Rand Paul Op-Ed: How Republicans Can Win California

[Warlord]

If Rand is clearly the superior candidate then he might carry CA like Reagan and HW Bush did. It's all about who he's up against

 

[WhistlinDave]

I don't think that would even be good enough to even make Rand competitive in California. I think Rand would probably have to run on an anti 2nd amendment platform in order to have any chance at all to win California.

Our gun control here is so far gone beyond help, I don't even think that issue would matter to anyone. The California bureaucrats have a lock-down on the gun issue already.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

California is lost. Listen to Pat.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Find it hard to buy into Brian's meme that CA is full of MSNBC types.

Something like 12,000 people on average per state watch MSNBC daily. California has a population of 38 million.

Well, I'm not saying that they watch MSNBC everyday. They hold those far left views on just about everything though.

 

[Warlord]

Well, I'm not saying that they watch MSNBC everyday. They hold those far left views on just about everything though.

CA tends to go to the better candidate if it's obvious:

Reagan win
Reagan win
Bush win
Bush vs. Clinton - Clinton
Clinton vs. Dole - Clinton
Gore vs. Bush - both sucked, wash
Bush vs Kerry - both sucked, wash
Obama vs McCain/Romney - lol

Rand is much better candidate than Bush, Dole, etc. If he's up against someone weak he might carry it. Not saying he will more likely OR has potential which nearly went for Bush in 2000.

 

[supermario21]

Forget California, Oregon and Nevada are very winnable though, in addition to Colorado. Bush almost won Oregon both times and won the other two twice.

 

[Brett85]

Forget California, Oregon and Nevada are very winnable though, in addition to Colorado. Bush almost won Oregon both times and won the other two twice.

I still think that the Midwest is a far better target. The Midwestern states tend to like the non interventionist foreign policy message it seems like, and these aren't socially liberal states. I think that a Republican Presidential candidate with Rand's message could sweep the Midwestern states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Minnesota, etc. If Rand swept the Midwest he could win the Presidency without any of the West Coast or North East and perhaps even without Florida and Virginia.

 

[JCDenton0451]

California is lost. Listen to Pat.

Good reason to oppose immigration reform BTW.

Well, if he ran on a hardcore social liberal platform he would be running on a platform of additional gun control laws, taxpayer financed abortion, a federal law mandating gay marriage on all 50 states, etc. Such a platform would be extremely anti liberty which is why Rand would never support such a platform.

"taxpayer financed abortion" - Where did that come from? We don't allow that now, and don't know of anyone on the left, who's publicly asking for this.
Rand believes gay marriage should be handled by the states, which is something every social moderate and most liberals can buy.
Guns could become an real issue though...

 

[supermario21]

I still think that the Midwest is a far better target. The Midwestern states tend to like the non interventionist foreign policy message it seems like, and these aren't socially liberal states. I think that a Republican Presidential candidate with Rand's message could sweep the Midwestern states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Minnesota, etc. If Rand swept the Midwest he could win the Presidency without any of the West Coast or North East and perhaps even without Florida and Virginia.

Being a rust belter, I agree. If Rand were able to win Colorado, Iowa, and Wisconsin, we could lose Virginia and still win the presidency. Add Michigan to that and we could get to 269 w/o Florida.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

If Rand is clearly the superior candidate then he might carry CA like Reagan and HW Bush did. It's all about who he's up against

Reagan was a former California Governor. And HW rode his coattails, once.

 

[JCDenton0451]

I still think that the Midwest is a far better target. The Midwestern states tend to like the non interventionist foreign policy message it seems like, and these aren't socially liberal states. I think that a Republican Presidential candidate with Rand's message could sweep the Midwestern states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Minnesota, etc. If Rand swept the Midwest he could win the Presidency without any of the West Coast or North East and perhaps even without Florida and Virginia.

