Lindsey Graham Mulling White House Run

[jjdoyle]

In North Carolina, Rand Paul is quite popular with mainstream Republican activists across the board, the ones who attend monthly County and District GOP meetings, and the conventions, as well as the Republican activists who interface with the Municipal Boards, County Commissions, and the State Legislature.

Where exactly are you meeting these Republicans who don't like Rand Paul?

Louisiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina. And just because some may like him now, doesn't mean they will vote for him over someone else. Especially if/when he gets hit with attack ads, that will roll out if the race is a battle.
Thom Tillis won against Greg Brannon, who was endorsed by Rand. Unfortunately, there are still more of "them" than there are of us.

And, according to you, Newt won South Carolina by:

"campaigning (in SC specifically) on blowing the whole planet to smithereens."

So, Lindsey Graham will not influence South Carolina against Rand. I don't think Rand has a chance of winning South Carolina.

I'm curious, do you know how Rand is going to be attacked in the southern states, probably North Carolina included (now that the primary is much earlier)? I'll send you the template that was made in 2012, and used in another race.

[CPUd]

Louisiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina. And just because some may like him now, doesn't mean they will vote for him over someone else. Especially if/when he gets hit with attack ads, that will roll out if the race is a battle.
Thom Tillis won against Greg Brannon, who was endorsed by Rand. Unfortunately, there are still more of "them" than there are of us.

And, according to you, Newt won South Carolina by:


So, Lindsey Graham will not influence South Carolina against Rand. I don't think Rand has a chance of winning South Carolina.

I'm curious, do you know how Rand is going to be attacked in the southern states, probably North Carolina included (now that the primary is much earlier)? I'll send you the template that was made in 2012, and used in another race.

I suspect they will try to call him a liberal down here.

[jjdoyle]

I suspect they will try to call him a liberal down here.

Worse.

[GunnyFreedom]

Louisiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina. And just because some may like him now, doesn't mean they will vote for him over someone else. Especially if/when he gets hit with attack ads, that will roll out if the race is a battle.
Thom Tillis won against Greg Brannon, who was endorsed by Rand. Unfortunately, there are still more of "them" than there are of us.

And, according to you, Newt won South Carolina by:


So, Lindsey Graham will not influence South Carolina against Rand. I don't think Rand has a chance of winning South Carolina.

I'm curious, do you know how Rand is going to be attacked in the southern states, probably North Carolina included (now that the primary is much earlier)? I'll send you the template that was made in 2012, and used in another race.

Louisiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

You are aware that I live in North Carolina, right? My experience is completely different than yours. Again, where are you finding the republicans? Are you just hitting them up in a grocery store? I am going to actual Republican meetings. held by the Republican party. Where Republican activists go. Do you hang out with actual Republican activists at Republican events in NC, because I do.

[jjdoyle]

Louisiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

You are aware that I live in North Carolina, right? My experience is completely different than yours. Again, where are you finding the republicans? Are you just hitting them up in a grocery store? I am going to actual Republican meetings. held by the Republican party. Where Republican activists go. Do you hang out with actual Republican activists at Republican events in NC, because I do.

Yes, I know you live in NC. And what you have said, doesn't change anything I have said. These voters may like Rand now, and may view him as a 2nd choice now, but that's it. And this is without a single attack ad against Rand, which will happen if he is a "top tier" candidate in 2016. Greg Brannon lost to Thom Tillis, while having Rand's endorsement. There are more of them than of us.

There isn't anything I have seen, that gives me hope that Rand will win South Carolina or North Carolina, or any other southern state, if there is a Mike Huckabee and another establishment type (like Jeb Bush or Chris Christie) candidate in the race.

*Oh, and you asked about where I interact with these Republican voters I know. The voters I know and interact with are more of the "religious" types. Churches and religious organizations.

[GunnyFreedom]

Yes, I know you live in NC. And what you have said, doesn't change anything I have said. These voters may like Rand now, and may view him as a 2nd choice now, but that's it. And this is without a single attack ad against Rand, which will happen if he is a "top tier" candidate in 2016. Greg Brannon lost to Thom Tillis, while having Rand's endorsement. There are more of them than of us.

There are multiple reasons why Brannon lost, not the least among them were the lies surrounding his civil suit (Tillisites were going around saying he was convicted on criminal fraud charges - a blatant lie). Today, half or more of the Republicans attached to the mainstream falsely believe Brannon was convicted of an actual crime, DURING the campaign. Also, the campaign manager made several really bad decisions, including adamantly refusing to bring local activists (who actually knew the lay of the land) on board the campaign. These two factors had WAY more to do with Brannon's loss than Tillis's existence. Most of the Republicans who will vote for Tillis in November, hate him.

