Here’s why Rand Paul would probably be beating Hillary Clinton right now

[CaseyJones]

http://rare.us/story/heres-why-rand-paul-would-probably-be-beating-hillary-clinton-right-now/


The 2012 Republican autopsy report said that Mitt Romney failed to win the presidency because the GOP lacked support from independents, young people and minorities, among other groups. In other words, the party needed to broaden its appeal.

2016 Republicans then nominated Donald Trump. The GOP nominee has narrowed the party’s appeal with each of these groups.

Severely.

Clinton has led Trump with independents in poll after poll. USA Today reported this month that “Young voters flee Donald Trump in what may be historic trouncing, poll shows.” Even though Clinton leads Trump with independent and Millennial voters, both groups don’t like the Democratic or Republican nominees by significant margins.

Many independents and young people in 2016 have been more attracted to Libertarian Gary Johnson.

How might a libertarian Republican candidate be faring right now?

Earlier this month, Red State’s Brandon Morse and The Libertarian Republic’s Jordan LaPorta took note of Rand Paul’s recent Kentucky senate race polling, showing the Republican senator is not only beating his Democratic opponent Jim Gray by double digits, but that Paul is the clear choice of independents and even many Democrats in his state.

RunSwitchPR reports:

Senator Paul receives 76% of the Republican vote, one point better than Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s party support (75%). Paul earns the support of one-in-three Democratic voters (30%) while Gray takes 60% of Democrats. Gray receives stronger support on the Senate ballot from Democratic voters than does Hillary Clinton, who is getting just 54% of Democrats on the Presidential ballot. Both Gray and Clinton are suffering from massive defections among registered Democrats.

Morse observed, “Among voters who say that their opinions do not align with either of the two major parties, 44% support Paul for reelection, compared to 18% for Gray, which indicates Paul has appeal among independent voters.

So in Kentucky, Rand Paul solidly has his Republican base, more independents than the Democrats, and a surprising amount of actual Democrats.

How might Sen. Paul be doing with minorities compared to Trump in a presidential race against Clinton?

Trump is losing to Clinton huge with all minority groups and particularly African Americans and Hispanics (the two largest racial minority voting blocs). Consistently, somewhere between 80 to 90 percent of these voters just don’t like the guy.

In addition to his appeal to independents and conservative or disaffected Democrats, Rand Paul’s polling with minorities has been exceptional and even groundbreaking for modern Republicans.

Rare reported in 2014 on Kentucky polling taken in a Paul-Clinton presidential race:

The new Bluegrass Poll also revealed that Paul’s ongoing minority outreach efforts might be working with African-Americans in his home state. The Lexington Herald-Leader reports “29 percent of the African Americans surveyed said they would back the tea-party senator.”

“Compare that number to John McCain, who received only four percent of the African-American vote in 2008 and Mitt Romney, who won six percent of the black vote in 2012,” Rare noted.

Paul received 13 percent of the black vote against Democratic senate candidate in 2010, a respectable number for Republicans and this was of course before he became a senator and began his minority outreach efforts in any comprehensive way.

[phill4paul]

USA Today reported this month that “Young voters flee Donald Trump in what may be historic trouncing, poll shows.”

Young voters don't vote. Otherwise, there would have been a president Ron Paul. Sad, but true.

[CaptUSA]

There's still a chance. I'm hoping the GOP will be smart enough to let him beat her in her re-election attempt.

(and oh yeah, that's going to happen)

[oyarde]

Young voters don't vote. Otherwise, there would have been a president Ron Paul. Sad, but true.

Yep , they are not going to flee to Clinton.

[jmdrake]

Good article! I was about to post this myself.

[devil21]

Rand would be beating Clinton because he wouldn't say all the stupid shit that Trump does and Clinton's dirt would be unavoidable since Rand has no skeletons in his closet. It should be plainly obvious that Trump was put up because he was the only candidate on the stage that could conceivably piss away yet another election for the GOP. That's if you think voting and all that matters, of course. Why do voters of seeming intelligence still play this game? It's clear that the agenda is to purposely destroy any form of organized conservatism in this country.

[spudea]

http://rare.us/story/heres-why-rand-paul-would-probably-be-beating-hillary-clinton-right-now/


Good article! I was about to post this myself.

