Could Rand Paul make a serious run in 2012, if elected in 2010?

[segwaystyle2012]

I would say no, 2016 is better for him but I'd vote for him if he ran anyways.

[justW353]

Maybe 2016, but I said never.

Anyways, seeing as he would have to announce his candidacy before he was even sworn in (or right around that time), there is no way he will run in 2012. 

[Bo]

No, but maybe in 2016.

[California8429]

This poll shouldn't even exist with a 2012 option. Having a month in the Senate obviously gives him the experience to lead a country

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHA

No.

Maybe 2016, but probably not even then.

[Brandon H]

2016. If 2014 were a Presidential election year, there would be a small chance. In 2004 nearly everyone said it was unlikely Obama would run in 2008.

In 2016, Rand would be up for re-election to the Senate. Would that affect anything?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

2016 for sure.

[Eraserhead]

He could never make a 'serious' run but he could run whenever he wants.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

He could never make a 'serious' run but he could run whenever he wants.

And why can't he ever make a 'serious' run?

[Хahar 🤔]

He could never make a 'serious' run but he could run whenever he wants.

And why can't he ever make a 'serious' run?

He could, if he goes cookie-cutter Republican. I could see that happening.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

He could never make a 'serious' run but he could run whenever he wants.

And why can't he ever make a 'serious' run?

He could, if he goes cookie-cutter Republican. I could see that happening.

And why can't a principled Rand Paul make a serious run?

[Хahar 🤔]

He could never make a 'serious' run but he could run whenever he wants.

And why can't he ever make a 'serious' run?

He could, if he goes cookie-cutter Republican. I could see that happening.

And why can't a principled Rand Paul make a serious run?

Same reason his dad's run wasn't serious.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

He could never make a 'serious' run but he could run whenever he wants.

And why can't he ever make a 'serious' run?

He could, if he goes cookie-cutter Republican. I could see that happening.

And why can't a principled Rand Paul make a serious run?

Same reason his dad's run wasn't serious.

His dad's run was serious and Rand's will be too.

[pbrower2a]

Anything is possible in 2016 with someone new to the Senate or a governorship in 2013.  2012?

Barack Obama will be just as shrewd a campaigner with as effective in 2012 an organization then as in 2008. Even if he has difficulties in getting legislation passed with a Senate in which a near-majority Republican Party is able to thwart all legislation and nominations that he proposes, then he runs against the Republican "obstructionists" and wins against any GOP nominee -- provided that he is not a complete failure as President.   

[old timey villain]

and I'd say that any speculation of Obama being a presidential "failure" is long gone. The economy is improving, albeit slowly, and he was able to accomplish something that eluded a handful of other effective presidents, passing healthcare reform. If he does nothing else of significance for the rest of his term, he can still use that and it will still carry a lot of weight.

[Eraserhead]

He could never make a 'serious' run but he could run whenever he wants.

And why can't he ever make a 'serious' run?

He could, if he goes cookie-cutter Republican. I could see that happening.

Even then, I doubt it. Plus, he has already basically went "cookie-cutter" in KY.

Now if we are talking about a run for President of the Internetz, I think he could make a serious run in 2012 for sure.

[Oakvale]

and I'd say that any speculation of Obama being a presidential "failure" is long gone. The economy is improving, albeit slowly, and he was able to accomplish something that eluded a handful of other effective presidents, passing healthcare reform. If he does nothing else of significance for the rest of his term, he can still use that and it will still carry a lot of weight.

This, basically.

A 'failed' Presidency leans more towards a failure to implement an agenda, regardless of one's opinion of that agenda. I dislike, say, Ronald Regan's policies, but I'd hardly call him a failure of a President, for example.

[TheGreatOne]

Rand Paul will never be President, because he's a dangerous extremists. 

[pbrower2a]

and I'd say that any speculation of Obama being a presidential "failure" is long gone. The economy is improving, albeit slowly, and he was able to accomplish something that eluded a handful of other effective presidents, passing healthcare reform. If he does nothing else of significance for the rest of his term, he can still use that and it will still carry a lot of weight.

After Obama was elected President, an ultra-conservative Republican asked me what I thought of him. All that I could say was that he had much the same political skills as Ronald Reagan and that he would probably be effective. (I did not say that I worked on the campaign!)

Obama would do much the same, I thought -- exude optimism, tone down the rhetoric, get part of what he wanted at one time and the rest later. Such made Ronald Reagan an effective President; one can't get everything at once in the American political system, but one can work compromises with "moderates" of the Other Side of the aisle.

I underestimated the willingness of Congressional and Senate Republicans to bet everything on President Obama being a failure and doing everything possible to create failure once the opportunity arose -- resist everything 100% with the filibuster in the Senate and vote in lockstep to force narrow, partisan votes in the House. We shall see how that works out in November. 

Rand Paul of course must win the Senate Primary and win the general election if he is to ever have any chance at the Presidency. 2010 is his best chance, because he is unlikely to beat Mitch McConnell in any primary.