Ron Paul's biggest advantage

[dude58677]

If and I mean IF he loses Iowa or New Hamshire his son can take over for him.

[bb_dg]

If and I mean IF he loses Iowa or New Hamshire his son can take over for him.

You are incorrect sadly. His biggest advantage is his message, his honesty, and his consistency.

[TER]

What he said above.

[dude58677]

Well one of his biggest advantages.

[TER]

True that.

[D.A.S.]

If and I mean IF he loses Iowa or New Hamshire his son can take over for him.

In it to win it, baby. Yes we can!

[Ethan]

Rand Paul will need at least two full terms (a decade+) in the Senate to convince me that he is as consistent and honest as his father.

[TER]

Rand Paul will need at least two full terms (a decade+) in the Senate to convince me that he is as consistent and honest as his father.

If he was running right now, he would be top tier without a doubt.

[trey4sports]

You will not win the nomination if you get in that late, so no, that is not a viable option.

[TER]

You will not win the nomination if you get in that late, so no, that is not a viable option.

Of course, I am just making the notion that had Rand run from the beginning, he would be top tier, without a doubt.

[robskicks]

Who cares. Ron Paul is running, support Ron.

[TER]

In the very least at time for the moneybombs, but in addition and even greater, by spreading the message of liberty and the Constitution and towards justice, fidelity to our oaths, and for peace.

[trey4sports]

Of course, I am just making the notion that had Rand run from the beginning, he would be top tier, without a doubt.

I agree, i was making the point to the OP that his fallback strategy is flawed.

[Ethan]

In a perfect world, we have Ron Paul for 2012-2020 and then Rand Paul will be ready to run. But I would not support him now with the enthusiasm or energy that I support Ron with, because he hasn't yet proven himself.

[sailingaway]

If he was running right now, he would be top tier without a doubt.

I don't know that. I know he would have been at least for a period of time, but he doesn't have the record to withstand the attacks, and I don't know what toll they would have had. They threw a lot at him in his election. Ron faced Matthews down on the CRA. Rand would never have done that, for example.

It is easy to think the one not running would have done better. He'd have done better with some on the right, but we are going to need independents, and Rand's numbers weren't as good with independents, at the end. Hopefully that will change as they get to know him, though.

Personally, I don't see any purpose in this kind of thread. It seems pretty negative.

[gb13]

Why are we debating whether or not RAND should have run???? This is Ron Paul's election to win. Let's keep our eye on the ball. The man has been defending us for over 30 years, and after one lousy debate you're already looking forward to 2016 or 2020? Ron Paul is consistently rising in the polls. He is top tier. We are his base. Let's leave the 2016 election strategy for 2016, get back to the here-and-now, and go out there and support RON.

We have a war to win, people.

[AFPVet]

Why are we debating whether or not RAND should have run???? This is Ron Paul's election to win. Let's keep our eye on the ball. The man has been defending us for over 30 years, and after one lousy debate you're already looking forward to 2016 or 2020? Ron Paul is consistently rising in the polls. He is top tier. We are his base. Let's leave the 2016 election strategy for 2016, get back to the here-and-now, and go out there and support RON.

We have a war to win, people.

I agree... we are in it to win it folks!

[anaconda]

You will not win the nomination if you get in that late, so no, that is not a viable option.

Unless the field sucks ass. Plus this election cycle is weird. People may be able to jump in late with high poll numbers and ride them through Super Tuesday. But I don't believe that a poor showing in the first three primary states will deter Ron. Plus he may be a viable 3rd Party candidate.