Skip to main content

View Diary: Think Hillary Would Crush Rand? Think Again. (114 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Rand Paul does not appeal to Bush voters (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    allie4fairness, unfangus, VClib, blackhand

    Rand Paul is running as a populist who is anti-war & anti-Wall St.

    His greatest concern to any democrat who is running is his pro-marijuana and anti-war stance (Hillary lost to Obama b/c she voted to authorize war).  His libertarian bend often appeals to naive young voters.

    Rand Paul recently remarked, "A Chamber of Commerce republican cannot win the presidency."

    After getting caught spewing racist remarks on Rachel Maddow his first month in office, he has tried to soften his tone.  For example, he has remarked that voter suppression tactics by republican pols are scaring people.

    Rand Paul would be a formidable opponent to Hillary (more so than Elizabeth Warren) because he could syphon off young voters from Hillary.  But he needs to win his party's nomination by winning against the Chamber of Commerce crowd he rails against.

    Jeb Bush has all the opposite problems - he is the Chamber of Commerce candidate who has to get past the social conservatives who are tired of being courted during the primaries, while being shafted by the nominee who has to run as a centrist.  Also, Jeb Bush has a problem with his Spanish-speaking immigrant wife and his pro-immigration stance.  And his last name is akin to presidential failure.

    Ted Cruz is a blend of the two and likely the smartest.  However, he has pissed-off too many members of his own party with his filibusters and support by and for Sarah Palin.  And his Canadian birth certificate will not endear him to the Birthers who were troubled by the myth of Barack Obama's heritage.  Polling has continually shown that his negatives are greater than his positives…..amongst republican voters. Nevertheless, he also has the highest positive with likely primary voters.  He's an enigma and the most dangerous.

    With all of her known flaws, Hillary has net positive polling.  Her book tour will likely provide her with insight as to whether she can smooth out the negatives and win both a primary and general election.

    Elizabeth Warren certainly appeals to progressives, but she would likely have to beat the very formidable Hillary that many democrats have determined to be inevitable.  Elizabeth Warren would certainly be a worthy VP for Hillary that can smooth out the problems Hillary might have with progressives.

    Democrats will nominate Hillary if she runs (with many holding their nose as they vote for her).  Her choice for VP will include the calculus of who hew GOP opponent will be.

    Republicans are a toss-up.  No one candidate has an easy path, and each can get bloodied during the shortened primary season that favors the 'establishment' candidate (Jeb Bush).  However, Ted Cruz is the smartest who appeals to the social conservatives.  Rand Paul would be the candidate most likely to appeal to anti-Hillary democrats.

    •  young people (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      care about the environment. i also suggest you check head-to-head polls.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Tue Jun 10, 2014 at 02:11:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree that young people care (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        about the environment and the climate change denial by republicans may be what keeps many (young) voters leaning to democrats.

        Climate change denial is a very net negative for republicans.  I definitely missed the issue in my overview.  Thank you.

        And while I also agree that head-to-head polling is not good for republicans (Hillary trounces each of them), this is merely an early indicator that rarely captures the theoretical independent voter who is willing to vote for either political party or it overstates independents.  After all, Chris Christie still polls the best against Hillary, but his embrace of President Obama post-Sandy, appointing a Muslim to NJ bench, and the impending indictments are, in my opinion, not being captured in current polling of likely republican primary voters.

        Let's also remember polling at this point prior to the elections in 2008 had Hillary trouncing Obama.  

    •  I take exception to this statement, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jon Says
      After getting caught spewing racist remarks on Rachel Maddow his first month in office, he has tried to soften his tone.
      I saw this episode, he did not "spew" anything, when asked about the civil rights act and whether he would have voted for it he said he had no trouble with all of it except the part about private businesses.  I realize I may be splitting hairs but what he said was not racist as much as potentially ill informed or unprepared.  

      Other things he has said may be racist, do not think I am actually defending him or his viewpoint regarding the civil rights act, but he did not say anything I consider to be racist that night on Rachel.

      "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy" James Madison 4th US President

      by padeius on Tue Jun 10, 2014 at 07:25:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're right, he did not spew racist remarks, (0+ / 0-)

        You're correct, Rand Paul did not spew multiple racist remarks on the Rachell Maddow Show, but he lives racism chapter and verse.

        The apple does not fall far from the tree, as they say, and Rand Paul has shown an utter disregard for both the racism his father and political party have enabled and continue to foment.

        To that same end, his (as you say) ill informed remark that he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act is proof positive of his utter disregard for plight of minorities.  Nothing in his remarks since shows that he has learned anything.

        This quote from Martin Luther King says it all for me:

        "History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."

        These words ring true today.  Those who stand silent, like a person who remains ill informed after a very public backlash, against the dog-whistle and euphemisms from things like the Willie Horton commercial from Ronald Reagan to the Bitherism of today are proof positive of the racism that is at the core of republicans party, tea party, and libertarian thinking.

        The recent tragedy in Las Vegas punctuates the notion that libertarians, those who seemingly honor the Gadsden flag over the Stars and Stripes, are the very base of Rand Paul.  The silence against those who use the swasticka shows a disregard for religious minorities; the Confederate Flag is just as appalling to others.

        At his core, and at the core of the republican party, Rand Paul is a racist who has repeatedly spoken ill informed remarks.  His brand of libertarianism would further enable an erosion of minority rights at the expense of granting states rights.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site