Rand Paul Is the 2016 Republican Frontrunner

[Taco John]

Don't laugh. He has built-in advantages in Iowa and New Hampshire, a party moving in his direction, and formidable fundraising potential.

• All along, the theory behind Christie's candidacy was that he could overcome his lack of conservative bona fides with a combination of personality, competence, electability, and money. Bridgegate undermines all four.
• So if Christie is no longer the candidate to beat in the 2016 Republican race, who is? Believe it or not, it’s Rand Paul.
• Bush used the political network his father built, he enjoyed many of the benefits of someone who had run before. It’s the same with Paul. In both Iowa and New Hampshire, he begins with an unparalleled infrastructure left over from his father Ron Paul’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns.
• “Rand has a much broader appeal than his father,” Robinson says. Polls reflect that: A survey last December for the Des Moines Register found Paul with a lower unfavorability rating among Iowa Republicans than either Christie or Jeb Bush.
• If Paul is, arguably, the early leader in Iowa, he may be the early frontrunner in New Hampshire as well. While Ron Paul placed third in Iowa in 2012, he placed second in New Hampshire, losing only to Mitt Romney
• “If you whited out his name, and looked at his numbers,” Scala says of Paul, “you’d think he was a strong mainstream candidate.”
• Paul looks like a better bet than anyone else to finish in the top two in both Iowa and New Hampshire. If he did, he’d establish himself as the leading anti-establishment candidate in the GOP field.
• Of course, the more early success Paul enjoyed, the more fervently some GOP elites—unnerved by his anti-interventionist foreign-policy views and potential weakness in a general election—would rally around someone else. Such efforts have worked in the past.
• Paul will never be the darling of the GOP establishment. But Republican elites may have a difficult time in forging a unified front against him.
• If there’s one thing that could obviate all this, it’s the possibility that Paul could suffer his own candidacy-crippling scandal.
• But even taking that possibility into account, Paul is in a stronger position than many in the media recognize. On issues from NSA surveillance to drug legalization to gay marriage, the GOP is moving in his direction. For his part, Paul is gaining acceptance within the Republican mainstream.
• There’s no way of knowing at this point, of course. But political commentators are making a big mistake if they disregard the chance.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...runner/283258/

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by ActiveShooter

All the GOP needs to do is offer free stuff. Cell phones, Internet, Marijuana, ebt, student loan forgiveness, open bar at gay wedding receptions, etc. Then just reneg once elected and when the economy booms and the professional loafers find the rewards of a job, they'll forget about the 8 years of envy programming they had.

They have and do. They started some of the free stuff programs.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Its easy to write editorials, talk about anecdotes, and take a few polls. There's an awful lot of cheerleading on the right, thats for sure. But the Demographics are quite clear: Mitt Romney won the independents and the Republican turnout was great, but he lost the election because there were simply too many Democrats.

I don't agree with this at all, and neither does the data...


2000:
Bush - 50,456,002
Gore - 50,999,897

2004:
Bush - 62,040,610
Kerry - 59,028,444

2008:
Obama - 69,498,516
McCain - 59,948,323

2009:
Obama - 65,915,796
Romney - 60,933,500

Both McCain and Romney's numbers are better than both Gore's and Kerry's. Barack Obama's numbers are inflated because he's Barack Obama. Those aren't Democrats. Those are Kotters.

And saying that if the Democrat base turns out, they win - this is not remarkable. This is the normal challenge for both parties. Likewise, if the Republicans turn out conservatives and libertarians, and do what Reagan (and Frankly GWB) did by drawing conservative Democrats to the Republicans, they win. This is the name of the game.

Who is going to carry Obama's numbers on the left? Not Clinton - don't believe the hype. She's going to be bloodied by her own left flank, and then she's going to be bloodied by the right. She's old news - and she might not even run. Biden? Biden isn't going to break over 60k in votes - are you kidding me? Kerry shows where Biden's ceiling is. I do have a caveat - and that's Harold Ford, Jr. I have not heard anything about him wanting to run, but if he did, I believe he has potential to draw like Obama.

Aside from that, the narrative that the Democrats are a shoe-in to win the presidency in 2016 is hardly valid. This is going to be a contest. We're looking at another election like 2000 where it will be neck and neck. Aside from what is happening now, there is going to be plenty that happens between now and 2016 that gives this country much to reflect on.

[Taco John]

Also for what it's worth, I do think Rand Paul is the only Republican with any hope of winning in 2016. There is no other candidate that I see in the current field who can both unite the Republican factions, as well as draw from the left. I like Ted Cruz, but I don't think he could draw from the left like Rand Paul could. The rest of the field doesn't have the ability to keep the coalition together. Paul's problem is going to be the Dick Cheney faction, which has a solid grip on the establishment media in this country. I think that they're going to be willing to take the party down knowing that Clinton gives them everything they want anyway. They will bloody Rand and pave the path for Hillary - but they're going to have trouble with both sides once that happens. Who knows how that shakes out. We live in interesting times...

