4 ms·

I've been waiting years to see someone like him running for presidency, but I lack experience in Politics to determine if he could have a shot.

by dataker 11y ago

jodah 11y ago
He has a shot, and it's great to see him taking this stand, but he's a flawed person/candidate in many other ways.
meepmorp 11y ago
He's got a shot in the way anyone who declares a candidacy and meets the legal requirements has a shot. If you're talking about odds of getting the nomination (let alone winning the general), then he's got basicly zero chance.
- x5n1 11y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Tv5CT7r3Txo#t=352 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Tv...
- MCRed 11y ago
  Over a year out, he only trails Clinton by a few points: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_clinton-3825.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/ge... Consider that Clinton has been on the national stage for 30+ years, while Rand has only been on it for months. That's way more than just "a shot", that's damn good.
  - dublinben 11y ago
    It doesn't matter how he polls against Clinton, if he has no chance of winning the Republican nomination. Gingrich, Santorum, and RuPaul were similarly "a few points" behind Obama in 2012, and they had just as little chance of ever becoming president.
  - sukilot 11y ago
    In any head-to-head poll, any Republican will poll within a few points of any Democrat.
dopeboy 11y ago
He doesn't have a shot. But he deserves a tremendous amount of praise for making it one of his hallmark issues. He'll raise the visibility of it and force his competitors to comment. Maybe, just maybe, one of his competitors will listen and be forced to adjust.
a3n 11y ago
People don't always seek their party's nomination because they think they can win. Paul, I think, is too far away from mainstream thought and run of the mill corruption to be able to raise the money to win his party's nomination. Think of all the people running for the Republican slot, this time and last time. Most of them know they have no chance. They might just want to influence the debate, and move whoever wins closer to a position that they want. Or they may be looking for book deals and talk show employment. Or it might just be a way to enjoy good food for 18 months. Or maybe they just have a huge ego and like to stand in front of cheering people.
- MCRed 11y ago
  Here's something you didn't mention in your excellent list of motivations: Money When you're a politician you raise campaign chests, and when you retire, you get to keep those contributions. So, running for president puts you on the national stage, allows you to raise a lot more money. For someone like Ron Paul this was a win-win. He secured a nice retirement while getting out there and invigorating a grassroots Libertarian movement and also getting his message-- which I think nobody can dispute he's genuinely passionate about-- out there. For someone like Rick Santorum, though, it's either to help secure his seat against his next challenger, or just greed...
afarrell 11y ago
He represents a certain ideological constituency which will sustain his campaign as a means of getting their ideas heard. If the US were a parliamentary system, then he and his ideological fellows could form a party that would have a decent shot at getting enough votes to form a coalition-of-legislators with another larger party. The US is however not a parliamentary system so coalition-building happens at the voter level rather than the legislator level. Many libertarians are forming a coalition-of-voters with the Republican party and by supporting Rand Paul are hoping to shift the Republican party libertarian-ward. He does not however currently represent a large enough ideological constituency that he would be able to form a coalition-of-voters large enough to actually be elected president. > I've been waiting for years... I'm curious what you thought of Ron Paul's candidacy.
- MCRed 11y ago
  afarrell-- in the early days of the 1992 campaign I felt exactly the way you do, about Bill Clinton. I was a Paul Tsongas supporter then. We all know how that turned out. After losing twice in a row, the Republicans know they have to change. It's still early and the old style christian-conservative out-dated positions on foreign policy, "law and order" etc people are still around, but it's clear they are on the out. The question is, how fast will the republican party change? And a lot of that kind of change happens during these big elections. So, early broad support for Rand Paul is exactly what could prompt the shift. After all, when a party can count on a constituency (And at this point where are christian conservatives going to go?) they can take them for granted and seek out the constituency that is at risk. That should be the Gay constituency for democrats who have taken them for granted and abused them for decades. (I'm not heterosexual, so that includes me, and that's why I haven't voted for a democrat for 20+ years.)
  - joshuapants 11y ago
    > After losing twice in a row, the Republicans know they have to change. Are you sure? Incumbents rarely lose, and it was a very close election. Couple that with the wave the Republicans had in the midterm elections (especially in a few states that typically go blue), I could see the Republican party just thinking it's their turn now. If anything the Republicans would want to avoid a split caused by alienating their base. I should note that I am not a Christian conservative, just doing some backseat political analysis.
hackuser 11y ago
His biggest challenge is the primaries, where turnout is low and dominated by ideologically extreme party members (in theory, the more ideological you are, the more motivated you are to vote). For example, I read several years ago that the Tea Partiers accounted for half of GOP primary votes, even though they are a small portion of the electorate. His competitors are towing the extremist line, for example competing with each other over who can be most hawkish; he's not and it may cost him. Also, Fox News (and the Wall St Journal) have enormous influence among those voters and the desire and track record of nakely using it to promote their favorites; it's difficult to win without being on their good side. I'm not sure of Paul's status with Fox, but his positions don't seem like a good match. Opposing or equivocating on gay marriage, no matter what the rationale, and some of his other more conservative ideas, will be a tough sell in the general election.