This article is hilarious. The article states "Clinton has led Trump with independents in poll after poll", except the link they provide is to a daily caller article and the title is the exact opposite "In Poll After Poll Trump Leads Clinton Among Independent Voters"

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/31/in-poll-after-poll-trump-leads-clinton-among-independent-voters/

Literally every Trump figure they use is wrong. He receives 85%-90% of the Republican vote, not 75% as indicated. And beating Romney's numbers in minority groups.

No Rand would not be beating Clinton either. Liberty is too extreme.

[Matt Collins]

Except that Rand's campaign would have to have been competent enough to get through the primaries.... which they weren't. But to be fair, even if they did everything right, they would not have been able to beat Trump. Still no excuse for doing worse than Ron in '08.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Rand would win in a landslide I believe. Remember that Rand doesn't frighten people like Trump does. Democrats would feel more comfortable staying home or voting Green Party against Rand Paul than against Trump. He would also probably improve on Romney's numbers with minorities (or at the very least not do worse like Trump is doing). Rand Paul also doesn't sound like an idiot.

[AuH20]

Rand would not have had a chance in places like Pennsylvania. I'm not buying it. Does anyone think that Rand would be hammering TPP and illegal immigration in a clear, unfettered fashion like Trump has? Those are the issues that resonate in the decimated Rust Belt.

Rand would have been likely hurt by the same regional schism that would have limited Cruz's appeal, sans places like Colorado and New Hampshire. And let's not ever get started with the NeverRand movement that would have likely emerged from the usual suspects.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Rand would not have had a chance in places like Pennsylvania. I'm not buying it. Does anyone think that Rand would be hammering TPP and illegal immigration in a clear, unfettered fashion like Trump has? Those are the issues that resonate in the decimated Rust Belt.

Illegal immigration is more of an issue in places like Arizona and Texas than it is in Ohio or Pennsylvania.


Rand would have been likely hurt by the same regional schism that would have limited Cruz's appeal, sans places like Colorado and New Hampshire. And let's not ever get started with the NeverRand movement that would have likely emerged from the usual suspects.

But the NeverRand movement would never have as much support among the base as NeverTrump has.

[CaptUSA]

But the NeverRand movement would never have as much support among the base as NeverTrump has.

Oh, I don't know about that. It would look different, to be sure, but you know Graham, McCain, Christie, King, and Giuliani would all be part of NeverRand. Can't say that with Trump.

[juleswin]

Oh, I don't know about that. It would look different, to be sure, but you know Graham, McCain, Christie, King, and Giuliani would all be part of NeverRand. Can't say that with Trump.

Its not just that, I think we could all envision Trump to be in the coalition of a NeverRand movement. That is when you would see him actually spending some of his millions trying to defeat him. But the true part is that the average democrat, or Clinton hater would not be scared of a Rand Paul candidacy and that would be very helpful in a year when people are looking for a reasonable candidate to vote for other than Hillary

[Tywysog Cymru]

Oh, I don't know about that. It would look different, to be sure, but you know Graham, McCain, Christie, King, and Giuliani would all be part of NeverRand. Can't say that with Trump.

NeverRand would have more establishment support, but Republicans who don't like Rand would overwhelmingly chose him over Clinton.

[jmdrake]

This article is hilarious. The article states "Clinton has led Trump with independents in poll after poll", except the link they provide is to a daily caller article and the title is the exact opposite "In Poll After Poll Trump Leads Clinton Among Independent Voters"

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/31/in-poll-after-poll-trump-leads-clinton-among-independent-voters/

Literally every Trump figure they use is wrong. He receives 85%-90% of the Republican vote, not 75% as indicated. And beating Romney's numbers in minority groups.

No Rand would not be beating Clinton either. Liberty is too extreme.

In poll after poll Clinton leads Trump overall. And the only reason she's leading Trump is because people don't like Trump. And people don't like Trump because he's an ass. Trump would be leading right now if he hadn't decided to pick a fight with a Goldstar family. And now he's trying to make up for it by dancing all over the place on immigration.

