# Start Here > Guest Forum >  How will Rand Paul beat Hillary Clinton?

## 56ktarget

Everyone here will probably agree Clinton and Paul are going to sweep their respective nominations without blinking an eye. I looked at the latest poll numbers and she trumps rand 49% to 39%, which will probably result in the biggest landslide since LBJ vs. Goldwater. 

How will Paul overcome these dismal poll numbers and win the election (without there being some major scandal on Clinton's part)? A 10 point deficit is a big thing to overcome.

----------


## CPUd

> Everyone here will probably agree Clinton and Paul are going to sweep their respective nominations without blinking an eye. I looked at the latest poll numbers and she trumps rand 49% to 39%, which will probably result in the biggest landslide since LBJ vs. Goldwater. 
> 
> How will Paul overcome these dismal poll numbers and win the election (without there being some major scandal on Clinton's part)? A 10 point deficit is a big thing to overcome.


We don't know for sure that either of them will be running.  There's a good chance, but not certain.

----------


## limequat

"How will Rand Paul beat Hillary Clinton?"

Like Ike Turner on PCP.

Also 10 pts this far out is as meaningless as tits on a bull.

----------


## Crashland

Clinton is leading the dem nomination polls by 50 points right now but I don't think she will necessarily run away with it. It is also a very big assumption that Rand will win the GOP nomination, but we can go with that because else why are we here?

The head to head polls are meaningless at this point until both nominees are decided. The head-to-head polls right now are influenced more by name recognition, and also supporters of other GOP candidates right now would be less likely to express support for a potential nomination opponent in a head-to-head poll, although in the actual election they will easily fall in line.

----------


## Neil Desmond

Benghazi Hillary?  How will she beat Rand Paul or anyone else?

----------


## Origanalist

> "How will Rand Paul beat Hillary Clinton?"
> 
> Like Ike Turner on PCP.
> 
> Also 10 pts this far out is as meaningless as tits on a bull.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## 56ktarget

Ron Paul 1988!!!
Ron Paul 2008!!!
Ron Paul 2012!!!
Rand Paul 2016!!!
Rand Paul 2020!!!
Rand Paul 2024!!!

----------


## Origanalist

> Ron Paul 1988!!!
> Ron Paul 2008!!!
> Ron Paul 2012!!!
> Rand Paul 2016!!!
> Rand Paul 2020!!!
> Rand Paul 2024!!!


Lol, forget your meds tonight?

----------


## 56ktarget

No, but that is what ron paul supporters have been saying and will continue to say for years.

----------


## torchbearer

after the primary, he throws off the moldy moss covering he will use to win the primary, and enter the general as a real libertarian.
that way he takes away the blue states needed to win.

----------


## NIU Students for Liberty

> How will Paul overcome these dismal poll numbers and win the election (without there being some major scandal on Clinton's part)? A 10 point deficit is a big thing to overcome.


Prove that he's not a psychopathic warmonger.

----------


## 56ktarget

> after the primary, he throws off the moldy moss covering he will use to win the primary, and enter the general as a real libertarian.
> that way he takes away the blue states needed to win.


You do realize most liberals regard rand paul as crackpot-in-chief? And are you seriously advocating a candidate should compromise his principles in order to win elections? Don't you realize how hypocritical this sounds?

----------


## torchbearer

> Prove that he's not a psychopathic warmonger.


and this...
no more psychopathic authoritarian warmongers...
"what difference does it make" should be Hillary's slogan.

----------


## torchbearer

> You do realize most liberals regard rand paul as crackpot-in-chief? And are you seriously advocating a candidate should compromise his principles in order to win elections? Don't you realize how hypocritical this sounds?


You do realize most rational people regard Hillary as a psychopathic authoritarian with no regard for human life, right?

Election will come down to rational beings voting vs. ignorant people voting for a team blue by habit.

----------


## 56ktarget

> You do realize most rational people regard Hillary as a psychopathic authoritarian with no regard for human life, right?
> 
> Election will come down to rational beings voting vs. ignorant people voting for a team blue by habit.


Is that why Clinton is trumping Paul 49% vs 39%?

----------


## torchbearer

> Is that why Clinton is trumping Paul 49% vs 39%?


that would be why... lots of non-thinkers.
though some non-thinkers vote team red too.
"what difference does it make" will sink the clinton dynasty.

You do realize presidents aren't elected by a national vote, right?
so national polling is useless.
it has to be done state by state.

----------


## Cleaner44

Considering that Hillary won't run in 2016, it will make it hard for her to beat Rand.  If you don't believe me I suggest you confer with the Palin 2012 committee and them how Sarah faired against Obama.

----------


## 56ktarget

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/us...inton-bid.html

Political organizations dont spend massive amounts of money for a candidate unless there not running.