I've been waiting years to see someone like him running for presidency, but I lack experience in Politics to determine if he could have a shot.

by dataker 11y ago

I've been waiting years to see someone like him running for presidency, but I lack experience in Politics to determine if he could have a shot.

jodah 11y ago

He has a shot, and it's great to see him taking this stand, but he's a flawed person/candidate in many other ways.

meepmorp 11y ago

He's got a shot in the way anyone who declares a candidacy and meets the legal requirements has a shot. If you're talking about odds of getting the nomination (let alone winning the general), then he's got basicly zero chance.

x5n1 11y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Tv5CT7r3Txo#t=352 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Tv...
MCRed 11y ago
Over a year out, he only trails Clinton by a few points: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_clinton-3825.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/ge... Consider that Clinton has been on the national stage for 30+ years, while Rand has only been on it for months. That's way more than just "a shot", that's damn good.
- dublinben 11y ago
  It doesn't matter how he polls against Clinton, if he has no chance of winning the Republican nomination. Gingrich, Santorum, and RuPaul were similarly "a few points" behind Obama in 2012, and they had just as little chance of ever becoming president.
- sukilot 11y ago
  In any head-to-head poll, any Republican will poll within a few points of any Democrat.

dopeboy 11y ago

He doesn't have a shot. But he deserves a tremendous amount of praise for making it one of his hallmark issues. He'll raise the visibility of it and force his competitors to comment. Maybe, just maybe, one of his competitors will listen and be forced to adjust.

a3n 11y ago

People don't always seek their party's nomination because they think they can win. Paul, I think, is too far away from mainstream thought and run of the mill corruption to be able to raise the money to win his party's nomination. Think of all the people running for the Republican slot, this time and last time. Most of them know they have no chance. They might just want to influence the debate, and move whoever wins closer to a position that they want. Or they may be looking for book deals and talk show employment. Or it might just be a way to enjoy good food for 18 months. Or maybe they just have a huge ego and like to stand in front of cheering people.

MCRed 11y ago
Here's something you didn't mention in your excellent list of motivations: Money When you're a politician you raise campaign chests, and when you retire, you get to keep those contributions. So, running for president puts you on the national stage, allows you to raise a lot more money. For someone like Ron Paul this was a win-win. He secured a nice retirement while getting out there and invigorating a grassroots Libertarian movement and also getting his message-- which I think nobody can dispute he's genuinely passionate about-- out there. For someone like Rick Santorum, though, it's either to help secure his seat against his next challenger, or just greed...

afarrell 11y ago

He represents a certain ideological constituency which will sustain his campaign as a means of getting their ideas heard. If the US were a parliamentary system, then he and his ideological fellows could form a party that would have a decent shot at getting enough votes to form a coalition-of-legislators with another larger party. The US is however not a parliamentary system so coalition-building happens at the voter level rather than the legislator level. Many libertarians are forming a coalition-of-voters with the Republican party and by supporting Rand Paul are hoping to shift the Republican party libertarian-ward. He does not however currently represent a large enough ideological constituency that he would be able to form a coalition-of-voters large enough to actually be elected president. > I've been waiting for years... I'm curious what you thought of Ron Paul's candidacy.

MCRed 11y ago
afarrell-- in the early days of the 1992 campaign I felt exactly the way you do, about Bill Clinton. I was a Paul Tsongas supporter then. We all know how that turned out. After losing twice in a row, the Republicans know they have to change. It's still early and the old style christian-conservative out-dated positions on foreign policy, "law and order" etc people are still around, but it's clear they are on the out. The question is, how fast will the republican party change? And a lot of that kind of change happens during these big elections. So, early broad support for Rand Paul is exactly what could prompt the shift. After all, when a party can count on a constituency (And at this point where are christian conservatives going to go?) they can take them for granted and seek out the constituency that is at risk. That should be the Gay constituency for democrats who have taken them for granted and abused them for decades. (I'm not heterosexual, so that includes me, and that's why I haven't voted for a democrat for 20+ years.)
- joshuapants 11y ago
  > After losing twice in a row, the Republicans know they have to change. Are you sure? Incumbents rarely lose, and it was a very close election. Couple that with the wave the Republicans had in the midterm elections (especially in a few states that typically go blue), I could see the Republican party just thinking it's their turn now. If anything the Republicans would want to avoid a split caused by alienating their base. I should note that I am not a Christian conservative, just doing some backseat political analysis.

hackuser 11y ago

His biggest challenge is the primaries, where turnout is low and dominated by ideologically extreme party members (in theory, the more ideological you are, the more motivated you are to vote). For example, I read several years ago that the Tea Partiers accounted for half of GOP primary votes, even though they are a small portion of the electorate. His competitors are towing the extremist line, for example competing with each other over who can be most hawkish; he's not and it may cost him. Also, Fox News (and the Wall St Journal) have enormous influence among those voters and the desire and track record of nakely using it to promote their favorites; it's difficult to win without being on their good side. I'm not sure of Paul's status with Fox, but his positions don't seem like a good match. Opposing or equivocating on gay marriage, no matter what the rationale, and some of his other more conservative ideas, will be a tough sell in the general election.