- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Rand Paul's way-too-early path to the GOP nomination.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 9:15 am
Posted on 6/3/14 at 9:15 am
It's really way to early predict the outcome of the 2016 GOP primary but, for the fun of it, at this point in time this is how I see Rand Paul's path to the GOP nomination.
First the candidates. I'm going to divide them by establishment and tea party. Rand needs both for different reasons.
Establishment candidates:
Jeb Bush
Chris Christie
Marco Rubio
John Huntsman
Peter King
Rick Santorum
Rick Perry
Tea Party candidates:
Rand Paul
Ted Cruz
Scott Walker
Susanna Martinez
Bobby Jindal
Some would argue the Marco Rubio is a Tea Party candidate and that would be true pre senate amnesty vote. Now, post senate amnesty vote Rubio is clearly an establishment shill.
So here's my way-too-early prediction:
January:
Iowa: Paul
New Hampshire: Paul
February:
Colorado: Paul
Minnesota: Walker
Missouri: Santorum
Utah: Santorum
Nevada: Paul
South Carolina: Paul
North Carolina: Chistie
Arizona: Paul
Michigan: Walker
March:
Florida: Bush (not a strong showing Rubio making it competitive)
Massachusetts: Christie
Oklahoma: Paul
Tennessee: Santorum
Texas: Bush (not a strong showing Perry making it competitive)
Vermont: Paul
Virginia: Christie
Alabama: Santorum
Illinois: Walker
Louisiana: Santorum
The field gets narrowed down after March to the following;
Bush
Paul
Christie
Santorum
Walker
April:
Maryland: Bush
DC: Bush
Wisconsin: Walker
Bush has a huge April and the field is narrowed down to Bush Paul and Santorum.
May:
Indiana: Paul
Nebraska: Paul
West Virginia: Paul
Kentucky: Paul
Oregon: Paul
Arkansas: Santorum
May shifts momentum to Paul and Bush considers dropping out but sticks with it. Christie and Walker drop out. So the remaining candidates entering June are Bush, Paul and Santorum.
June:
California: Paul...boom that drive Bush out.
Montana: Paul
New Jersey: Bush
New Mexico: Paul
South Dakota: Paul
The rest is inconsequential after Paul wins California.
The point is Paul needs a crowed establishment field to divide up the large early states of Florida and Texas to stave off Bush. After Bush has a big April the media mantra will be, "are we really going to have another Bush/Clinton presidential election?". That sentiment will help Paul in May.
Anyway that's my way too early 2016 GOP primary prediction that's probably worth less than 2 cents.
First the candidates. I'm going to divide them by establishment and tea party. Rand needs both for different reasons.
Establishment candidates:
Jeb Bush
Chris Christie
Marco Rubio
John Huntsman
Peter King
Rick Santorum
Rick Perry
Tea Party candidates:
Rand Paul
Ted Cruz
Scott Walker
Susanna Martinez
Bobby Jindal
Some would argue the Marco Rubio is a Tea Party candidate and that would be true pre senate amnesty vote. Now, post senate amnesty vote Rubio is clearly an establishment shill.
So here's my way-too-early prediction:
January:
Iowa: Paul
New Hampshire: Paul
February:
Colorado: Paul
Minnesota: Walker
Missouri: Santorum
Utah: Santorum
Nevada: Paul
South Carolina: Paul
North Carolina: Chistie
Arizona: Paul
Michigan: Walker
March:
Florida: Bush (not a strong showing Rubio making it competitive)
Massachusetts: Christie
Oklahoma: Paul
Tennessee: Santorum
Texas: Bush (not a strong showing Perry making it competitive)
Vermont: Paul
Virginia: Christie
Alabama: Santorum
Illinois: Walker
Louisiana: Santorum
The field gets narrowed down after March to the following;
Bush
Paul
Christie
Santorum
Walker
April:
Maryland: Bush
DC: Bush
Wisconsin: Walker
Bush has a huge April and the field is narrowed down to Bush Paul and Santorum.
May:
Indiana: Paul
Nebraska: Paul
West Virginia: Paul
Kentucky: Paul
Oregon: Paul
Arkansas: Santorum
May shifts momentum to Paul and Bush considers dropping out but sticks with it. Christie and Walker drop out. So the remaining candidates entering June are Bush, Paul and Santorum.
June:
California: Paul...boom that drive Bush out.
Montana: Paul
New Jersey: Bush
New Mexico: Paul
South Dakota: Paul
The rest is inconsequential after Paul wins California.
The point is Paul needs a crowed establishment field to divide up the large early states of Florida and Texas to stave off Bush. After Bush has a big April the media mantra will be, "are we really going to have another Bush/Clinton presidential election?". That sentiment will help Paul in May.
Anyway that's my way too early 2016 GOP primary prediction that's probably worth less than 2 cents.
4
Posted on 6/3/14 at 9:19 am to GumboPot
Jon Huntsman isn't running.
Unfortunately.
Unfortunately.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 9:21 am to GetCocky11
Sorry, but that's good news to me.