----------


## torchbearer

everytime we are a threat to power, the trolls come over.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> You do realize most liberals regard rand paul as crackpot-in-chief?


Really?  Interesting.  I take that as a sign that liberals might be intimidated or concerned that if he runs for POTUS, he probably has a good chance of defeating the Democrat candidate by a landslide.  If they weren't, then I'm not sure why they would act like they notice him showing up on their radar.

----------


## 56ktarget

We actually WANT Paul to get the republican nomination, as that will mean a repeat of 1964.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> We actually WANT Paul to get the republican nomination, as that will mean a repeat of 1964.


Ok, but that might backfire - with the Internet we're living in the information era now.

----------


## Cleaner44

> We actually WANT Paul to get the republican nomination, as that will mean a repeat of 1964.


Are you a woman?

----------


## RonPaulMall

> Everyone here will probably agree Clinton and Paul are going to sweep their respective nominations without blinking an eye. I looked at the latest poll numbers and she trumps rand 49% to 39%, which will probably result in the biggest landslide since LBJ vs. Goldwater. 
> 
> How will Paul overcome these dismal poll numbers and win the election (without there being some major scandal on Clinton's part)? A 10 point deficit is a big thing to overcome.


Dukakis led Bush by 17 points in the polls just a few months prior to the election.  Polls this far out are meaningless.  If Rand runs a good campaign, he will win.  Economic populism is what will win it for Rand.  He needs to make the focus of his campaign be all about the war on the middle class.

----------


## Brett85

It would be tough for him to win just because of all of the constant hit pieces we'll see from the media.  He would have to raise a ton of money in order to overcome that.

----------


## jtstellar

another lesbo woman looking for something to fall back her lonely ego on, nothing to see here.  baby-hating is actually a way to protest how society sees them as baby-making machines tho no one ever explicitly claimed so to them, but of course, every one voice they hear inside their head is a thing that is actually going on in the real world.  i would call these the freaks of nature.  how else would you call them?

----------


## robertwerden

Reported OP as a troll

----------


## puppetmaster

Rand will win when the debates happen. Once people hear unedited truth they will wake up to liberty. Everyone but the parasites

----------


## Saint Vitus

I don't think Rand Paul or Hillary Clinton will be either parties nominee.  But I do think that another Democrat will win the election.  Does anybody really think Rand Paul could carry Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin or Ohio?  Look at the demographic changes.  The only way that this movement got any sort of traction was with Ron Paul speaking truth to power and galvanizing the disenfranchised voters who didn't like either party.  Rand is just an extension of McConnell and the same Republican party that is extremely unpopular now.  There's no way in hell there will be a president Rand Paul or a president Hillary Clinton.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> I don't think Rand Paul or Hillary Clinton will be either parties nominee.  But I do think that another Democrat will win the election.  Does anybody really think Rand Paul could carry Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin or Ohio?  Look at the demographic changes.  The only way that this movement got any sort of traction was with Ron Paul speaking truth to power and galvanizing the disenfranchised voters who didn't like either party.  Rand is just an extension of McConnell and the same Republican party that is extremely unpopular now.  There's no way in hell there will be a president Rand Paul or a president Hillary Clinton.


So who do you think are likely to be the candidates for each party, at this point?

----------


## jtstellar

trolls increase when rand polls high, don't you see how idiotically predictable your employer is?  is this seriously your dream job growing up?  sad

----------


## Saint Vitus

> So who do you think are likely to be the candidates for each party, at this point?


I think it's yet to be determined on either side, it's 2014 for god's sake.  But I would bet my life savings that neither Rand or Hillary are going to be the nominee.  Hillary is too old and she will implode in the primaries.  Rand might take a few states, but the south is extremely lukewarm to him, and so is the northeast.  He tries to be everything to everybody, but the evangelicals don't really trust him in the south, the moderates and independents don't trust him the northeast, the libertarians in the west don't really like him, and I can't see too many midwest states voting for him.   He might win Iowa, Kentucky, Indiana, Tennessee, but he will not win the nomination.

----------


## Neil Desmond

> I think it's yet to be determined on either side, it's 2014 for god's sake.  But I would bet my life savings that neither Rand or Hillary are going to be the nominee.  Hillary is too old and she will implode in the primaries.  Rand might take a few states, but the south is extremely lukewarm to him, and so is the northeast.  He tries to be everything to everybody, but the evangelicals don't really trust him in the south, the moderates and independents don't trust him the northeast, the libertarians in the west don't really like him, and I can't see too many midwest states voting for him.   He might win Iowa, Kentucky, Indiana, Tennessee, but he will not win the nomination.


I'm not sure if any of this matters enough.  I think it depends on who he has to compete against in the Republican party when it comes to being the Republican candidate, then it has to do with who he has to compete against as the Democrat's candidate if he does become the Republican candidate.