[jmdrake]

Rand would not have had a chance in places like Pennsylvania. I'm not buying it. Does anyone think that Rand would be hammering TPP and illegal immigration in a clear, unfettered fashion like Trump has? Those are the issues that resonate in the decimated Rust Belt.

Rand would have been likely hurt by the same regional schism that would have limited Cruz's appeal, sans places like Colorado and New Hampshire. And let's not ever get started with the NeverRand movement that would have likely emerged from the usual suspects.

LOL @ "clear and unfettered." In the past week Trump has been anything but clear on the immigration issue.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Nah, I'm not buying it. Rand doesn't have the ability or temperament to make the emotional argument and whip voters into a frenzy. Demotism requires demagogues as Presidents and that's just not who Rand is. Libertarian political strategy has always been far too cerebral; Rand is not an exception to that rule.

The idea that a guy who got less than five percent in the primary would be sweeping into the White House is dubious, at best.

[undergroundrr]

It would have been a beautiful dream for Rand to take the presidency. But I am SO GRATEFUL that he will be a significant force in the senate during the Clinton presidency. He's been a Grade A gadfly to Obama. He's already got a long head start on ferociously discrediting Clinton on emails, Benghazi, gun running to terrorists, etc. He'll be in a prime bully pulpit and he'll be relentless once she's in office.

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

We really need to stop targeting or relying on the youth vote for anything. They're useless.

The real battle any GOP nominee faces is a hostile lib media who will treat them like anti-woman white supremacists no matter what they say or do. Trump is getting the brunt of it because they are so in the tank for Hillary, but most of the barbs are not that different from what was used on Romney.

[foodhome]

fully support your view

[osan]

http://rare.us/story/heres-why-rand-paul-would-probably-be-beating-hillary-clinton-right-now/

A few things.

Firstly, a senatorial race is not the same as presidential. To imply that Paul's senatorial polling would be identical to presidential is not sound, IMO.

Secondly, "young voters" are mostly morons, I hate to say. There is no appealing to the bunnies 'n light contingent, save for making promises to them identical to those of the jackass party. Then what? You get elected on those promises and... You lose no matter what you do in office. Make good on promises and conservatives will remember in four. Tell the millennial that he doesn't understand American humor, and he will remember.

I cannot believe how many people are missing the broader and more fundamental points here. You CANNOT broaden your conservative appeal to these other groups... mainstream black, hispanic, millennial, and so forth without making the promises that will turn your other supporters away from you. Generally speaking, the voting blocks in question are fundamentally opposed to liberty and all that it would require of them. They hate it, in fact, and do not recognize it as liberty at all, but rather as a vision of hell on earth. Their definition of "freedom" is basically a nanny state whose men with guns ensures their right to butt-fuck to their heart's content and get "free" stuff, no matter from whom it must be stolen. We are talking of morally bereft people who don't give a rat-fuck about who must be stepped upon, so long as their vision of utopia is made real enough. These are wanton, craven, bitter-with-envy, hateful people who want what they want and will support anyone willing to use muscle to get it for them.

If you think Rand Paul or anyone else can "appeal" to such people without becoming a whore to them, you are not playing with a full deck.

This narrative is completely and insanely hosed.

[osan]

No Rand would not be beating Clinton either. Liberty is too extreme.

You surely got that bit right as rain.

[osan]

Rand would not have had a chance in places like Pennsylvania. I'm not buying it. Does anyone think that Rand would be hammering TPP and illegal immigration in a clear, unfettered fashion like Trump has? Those are the issues that resonate in the decimated Rust Belt.

Rand equivocates, even if only implicitly, and that is one reason he's going nowhere... at least in this environment.

Whatever his other faults may be, you have to hand it to Trump for speaking plainly, clearly, with little equivocation. This is what people want, for better or worse.


Rand would have been likely hurt by the same regional schism that would have limited Cruz's appeal, sans places like Colorado and New Hampshire. And let's not ever get started with the NeverRand movement that would have likely emerged from the usual suspects.

You bet. ANY threat to the orthodox order would be met with force. What do people think, that the righteous light of candidate Rand Paul's saintly goodness (no sarcasm there at all, seriously) would somehow and miraculously correct the ignorance, corruption, and fear that drives the typical American voter? Come now, that is naïve worthy of the iron bar.

