Here’s why Rand Paul would probably be beating Hillary Clinton right now

CaseyJones

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
7,564
Here’s why Rand Paul would probably be beating Hillary Clinton right now

http://rare.us/story/heres-why-rand-paul-would-probably-be-beating-hillary-clinton-right-now/

The 2012 Republican autopsy report said that Mitt Romney failed to win the presidency because the GOP lacked support from independents, young people and minorities, among other groups. In other words, the party needed to broaden its appeal.

2016 Republicans then nominated Donald Trump. The GOP nominee has narrowed the party’s appeal with each of these groups.

Severely.

Clinton has led Trump with independents in poll after poll. USA Today reported this month that “Young voters flee Donald Trump in what may be historic trouncing, poll shows.” Even though Clinton leads Trump with independent and Millennial voters, both groups don’t like the Democratic or Republican nominees by significant margins.

Many independents and young people in 2016 have been more attracted to Libertarian Gary Johnson.

How might a libertarian Republican candidate be faring right now?

Earlier this month, Red State’s Brandon Morse and The Libertarian Republic’s Jordan LaPorta took note of Rand Paul’s recent Kentucky senate race polling, showing the Republican senator is not only beating his Democratic opponent Jim Gray by double digits, but that Paul is the clear choice of independents and even many Democrats in his state.

RunSwitchPR reports:

Senator Paul receives 76% of the Republican vote, one point better than Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s party support (75%). Paul earns the support of one-in-three Democratic voters (30%) while Gray takes 60% of Democrats. Gray receives stronger support on the Senate ballot from Democratic voters than does Hillary Clinton, who is getting just 54% of Democrats on the Presidential ballot. Both Gray and Clinton are suffering from massive defections among registered Democrats.

Morse observed, “Among voters who say that their opinions do not align with either of the two major parties, 44% support Paul for reelection, compared to 18% for Gray, which indicates Paul has appeal among independent voters.

So in Kentucky, Rand Paul solidly has his Republican base, more independents than the Democrats, and a surprising amount of actual Democrats.

How might Sen. Paul be doing with minorities compared to Trump in a presidential race against Clinton?

Trump is losing to Clinton huge with all minority groups and particularly African Americans and Hispanics (the two largest racial minority voting blocs). Consistently, somewhere between 80 to 90 percent of these voters just don’t like the guy.

In addition to his appeal to independents and conservative or disaffected Democrats, Rand Paul’s polling with minorities has been exceptional and even groundbreaking for modern Republicans.

Rare reported in 2014 on Kentucky polling taken in a Paul-Clinton presidential race:

The new Bluegrass Poll also revealed that Paul’s ongoing minority outreach efforts might be working with African-Americans in his home state. The Lexington Herald-Leader reports “29 percent of the African Americans surveyed said they would back the tea-party senator.”

“Compare that number to John McCain, who received only four percent of the African-American vote in 2008 and Mitt Romney, who won six percent of the black vote in 2012,” Rare noted.

Paul received 13 percent of the black vote against Democratic senate candidate in 2010, a respectable number for Republicans and this was of course before he became a senator and began his minority outreach efforts in any comprehensive way.
 
USA Today reported this month that “Young voters flee Donald Trump in what may be historic trouncing, poll shows.”

Young voters don't vote. Otherwise, there would have been a president Ron Paul. Sad, but true.
 
There's still a chance. I'm hoping the GOP will be smart enough to let him beat her in her re-election attempt.

(and oh yeah, that's going to happen)
 
Rand would be beating Clinton because he wouldn't say all the stupid shit that Trump does and Clinton's dirt would be unavoidable since Rand has no skeletons in his closet. It should be plainly obvious that Trump was put up because he was the only candidate on the stage that could conceivably piss away yet another election for the GOP. That's if you think voting and all that matters, of course. Why do voters of seeming intelligence still play this game? It's clear that the agenda is to purposely destroy any form of organized conservatism in this country.
 

Good article! I was about to post this myself.

This article is hilarious. The article states "Clinton has led Trump with independents in poll after poll", except the link they provide is to a daily caller article and the title is the exact opposite "In Poll After Poll Trump Leads Clinton Among Independent Voters"

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/31/in-poll-after-poll-trump-leads-clinton-among-independent-voters/

Literally every Trump figure they use is wrong. He receives 85%-90% of the Republican vote, not 75% as indicated. And beating Romney's numbers in minority groups.

No Rand would not be beating Clinton either. Liberty is too extreme.
 
Except that Rand's campaign would have to have been competent enough to get through the primaries.... which they weren't. But to be fair, even if they did everything right, they would not have been able to beat Trump. Still no excuse for doing worse than Ron in '08.
 