Huntsman is a big government Republican.
Huntsman is a big government Republican.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 9:28 am to GumboPot
quote:
Sorry, but that's good news to me.
Huntsman is a big government Republican.
Go read about Jon Huntman's tenure as governor of Utah. He was fantastic. The guy had approval ratings as high as 90%.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 9:30 am to GumboPot
He won't win iowa. paul is against corn subsidies, although he is softening his positions. this will not work in iowa.
farmers love them some gov't money.
farmers love them some gov't money.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 9:32 am to GetCocky11
quote:
Go read about Jon Huntman's tenure as governor of Utah. He was fantastic. The guy had approval ratings as high as 90%.
I admit I haven't done my homework on Huntsman however he did not impress me the last GOP primary. I just didn't have a good first impression.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 9:37 am to GumboPot
quote:
I admit I haven't done my homework on Huntsman however he did not impress me the last GOP primary. I just didn't have a good first impression.
he is a moderate republican.
Honestly I could see huntsman winning against HRC. he is relatively moderate, at least compared to the current crop of the GOP. He is good looking, and articulate. He has both FP and executive experience.
on paper he is good fit for president. the thing is getting through the primary. he ran a general election campaign in the primaries.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 9:38 am to Hawkeye95
quote:
He won't win iowa. paul is against corn subsidies, although he is softening his positions. this will not work in iowa.
farmers love them some gov't money.
Hmmmm. I know farmers are the original welfare queens but I'm basing at Paul win in Iowa on the fact that he has the best ground organization there.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 9:42 am to Hawkeye95
quote:
he is a moderate republican.
Honestly I could see huntsman winning against HRC. he is relatively moderate, at least compared to the current crop of the GOP. He is good looking, and articulate. He has both FP and executive experience.
on paper he is good fit for president. the thing is getting through the primary. he ran a general election campaign in the primaries.
Pretty much. He could probably be one of the best foreign policy presidents in our lifetime.
In the primary, it will just be hard for him to get over the fact that he was an Ambassador in the Obama administration.
Hell, even people in the Obama campaign said they would have been really worried had Huntsman won the nomination in 2012.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 9:44 am to GumboPot
quote:
Hmmmm. I know farmers are the original welfare queens but I'm basing at Paul win in Iowa on the fact that he has the best ground organization there.
maybe, but I think 2012 was an aberration due to a weak field.
I don't live in iowa now, so I might be out of touch. But if there is a credible candidate on the right that is pro subsidy, he will lose. Of course, it is a caucus so strange things can happen.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 9:45 am to GetCocky11
quote:
Pretty much. He could probably be one of the best foreign policy presidents in our lifetime.
In the primary, it will just be hard for him to get over the fact that he was an Ambassador in the Obama administration.
Hell, even people in the Obama campaign said they would have been really worried had Huntsman won the nomination in 2012.
he should switch parties - claim the RNC left him;.
if HRC didn't run, he would make a reasonable candidate in the primaries, especially if he softened some positions
Posted on 6/3/14 at 9:46 am to Hawkeye95
quote:
Honestly I could see huntsman winning against HRC.
I don't see it.
Huntsman would follow in the footsteps of Ford, Dole, McCain, and Romney. He doesn't excite the base to get out the vote and I believe it is fools gold to believe Huntsman would attract crossover voters. I mean on crossover issues there is no clear delineation between Huntsman and HRC.
However in terms of crossover appeals I believe Paul can make a clear delineation between himself and HRC on 4th amendment issues. And because it is constitutional that crossover issue will not alienate the conservative base.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 9:52 am to GumboPot
quote:
I don't see it.
Huntsman would follow in the footsteps of Ford, Dole, McCain, and Romney. He doesn't excite the base to get out the vote and I believe it is fools gold to believe Huntsman would attract crossover voters. I mean on crossover issues there is no clear delineation between Huntsman and HRC.
However in terms of crossover appeals I believe Paul can make a clear delineation between himself and HRC on 4th amendment issues. And because it is constitutional that crossover issue will not alienate the conservative base.
I would agree that if Paul gets the nomination, its going to be an interesting race. the dynamics will change quite a bit. And I could see Paul winning against any democratic candidate. I just don't see him winning the nomination.
But I could see huntsman winning too. He is likeable, certainly more likeable than any of the other GOP candidates. He is also good looking (sad to say this matters), and has a breadth of experience to trump HRC. More so than any other GOP candidate except Bush (yack). I wouldn't worry, there is no fricking way in hell he wins the nomination.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 10:00 am to Hawkeye95
quote:
I wouldn't worry, there is no fricking way in hell he wins the nomination.
Pretty much.
I do tend to gravitate more towards candidates with gubernatorial experience as opposed to people who have only been in Congress (like Obama).
Posted on 6/3/14 at 10:18 am to Hawkeye95
quote:
He is also good looking (sad to say this matters)
No doubt.
Good looks started to be a major factor IMO with Kennedy. I wasn't alive, but I have seen the videos of the Nixon/Kennedy debates were there was a close up of Nixon's sweaty upper lip.