The "better" a candidate is for US, the more vehemently will he be opposed. This ain't rocket surgery, folks.

[osan]

In poll after poll Clinton leads Trump overall.

That is no longer true. Trump appears to be catching up and overtaking it.


And the only reason she's leading Trump is because people don't like Trump. And people don't like Trump because he's an ass.

Nonsense. They don't like Trump because they have been TOLD not to like him. Christ's sake man... these nitwits on the so-called "left" can't think for themselves even if their lives depended on it. They have been trained to be offended by God damned near everything, so when some horse-poo media outlet makes unsubstantiated assertions that Trump is a homophobe, the chromos eat it up. Why? Because they have been trained to WANT to be offended and afraid. They seek it, probably without even being aware of it. Media says Trump hates "latinos" (God I despise that hideous term) and nearly every hispanic rushes to apolplexy. Why? Because they have been trained to seek it. Black folk... "Ahma gaat... d'nigggih RAYcis..." Same story, different "trigger". The environmentalist phags uncritically accept that he will destroy the earth within 20 minutes of his inauguration. And on down the line. Every stooge and other useful idiot has been conditioned to react in certain ways and they do it like clockwork.

Trump may or may not be an ass - I suppose that, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder - but that fact has NOTHING to do with the opinions many people hold of him.


Trump would be leading right now if he hadn't decided to pick a fight with a Goldstar family.

Once again - NONSENSE. That family has been exposed as being of questionable character and motivation, at the freakishly 4th-sigma best. He called them on their bullshit and was right to do so.


And now he's trying to make up for it by dancing all over the place on immigration.

That may be the case. I don't watch TV so cannot say. He has gaffed. He's new to this shit, and I would say that this actually recommends him.

One cannot go based completely on what a candidate says during a campaign. We all know the reality ends up being widely different from the promising.

[osan]

He's been a Grade A gadfly to Obama.

Yeah, but Bammy's a pussy. Hillary has a 13" cock, backed up by a huge pair of testicles and will not be afraid to use them. There won't be a dry eye in the house.


He's already got a long head start on ferociously discrediting Clinton on emails, Benghazi, gun running to terrorists, etc. He'll be in a prime bully pulpit and he'll be relentless once she's in office.

You assume Hillary will not simply have him killed. Don't be too quick to dismiss this possibility. Just look at the long line of dead bodies in its wake. That can't all be simple, freakish coincidence, can it?

Clinton is going to go balls to the walls, I suspect, from day one. Unlike the pansy Obama, it is a battle-hardened porno-stud. If it will be seated as the result of rigging, then likely it shall be that the second term will be the same. If that is the case, it has absolutely no reason not to go for the gusto from day one, and I believe it will leave us pining for the days of Bammy.

[KEEF]

A few things.

Firstly, a senatorial race is not the same as presidential. To imply that Paul's senatorial polling would be identical to presidential is not sound, IMO.

Secondly, "young voters" are mostly morons, I hate to say. There is no appealing to the bunnies 'n light contingent, save for making promises to them identical to those of the jackass party. Then what? You get elected on those promises and... You lose no matter what you do in office. Make good on promises and conservatives will remember in four. Tell the millennial that he doesn't understand American humor, and he will remember.

I cannot believe how many people are missing the broader and more fundamental points here. You CANNOT broaden your conservative appeal to these other groups... mainstream black, hispanic, millennial, and so forth without making the promises that will turn your other supporters away from you. Generally speaking, the voting blocks in question are fundamentally opposed to liberty and all that it would require of them. They hate it, in fact, and do not recognize it as liberty at all, but rather as a vision of hell on earth. Their definition of "freedom" is basically a nanny state whose men with guns ensures their right to butt-$#@! to their heart's content and get "free" stuff, no matter from whom it must be stolen. We are talking of morally bereft people who don't give a rat-$#@! about who must be stepped upon, so long as their vision of utopia is made real enough. These are wanton, craven, bitter-with-envy, hateful people who want what they want and will support anyone willing to use muscle to get it for them.

If you think Rand Paul or anyone else can "appeal" to such people without becoming a whore to them, you are not playing with a full deck.

This narrative is completely and insanely hosed.

So true, I think the best thing for this country would be a wake up call to the nanny state, like a complete economic collapse, so that millennials have to get off the tit.