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I don't agree with this at all, and neither does the data...


2000:
Bush - 50,456,002
Gore - 50,999,897

2004:
Bush - 62,040,610
Kerry - 59,028,444

2008:
Obama - 69,498,516
McCain - 59,948,323

2009:
Obama - 65,915,796
Romney - 60,933,500

Both McCain and Romney's numbers are better than both Gore's and Kerry's. Barack Obama's numbers are inflated because he's Barack Obama. Those aren't Democrats. Those are Kotters.

OMG, what an analysis

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Both McCain and Romney's numbers are better than both Gore's and Kerry's. Barack Obama's numbers are inflated because he's Barack Obama. Those aren't Democrats. Those are Kotters.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Also for what it's worth, I do think Rand Paul is the only Republican with any hope of winning in 2016. There is no other candidate that I see in the current field who can both unite the Republican factions, as well as draw from the left. I like Ted Cruz, but I don't think he could draw from the left like Rand Paul could. The rest of the field doesn't have the ability to keep the coalition together. Paul's problem is going to be the Dick Cheney faction, which has a solid grip on the establishment media in this country. I think that they're going to be willing to take the party down knowing that Clinton gives them everything they want anyway. They will bloody Rand and pave the path for Hillary - but they're going to have trouble with both sides once that happens. Who knows how that shakes out. We live in interesting times...

I can assure you that this segment of the Dick Cheney faction doesn't think Hillary is everything I want. In fact, she's very little of what I want and doesn't start to look at all attractive until it's 2 am, I've had several beers, and she's standing next to Barack Obama.

[Dave Lane]

Has anyone ever lost a presidential election by 101%?

Serious question.

[Donger]

So, we've gone from "only Ron Paul can save us!!!W@!3Q31" to "only Rand Paul can save us!"

JFC.

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by Donger

So, we've gone from "only Ron Paul can save us!!!W@!3Q31" to "only Rand Paul can save us!"

JFC.

Another 2 years of posts about how only * Paul can save us, and how he's the presumptive, and how much money he's raised that the other candidates can't match, and how he's going to roll over the other nominees as soon as people just wake up, and... "to the 'ship", etc

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Also for what it's worth, I do think Rand Paul is the only Republican with any hope of winning in 2016. There is no other candidate that I see in the current field who can both unite the Republican factions, as well as draw from the left. I like Ted Cruz, but I don't think he could draw from the left like Rand Paul could. The rest of the field doesn't have the ability to keep the coalition together. Paul's problem is going to be the Dick Cheney faction, which has a solid grip on the establishment media in this country. I think that they're going to be willing to take the party down knowing that Clinton gives them everything they want anyway. They will bloody Rand and pave the path for Hillary - but they're going to have trouble with both sides once that happens. Who knows how that shakes out. We live in interesting times...

Who is Paul going to pull from the left? Sorry, but he and Cruz are the face of the party of "no" that frustrated voters about Congress. Even if I think Paul's been savvy about making his image appeal to the middle, he'll still be considered one of the key faces of the wildly unpopular GOP leadership the past few years.

The guys who might pull people from the left are Rubio and Ryan. Even if it pains everyone to say it. The only reason these guys couldn't win is because the base still thinks they can win with a hardliner. And because their time to run is probably not now.

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Also for what it's worth, I do think Rand Paul is the only Republican with any hope of winning in 2016. There is no other candidate that I see in the current field who can both unite the Republican factions, as well as draw from the left...

Like we heard about Ron in each of the last two election cycles...

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Cochise

Like we heard about Ron in each of the last two election cycles...

The R's lost the last two election cycles.

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by listopencil

The R's lost the last two election cycles.

Yes, and before that during primary season, Ron failed to gain traction with any appreciably sized group on the right even with advantages in funding and supporter engagement, let alone drawing people in from the left or displaying the capability to win a national election

[listopencil]

(CNN) -- Tayna Fogle sat just behind Sen. Rand Paul, nodding her head and listening as he pressed the case with Kentucky state senators to restore felon voting rights.

"Kids do make mistakes. White kids make mistakes. Black kids make mistakes. Brown kids make mistakes," Paul told the Kentucky state Senate committee considering a constitutional amendment to restore the voting rights of some felons on Wednesday.

"But when you look at the prison population, three out of the four people in prison are black or brown."

Fogle whispered: "Good for you. I'm glad someone is speaking up."
She felt as if he was narrating her life.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/19/politi...-felon-voting/

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Sorry, but he and Cruz are the face of the party of "no" that frustrated voters about Congress.

Too bad the vast majority of voters are clueless ****ing morons...