Some people cite that as the beginning of Nixon's fall against Kennedy albeit Kennedy was a good looking especially compared to Nixon. His good looks probably carried him to victory despite his inexperience. You can look at every presidential election since Kennedy/Nixon and in general the better looking candidate wins. When I say good looking, good looking also includes charisma.
Reagan had it in spades.
George Bush 1 didn't have it but compared to Dukakis...lol
Clinton had it.
GWB has more than stiff Al Gore and Lurch Kerry.
And of course Obama's had it over McCain and stiff Romney. (It's not that Romney isn't handsome, he's just not cool like Obama).
Posted on 6/3/14 at 10:28 am to GumboPot
I personally think Huntsman would be a great president. I also personally think he would have roughly a snowflake's chance in hell of beating Hillary or anyone else they ran because he will not excite the base.
I think Rand Paul could not only get the base out, I think he could realistically pull minority votes better than any GOP candidate of the past as well as the cross-over "hipster" vote.
If Paul gets the nod, he represents the best chance for the GOP to take the WH back.
I think Rand Paul could not only get the base out, I think he could realistically pull minority votes better than any GOP candidate of the past as well as the cross-over "hipster" vote.
If Paul gets the nod, he represents the best chance for the GOP to take the WH back.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 10:31 am to Hawkeye95
From what I know about Hunstman right now, I could vote for him.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 11:19 am to boosiebadazz
If Rand Paul wins Iowa, it will legitimize him and he will win the republican nomination.
It's laughable to even include Huntsman in any speculation. You are talking about a guy who thought it was a good idea to run to the left of Mitt Romney in a primary where voters were desperately searching for a conservative alternative. He ran a shitty campaign and is way to moderate to rally the base to vote for him in a general, much less win the Republican nomination.
As for Rand, he starts out with a floor of 15% if you go by what his dad did in 08 and 12 in Iowa. So for him, the more candidates in the better.
Some things he will have to explain and that will hurt are:
1) Does Rand want to legalize all drugs?
2.) Position on farm benifits
3.) Civil Rights Act positions.
4.) Foreign policy under a Rand Paul administration. ( expect lots of hypothetical scenarios to be thrown out)
It's laughable to even include Huntsman in any speculation. You are talking about a guy who thought it was a good idea to run to the left of Mitt Romney in a primary where voters were desperately searching for a conservative alternative. He ran a shitty campaign and is way to moderate to rally the base to vote for him in a general, much less win the Republican nomination.
As for Rand, he starts out with a floor of 15% if you go by what his dad did in 08 and 12 in Iowa. So for him, the more candidates in the better.
Some things he will have to explain and that will hurt are:
1) Does Rand want to legalize all drugs?
2.) Position on farm benifits
3.) Civil Rights Act positions.
4.) Foreign policy under a Rand Paul administration. ( expect lots of hypothetical scenarios to be thrown out)
Posted on 6/3/14 at 11:30 am to GumboPot
Would love to see Cruz get behind Paul early on. Keep Cruz in the Rep debates but with the pure intention of protecting Paul.
A Cruz endorsement in Texas would go a long way for Paul. Cruz is by far the most popular politician in Texas.
(According to a new Public Policy Polling poll, Cruz leads the potential GOP 2016 field with 25% among Republican primary voters in Texas. Jeb Bush comes in second with 14%. Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, and Rick Perry all with 10%)
I want Cruz to stay in the Senate or hold the AG position in Rand Paul administration.
A Cruz endorsement in Texas would go a long way for Paul. Cruz is by far the most popular politician in Texas.
(According to a new Public Policy Polling poll, Cruz leads the potential GOP 2016 field with 25% among Republican primary voters in Texas. Jeb Bush comes in second with 14%. Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, and Rick Perry all with 10%)
I want Cruz to stay in the Senate or hold the AG position in Rand Paul administration.
Posted on 6/3/14 at 11:46 am to blowmeauburn
quote:
As for Rand, he starts out with a floor of 15% if you go by what his dad did in 08 and 12 in Iowa. So for him, the more candidates in the better.
I agree, especially the last part.
quote:
Some things he will have to explain and that will hurt are:
1) Does Rand want to legalize all drugs?
2.) Position on farm benifits
3.) Civil Rights Act positions.
4.) Foreign policy under a Rand Paul administration. ( expect lots of hypothetical scenarios to be thrown out)
Again, I agree. Paul has done a pretty good job so far. I'm hoping foreign policy becomes the main issue of the four you listed. He has a good shot at turning foreign policy into a positive as long as he references the constitution as a bases in his foreign policy decisions (e.g., getting congressional approval before invading a country).
I believe the drug issue is easy for him also. I believe there are enough pro pot GOPers to rue the day in Iowa (especially if he notes the agricultural uses of hemp) but he needs to stay away from other drugs. Just don't go full libertarian on the drug issue.
The farm issue could get him into trouble so he simply needs to tread lightly to not cause any damage and get the farmer welfare queens in a hissy fit.
Civil rights has some potential pot holes but nothing that Paul can't handle.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News