Not so much anymore. The election is only 70 days away or so.
One of the things a lot of people say they hate about politics today is how divided the country is, how we seem to have seperated into two camps. A Rand Paul candidacy if nothing else would have the virtue of reshuffling the coalitions a little. Imagine a Rand Paul candidacy where he loses by a landslide, but the exit polls show that he won, say 20% of the black vote? Or that he won a majority of the youth vote? Or that rather than Republicans and Democrats both voting 90-10 for their own nominee, maybe Paul’s presence made some Republicans move into Hillary’s camp and a few Democrats into Paul’s? You figure the neocons will jump on the Hillary bandwagon.
You’ve been saying that Democratic voters don’t care about foreign policy and will never vote for a Republican like Paul. Are you changing your mind?
I’m engaging in hope. Although I do think the number will be very small, mainly young voters whose minds are still open. But any budging of significant numbers of people out of their partisan camps would be a positive development. Seeing Bill Kristol and John Bolton stumping for Hillary on the talk shows would be priceless in itself.
This is why neither Paul nor any libertarian will ever be POTUS.
Democrat nearly always win congressional elections by an absolute minority. Unfortunately, that’s meaningless because Democratic votes are always geographically concentrated (and right now, systematically devalued.)
The Republicans usually outperform the generic polls by about +3.
The Democrats aren’t winning the popular vote in 2014. Not gonna happen. If the polls hold up, then they lose the popular vote by 2 points. And I think things are going to get worse for Democrats as more people get engaged with the midterms.
Well, a lot of people like to say a lot of stuff. Personally, I recognize that the success of the Tea Party types (and the political power of the Christian Right since the late seventies) reflects a serious discontent within the American electorate and it should be addressed. I just wish it didn’t take the form of such determined and hateful ignorance.
Sure, I can see some political realignments taking place after a hypothetical Paul candidacy in which he gets significant support from certain demographics. That’s not really a mind-blowing notion - William Jennings Bryan lost three fairly close elections in 1896, 1900 and 1912 (closer than your proposed Paul 2016, anyway), getting the Democratic nominations because his populist views had support within the party, though not enough of the country. His lasting influence, arguably, came from being opposed to evolution and in favour of prohibition, with both ideas remaining resonant even today.
Goldwater too. It’s been long argued in conservative circles that Goldwater’s candidacy was necessary to make Reagan’s Presidency possible.
You can’t seriously believe – if that is what you are saying – that a failed bid by Rand Paul would make a later libertarian’s presidency possible.
I gather Paul would have to fail in a particularly notable way, getting votes from unexpected demographic sectors which suggests those sectors have wants and needs that have not been addresses and which some future libertarian-type can address (or if you don’t like libertarians - exploit) to victory.
Personally, I think libertarian social policies might be interesting, but libertarian economic policies are disastrous. So far as I know, Paul has more adherence to the latter than the former.
Probably not. It would more likely be like the McGovern candidacy: an ideological movement that failed spectacularly and actually lost influence within the party due to that failure.
Rand Paul’s brand of libertarianism isn’t like the Libertarian Party. He seems to really want to the be Libertarian Bill Clinton. American voters do tend to be skeptical of government, while wanting to keep the things that government does well. I believe there’s always been a place for moderate libertarianism in the American political system and I think there’s even more space for that in the current political climate.
Paul isn’t really moderate at all, though. He’s a hardcore pro-lifer and wants to eliminate all foreign aid. He doesn’t play the “legalize pot” card, though, which I agree distinguishes him from “traditional” libertarians.
I’m not really sure what Paul believes. He once said he’d like to end all foreign aid, now he says otherwise. He’s trying to be the libertarian Bill Clinton but so far is just the libertarian Mitt Romney.
I’d like to see him be governor of Kentucky first. Having to actually make policy and be accountable for it tends to make one a better Presidential candidate. Paul more than most would benefit from governing a state.
You can imagine whatever you want, but there is not a lot of evidence that Rand Paul has a shot at winning the youth vote. 538 Link.
He actually has to campaign for President first. Young voters don’t tend to be very informed. It’s understandable that they wouldn’t see much difference between one unknown Republican candidate and another unknown Republican candidate.
By all rights, Ken Cuccinelli shouldn’t have come as close to winning the youth vote as he did, but he did do pretty darn well:
I can’t find the earlier link(it’s probably in the last 2013 VA thread, but Cooch actually won voters 18-24. Overall among young voters, he lost by 5. His main weakness was among voters aged 30-44, who he lost by a whopping 19 points.