Is This the Last Chance at the White House for the Paul Family?

[IanCioffi]

One of the weaknesses to the Clinton campaign & the soon-to-be Bush campaign, is that people are sick of seeing their last names on the ballot. They see it as a family monarch trying to control the Republic. People go as far as to say they’ll leave the U.S. if the 2016 Presidential race ends up being Clinton vs Bush.

While this is Rand Paul’s first run at the White House, it’s the fourth time a member of the Paul family is taking a crack at it. Three of those coming from Ron Paul (’88, ’08 & ’12).

Rand Paul doesn’t enjoy as much support from Libertarians as his father did, but does enjoy more support from traditional Republicans than his father did. If Rand doesn’t win this go around, and tries again in 2020, will it be harder for him to grow upon his numbers in 2016 due to the fact that people might just be tired of the Pauls like they are the Bush & Clinton families?

Two scenarios that could play out that might determine this: (click here to read more)

[William Tell]

No, Rand could run again if he doesn't win this time. McCain, Hillary, Romney and everyone else does it. The MSM doesn't get to change it on the Paul's.

[Paulistinian]

If (God forbid) we don't make it to the nomination this time I am sure Rand has one more run in him for 2020.

[CaptUSA]

If, by some chance, Rand doesn't get the nomination, Hillary will be President.

After that, America will be clamoring for an eye doctor with a clear 2020 vision.


(see what I did there?)

[dannno]

People are tired of the Bush/Clinton dynasty because they actually were Presidents and used their office for self-gain and war mongering.

I don't see how that has any connection whatsoever to somebody running for President on an anti-war, anti-corruption platform.

[Peace&Freedom]

Yes, if Rand doesn't win the nomination, Hillary is the next President, because none of the other Republicans can overcome their over the top war hawk commitment (especially, to the Iraq war) among other weaknesses.

The only upside to that would be the 2018 midterm elections, which as many commentators have hinted could be a year of devastating losses to liberals, when the public votes them out en masse in reaction to the horrors of the Hillary adminstration.

[maryliberty]

If, by some chance, Rand doesn't get the nomination, Hillary will be President.

After that, America will be clamoring for an eye doctor with a clear 2020 vision.


(see what I did there?)

Brilliant!

I think this will be the case if he doesn't win the 2016 nomination. And keep in mind every time Ron Paul ran his base grew even more.

[Vanguard101]

Yes. Rand will retire after his second term. Not to mention the more he stays in Washington, the less pure and more sacrifices he will have to make in order to be president.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

The Pauls are nowhere near as well-known as the Bushes or Clintons. They haven't been in the public eye constantly for 25+ years. I don't see how the Americans could be weary of them already.

[Legend1104]

If any other republican wins that is running now then it probably will be. The biggest gain for liberty has been that a Dem. has been in office that did the same things as the previous republican president so it allowed republicans to be opposed to many of these issues. If one of these republicans is in office then the average republican voter will fall in line and be told that any criticism of the republican administration is evil on any issue no matter what the issue is or how bad the action. Rand Paul will have to oppose a sitting republican president and it will be very hard to do that and stay popular. Plus the next time a liberty candidate can run for president is not until 2024 in the republican party. If Rand doesn't win and another republican does it will be the last chance for any liberty candidate for years.