The Hill's assessment of Rand Paul's chances

[r3volution 3.0]

Rand still has buzz and a larger following than his father. The difference is now people aren't as passionate about Rand as they were about Ron. Ron was much more exciting because we knew he wasn't going to win and he would just stick it to everyone.

And this should surprise no one.

...if you thought Rand could just repeat pure libertarian talking points and grow the base, you were naive.

...if you thought Rand could expand the base without alienating some libertarians, you were naive.

This is what politics looks like when you're in the minority: uphill battle.

Ugly coalition building.

Trying to convince Boobus Americanus to pull the lever for you when he can't even spell lever.

But, despite these obstacles...

...if you're a libertarian and you're still not supporting Rand, you're worse than naive: a fifth column, an enemy.

...I take this opportunity to call out both the cynics and the imbecilic purists (like Tom Woods), neither of whom will ever win an election (nor would they know what to do if they did).

This is the situation: we most likely won't win - ever. But, we have some chance, and have to try. We, as the people who understand what's happening, have a moral obligation to try, no matter what the odds. And Rand and future Rand-like (compromising, scheming, innovating, sometimes-irritating) politicians are the best shot we have. And, if that doesn't work....well, the people on whose behalf we're doing this, the voters, the general public, the oi polloi, will have gotten what they apparently want and so richly deserve.

...one must take a rather "zen" attitude to toward the whole thing, or go insane.

 

[timosman]

...one must take a rather "zen" attitude to toward the whole thing, or go insane.

 

[Vanguard101]

Woah slow down. I'm proud of what he has done. I'm very supportive of Rand. I just realize what he is trying to do is difficult. This isn't the 1970s. This is 2015, and libertarians are far more pure than ever. We are more unwilling to compromise than ever, and one slip up screws you over. The media capitalizes on this. I just realize because of all this, Rand isn't coming off as special as Ron. His base is supportive, but not the same way they were of his father. His base has grown, but he's still not expanding his base. He struggles with consistency in comparison to other voters, and to top it off, his ceiling is approaching.

 

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

Awww, let's just give up before the fight has even begun! [/sarcasm]

Every candidate currently ahead of Rand in the polls is a chump and entirely beatable. Nearly everybody hates Jeb. Walker is falling off and he's not even in the race yet. Huckabee is a goof with a small socon group of support...I think he is where he is because of his Fox show. Carson is a political neophyte who hasn't been tested, and he's already making dumb statements that will kill him once he's in the spotlight. I've made my thoughts on Trump clear already.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

If I were an odds-maker, I'd give him a 1 in 5.

...that's improvement though, Ron had maybe a 1 in 50.

 

[HVACTech]

He definitely destroyed his window, when he was actually leading the entire GOP field at one time! Voters typically don't come back for second looks.

IMHO Rand's candidacy is DOA and I'm sitting on $300 in gear that I don't know what to do with. When Donald Trump passes you in terms of enthusiasm, you know the end is near.

the end is nigh, not near.

are you a Yankee?

 

[AuH20]

And this should surprise no one.

...if you thought Rand could just repeat pure libertarian talking points and grow the base, you were naive.

...if you thought Rand could expand the base without alienating some libertarians, you were naive.

This is what politics looks like when you're in the minority: uphill battle.

Ugly coalition building.

Trying to convince Boobus Americanus to pull the lever for you when he can't even spell lever.

But, despite these obstacles...

...if you're a libertarian and you're still not supporting Rand, you're worse than naive: a fifth column, an enemy.

...I take this opportunity to call out both the cynics and the imbecilic purists (like Tom Woods), neither of whom will ever win an election (nor would they know what to do if they did).

This is the situation: we most likely won't win - ever. But, we have some chance, and have to try. We, as the people who understand what's happening, have a moral obligation to try, no matter what the odds. And Rand and future Rand-like (compromising, scheming, innovating, sometimes-irritating) politicians are the best shot we have. And, if that doesn't work....well, the people on whose behalf we're doing this, the voters, the general public, the oi polloi, will have gotten what they apparently want and so richly deserve.

...one must take a rather "zen" attitude to toward the whole thing, or go insane.

Forget about rigid purity tests. I'm talking about staying on message and not straying off into the media minefield. Rand should have focused on 3 or 4 key policy points instead of trying to be Mr. Universe. He had incredible strengths but threw them away on inanities. Rand Paul the candidate has been defined by his weak points instead of his strengths. And that for one is a travesty.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

I will continue to #StandWithRand until Ron endorses some other candidate...

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Forget about rigid purity tests. I'm talking about staying on message and not straying off into the media minefield. Rand should have focused on 3 or 4 key policy points instead of trying to be Mr. Universe. He had incredible strengths but threw them away on inanities. Rand Paul the candidate has been defined by his weak points instead of his strengths. And that for one is a travesty.

I hear you, but I think what you consider inanities were necessary bulwark-building exercises against the "kook," or "right-wing-extremist" charges.

Remember why Ron lost Iowa?

 

[AuH20]

I will continue to #StandWithRand until Ron endorses some other candidate...