There isn't anything I have seen, that gives me hope that Rand will win South Carolina or North Carolina, or any other southern state, if there is a Mike Huckabee and another establishment type (like Jeb Bush or Chris Christie) candidate in the race.

SC is kind of a lost cause in any case. They only seem to like baby-eating cannibals who can say "Jesus" without bursting into flames. Frankly, Rand needs to focus on IA, NH, and NC and avoid wasting money in SC where people will NEVER vote for ANYBODY who wants to obey the Constitution.

*Oh, and you asked about where I interact with these Republican voters I know. The voters I know and interact with are more of the "religious" types. Churches and religious organizations.

And I hang out with the actual GOP activists who are the "opinion makers" for their peers. Generally, if the County GOP Chairman likes "Candidate X" then most of the Republicans in that County will end up supporting "Candidate X" whether the County Chairman tries to make that happen or not.

[jjdoyle]

There are multiple reasons why Brannon lost, not the least among them were the lies surrounding his civil suit (Tillisites were going around saying he was convicted on criminal fraud charges - a blatant lie). Today, half or more of the Republicans attached to the mainstream falsely believe Brannon was convicted of an actual crime, DURING the campaign. Also, the campaign manager made several really bad decisions, including adamantly refusing to bring local activists (who actually knew the lay of the land) on board the campaign. These two factors had WAY more to do with Brannon's loss than Tillis's existence. Most of the Republicans who will vote for Tillis in November, hate him.

SC is kind of a lost cause in any case. They only seem to like baby-eating cannibals who can say "Jesus" without bursting into flames. Frankly, Rand needs to focus on IA, NH, and NC and avoid wasting money in SC where people will NEVER vote for ANYBODY who wants to obey the Constitution.

And I hang out with the actual GOP activists who are the "opinion makers" for their peers. Generally, if the County GOP Chairman likes "Candidate X" then most of the Republicans in that County will end up supporting "Candidate X" whether the County Chairman tries to make that happen or not.

There is a separation in NC from the "opinion makers" and actual activists I have worked with over the years though. For example, when B.J. Lawson first ran, it was against one of the GOP "opinion makers", who was on a local GOP committee (resigned at the start of his campaign), had their backing and had multiple other regular NC GOP politicians' support; but B.J. Lawson still won the Republican nomination. Now, that WAS in a more liberal area of the state, so being less like the GOP in it, probably helped Lawson at the time.

I see no evidence Rand has a chance at winning SC (as you don't either), but I don't see it for him winning NC at this point either. And at this time, with the fiasco and subpoenas being filed against some associated with Ron Paul 2012 because of the Iowa and Kent Sorenson issue, I think Iowa is out of play (for 1st). He may use Iowa as a "strong showing", and use that to leap to New Hampshire, but Iowa doesn't matter long-term for the nomination anyway, which is good. John McCain basically skipped Iowa, and concentrated on New Hampshire first. BUT, South Carolina and Florida have mattered, and I don't see either of those as going to Rand.

So, what's the path? If there isn't one, stay in the Senate. Don't waste months of supporters' time and millions of their dollars, with no path to the nomination.

[Brian4Liberty]

[Aratus]

Another gay POTUS? Two in a row?

I am not trying to leap to that conclusion in any hurry, but if IOWA between NOVEMBER of 2015 and FEBRUARY of 2016 has a slew
of heated exchanges between Rick Santorum and Lindsey Graham, as Rand Paul is dignified, logical, reasonable and senatorial, i do
think i know what the voters shall do from that point on! i think the publicity magnet that is FOX television's tendency to launch GOP
boomlets in rapid succession is on Lindsey Graham's radar. He assumes he can smuck Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, Steve Forbes and
Michele Bachmann in just about any GOP presidential debate going and coming. Is this his political swansong? Does his ego really need
a TIME magazine cover or two before he bows out of politics and the public arena? After this, if he runs, I want to go to Jack Hunter
and coax him into trying for a national level public office in South Carolina. Lindsey is a total 100% publicity hound and is brazenly bold.
The thought is, he wants John McCain to be his campaign manager. It actually recycles every "maverick" thought John McCain has had.