I agree that states where Romney managed to hit 45% will be a more realistic target, but with Midwestern states becoming more socially liberal, what is your plan to stay in the game for the long haul? Minnesota has some of the most liberal abortion laws in country, it has just legalised Gay marriage and Ron Paul endorsed Senate candidate only managed 30% there.

 

[supermario21]

Ohio and Michigan are socially conservative states, both anti gay marriage and abortion. Wisconsin as well. We don't need Minnesota, but Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, and Ohio are all realistic.

 

[Brett85]

I agree that states where Romney managed to hit 45% will be a more realistic target, but with Midwestern states becoming more socially liberal, what is your plan to stay in the game for the long haul? Minnesota has some of the most liberal abortion laws in country, it has just legalised Gay marriage and Ron Paul endorsed Senate candidate only managed 30% there.

Midwestern states like Ohio and Pennsylvania are fairly socially conservative states. I don't know as much about Minnesota, but I don't necessarily think that women in these states will care as much about the right to kill babies if they're struggling economically due to Obamacare and the inevitable stock market collapse.

 

[JCDenton0451]

[h=3]"Support for gay marriage in Pennsylvania on the rise"[/h]
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/03/support-for-gay-marriage-in-pennsylvania-on-the-rise.html

PPP's found a net 14 point increase in support for gay marriage in Pennsylvania over the last year and a half. Voters in the state are now almost evenly divided on the issue with 45% thinking it should be legal and 47% believing it should continue to be illegal. In November of 2011 we found only 36% support and 52% opposition for gay marriage among Keystone State voters. Seniors continue to be opposed to gay marriage by a 28/62 margin, but voters under 45 support it 58/35, suggesting that it's only a matter of time.

It's basically the same in most other places. Huge generaltional shift is underway. That's why Ohio Senator was able to "come out" in favor of gay marriage with little effect on his ratings.

 

[Brett85]

It's basically the same in most other places. Huge generaltional shift is underway. That's why Ohio Senator was able to "come out" in favor of gay marriage with little effect on his ratings.

Well, Rand will be more moderate on that issue than any of the other Republicans running. He's not going to come out in support of gay marriage, but he has the position that there should be no federal involvement in the issue, and at the state level he's said that gays should be allowed to enter into contracts that state governments should enforce. Obviously his policy on that issue isn't as liberal as you would like it to be, but it's probably still the most moderate stance that any Republican candidate will have in 2016. Also, although the majority of Americans now support gay marriage, I don't necessarily think that the majority of Americans would actually base their vote for President on that issue.

 

[JCDenton0451]

Actually, I think Rand's stance on gay marriage is good enough. It's his views on abortion that worry me greatly. Somehow I doubt that pro-gay-marriage social moderates will buy into his absolutist pro-life position.

 

[Brett85]

Somehow I doubt that pro-gay-marriage social moderates will buy into his absolutist pro-life position.

What makes you think they would care? What polls are there that suggest that abortion is one of the top issues that people base their votes on in Presidential elections?

 

[supermario21]

Also, there is a significant divide between gay rights and abortion. Abortion has nudged more pro-life over the years, or at least to a position closer to Rand's than the abortion on demand Democrat.

 

[Brett85]

Also, there is a significant divide between gay rights and abortion. Abortion has nudged more pro-life over the years, or at least to a position closer to Rand's than the abortion on demand Democrat.

Actually, it went to the pro choice side after the last election, but the last several recent polls have shown a very significant swing back in the pro life direction. It seems like maybe people have forgotten about the Mourdock and Akin comments. I'm not sure what else could affect the polling on this issue so much.

 

[supermario21]

I think Mourdock and Akin actually moved the debate further to the pro-life side. A majority wants abortion either outlawed in all circumstances or in all cases except rape, incest, and life of the mother. If a Republican doesn't sound like a moron on it like Akin, (Rand wouldn't, he's an MD) then it's a winning issue. Also the Gosnell trial changed many minds. The pro-choice side has made it about outlawing all abortions, but as long as we don't screw up, we can win the argument and continue to limit at least when abortions are available.