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

[Rocco]

Are you f*cking kidding me? What is the difference between a medical doctor and the guy who said rape couldn't lead to pregnancy? Every post I see from you here is bashing Rand in some form and 90% of them have to do with abortion. If you are going to blurt out insane statements like "Rand Paul=Todd Akin" then you are a troll.

I get that, but low-information voters don't care about nuances. Rand can be easily portrayed as another Todd Akin, and frankly, what is the difference between Todd Akin and Rand Paul on abortion?

 

[JCDenton0451]

Rand Paul won the youth vote against Hillary. Yes, you just read that. The war on women and all that BS is geared to young liberal types, if Rand can hold those numbers in an actual election he wins.

If Rand makes it to the general, he wins. His advantage is that he starts in with a built in constituency of young voters and independents. All he has to do is lock down traditional Republican voting blocs like seniors and he wins in a landslide.

This is all white youth in Iowa, remember? And given the gender gap, he most likely lost young white women, which is a key demographic IMO. Women tend to be heavily present among low-information voters, the undecideds will eventually break for Clinton.

 

[JCDenton0451]

Are you f*cking kidding me? What is the difference between a medical doctor and the guy who said rape couldn't lead to pregnancy? Every post I see from you here is bashing Rand in some form and 90% of them have to do with abortion. If you are going to blurt out insane statements like "Rand Paul=Todd Akin" then you are a troll.

You seem to have to some kind of bias againt me. No, I'm not saying Rand is Todd Akin, I'm saying he can be portrayed by the media as Todd Akin, which can be easily done.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I get that, but low-information voters don't care about nuances. Rand can be easily portrayed as another Todd Akin, and frankly, what is the difference between Todd Akin and Rand Paul on abortion?

Rand articulates way better than Aiken, and I do not believe he will be painting himself into that corner. Also, you have to consider that that is the only grassroots path to a GOP primary election victory for about the next 20 years until that generation starts riding off into the sunset. Ron Paul, if anything, took a harder line on abortion than even Rand. The truth is that a given politicians position on abortion is largely irrelevant. The issue is way to prickly to touch by any Congress, and no matter how one feels about it it's just not going to change. America is no more going to elect 218 Representatives and 51 Senators who feel strongly enough on the issue to effect real change than we are going to elect the same to end social security. It's just being used as a wedge issue to suck the attention away from the things we can actually change.

 

[CaptUSA]

Warlord strongly suspects if Ms. Clinton was foolish enough to run the GOP would bury her up to the neck in Benghazi with wall to wall Swift boat like ads in key states featuring the dead victims families, children and survivors with their heart wrenching stories after Secretary Clinton's ineptitude left them for dead.

You must not know the Clintons. Trust me on this... Hillary cannot be beaten by things like this. She's been up to her ears in scandals her entire life - she always comes out of them unscathed. (At least to those who already liked her)

The only way to beat Clinton is if she is portrayed as elitist. Unfortunately, her opponents try to tie her down to scandals - and she loves it. Obama's team was wise enough to paint her as too high-brow for the working class and he won. The bad thing is that last time she ran, she was trying to prove her "gravitas" which played right into Obama's hands. This time around, her "gravitas" will be a foregone conclusion so she can try to spend her time "feeling people's pain". It's going to be tough.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

This is good news.

In a real election Hillary would be at a huge disadvantage because she's a woman.

Not true. This is the 21st century. Simply being female provides around a 7 point tailwind. That mechanic is widely recognized by political analysts around the nation, and while it didn't used to apply to the White House (It's applied to Congress and legislatures for 25-30 odd years now) it certainly does today. There will be a lot of pressure amongst millennials to follow up the first African American President with the first Woman President, which is why if the GOP fails to provide someone that millennials can get behind they will lose 2016 despite the horrific performance of Obama.

 

[Warlord]

I get that, but low-information voters don't care about nuances. Rand can be easily portrayed as another Todd Akin, and frankly, what is the difference between Todd Akin and Rand Paul on abortion?

