Which States do you think that Rand could realistically win?

[thatpeculiarcat]

NC is the south. Ron had following in Western NC, in fact he carried a county or two.

When I think "south" NC doesn't come to mind--which is why I said in my OP that we have a good shot at it.

Iowa, New Hampshire, Maine, Nevada, Kentucky, Utah, Washington, Colorado, Texas I think may be most likely, I could be missing some though, and I think he could win a lot more if he got traction including California. edit: also Louisiana

Not a chance on TX. The amount of people here who think W was a phenomenal president is through the roof. Bush and Cruz are the top picks in TX.

You don't think he has a shot at CA? Who gets them?

At winning CA outright?! Heavens no, look how Ron performed there in comparison to Romney.

 

[Kade]

Rand has less than 1% chance of winning Iowa.

 

[jllundqu]

Brokered Convention, FTW!

I don't know if Rand will win a single state, but it would be awesome to fuck with the GOP as long as possible.

 

[CPUd]

TX is proportional this time, so it will be split among those who can get 20% or more.

 

[jbauer]

Didn't Ron nearly win Louisiana, Nevada, & Maine but shenanigans from the Republican Party literally stole those away from him?

Not the popular vote though.

 

[CPUd]

You don't think he has a shot at CA? Who gets them?

CA is winner-take-all by state and by CD. It is also one of the last states, when there *should* be no more than 3 or 4 candidates left. Rubio has the best shot at taking the state, but Rand could focus on some of the CDs and maybe take a piece of the delegation.

 

[Kade]

Not the popular vote though.

I know that we liberal libertarians delivered, and did our part up here to help Paul in Massachusetts, and got robbed blind ultimately by the GOP.

 

[69360]

I suspect he will drop out after New Hampshire.

Sure seems like it. It just wasn't meant to be this time around. Nobody could have predicted a 12 or whatever person field and this Trump thing.

If Trump wins IA, we get 8 more years of Clintons in the white house, the race is over barring some huge scandal.

 

[nikcers]

I could see Rand getting top 2 in Nevada and winning Colorado. It depends on how well Trump handles losing Iowa. I hope he cries, that bastard hates losing.

 

[CPUd]

I could see Rand getting top 2 in Nevada and winning Colorado. It depends on how well Trump handles losing Iowa. I hope he cries, that bastard hates losing.

He can handle losing Iowa, he will just call Iowans stupid again. NH is a different story. It will be interesting to see if anyone takes a run at him in NH after tonight.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

Rand has less than 1% chance of winning Iowa.

50/50 IMO.

Either he wins or he doesn't.

Much better odds.

 

[Dianne]

Colorado, Texas, Alaska, Kentucky, California, New Hampshire.

 

[craezie]

California is NOT winner take all. Just some statewide delegates are. It is WTA by district which is very different. Any, literally any, Republican candidate could get a load of delegates by playing a good ground game. This state is extremely diverse, has a lot of delegates, and there are areas where Rand Paul could do very well. Some of those areas are democratic majority. If there are still 3-4 candidates in the race by the end, I think they are going to be all over the place here.

 

[rg17]

Colorado, Texas, Alaska, Kentucky, California, New Hampshire.

Wyoming and Idaho too. Especially Idaho because Idaho has lot of libertarians and libertarian leaning conservatives.

 

[CPUd]

California is NOT winner take all. Just some statewide delegates are. It is WTA by district which is very different. Any, literally any, Republican candidate could get a load of delegates by playing a good ground game. This state is extremely diverse, has a lot of delegates, and there are areas where Rand Paul could do very well. Some of those areas are democratic majority. If there are still 3-4 candidates in the race by the end, I think they are going to be all over the place here.

Yeah, that's why it is listed WTA by state + WTA by CD and not just WTA by state. I recognize the distinction.

 

[craezie]

I actually thought it was pretty good that Ron Paul got 10% of the 2012 vote in California considering the fact that he had already done his "I'm dropping out, but not dropping out" move. No one was left in the race by the time we voted, so no one even campaigned here. I anticipate this year will be very different, as I can't foresee there being less than 3-4 candidates until the end. I sincerely hope one of them is Rand.

 

[Matt Collins]

Sure seems like it. It just wasn't meant to be this time around. Nobody could have predicted a 12 or whatever person field and this Trump thing.

Not true, Trump was indeed predictable and the political environment wasn't really the ultimate factor here.

 

[brandon]

I agree with the Collins for once. I have not seen any evidence we will outperform Ron's 2012 showing. All metrics I see are off. Less money, less grassroots, less polls, less youth, less internet people.

Maybe he gets top 3 in IA tonight and the tides rapidly change. It could happen. I hope it does. Just doesn't seem likely.

 

[69360]

Not true, Trump was indeed predictable and the political environment wasn't really the ultimate factor here.

When Trump entered the race, every single media outlet and pollster predicted he would flame out in short time. In the first few months of his candidacy, nobody predicted him winning the IA caucus. Go back and find one example proving otherwise.

The political environment was a factor. IS rose and non-intervention fell out in favor of turning sand to glass again in the ME.

Ultimately it really doesn't matter and blaming and finger pointing won't make it better.

 

[HarryBrowneLives]

This year? Iceland