Yes, the NSA, drones, and the Drug War are uber-popular, and if I'm the Republican nominee, that's all I talk about. Oh right, I remember, you're a terrible horrible person. Yes, I'm obsessed with the government not killing people because they're Muslims and not eviscerating families, most of whom just by random chance happen to have a different skin color than mine. Funny, I'll take that.
Yep, you alone in the world are concerned about war and drones. You Libertarians have the monopoly on caring about other human beings! Hence why you would subject us all to a horrible president like Rand Paul. No wonder 95 percent of the population considers Libertarians to be insufferable attention whores.
Sure, because you're a Libertarian nutjob and you've convinced yourself that everyone who doesn't support one of your horrible candidates must automatically be in favor of war, drones and prison sentences for non-violent offenders.
So, I mention two people who meet the above criteria, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, both of whom serve(d) in an Administration in extremely important positions which unarguably holds the above positions, and that of course means I extend it to the almost 200+ million Americans who aren't Libertarians. Sure, keep going.
The problem is that in the real world, we have a choice between two major-party nominees. And unbelievably, the "pro-war, pro-drone, pro-war-on-drugs" candidates (provided that doesn't apply to the GOP candidates as well) are still superior to guys like Rand Paul. That's okay though, continue to embrace the fantasy-world-candidate that you think enables you to lob condescending grenades at those of us who live on planet reality. Libertarian message-board gnats at least make life a little more entertaining, so it's fine.
That word "if" is doing a literally unbelievable amount of work in that sentence. Cuz someone who can plausibly attack Hillary on those 3 issues ain't getting the nomination.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/rand-paul-jimmy-carter-was-better-budget-ronald-reagan Personally, I believe that this reduces Paul's chance at the 2016 nomination from "slim and none" to just none. I can't imagine the current Republican primary electorate choosing Paul after his opponents carpet bomb those voters with TV ads highlighted this. But I've been wrong before.
If he figures out a way to appeal to younger voters for whom the name "Reagan" means nothing in order to make up for the older voters for whom the name "Reagan" means "savior sent from heaven," this can actually help him. I don't know if it's part of a communications strategy or not, I'm just speculating.
We're talking about Republican primary voters. If he figures out how to shit gold doubloons and hand them out at campaign rallies (after proper cleaning, of course), that'll help him too. That's not a strategy, that's a fantasy.
Please make it so! http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ney-may-consider-2016-run-if-jeb-bush-doesnt/ On related news, we might also have a re-run for VP! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...erboarding_n_5222665.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
Kerry was an inept and feeble nominee yet he still came within a whisker of defeating an incumbent president during wartime in a decent/good economy. Remember the "boring" Gore received 500k+ More popular votes then GWB. The democratic floor/base is much larger then the republican base.
True, the democrats have it so good that they like giving the Republicans a chance by nominating people like Kerry. It is that big liberal heart.
Marco Rubio - man of principle http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/marco-rubio-s-pot-hole-213151018.html
Kerry was the most electable candidate that year that the dems had. Edwards and Dean were not credible and were complete jokes. If Kerry had balls and defended himself against the swift boat attacks and the flip flopping ads then he would've won. All things happen for a reason though. Anybody In office would've lost in 08 when the economy collapsed.
Mitt = Kingmaker http://news.yahoo.com/romney-tries-emerge-force-gop-politics-071422367--election.html
Chris Christie is the front runner until said otherwise. Jeb would've been the clear cut favorite and easily the front runner if his last name wasn't Bush . In the end I don't see him running and I see him throwing his support to Christie I see the establishment (Romney, Jeb, Rove, GOP big money donors) rallying around Christie. I see the hard right putting up several Nominees but splitting the vote in the primaries letting Christie win many states with only 1/3 of the vote. Cruz won't run so Rand will be the most famous "conservative alternative" to Christie probably win many conservative Podunk sates (Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi,Kentucky) as well as beat him in important republican primaries like SC. I see Christie carrying the day by winning the "blue states" having a clear money advantage ,doing well on Super Tuesday and being the clear front runner so that most republicans vote for him because he is the most "electable" nominee . The tea party/right will be angry because for the 3rd straight cycle a "moderate" won but then In June they will rally around him because they want to be back in the White House and they hate Hillary. No need to vote or predict that will exactly happen. I have been right in the last Four GOP nomination fights republicans are so predictable.