piece of this. If you look at Rand's rhetoric, he looks like a libertarian iconoclast. If you look at his voting record, he's a down-the-line run-of-the-mill Republican.

What? He has the most libertarian voting record of any Senator or Congressman.

Isn't Rand the senator that wanted to drone strike liquor store robbers? Yep, he is. I get the context in the rest of his quote, and I see that the general sentiment is anti-drone, but it's still pretty goofy and makes him seem not ready for prime time.

EDIT: Also, Rand Paul has flip-flopped on a lot of things, including gay marriage. I wouldn't trust him, honestly.

[Small L]

That's the other piece of this. If you look at Rand's rhetoric, he looks like a libertarian iconoclast. If you look at his voting record, he's a down-the-line run-of-the-mill Republican.

Most of his libertarian supporters view it the other way around.

[Mister Mets]

What's left is to keep trying.

Rand Paul can run again, and has a platform as a high-profile Senator.

Fans of the Pauls have got elected to state legislators and Congress, so it's also possible that some will rise to significant positions.

The former Libertarian party candidate for Vice President is one of the most signifcant backers of the Republican party, so there is always the possibility of success in the future.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Start small, like any other social/political movement of value. Reaching for the presidency is too ambitious at the moment given how there is plenty of opposition from both parties. Winning local and state offices, plus gaining control of state parties, is what you need to do to build infrastructure and be more formidable down the road. I'm doubtful that Paul will win the nomination, but there are other promising figures like Amash to look up to in the future. With that said, I'm deeply cynical about the political process in general, but if you at least want to try, that's what you should do.

[Blair]

Didn't Rand Paul pretty much flip flop on foreign intervention once ISIS happened?

[Ebsy]

Didn't Rand Paul pretty much flip flop on foreign intervention once ISIS happened?

He flip flops on a lot of things.