Rand Paul: 53% approval rating in Kentucky, 82% among Republicans...

[jct74]

68% among independents, and 24% among Dems.

Mason-Dixon poll: Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is in good shape for reelection next year

Morgan Watkins
February 12, 2021

Sen. Rand Paul is well-positioned to get reelected next year, according to a new poll from Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategy.

Of 625 registered voters across Kentucky, 53% said they approved of the junior senator's job performance, and 47% said they'd vote to give him another six-year term in Congress if Election Day happened right now.

Comparatively, 41% of the people polled said they'd vote to replace him with a Democrat and 12% said they'd be undecided if Paul's election was imminent. (It's actually well over a year-and-a-half away.)

Mason-Dixon's new poll also gathered data on approval ratings for two other big-time Kentucky politicians: Gov. Andy Beshear and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

...

read more:
https://www.courier-journal.com/sto...d-shape-for-reelection-poll-shows/6729324002/

 

[CaptUSA]

What about term limits???


For context, Rand won both of his previous elections with about 57%.

 

[Swordsmyth]

It won't do him any good if he doesn't pursue the fraud in the last election.
Dominion got rid of Bevin and they will get him too.

 

[XxNeXuSxX]

I've never been a ranfan but can someone give context to tell me if this is an improvement or if this is a bad sign?

 

[jmdrake]

It won't do him any good if he doesn't pursue the fraud in the last election.
Dominion got rid of Bevin and they will get him too.

One can pursue fraud without making exaggerated claims. That is what Rand is doing. You can't just walk into court with bvllshyt like "Trump won by the largest landslide in history....but I won't give you an actual number of votes that I think he won by."

 

[Aratus]

Rand Paul in 2010 had talked of wanting two terms, of not being a D.C institution or fixture,
but it sounds like term 3 is his for the taking, if he so desires. Mitch McConnell was reelected.

 

[Aratus]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-Government-Reform&highlight=term+limits+rand

 

[TomtheTinker]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-Government-Reform&highlight=term+limits+rand

and...

 

[dannno]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-Government-Reform&highlight=term+limits+rand

We need more people in the Senate willing to vote for term limits who also do not follow those rules until they are passed, because otherwise we will never have enough people in the Senate who support term limits.

Good job, Rand.

 

[Occam's Banana]

We need more people in the Senate willing to vote for term limits who also do not follow those rules until they are passed, because otherwise we will never have enough people in the Senate who support term limits.

Good job, Rand.

Term limits, campaign finance reform, balanced budget amendments, etc. are all a complete and utter waste of time.

At best, they are empty "feel good" measures that will rearrange deck chairs, but will do absolutely nothing to reduce the scope and power of government.

 

[dannno]

Term limits, campaign finance reform, balanced budget amendments, etc. are all a complete and utter waste of time.

At best, they are empty "feel good" measures that will rearrange deck chairs, but will do absolutely nothing to reduce the scope and power of government.

Campaign finance reform usually means limiting free speech.

Term limits make it more difficult for longtime incumbents with a lot of political power to remain in power. It's not a solution, but it helps.

Balanced budget amendments are typically filled with loopholes, but the concept is solid.

 

[Working Poor]

I think the states should start paying the reps rather than the federal government then they would be more accountable to the people who elect them.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Campaign finance reform usually means limiting free speech.

It also means that lobbyists and special interests will try to find other ways to buy & sell influence to get around the "reforms" - and they will always succeed.

This is why campaign finance reforms are just pointless deck-chair rearranging.

Term limits make it more difficult for longtime incumbents with a lot of political power to remain in power. It's not a solution, but it helps.

The very few good ones will be lost to the constant churn, while the number of mediocre and bad ones won't change at all (they'll just be replaced by other mediocre and bad ones). Term limits will also make it even easier than it already is for longtime lobbyists and special interests (who won't be term-limited) to remain in power and continue using their experience and connections.

This is why term limits are just pointless deck-chair rearranging.

Balanced budget amendments are typically filled with loopholes, but the concept is solid.

Exactly - loopholes will be added, exemptions will be made, line-items will be taken "off budget" just to get around restrictions, etc.

This is why balanced budget schemes are just pointless deck-chair rearranging.



The problem is that the government has too much power. That is why it attracts so many politicians who are willing to sell influence and so many lobbyists and special interests that are willing to buy influence. The only things that campaign finance reforms, term limits and balanced budget schemes will affect are the identities of the influence sellers and the methods of the influence buyers. Nothing else will change, because as I said before, those policies, as nice as they sound, will do absolutely nothing to reduce the scope and power of government.

 

[jmdrake]

Term limits, campaign finance reform, balanced budget amendments, etc. are all a complete and utter waste of time.

At best, they are empty "feel good" measures that will rearrange deck chairs, but will do absolutely nothing to reduce the scope and power of government.

True. Just as liberals seem to think government is the only solution, conservatives seem to think government is the only problem. Term limits aren't worth a flip if political machines keep putting in pretty much the same candidate time after time. (For example we have term limits for POTUS). Balanced budget amendments? That won't effective as long as the welfare state props of the warfare state. Campaign finance reform? What is that in the face of corporate monopolies over news and now social media? How much money did Biden get if biased coverage was counted as an in-kind contribution?

What is needed is a bigger emphasis on solutions outside of government. Change the people and the government will change. Look at Texas where the mayor had to resign after saying that "only the strong will survive" and "quit whining" in the wake of power outages from the ice storm. Well....what had he done before the ice storm to encourage people to be independent from the grid? And instead of being an ass once the disaster hit, he could have said "We'll get through this emergency, but in the future individuals need to seriously think about personal emergency backup power and heating systems." And that is something that people will have to do anyway.

 

[Occam's Banana]

True. Just as liberals seem to think government is the only solution, conservatives seem to think government is the only problem. Term limits aren't worth a flip if political machines keep putting in pretty much the same candidate time after time. (For example we have term limits for POTUS). Balanced budget amendments? That won't effective as long as the welfare state props of the warfare state. Campaign finance reform? What is that in the face of corporate monopolies over news and now social media? How much money did Biden get if biased coverage was counted as an in-kind contribution?

What is needed is a bigger emphasis on solutions outside of government. Change the people and the government will change. Look at Texas where the mayor had to resign after saying that "only the strong will survive" and "quit whining" in the wake of power outages from the ice storm. Well....what had he done before the ice storm to encourage people to be independent from the grid? And instead of being an ass once the disaster hit, he could have said "We'll get through this emergency, but in the future individuals need to seriously think about personal emergency backup power and heating systems." And that is something that people will have to do anyway.

Exactly. You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again.