Who would do better in the general election?

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

I say Marco Rubio because he would appeal more to independents than Paul. Rubio comes from a swing state which lets the Republicans spend more time on states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Plus, Paul is sure to make many more stupid comments.
Also, according to a CBS poll, these are the only two Republican candidates independents want to see run.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Marco Rubio is too hawkish IMHO.

[Vega]

Marco Rubio.

[RogueBeaver]

Rubio.

[Mister Mets]

I don't think there's a right answer.

Rubio's safer. Rand Paul's bolder.

Rubio has a lower ceiling and a higher floor. He's unlikely to say anything to scare away soft Republicans, but also probably not going to expand the party's base.

Rand Paul's better equipped to carry the change banner, and has stronger appeal to soft Democrats/ dissatisfied voters. But he could also lose a winnable race, or turn a narrow Democratic edge into a ten point Hillary win.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

I don't think there's a right answer.

Rubio's safer. Rand Paul's bolder.

Rubio has a lower ceiling and a higher floor. He's unlikely to say anything to scare away soft Republicans, but also probably not going to expand the party's base.

Rand Paul's better equipped to carry the change banner, and has stronger appeal to soft Democrats/ dissatisfied voters. But he could also lose a winnable race, or turn a narrow Democratic edge into a ten point Hillary win.

I agree with this.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Rubio could conceivably win, Paul would push up right-wing activist turnout but he would equally draw out the democratic base.

I think this line requires consideration... "Rand Paul is not Ron Paul..."

[RogueBeaver]

When he gets whacked with his father's past, Southern Avenger, CRA and starts whining? FP stances?

[henster]

Their voting records are essentially the same.