We're all stuck to StandWithRand but the writing is on the wall. I have a feeling he won't even finish top 3 when all is said and done. He's wobbly on TPP. He's weak on immigration. Weak on kissing the ring of the corporate, progressive media. Unless he does a complete 180 and become the ravenous animal that was chastised for being hard on woman anchors, he's done. Go out there and hammer them. Talk about why only 6 corporations own 90% of the media in this country? Become a seditious pain in the ass like PJB was when he was running in 1996. Tap into the nationwide discontent. Like it or not, but the sheep will fall in line with a strong-minded asshole who projects intelligence.

Politics is an extension of war and you don't win by being nice. You chart your own course and start lobbing off heads. When someone calls you a racist, you shame them back with a unforgivable fact from their own deep closets. We live in a world where Supreme Court justices are being blackmailed and we're freaking worried about maintaining decorum in the eyes of the CIA run media? Get the hell out of there!!!!??!? I'm sorry but I am irate. Enough is enough. I am in desperate need of fiery representation. No more playing of the games!

 

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

Politics is an extension of war and you don't win by being nice. You chart your own course and start lobbing off heads. When someone calls you a racist, you shame them back with a unforgivable fact from their own deep closets. We live in a world where Supreme Court justices are being blackmailed and we're freaking worried about maintaining decorum in the eyes of the CIA run media? Get the hell out of there!!!!??!? I'm sorry but I am irate. Enough is enough. I am in desperate need of fiery representation. No more playing of the games!

Heh. I read that paragraph and then I read your sig...

 

[cindy25]

Rand needs to take on immigration as an issue-in a big way. it's why Dave Brat beat Eric Cantor, and it's why Trump is going to win in Iowa.

how about just a simple proposal: no food stamps, no medicaid, no welfare for any non-citizens-legal or illegals. and no one should become a citizen unless they have 5 years off the dole.

 

[AuH20]

Rand needs to take on immigration as an issue-in a big way. it's why Dave Brat beat Eric Cantor, and it's why Trump is going to win in Iowa.

how about just a simple proposal: no food stamps, no medicaid, no welfare for any non-citizens-legal or illegals. and no one should become a citizen unless they have 5 years off the dole.

I think he proposed a bill with similar conditions and the dems almost unanimously sunk it.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

xThe 10 Republicans most likely to win the GOP’s 2016 nod









http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/246778-the-10-republicans-most-likely-to-win-the-gops-2016-nod

These odds are way off. First of all, Bush is not going to win, way too many people don't want another Bush not to mention they don't agree with him on the issues. Bush has bad poll numbers and are only where they are because of name recognition.

Rand has all the pieces in place to win. He leads in the general election polls. He has been vetted. People agree with Rand on the issues.

Bring it on.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

These odds are way off. First of all, Bush is not going to win, way too many people don't want another Bush not to mention they don't agree with him on the issues. Bush has bad poll numbers and are only where they are because of name recognition.

It doesn't really matter what the people want. Any vote for 14 of these candidates is a vote for Bush. Rand (and maybe Trump?) are the only candidates not put there by the RNC as a Bush stalking horse. All of those delegates will vote for JEB over Rand at the national convention once the RNC tells them to.

 

[cindy25]

These odds are way off. First of all, Bush is not going to win, way too many people don't want another Bush not to mention they don't agree with him on the issues. Bush has bad poll numbers and are only where they are because of name recognition.

Rand has all the pieces in place to win. He leads in the general election polls. He has been vetted. People agree with Rand on the issues.

Bring it on.

Bush won't win. he lacks the hunger for it. and he does have the lead in the general. but the base does not agree with Rand on foreign policy (yet) and Cruz is very adept. Trump won't be nominated, but Cruz could take the immigration issue and win the nomination with it. Rand is playing a little too safe.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I have to say, people, I don't care so much about any election or nomination. Certainly it would be refreshing to have a liberty minded person in office, but, for the moment, I'm content to keep the critical issues of the day on the table. It took a long time to get them on the table. You know? And, I don't even care if the bootlickers don't grasp the relevance in them. I just want them on the table.

 

[cindy25]

It doesn't really matter what the people want. Any vote for 14 of these candidates is a vote for Bush. Rand (and maybe Trump?) are the only candidates not put there by the RNC as a Bush stalking horse. All of those delegates will vote for JEB over Rand at the national convention once the RNC tells them to.

most primaries are winner take all after March 1st so the minor candidates will have few delegates. but Rand might need to deal with Trump for his block. maybe OMB, maybe Treasury.

 

[CPUd]

Trump will drop when polling shows he has 0 chance of winning NH, probably some time before the Iowa caucus.

 

[RDM]

Rand needs to take on immigration as an issue-in a big way. it's why Dave Brat beat Eric Cantor, and it's why Trump is going to win in Iowa.

how about just a simple proposal: no food stamps, no medicaid, no welfare for any non-citizens-legal or illegals. and no one should become a citizen unless they have 5 years off the dole.

Do you think those "Christians" in Iowa will vote for this?