[FreedomsReigning]

Rand doesn't have the spine to win this fight. He dropped out and called Trump dirt. I don't stand with people who think of me as dirt.

Goodbye Rand Paul.

[CPUd]

Rand doesn't have the spine to win this fight. He dropped out and called Trump dirt. I don't stand with people who think of me as dirt.

Goodbye Rand Paul.

Strong 12th post.

[John F Kennedy III]

#RONPaul2020

[jmdrake]

That is no longer true. Trump appears to be catching up and overtaking it.

And then he took a dive last night.



Nonsense. They don't like Trump because they have been TOLD not to like him.

Oh good grief. You can't be that stupid! They told people to hate Ron Paul too. While Ron didn't win he has a high favoribility rating despite the "newsletter" controversy and despite being on record against the civil rights act because people at least believe he is honest. Donald Trump has been caught in too many lies. Republicans hate Donald Trump and not just the Bushite elitist republicans.



Christ's sake man... these nitwits on the so-called "left" can't think for themselves even if their lives depended on it. They have been trained to be offended by God damned near everything, so when some horse-poo media outlet makes unsubstantiated assertions that Trump is a homophobe, the chromos eat it up. Why?


:rolleyes: Actually the gays pushed Trump through to the GOP nomination. It was Ted Cruz who got the "homophobe" label. Trump has taken on the gay agenda of destroying Christianity.




Trump may or may not be an ass - I suppose that, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder - but that fact has NOTHING to do with the opinions many people hold of him.

:rolleyes: You admit that he may be an ass but you don't think that has anything to do with what opinion someone has of him? You can't possibly be that stupid.



Once again - NONSENSE. That family has been exposed as being of question]able character and motivation, at the freakishly 4th-sigma best. He called them on their bull$#@! and was right to do so.

Only a complete stupid f*ck like you would say ^that. Their son was killed in Iraq. Trump took a college deferment to keep from going to Vietnam. And this b*llsh*t argument that somehow the dad was only upset because he was an immigration lawyer just shows how ignorant you and your fellow Trump supporters are about immigration law.

IF TRUMP WERE TO GET HIS EXTREME VETTING PLAN PASSED MR. KHAN WOULD STAND TO MAKE MILLIONS BECAUSE THERE WILL BE MORE FOR MUSLIM IMMIGRATION LAWYERS!

Mr. Khan is upset for good reason. Trump said "Ban all Muslims from coming in" when his family paid the ultimate sacrifice for Bush's stupidity. When IRA terrorism was going on, Great Britain didn't say "Ban all Catholics."

But let's say if you are right. You're not. You're argument is simply moronic. But let's say if you were. It was still stupid as hell for TRUMP to attack the Khans. He should have left that up to surrogates. When the Benghazi families came on during the GOP convention, Hillary didn't attack them. She let Chris Matthews do it.


That may be the case. I don't watch TV so cannot say. He has gaffed. He's new to this $#@!, and I would say that this actually recommends him.

Inexperience is no excuse. On election day Donald Trump will not be "graded on the curve." If he wasn't ready for prime time then he shouldn't have run. And you know who initially recommended him to run?

http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2016/news/160314/donald-hillary-800.jpg

^That should tell you all you need to know. Talk about improper motivation.


One cannot go based completely on what a candidate says during a campaign. We all know the reality ends up being widely different from the promising.

At the end of the day what is said during a campaign is all that matters. If you don't get that right you'll never get the chance to do anything else.

[osan]

You can't be that stupid!... You can't possibly be that stupid... Only a complete stupid f*ck like you would say ^that... how ignorant you... are... You're argument is simply moronic...

Well, if I am so stupid, why are you putting in so much effort to refute my words?


your fellow Trump supporters are about immigration law.

I'm not a Trump supporter. I'm not voting for him, so methinks you've managed here to jam both your feet into your mouth, to the hips.

Dunno what's eating you, but it can't be me because I am so stupid, as you point out four times in one post alone. Being my clear superior in intellect, it could not possibly be the case that you would allow yourself to be so bothered by a mere simpleton such as myself. That, of course, raises the question of what, then, has you in such a knot?

Would you like to share with us?