Maybe Rand should sit this one out

[Natural Citizen]

Devil's advocate... if Rand doesn't run, they will all be begging him for his support and endorsement in the primary process. That could make him one of the most powerful Republicans in the Senate and he would be free to continue to be a bit more "pure" in rhetoric. Maybe being king maker is better than being king?


My words here are only speculation BTW, don't read anything into it.

Meh. Nothing that hasn't been said before. I always assumed that was the plan anyhow.

 

[CaptUSA]

Devil's advocate... if Rand doesn't run, they will all be begging him for his support and endorsement in the primary process. That could make him one of the most powerful Republicans in the Senate and he would be free to continue to be a bit more "pure" in rhetoric. Maybe being king maker is better than being king?


My words here are only speculation BTW, don't read anything into it.

But Matt, they will still be doing that even if he drops out after a few primaries. Plus, he will have built more capital.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

You can see why he might be reconsidering. He could easily be in the Senate for 20 more years, another five Presidential elections. He can probably only credibly run in two of them without just becoming a retread/joke. Is 2016 necessarily the best year to run? Maybe, but maybe not.

 

[Badger Paul]

Remember, Rand can't just jump back into the Senate race if he loses Iowa and New Hampshire. The Kentucky legislature and governor won't let him do both unlike other states. So if he loses, he really does lose everything. Then what? Is it worth taking an all or nothing gamble when stakes may not quite be as high and the risk too great? Not every Presidential election IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN THE HISTORY OF MAN! No, they're not. In fact some have been quite downright inconsequential. I'm getting the feeling 2016 is just that.

My hope is both parties will nominate war-statists/nationalists in 2016 and Democrats are well on their way to doing so. If the GOP does the same, then 2016 can be the year LP finally is able to gain a foothold as a player in national politics with the right Presidential candidate. In fact, the LP nomination would be a great prize to have. That would make 2016 worth it, not just a charge into the windmills. Remember this too, you're not going to be able to pull off the same elect the delegates separately from the primaries and caucus strategy anymore, the national party has eliminated it. The delegates will be allocated accordingly to every straw poll taken, every primary vote. You just can't win these later on in a state convention anymore. Rand's got to win, not just show up. I'll think he'll have a better chance in 2020 than 2016.

 

[CaptUSA]

Remember, Rand can't just jump back into the Senate race if he loses Iowa and New Hampshire.

Sure he can. This isn't even a question.

All he has to do is not appear on Kentucky's primary ballot for the GOP Presidential nomination - only for Senate. There is plenty of time to let the nomination process play out before deciding if he wants to appear on the Kentucky ballot in a Senate or Presidential general election. Now, if he were to win the GOP nomination, he'd have a pretty big choice to make - provided KY doesn't change anything prior.

 

[specsaregood]

Sure he can. This isn't even a question.

All he has to do is not appear on Kentucky's primary ballot for the GOP Presidential nomination - only for Senate. There is plenty of time to let the nomination process play out before deciding if he wants to appear on the Kentucky ballot in a Senate or Presidential general election. Now, if he were to win the GOP nomination, he'd have a pretty big choice to make - provided KY doesn't change anything prior.

Not to mention that if he actually took the issue to court he would win.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

Also remember that Rand Paul not appearing on Kentucky's ballot shouldn't harm him. KY's primary is in May anyway, the nominee should already have been chosen by that point.

 

[YesI'mALiberal]

I truly wish that were so, but it's not. Primarying an incumbent president is just about unheard of, and winning is basically impossible. Has a sitting President EVER been successfully Primaried? I know we have had some dreadfully unpopular presidents. If it were possible to do, wouldn't it have happened before?

I knew of Franklin Pierce, but also: "Four incumbent presidents have been denied a nomination to run by their own party. Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson (sort of), and Chester A. Arthur; but only Pierce had actually been elected president. The rest were vice presidents who who ascended to the presidency after assassinations or deaths in office."

I think Robert Kennedy was mounting a successful primary challenge when they had him offed.

Johnson had already dropped out before then.

 

[69360]

I think he should give it a go in IA and NH for sure and see how it goes. If he catches on stay with it, if not drop out graciously, endorse the nominee and get anointed one status next time around.

But I'm just an armchair quarterback.

 

[acptulsa]

I knew of Franklin Pierce, but also: "Four incumbent presidents have been denied a nomination to run by their own party. Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson (sort of), and Chester A. Arthur; but only Pierce had actually been elected president. The rest were vice presidents who who ascended to the presidency after assassinations or deaths in office."



Johnson had already dropped out before then.

You're right about Lyndon Johnson. But he was talking about people failing to get the nomination through the primary process. Pierce, Andrew Johnson, Fillmore and Arthur all predated presidential primaries. Their careers were dependent upon 'smoke-filled rooms'.

I think he should give it a go in IA and NH for sure and see how it goes. If he catches on stay with it, if not drop out graciously, endorse the nominee and get anointed one status next time around.

Nothing in the Constitution or the by-laws of either party guaranteed anyone anointment, no matter what they do. You get anointed primarily by convincing power mongers that you'll happily 'play ball' with them. And the degree to which Rand Paul is becoming 'Son of He Who Must Not Be Named' strongly indicates that anointment will never, ever grease up his curly hair.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

Devil's advocate... if Rand doesn't run, they will all be begging him for his support and endorsement in the primary process. That could make him one of the most powerful Republicans in the Senate and he would be free to continue to be a bit more "pure" in rhetoric. Maybe being king maker is better than being king?


My words here are only speculation BTW, don't read anything into it.

Yeah. In my opinion the better option is to deny endorsement. Who wants to be a kingmaker if the king is Bush/Romney/etc. Its not as if endorsing them will alter the way they rule whatsoever.

 

[Matt Collins]

Yeah. In my opinion the better option is to deny endorsement. Who wants to be a kingmaker if the king is Bush/Romney/etc. Its not as if endorsing them will alter the way they rule whatsoever.

It can in some respects...