IOWA: Rand Paul is GOP's best candidate for 2016

Warlord

Member
Joined
May 2, 2013
Messages
11,694
Incredible!

-
Hillary Clinton beats Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in potential 2016 match ups in Iowa, according to a new poll Friday.

Clinton, a Democrat, would best Rubio 48 percent to 37 percent and she runs ahead of Paul 46 percent to 42 percent, the Quinnipiac University poll found.

A closer look at a potential Clinton-Paul match-up shows Paul leading among Iowa independents 44 percent to 38 percent. He also leads among men 49 percent to 39 percent. Clinton wins among women 53 percent to 34 percent.

“In general Sen. Paul appears to be the better GOP candidate at this point in Iowa. Part of the reason may be the publicity from his recent high-profile visit to the state, but more likely is that he begins with a solid base of support - the folks who voted for his father in the 2008 and 2012 caucuses,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

Rubio and Paul were the only two Republicans tested in the poll.

In another potential match up, Paul beats Vice President Joe Biden 44 percent to 39 percent. And Biden was essentially locked in a tie with Rubio, with the Florida Republican edging him 40 percent to 39 percent — well within the poll’s plus or minus 2.6 percentage points margin of error.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...iowa-hillary-clinton-91858.html#ixzz2UDQyg1v4
 
A closer look at a potential Clinton-Paul match-up shows Paul leading among Iowa independents 44 percent to 38 percent. He also leads among men 49 percent to 39 percent. Clinton wins among women 53 percent to 34 percent.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...iowa-hillary-clinton-91858.html#ixzz2UDQyg1v4

Iowa is basically an all-white state, and we shouldn't be losing women by this margin. This is how far hardcore social-conservatism gets you in the general election.
 
If Clinton does end up running (and winning the primary) the key to beating her will be to get irate males out in droves to vote for the GOP after 8 years of declining incomes, household wealth and lack of jobs the average guy will not be so liberal in their leanings and less inclined to vote Democrat and for Obama's third term (or Bush's fifth).

The women will simply have to be told what to do this time round!
 
Nice attempt at spin, but Iowa is a two-time Obama state. And don't tell me Mitt Romney was some hardcore social conservative.

Well, Romney did his share of pandering to the Evangelicals. He wanted to ban abortion with exceptions for rape and incest. And he said he would like to overturn Roe v. Wade.

'The War on Women' meme was a big part of his defeat.

You must realise that most women, especially educated ones, don't want their lady parts regulated by the government.
 
Well, Romney did his share of pandering to the Evangelicals. He wanted to ban abortion with exceptions for rape and incest. And he said he would like to overturn Roe v. Wade.

'The War on Women' meme was a big part of his defeat.

You must realise that most women, especially educated ones, don't want their lady parts regulated by the government.

There are many women who think abortions for mere convenience are disgusting.
 
Hillary is no spring chicken. She does have a pre-existing network in Iowa. Of course, it failed to give her what was thought to be an easy victory in 2008. Personally, I don't think she'll win Iowa even among Dems in the caucus. Will she even run?
 
The women will simply have to be told what to do this time round!

We do have a secret weapon...Kelly.
photo.jpg
 
There are many women who think abortions for mere convenience are disgusting.

Just because you find something to be disgusting or unethical doesn't mean it should be illegal. Those who want abortion completely banned are almost always motivated by religion. This fraction of the electorate is already fully engaged with GOP. There is nothing to be gained by moving further to the right. But Rand Paul's position is even more extreme than Romney: no abortion for Rape victims. That would make it even harder for Rand to connect with the average female voter.
 
Hillary is no spring chicken. She does have a pre-existing network in Iowa. Of course, it failed to give her what was thought to be an easy victory in 2008. Personally, I don't think she'll win Iowa even among Dems in the caucus. Will she even run?

She did come incredibly close, however. Had Edwards bowed out like that POS should have, she likely would have won. Adding to Obama's victory were the votes at caucus from the Bill Richardson camp, which was advised to have their votes go to Obama ("we don't want Hillary to win Iowa") if they didn't meet the 15% threshold in each precinct. I heard it first-hand.

Hillary also failed to connect with many Iowans, who saw through her bullshit and felt she was cold to them and didn't like the local touch needed to campaign in Iowa.
 