Here's the difference TROLL:

Akin is a moron spouting a stupid theory. An undisciplined and pathetic candidate.

Rand Paul is not.

Is that clear?

 

[Rocco]

"and frankly, what is the difference between Todd Akin and Rand Paul on abortion?" is pretty clearly not talking about portrayal.


Yes, I do have a bias against you, because you have posted here 151 times and I would wager at least 135 of them have been anti Rand. It is troll behavior.

You seem to have to some kind of bias againt me. No, I'm not saying Rand is Todd Akin, I'm saying he can be portrayed by the media as Todd Akin, which can be easily done.

 

[Rocco]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Warlord again."

Becoming more and more common.

Here's the difference TROLL:

Akin is a moron with a spouting a stupid theory. An undisciplined and pathetic candidate.

Rand Paul is not.

Is that clear?

 

[erowe1]

Are you f*cking kidding me? What is the difference between a medical doctor and the guy who said rape couldn't lead to pregnancy? Every post I see from you here is bashing Rand in some form and 90% of them have to do with abortion. If you are going to blurt out insane statements like "Rand Paul=Todd Akin" then you are a troll.

+rep

 

[JCDenton0451]

Plenty of Republicans are pro-life in some way or another. Akin is ignorant and demonstrated himself to have zero medical knowledge, while Rand is a medical pro who speaks about "privacy between a woman and her doctor." He also believes in a strong congress, states rights & a non-unilateral President. If you look at his interview w/ Wolf Blitzer on abortion, it's pretty clear that as President he wouldn't try to change the laws unless a majority of congress & the general public came to him wanting to do so.

This was also Romney's position, and still, he and other Republicans gave the media enough material to push their "War on Women" campaign. Rand Paul has a prominent position within the Republican party right now, he can use it to advocate for tiny bit of moderation on social issues, or he can simply follow the most extreme elements of the party, which is what Romney did. And how did it work for him?

Let me get this straight, you don't need to convince me to vote for Rand. I'm already on board. lol It's the young single women you have to worry about...

 

[erowe1]

Not true. This is the 21st century. Simply being female provides around a 7 point tailwind. That mechanic is widely recognized by political analysts around the nation, and while it didn't used to apply to the White House (It's applied to Congress and legislatures for 25-30 odd years now) it certainly does today. There will be a lot of pressure amongst millennials to follow up the first African American President with the first Woman President, which is why if the GOP fails to provide someone that millennials can get behind they will lose 2016 despite the horrific performance of Obama.

That might be the conventional wisdom, but I don't buy it.

If Hillary gets the nomination, wait until the debates when she has to decide whether to seem like a likable woman or a leader. She won't be able to satisfy both of those gut level desires on the part of the electorate.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

That might be the conventional wisdom, but I don't buy it.

If Hillary gets the nomination, wait until the debates when she has to decide whether to seem like a likable woman or a leader. She won't be able to satisfy both of those gut level desires on the part of the electorate.

I've seen it with my own two eyes, and I know it's real. Sometimes the conventional wisdom is staid and locked into a former reality that no longer applies. More often, the conventional wisdom is there because it's true. The generation born 1980 and afterward is quickly becoming the real key to general elections in the US. The 'one ring to bind them all.' The millennials don't give a damn about gender stereotypes like the folks born prior to 1980 do. By 2016, this demographic will encompass 18-36 year old voters, and will compose a 30% plurality of the general electorate. While 50 year olds will be trying to figure out if she is a woman or a leader, the 18-40's will be trying to make history by electing a gender.

