Polls in Kentucky Show GOP Blew 2016 Chances by Not Choosing Rand

[CaseyJones]

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/po...choosing-rand/

As reported this weekend on The Libertarian Republic, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has a massive lead in his reelection race against Lexington Democrat Jim Gray, and he is likely to remain in the Senate as its strongest proponent of liberty. But a more careful analysis of the numbers, after examining a breakdown of his voter base at Red State, shows that the Republican Party missed a major opportunity to take back the White House by failing to nominate Paul the Younger.

What Red State discovered in its look at Paul’s Kentucky voters is that 52% said they belonged to the Democratic party, compared to only 39% saying they belonged to the Republicans. That is staggering bipartisan appeal.

RunSwitch PR reports that Paul not only has great support among Kentucky Democrats, but he also has a fantastic draw from independents and higher favorables among the state’s Republicans than does Donald Trump.

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.

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.

[TER]

Yep, we knew that all along. unfortunatley, so did the oligarchs.

[loveshiscountry]

Hasn't Kentucky been that way for awhile. Local is Dem, Federal is Repub?

[r3volution 3.0]

We'll give 'em another chance.

[misterx]

Why not? We blew our chances in 08 and 12 by not choosing Ron.

[Schifference]

Rand can Restore your 20/20 Vision!

[Mr.NoSmile]

From The Libertarian Republic. You think they'd post something stating the contrary?

[SilentBull]

It's the libertarians that blew it by abandoning him for not being pure enough. They were too stupid to realize that what he was doing was necessary to finally make liberty mainstream.

[milgram]

You'd have to poll Rand in other states before drawing too many conclusions. Most incumbent Senators do get bipartisan support.

[RonPaulMall]

Kentucky is a white, Southern state that is unique in that it still has a huge Democratic voter registration advantage. Rand is not some outlier. Every Republican candidate running for national office gets huge numbers of "Democratic" votes every election. If they didn't, Kentucky wouldn't be so solidly red. Nothing in the article supports the premise that the GOP "blew it"? The only evidence they cite is that Rand polls 1 percentage point higher than Trump among Kentucky Republicans. 75% instead of 76%. The horror! The GOP must be pulling their hair out at the prospect of winning Kentucky by a marginally smaller landslide than they otherwise would. Because that will make such a huge difference in the grand scheme of things.

[WTLaw]

The initial statement that the GOP blew it by not nominating Rand is correct, even though the means of proving it, with Kentucky polls, is not very persuasive.

Rand would be beating Hillary right now because he is honest, with a superior temperament for politics. His policies also would be an interesting case study in a national election, as he would be running to the left of Hillary on foreign policy and several issues, all the while representing a credible economic policy that would have a hope of reducing the debt. He would also be well suited to attacking the flatlining obamacare policy, creating a front that Trump can't even begin to navigate (and one that Hillary, given her history on the issue, probably wants to stay a million miles away from).

[juleswin]

After Nov, we would all realize that voting for anyone else would have given republicans/lite conservatives a better chance of winning the WH. Nobody would have been worse than Trump.

[CaseyJones]

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/pa...lican-nominee/

Alternate Reality 2016: What if Rand Paul Were the Republican Nominee?

It’s eleven weeks until Election Day 2016 as the two major-party nominees attempt to court voters. On the Democratic side is Hillary Clinton and her running mate Julian Castro. While her nomination was fairly predictable, far more interesting is her opponent: Republican Rand Paul. He runs with vice presidential nominee Susana Martinez.

The race is fairly tight, though Paul holds a slight edge in most polls. Popular site FiveThirtyEight projects that Paul holds a 63% chance of victory if the campaign ended today. To understand where the election might wind up, it’s important to note how it got here.

For the Democrats, Clinton faced only nominal opposition from candidates like Martin O’Malley, Lincoln Chafee, and Jim Webb. She swept all of the early states before chasing the others out of the race. Notably absent from the campaign was a more progressive voice, as potential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren decided not to run.