[Aratus]

Mike Huckabee almost beat McCain in the 2008 primary, and that was being an unknown at the time really. He campaigned hard, and was trying to win it, and came pretty close. I would imagine with his name recognition now to the GOP base, and the 2008 numbers behind him, he would take SC. And, there is nothing that I have seen of him that would mean the SC voters wouldn't get what you said they want as well.

GOVERNOR MIKE HUCKABEE is often sensible, even when being "middle of the road"
like Mitt Romney. He does not have the questionable taint of payola and corruption
Rick Perry and Rick Santorum have around them from time to time, nor the militant
militaristic flaked out saber wrattlin' that both John McCain and Lindsey Graham like
to do. Are Huck's Army people more Bible Belt than D.C beltway or has MIKE HUCKABEE
been on a learning curve and also keeping to his own internal compass? I expect him
to last longer if he runs than he did in 2008 and I also expect that SENATOR RAND PAUL
has a high degree of respect for him! He might decide to be Rand's veep after the RNC!

[Occam's Banana]

Lindsey Graham makes me ashamed of living in South Carolina.

Lindsey Graham makes me ashamed of living in America on Earth in the Solar System.

[William Tell]

Lindsey Graham makes be ashamed of living in America on Earth in the Solar System.

Look on the bright side, at least you're not in the same bunch. I hope.

[Occam's Banana]

Look on the bright side, at least you're not in the same bunch. I hope.

Well, he *is* pretty fruity - but he is NOT of genus Musa ...

[HOLLYWOOD]

From 'Bathhouse Barry' to the 'Palmetto Prostate Prositute'

Can't wait for his bitchez; Gary Bauer and Pastor Hagee to chime in on prime time.

This GEM us adorable

[Shane Harris]

If Rand finishes first or second in Iowa and wins New Hampshire going into South Carolina and Jimmy Demint actually endorses him and campaigns for him then I can see winning S.C. as possible. Florida probably not, Nevada yes. All he needs is to come out of Super Tuesday in the lead and its over. Republicans just want to vote for a winner.

[GunnyFreedom]

There is a separation in NC from the "opinion makers" and actual activists I have worked with over the years though. For example, when B.J. Lawson first ran, it was against one of the GOP "opinion makers", who was on a local GOP committee (resigned at the start of his campaign), had their backing and had multiple other regular NC GOP politicians' support; but B.J. Lawson still won the Republican nomination. Now, that WAS in a more liberal area of the state, so being less like the GOP in it, probably helped Lawson at the time.

I see no evidence Rand has a chance at winning SC (as you don't either), but I don't see it for him winning NC at this point either. And at this time, with the fiasco and subpoenas being filed against some associated with Ron Paul 2012 because of the Iowa and Kent Sorenson issue, I think Iowa is out of play (for 1st). He may use Iowa as a "strong showing", and use that to leap to New Hampshire, but Iowa doesn't matter long-term for the nomination anyway, which is good. John McCain basically skipped Iowa, and concentrated on New Hampshire first. BUT, South Carolina and Florida have mattered, and I don't see either of those as going to Rand.

So, what's the path? If there isn't one, stay in the Senate. Don't waste months of supporters' time and millions of their dollars, with no path to the nomination.

And I say North Carolina is winnable. Really the time and money invested here should depend on the number of delegates we get penalized for going early, and in our new position as an "answer" to South Carolina. We can position ourselves as the "sane" Carolina and carry the State for Rand. Whether the effort is worth it is a balance of the perception of an early State with the number of delegates that come out (bearing in mind that we will be penalized).

Honestly, with NC coming a week after SC, and SC being so imperative in people's minds, if the delegates are still there, even after a NH win it'll be important to answer SC with a correction on his way west.

And yeah, the opinionmakers are of course the media and the moneymen, but with a lot of support from GOP activists "It's OK to like Rand" then the mainstream Republican feels comfortable liking him, and so if they massively short him in the debates, it will backfire. WAY more than it did with Ron.

Yes, they can/will ignore him if they want, but if they try to 2008 Rand after this much "golden boy" stuff, it will blow up in their face. A campaign that is prepared for it an positioned to turn an advantage out of it would do well.

[GunnyFreedom]

From 'Bathhouse Barry' to the 'Palmetto Prostate Prositute'

Can't wait for his bitchez; Gary Bauer and Pastor Hagee to chime in on prime time.

This GEM us adorable

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ae7EXUSyhc

Lord Jesus. I take it back. That guy really does represent a pretty big chunk of SC.

Well, a LOT of Vets retire in SC, particularly older generations, WW2, Korea.

That was an era of 'enemy bad. enemy there. kill enemy. kill enemy dead.'