Rand would win in a landslide I believe. Remember that Rand doesn't frighten people like Trump does. Democrats would feel more comfortable staying home or voting Green Party against Rand Paul than against Trump. He would also probably improve on Romney's numbers with minorities (or at the very least not do worse like Trump is doing). Rand Paul also doesn't sound like an idiot.
 
Rand would not have had a chance in places like Pennsylvania. I'm not buying it. Does anyone think that Rand would be hammering TPP and illegal immigration in a clear, unfettered fashion like Trump has? Those are the issues that resonate in the decimated Rust Belt.

Rand would have been likely hurt by the same regional schism that would have limited Cruz's appeal, sans places like Colorado and New Hampshire. And let's not ever get started with the NeverRand movement that would have likely emerged from the usual suspects.
 
Last edited:
Rand would not have had a chance in places like Pennsylvania. I'm not buying it. Does anyone think that Rand would be hammering TPP and illegal immigration in a clear, unfettered fashion like Trump has? Those are the issues that resonate in the decimated Rust Belt.

Illegal immigration is more of an issue in places like Arizona and Texas than it is in Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Rand would have been likely hurt by the same regional schism that would have limited Cruz's appeal, sans places like Colorado and New Hampshire. And let's not ever get started with the NeverRand movement that would have likely emerged from the usual suspects.

But the NeverRand movement would never have as much support among the base as NeverTrump has.
 
But the NeverRand movement would never have as much support among the base as NeverTrump has.

Oh, I don't know about that. It would look different, to be sure, but you know Graham, McCain, Christie, King, and Giuliani would all be part of NeverRand. Can't say that with Trump.
 
Oh, I don't know about that. It would look different, to be sure, but you know Graham, McCain, Christie, King, and Giuliani would all be part of NeverRand. Can't say that with Trump.

Its not just that, I think we could all envision Trump to be in the coalition of a NeverRand movement. That is when you would see him actually spending some of his millions trying to defeat him. But the true part is that the average democrat, or Clinton hater would not be scared of a Rand Paul candidacy and that would be very helpful in a year when people are looking for a reasonable candidate to vote for other than Hillary
 
Oh, I don't know about that. It would look different, to be sure, but you know Graham, McCain, Christie, King, and Giuliani would all be part of NeverRand. Can't say that with Trump.

NeverRand would have more establishment support, but Republicans who don't like Rand would overwhelmingly chose him over Clinton.
 
This article is hilarious. The article states "Clinton has led Trump with independents in poll after poll", except the link they provide is to a daily caller article and the title is the exact opposite "In Poll After Poll Trump Leads Clinton Among Independent Voters"

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/31/in-poll-after-poll-trump-leads-clinton-among-independent-voters/

Literally every Trump figure they use is wrong. He receives 85%-90% of the Republican vote, not 75% as indicated. And beating Romney's numbers in minority groups.

No Rand would not be beating Clinton either. Liberty is too extreme.

In poll after poll Clinton leads Trump overall. And the only reason she's leading Trump is because people don't like Trump. And people don't like Trump because he's an ass. Trump would be leading right now if he hadn't decided to pick a fight with a Goldstar family. And now he's trying to make up for it by dancing all over the place on immigration.
 
Rand would not have had a chance in places like Pennsylvania. I'm not buying it. Does anyone think that Rand would be hammering TPP and illegal immigration in a clear, unfettered fashion like Trump has? Those are the issues that resonate in the decimated Rust Belt.

Rand would have been likely hurt by the same regional schism that would have limited Cruz's appeal, sans places like Colorado and New Hampshire. And let's not ever get started with the NeverRand movement that would have likely emerged from the usual suspects.

LOL @ "clear and unfettered." In the past week Trump has been anything but clear on the immigration issue.
 
Nah, I'm not buying it. Rand doesn't have the ability or temperament to make the emotional argument and whip voters into a frenzy. Demotism requires demagogues as Presidents and that's just not who Rand is. Libertarian political strategy has always been far too cerebral; Rand is not an exception to that rule.

The idea that a guy who got less than five percent in the primary would be sweeping into the White House is dubious, at best.
 
It would have been a beautiful dream for Rand to take the presidency. But I am SO GRATEFUL that he will be a significant force in the senate during the Clinton presidency. He's been a Grade A gadfly to Obama. He's already got a long head start on ferociously discrediting Clinton on emails, Benghazi, gun running to terrorists, etc. He'll be in a prime bully pulpit and he'll be relentless once she's in office.
 
We really need to stop targeting or relying on the youth vote for anything. They're useless.

The real battle any GOP nominee faces is a hostile lib media who will treat them like anti-woman white supremacists no matter what they say or do. Trump is getting the brunt of it because they are so in the tank for Hillary, but most of the barbs are not that different from what was used on Romney.
 
Back
Top