 

[erowe1]

I've seen it with my own two eyes, and I know it's real. Sometimes the conventional wisdom is staid and locked into a former reality that no longer applies. More often, the conventional wisdom is there because it's true. The generation born 1980 and afterward is quickly becoming the real key to general elections in the US. The 'one ring to bind them all.' The millennials don't give a damn about gender stereotypes like the folks born prior to 1980 do. By 2016, this demographic will encompass 18-36 year old voters, and will compose a 30% plurality of the general electorate. While 50 year olds will be trying to figure out if she is a woman or a leader, the 18-40's will be trying to make history by electing a gender.

I don't think they can as easily shed certain expectations they have of men and women as they might want to or insist they do.

As recently as 2008 we already saw this at work. There was a lot of initial excitement about Palin. But in the end, she hurt McCain more than she helped, and the fact that she was a woman definitely made it worse.

If the Dems nominate a man, he will most likely be significantly taller than Rand. That will be an advantage for them, which they'll lose completely if they nominate Hillary. Also, Hillary is old, unattractive, and humorless. Lots of people will be excited about being able to elect the first woman president. But that will be countered by something they can't put their fingers on that tells them they just don't like Hillary. A lot of these people will be women. Maybe moreso among older women than younger ones. But I've heard a number of people over my life tell me they'd never vote for a woman president, and what all these people had in common was that they were women, including some born after 1980.

I hope the Dems follow your line of reasoning. I expect that they probably can't fathom that what I'm saying here could actually be true in 2016. But I think it is. I can't prove it, but I'll stand by it.

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

I don't think they can as easily shed certain expectations they have of men and women as they might want to or insist they do.

As recently as 2008 we already saw this at work. There was a lot of initial excitement about Palin. But in the end, she hurt McCain more than she helped, and the fact that she was a woman definitely made it worse.

If the Dems nominate a man, he will most likely be significantly taller than Rand. That will be an advantage for them, which they'll lose completely if they nominate Hillary. Also, Hillary is old, unattractive, and humorless. Lots of people will be excited about being able to elect the first woman president. But that will be countered by something they can't put their fingers on that tells them they just don't like Hillary. A lot of these people will be women. Maybe moreso among older women than younger ones. But I've heard a number of people over my life tell me they'd never vote for a woman president, and what all these people had in common was that they were women, including some born after 1980.

I hope the Dems follow your line of reasoning. I expect that they probably can't fathom that what I'm saying here could actually be true in 2016. But I think it is. I can't prove it, but I'll stand by it.

To be fair, Palin just sort of came out of nowhere and was not tested or proven in areas like foreign policy. She was just there to provide a temporary boost and counter the notion of the GOP being against women. It was surprising if only for the possibility of there being the first female vice president, but nothing else. The mannerisms and things like saying 'Say it ain't so Joe' didn't help, either. People can blame Tina Fey's impression all they want, but Palin herself, not naming a specific newspaper and such, didn't help either.

Clinton will have the attraction of a lightning rod. Think of how energetic the female, minority, LGBT, progressive base would be for her. They'd think America wouldn't want to go back to the standard white male president so soon after Obama's second term ends. As far as humor, she's at least active in social media, as evidenced when she responded to the tumblr about her on her Blackberry (http://textsfromhillaryclinton.tumblr.com/). Never underestimate the left. Even if Obama didn't have the overwhelming support and backing that he did in 2008, it was still larger than what Romney did, though a lot of that goes on the GOP standing behind a businessman disguised as a presidential candidate. The people you know who say they'd never vote for a woman president- what was their reason? And age means little. Think about how old Ron Paul was when he re-ran in 2012.

 

[erowe1]

To be fair, Palin just sort of came out of nowhere and was not tested or proven in areas like foreign policy. She was just there to provide a temporary boost and counter the notion of the GOP being against women. It was surprising if only for the possibility of there being the first female vice president, but nothing else. The mannerisms and things like saying 'Say it ain't so Joe' didn't help, either. People can blame Tina Fey's impression all they want, but Palin herself, not naming a specific newspaper and such, didn't help either.