They are unable to think outside of their own box. This is a reason, not an excuse.

There is never an excuse for willful ignorance.

[GunnyFreedom]

If Rand finishes first or second in Iowa and wins New Hampshire going into South Carolina and Jimmy Demint actually endorses him and campaigns for him then I can see winning S.C. as possible. Florida probably not, Nevada yes. All he needs is to come out of Super Tuesday in the lead and its over. Republicans just want to vote for a winner.

The funny part is that's the fastest path to losing I have seen in my brief political experience. John McCain was portrayed as "the only guy who could beat Hillary Clinton" in 2008, when in fact McCain was literally the worst candidate in the field against either Clinton or Obama. Mitt Romney was portrayed as "the only guy who could beat Barack Obama" in 2012, when he had the second to worst polling against Obama in the field. Thom Tillis was portrayed as "the only guy who could beat Kay Hagan" in 2014, when in fact he polled consistently second-to-worst in the field against Hagan.

All of them have one thing in common: Karl Rove.

This idiot literally takes the worst candidate in the field, pumps billions of dollars into telling the world that their guy is the only guy who can win, wins the nomination and then loses the General because they literally just nominated the worst guy in the field. Because Karl Rove told us "he was the only guy who could win."

Sure, Republicans just want to vote for a winner, but you can paint a target on an ass in a pack of thoroughbreds and call it "a winner," which is what Karl Rove does. If I were some kind of bizarre lefty operative trying to destroy the GOP, I would pretty much do what Karl Rove has been doing the last 20 years or so. Consistently nominating the weakest candidates in the field in order to buy sway with the few who do win, and constantly promoting a radical neocon agenda that only still rings true with a small and aging part of America.

[Christian Liberty]

Lord Jesus. I take it back. That guy really does represent a pretty big chunk of SC.

Well, a LOT of Vets retire in SC, particularly older generations, WW2, Korea.

That was an era of 'enemy bad. enemy there. kill enemy. kill enemy dead.'

They are unable to think outside of their own box. This is a reason, not an excuse.

There is never an excuse for willful ignorance.

If that's true, is there hope that public opinion changes dramatically once that generation dies off?

[GunnyFreedom]

If that's true, is there hope that public opinion changes dramatically once that generation dies off?

Well, sure, but it never really changes as much as you would expect it to; although this generation gap is more remarkable than any I've seen, so sure it will be quite noticeable. Doesn't mean we'll like the next generation's insanity any better, mind you.

[Christian Liberty]

Well, sure, but it never really changes as much as you would expect it to; although this generation gap is more remarkable than any I've seen, so sure it will be quite noticeable. Doesn't mean we'll like the next generation's insanity any better, mind you.

What do you envision in 30-50 years? Mind you, by "envision" I don't mean what you would like to see, but what you think is likely to actually happen.

[mad cow]

If that's true, is there hope that public opinion changes dramatically once that generation dies off?

'That Generation' like all generations is constantly dying off,there are fewer of them every day.

Those that were 21 in 1944 or 1964 or even 1984 would put up with more assaults on their liberty than those who were 21 in 2014?

Hah!Then I guess you would say that America is more free today than it was back then since all of those bootlickers are dying off and it is nothing but blue skies and freedom from now on.

"Be sure to wear your seatbelt and bicycle helmet and if you see someone under the age of 12 unaccompanied by an adult,dial 911." ~ Public Service Announcement by Officer Friendly

[GunnyFreedom]

What do you envision in 30-50 years? Mind you, by "envision" I don't mean what you would like to see, but what you think is likely to actually happen.

I haven't been ignoring this question, I have been thinking. I'm not sure you really can answer this question. There are too many enormous changes just on the horizon, either for good or bad, and which ones happen depends on only slight variances in direction. Too many factors -- and really big factors all -- to crapshoot such a thing with any kind of accuracy.

Assuming for the sake of argument that we are not in or going in to the Kingdom on Earth by that time, technological capability will continue to grow exponentially and stuff will be commonplace that even today's best scientists would call 'magic.' Something akin to the "tech singularity" is coming, and whether it levels off due to sheer comms bandwidth or does something else we will continue to see mind-boggling progress.

I am 41. When I was young public phones were rotary. Kids today won't know what it's like to be tethered by a cable at all. A broader "datasphere" will emerge from what will become of the Internet and cell traffic and vpn (cellphone/skyping across VPNs over internet with celltower gateways and such.) <<-- is already emerging. Handhelds with "data only" and apps for voice and video that will call any telephone in the world.