Last edited:
Hillary is no spring chicken. She does have a pre-existing network in Iowa. Of course, it failed to give her what was thought to be an easy victory in 2008. Personally, I don't think she'll win Iowa even among Dems in the caucus. Will she even run?

I would bet on Yes, but until she says anything, it's all speculation. There's this thing going on where Democrats almost don't want anyone else besides her to run so people can unite behind her, but we'll see. She's definitely got the Facebook following so far. And if you go on, don't go on blasting about the IRS, Benghazi and so on. Trust me, they're more than ready for that.

https://www.facebook.com/ReadyForHillary?fref=ts
 
Just because you find something to be disgusting or unethical doesn't mean it should be illegal. Those who want abortion completely banned are almost always motivated by religion. This fraction of the electorate is already fully engaged with GOP. There is nothing to be gained by moving further to the right. But Rand Paul's position is even more extreme than Romney: no abortion for Rape victims. That would make it even harder for Rand to connect with the average female voter.

If you polled women and abortion you'd probably find it pretty split.

A rape victim can take the pill, do they really need an abortion?
 
Last edited:
Iowa is basically an all-white state, and we shouldn't be losing women by this margin. This is how far hardcore social-conservatism gets you in the general election.

The polls show that women are also more supportive of government programs than men and more liberal on fiscal issues.
 
She did come incredibly close, however. Had Edwards bowed out like that POS should have, she likely would have won. Adding to Obama's victory were the votes at caucus from the Bill Richardson camp, which was advised to have their votes go to Obama ("we don't want Hillary to win Iowa") if they didn't meet the 15% threshold in each precinct. I heard it first-hand.

Hillary also failed to connect with many Iowans, who saw through her bullshit and felt she was cold to them and didn't like the local touch needed to campaign in Iowa.

Kucinich handed off to Obama as well. That's the way the Dems do, though. Their caucus is set up to function that way. Edwards had some really devoted followers in this area. I don't know how they would have voted if he'd dropped out. I don't know if they would have even gone to the caucus. If they did, I don't know which candidate they would have supported. Edwards had a pretty strong network, and his people were devoted. It's just too difficult to say which way they would have gone. Honestly, many of them liked Ron Paul.

Hillary's devoted Iowa followers are aging. She really hasn't done much to cultivate the support of the younger Iowa Dems. And as you pointed out, her campaign was not exactly warm. I don't think she'll just walk in and win next time around any easier than she did the last time.
 
If you polled women and abortion you'd probably find it pretty split.

A rape victim can take the pill, do they really need an abortion?

A pill is only effective in 24 hours after sex. Even then it's no guarantee. The problem is social-conservatives want to ban the pill too! I'd like to know
Rand's opinion on this.

The bigger issue is this: if a woman wants abortion, who gave you the right to deny it her? This is not a libertarian position, it's an authoritarian position. And women nowadays don't like being told what to do.
 
Kucinich handed off to Obama as well. That's the way the Dems do, though. Their caucus is set up to function that way. Edwards had some really devoted followers in this area. I don't know how they would have voted if he'd dropped out. I don't know if they would have even gone to the caucus. If they did, I don't know which candidate they would have supported. Edwards had a pretty strong network, and his people were devoted. It's just too difficult to say which way they would have gone. Honestly, many of them liked Ron Paul.

Hillary's devoted Iowa followers are aging. She really hasn't done much to cultivate the support of the younger Iowa Dems. And as you pointed out, her campaign was not exactly warm. I don't think she'll just walk in and win next time around any easier than she did the last time.

You make some great points there!
 
The polls show that women are also more supportive of government programs than men and more liberal on fiscal issues.

The whole gender gap didn't appear until the days of Ronald Reagan, when he made his alliance with Southern Evangelicals.

It's worth mentioning that female electorate is not uniform: black women tend to have kids out of the wedlock and rely on the government to raise them. They are a lost demographic to GOP. Black single mothers voters voted like 98% for Obama - nothing we can do. White women are doing very well financially, they get married - there is no reason we should be losing them by this margin. It's mostly due to social issues. If you ever looked at pro-abortion rallies, they're overwhelmingly white, lots of white women involved.
 
Back
Top