Clinton will have the attraction of a lightning rod. Think of how energetic the female, minority, LGBT, progressive base would be for her. They'd think America wouldn't want to go back to the standard white male president so soon after Obama's second term ends. As far as humor, she's at least active in social media, as evidenced when she responded to the tumblr about her on her Blackberry (http://textsfromhillaryclinton.tumblr.com/). Never underestimate the left. Even if Obama didn't have the overwhelming support and backing that he did in 2008, it was still larger than what Romney did, though a lot of that goes on the GOP standing behind a businessman disguised as a presidential candidate. The people you know who say they'd never vote for a woman president- what was their reason? And age means little. Think about how old Ron Paul was when he re-ran in 2012.

That base you describe for Hillary is already reliably Democratic, not independent voters.

I don't think that Palin's womanhood is separable from exactly what you describe. By going folksy, she looked like an airhead, more so than a man would have. Had she gone the opposite route, she would have looked like a witch.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't think they can as easily shed certain expectations they have of men and women as they might want to or insist they do.

As recently as 2008 we already saw this at work. There was a lot of initial excitement about Palin. But in the end, she hurt McCain more than she helped, and the fact that she was a woman definitely made it worse.

If the Dems nominate a man, he will most likely be significantly taller than Rand. That will be an advantage for them, which they'll lose completely if they nominate Hillary. Also, Hillary is old, unattractive, and humorless. Lots of people will be excited about being able to elect the first woman president. But that will be countered by something they can't put their fingers on that tells them they just don't like Hillary. A lot of these people will be women. Maybe moreso among older women than younger ones. But I've heard a number of people over my life tell me they'd never vote for a woman president, and what all these people had in common was that they were women, including some born after 1980.

I hope the Dems follow your line of reasoning. I expect that they probably can't fathom that what I'm saying here could actually be true in 2016. But I think it is. I can't prove it, but I'll stand by it.

I do not believe they will nominate Hillary, I believe they will nominate Elizabeth Warren, and 2016 will dump 8 more whole classes of public schooling into the electorate. We are in the middle of an electorate shift, going from seniors being The Most Important Block, over to millennials becoming The Most Important Block. we are passing that cusp as we speak, and 2014 will be the first real test of the 'new reality.' What applied in 2008 will not necessarily apply again in 2016.

The pro-woman voter bias is quite real as it applies to everything but President, and it is the shifting of the key demographic from seniors to youth that will also make it real for the White House. I agree that it wouldn't help Hillary, but it sure could help Warren.

 

[JCDenton0451]

"and frankly, what is the difference between Todd Akin and Rand Paul on abortion?" is pretty clearly not talking about portrayal.


Yes, I do have a bias against you, because you have posted here 151 times and I would wager at least 135 of them have been anti Rand. It is troll behavior.

Well, what is the difference between Todd Akin and Rand Paul on abortion? This is a valid question. And it will come up in 2016 election. If you think he can just slip his pro-life stance under the radar, you haven't followed 2012 campaign. The media will make sure the public knows that Rand Paul wants women who have been raped to carry their rapist's babies to term.

Shutting down valid criticism isn't going to make your campaign stronger. It will only make this place look like an echo chamber.

 

[Warlord]

Well, what is the difference between Todd Akin and Rand Paul on abortion? This is a valid question. And it will come up in 2016 election. If you think he can just slip his pro-life stance under the radar, you haven't followed 2012 campaign. The media will make sure the public knows that Rand Paul wants women who have been raped to carry their rapist's babies to term.

Shutting down valid criticism isn't going to make your campaign stronger. It will only make this place look like an echo chamber.

Adressed here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ate-for-2016&p=5041408&viewfull=1#post5041408

Did you miss this post? Can you read/understand/comprehend that Akin came out with some stupid theory that rape shuts down pregnancies that Rand would never utter?

Ok. I give up. We have another troll.

 

[JCDenton0451]

I was not asking who of them is more intelligent/articulate. I'm talking about the substance of his views on abortion. Face it, no difference on substance there.