There will become a broader "datasphere" of which the internet will be only a part. The widespread adoption of IPv6 will create a physical layer upon which this will map. A smart service provider will put cell-to-voip gateways in 10 major cities and partner with other Internet to POTS providers to provide ubiquitous coverage. "cellphones" as we know it will go extinct, and you will carry a 'port' to the 'datasphere' of which voice communications will only be a part. What we have now LOOKS like that, but it is not that yet.

Communications will move "at the speed of thought" and popular attention spans will continue to drop proportionately, but information will be an order of magnitude more free and available than it already is. Instead of getting frustrated at a lack of good search results from a search engine, you program your own AI to search the Internet, and provide guidance and search refinements while it works in the background.

The world will be separated into the data world and the analog world. Nations will matter less. First world third world may be referred to in the colloquial or jokes, but the real divide will be connected vs not.

Politically, well. There is too much big stuff that could happen between now and then to even hazard a guess. The obvious one is China will continue to grow in influence until their own attempt at Keynesianism finally collapses, also. Will that be before or after they have the biggest defense budget on the planet? No idea.

Unless more people wake up (highly unlikely) and reject the status quo, then America's star will fade. Which ultimately may be good for liberty folks for America to become "irrelevant." Because that, at least, will force a change.

Wearable computers will proliferate. Whomever invents a real tactile hologram is going to be the next Bill Gates.

[r3volution 3.0]

So, what's the path? If there isn't one, stay in the Senate. Don't waste months of supporters' time and millions of their dollars, with no path to the nomination.

Here's the (tentative) schedule through the end of February...

Jan 18 - IA

Jan 26 - NH

Feb 2 - CO, MN, MO, UT

Feb 6 - NV

Feb 13 - SC

Feb 16 - NC

Feb 23 - AZ, MI

The underlined states are one's where I think Rand has an excellent shot - based on recent polling as well as Ron's performance in 2012.

Let's run with that for a moment and suppose Rand wins those four states: IA, NH, MN, and NV.

Who wins the other states?

MO, CO, and SC will likely go to The Santorum. Not sure how UT goes sans Mormon (been 14 years since the last Mormon-free GOP primary). That means The Romney could very well be shut out of the first 8 states. The Romney's first good chance at winning is NC, followed by AZ and MI - but since The Romney's platform is always 95% electability, and he just lost 8 straight contests, maybe not. This is Rand's chance. Make it a two man race with The Santorum, so that The Romney's fair-weather fans get disillusioned and go to their second choice: which will be Rand, both because of his more moderate social stance and because he'll be perceived as more electable.

If that happened, The Santorum would sweep the deep South, and Rand would pretty well mop up everything else.

--> pop the champagne

[Matt Collins]

Here's the (tentative) schedule through the end of February...

Jan 18 - IA

Jan 26 - NH

Feb 2 - CO, MN, MO, UT

Feb 6 - NV

Feb 13 - SC

Feb 16 - NC

Feb 23 - AZ, MI

The underlined states are one's where I think Rand has an excellent shot - based on recent polling as well as Ron's performance in 2012.

Let's run with that for a moment and suppose Rand wins those four states: IA, NH, MN, and NV.

Who wins the other states?

I think Rand can win Michigan and Colorado, and maybe Missouri / LA too.


But the establishment candidate will likely be Jeb this time around. Huck and Santorum will cancel each other out hopefully.

[r3volution 3.0]

I think Rand can win Michigan and Colorado, and maybe Missouri / LA too.

What makes you think that?

But the establishment candidate will likely be Jeb this time around.

I think so too.

Huck and Santorum will cancel each other out hopefully.

In Iowa at least!

Eventually the socons/teocons will probably unite around somebody though.

[cindy25]

IA and NH could both Graham supporters in the senate-Kelly Ayotte and Joni Earnest are both super hawks. if they can win why couldn't Graham? he should be taken seriously

[lx43]

My efforts within the College Republicans to undermine Graham have not been very successful. I was informed that Ravenel is bad because they say he is a crackhead, and that supposedly he's worse than the Democrat even.

Lindsey Graham makes me ashamed of living in South Carolina.

Amen

[erowe1]

I hope he runs.

[erowe1]

I think I know what he is up to here....


If he runs hard then drops out after losing IA/NH but just before the SC primary, he can give all of his weight to Jeb thus helping Jeb win SC and blocking Rand from taking it. That's my guess.

I don't see how he would accomplish any more by doing that than he would just by not running for POTUS and endorsing Bush.