@Antilogic- You'd be surprised how many Republicans support gun control...
It's not necessarily the rank-and-file Republicans people running need to be worried about. It's the highly-motivated base voters who are going to be controlling the caucuses and most likely to turn out for the primaries.
And so, a pro-gun control (or a generic-moderate) Republican, especially one without an infrastructure from a prior presidential election like Romney had, is going to take a harsh beating in the early primaries and might not have the endurance Romney showed throughout the primary process.
I know its not exactly the same thing, but I KNOW they would have sabotaged Ron Paul. Obama is closer to what they want than Ron Paul was. Rand is more moderate, and I admit he could go with the libertarians or the establishment at this point, time is going to tell. But if he sticks to his guns, I can't imagine the GOP establishment letting him win. Then again, I'm REALLY cynical, and I think "Endless War" is really the only reason the establishment guys have to be GOP anyway.
Just curious, what's your personal take on Rand? I can tell you lean liberal but I'm not really sure how much, and you might appreciate some of the stuff Rand is saying on civil liberties.
How much of a chance do you think Rand would actually have in the general?
I object to the use of the term liberal, if only because it is such a watered down and vague pejorative nowadays. I'm mostly unimpressed with Rand Paul, I'll put more detail in a PM on both of these if interested.
As far as his chances, he is solidly placed in the primaries right now, but he has an uphill fight in the general election. So far, he hasn't come off as better on womens' issues than the average Republican (unless he is making some secret speeches or evolving on issues that I don't know about). His minority outreach attempts (we discussed a few of them in prior threads) fell flat. So he's not able to address the huge demographic problem in Republican electoral math nor is he able to swing a state (KY has been solid-red in the last four elections, and the Democrats don't particularly need it).
Despite this, I'll stand by what I said earlier about the outreach--you gotta suck at something before you become good at it. If Rand Paul learns from his prior speeches, and if major issues in 2016 are conducive to a more libertarian-type Republican, then he might not do as bad as we think he will do right now.
On the candidates and particularly the judicial appointments: I'd argue that anyone affiliated with the modern Republican Party (even if Ron Paul somehow secured the nomination) would have preferred one of his nominees to Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Guys like Earl Warren are far and few between, and given the post-80s vetting process for justices it's unlikely another will emerge by accident. I'm certain the kind of justices a hypothetical President Bernie Sanders would nominate would rankle some mainstream Democrats, but they'd rather have his candidates than the right-wing alternative.
Yeah, I agree with a lot of that. Nobody can really be "winning" right now, and polls really mean very little (especially since name recognition is so low for most of these candidates outside of hardcore politicos like us). When you're evaluating people, you want to see if they have a core constituency (either policy or geographic), whether they can raise money, and if they have a "pitch" or a "hook'. You're right that immigration has tarnished the shine from arch-conservatives for guys like Rubio, or even Rand Paul. A name that's popped up today? Ted Cruz, who appears to actually want to run.
I'd bet most Americans don't know who is potentially running in their district or for Senate in 2014, much less any sort of focus on 2016. The Massachusetts primaries yesterday had really low turnout, and I don't think its been much better in South Carolina or Illinois for their special primaries and elections.
I don't know if Teddie Cruz was a formal name on a ballot, a write-in, or just got a lot of fanboys through the door, what. He might end up being an activist/spoiler-type candidate. Or he's just cultivating the media spotlight, and presidential hints are a good way to do that. I can't read his intentions at all.
I don't think a "moderate" gets nominated, especially since the last two losing candidates had that label in the GOP land. I think you're going to be looking for somebody who has a more bonafide record of strong conservationism, with either a unique demographic or geographical streak. It'd be surprised if it's a white southerner or a white man from the north east.
I don't think Rand Paul's prospects are a total joke. I can certainly see him winning at least one state, unless the newspapers start plastering him with Lew Rockwell or something.
I have to agree that the next Republican nominee is going to be very solidly conservative (by the base and party activist definition of the term). I wouldn't be surprised if whoever it is turns out to be someone not really on anyone's radar as a likely candidate now.
Yeah, my thinking is along these lines as well; we will hear a lot of talk about the Real Conservative Candidate for 2016, especially if there is not a rising star after 2014*. As for who it is, there is a lot of jockeying for position right now to appear both electable as well as right-wing, to kill the pro-Romney argument from the 2012 primaries.
*It's not like the Republicans usually go for the rising star any way, but it's a possibility.
No, I know that Rand and Cruz aren't the same person. In fact, I support Rand Paul but would vote LP if Cruz was the nominee. The 7 or so percent they differ on is pretty darn important to me. That said, Rand and Cruz mostly have the same base. For them both to run likely guarantees that neither of them will win.
Depends on how the field clears up after the first couple primaries. If their base support is so similar and, say, after Iowa one drops out and endorses the other, it's not a big deal.
If they both stick in for the long-haul, then the split will fatally wound both of them.