----------


## ssunlimited

> I think it's yet to be determined on either side, it's 2014 for god's sake.  But I would bet my life savings that neither Rand or Hillary are going to be the nominee.  Hillary is too old and she will implode in the primaries.  Rand might take a few states, but the south is extremely lukewarm to him, and so is the northeast.  He tries to be everything to everybody, but the evangelicals don't really trust him in the south, the moderates and independents don't trust him the northeast, the libertarians in the west don't really like him, and I can't see too many midwest states voting for him.   He might win Iowa, Kentucky, Indiana, Tennessee, but he will not win the nomination.


You might be right. It sounds like you know what you're talking about. But I think you and me both want Rand to win that nomination. I really hope he will anyway even though that might not be realistic.

----------


## fr33

Rand could win by pointing out that Hillary's interventionist foreign policy makes the world less safe and that her government-run healthcare is a disaster.

----------


## 56ktarget

> Rand could win by pointing out that Hillary's interventionist foreign policy makes the world less safe and that her government-run healthcare is a disaster.


Romney tried the same thing to Obama and he lost.

----------


## fr33

> Romney tried the same thing to Obama and he lost.


No he didn't. Romney tried to out-hawk Hillary.


edit: oops I meant Obama instead of Hillary. It doesn't matter. Rand is less hawkish than both.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You might be right. It sounds like you know what you're talking about. But I think you and me both want Rand to win that nomination. I really hope he will anyway even though that might not be realistic.


He doesn't.  I still do, despite sometimes being disappointed in him.  Something is better than nothing.

----------


## jkr

her public record
**

did eye win?

the question mark was emphasized

----------


## enoch150

> Romney tried the same thing to Obama and he lost.


Romney didn't have much credibility on the healthcare issue. The gun rights people didn't like him, either. He didn't really fire up the anti-tax people either. A lot of Republicans just didn't see that much of a difference between him and Obama and just stayed home. They didn't donate and didn't do a lot of the necessary volunteer work. That includes most of the 2.1 million Ron Paul voters. Romney, like McCain, had a lot of trouble getting the Republican base excited. Romney got the nomination with 52% of the primary vote and McCain with 47%. Those were the lowest percentages for the winner of a Republican primary since Nixon in 1968.

If Rand wants to beat Hillary, job #1 is uniting the Republican party. And for our side, that means we win the ideological battle. And wouldn't you prefer that both parties nominated people who were on the right side of important issues such as not giving out a massive load of corporate welfare by bailing out Wall Street, being opposed to interventionist wars like Iraq, and willing to defend civil liberties by opposing the PATRIOT Act? We really don't want people like that on our side, so I would think you'd want to help us, just in case Hillary does get in a last minute scandal and loses the election.

----------


## mrsat_98

> Rand will win when the debates happen. Once people hear unedited truth they will wake up to liberty. Everyone but the parasites


At this point, if the parasites don't wake up, what difference does it make ?

----------


## anaconda

> I don't think Rand Paul or Hillary Clinton will be either parties nominee.  But I do think that another Democrat will win the election.  Does anybody really think Rand Paul could carry Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin or Ohio?  Look at the demographic changes.  The only way that this movement got any sort of traction was with Ron Paul speaking truth to power and galvanizing the disenfranchised voters who didn't like either party.  Rand is just an extension of McConnell and the same Republican party that is extremely unpopular now.  There's no way in hell there will be a president Rand Paul or a president Hillary Clinton.


If the economy gets worse the tide might shift toward a credible fiscal conservative. Plus I'm anticipating good debate performances from Rand.

----------


## anaconda

> I'm not sure if any of this matters enough.  I think it depends on who he has to compete against in the Republican party when it comes to being the Republican candidate, then it has to do with who he has to compete against as the Democrat's candidate if he does become the Republican candidate.


Point well taken. If we pick most any other potential Republican candidate, we could make a good case that they all have regional weaknesses.

----------


## anaconda

> If Rand wants to beat Hillary, job #1 is uniting the Republican party.


It won't be long before we start running out of time to accomplish this by 2016.

----------


## RickyJ

> Everyone here will probably agree Clinton and Paul are going to sweep their respective nominations without blinking an eye. I looked at the latest poll numbers and she trumps rand 49% to 39%, which will probably result in the biggest landslide since LBJ vs. Goldwater. 
> 
> How will Paul overcome these dismal poll numbers and win the election (without there being some major scandal on Clinton's part)? A 10 point deficit is a big thing to overcome.


Free candy. Free candy to all who vote for Rand, that is how he will overcome these poll numbers.

It would also help if he had a female running mate that was not butt ugly. Candy and eye candy, it works wonders.

----------


## Philhelm

Rand?  Isn't Ron Paul running again?

----------

