Who would the GOP choose between Trump and Paul?

[DDGE]

It's a question that's been in my head for many days but I'll spill the beans. What if Trump and Paul are the last 2 candidates? What does the GOP do?

[Higgs]

Definitely Paul

[pho]

If Paul were the last man standing against Trump, it would mean the GOP establishment, for whatever reason, had already coalesced around him and not Bush/Rubio/Walker.

GOP primary voters would pick Trump in a landslide in a head to head with Paul, if that's what you meant.

[eric82oslo]

Trump and Paul are the exact opposites. While Paul is trying to expand the party (to blacks, independents, expanding voting rights, ending the war on drugs, etcetera), Trump is trying to narrow the party's range (with women, Hispanics, veterans, etcetera)

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I sure hope Trump..... never thought I'd say that!

[Maxwell]

Paul if I'm optimistic. But they may just bite the bullet and take Trump.

[eric82oslo]

Paul suggested that the next president should force Mexico to pay for the US government debt of 18.2 trillion dollars. I think it's a brilliant idea.

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Paul is essentially an establishment Republican so the answer should be obvious.

[TJ in Oregon]

I would take Paul, which ought to tell you something, though who knows what the establishment might do at that point.

I actually thought Paul did a good job in the debate even though seemingly no one else agrees. He managed to highlight the good things about Paul and for the most part avoided being... well... odd.

[Maxwell]

Paul is essentially an establishment Republican so the answer should be obvious.

But Paul disagrees even slightly with the GOP foreign policy mission. That wing so obviously controls the party apparatus that it will not accept him. Even if its Trump he faces, Trump will puff up his chest and talk about getting tough with ISIS, which I think will be enough for them to back Trump over Paul.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I can't see how it would come to this for the establishment, but it would be Rand Paul.

The GOP Establishment can't control Trump, and he's more anti-free trade than Paul.  He's also taken a harder line on immigration than Paul; neither of these stances please the corporate line.  But the bottom line is that Trump can't be controlled; he can only be denied the nomination.

A better question would be to ask what the results would be if the GOP denied it's nomination to its top vote-getter, particularly if that candidate got over 40% of the overall primary vote.  What if Trump did this, but was denied the nomination by the establishment? 

My own guess is that the GOP would lose in a mini-landslide.  It would be the start of a retooling for a different 2020 New Republican party.  The GOP is the larger of the two major parties in fact, but this won't manifest itself in Presidential elections unless there are some serious changes made in its Presidential nominating process.

[eric82oslo]

 My own guess is that the GOP would lose in a mini-landslide.  It would be the start of a retooling for a different 2020 New Republican party.  The GOP is the larger of the two major parties in fact, but this won't manifest itself in Presidential elections unless there are some serious changes made in its Presidential nominating process.

Larger in what sense? Elected officials?

[ElectionsGuy]

Trump. The party establishment despises the Pauls and would take a no-policy tough talker over a guy who even leans libertarian.

[dudeabides]

Trump because the establishment and corporate interest would never let a Libertarian be president.

I totally disagree with that. The establishment knows that they can work with Rand Paul, Mitch McConell and Paul have a great relationship. No one can work with Donald Trump, no one.

I can tell you as a conservative with some libertarian views, I'd take Paul over Trump easily despite my strong disagreements with Rand Paul on foreign policy. Why? On many of the economic issues, I am 100000% with Rand Paul, especially on the Federal Reserve and the need to start abolishing entire agencies of government. Overall, I believe this field of GOP candidates would be far better on the economy than Obama and the Democratic hopefuls. Donald Trump would be worse for the economy than Obama and the Democrats. The trade policy Trump advocates would lead to inflation via lower wages and higher prices. It would be an absolute disaster. Also, notice in the debate the other night, Trump didn't walk back his support for socialized medicine. He said he's for private health care. So, which is it? There's a 50% chance he'd fight for socialized medicine, and if the Democrats ever won the majority again, he'd get his way. Rand Paul would repeal Obamacare and replace it with free market solutions. Also, Rand Paul never described himself as "very pro-choice." It is extremely disturbing that not only would someone be pro-choice, but they'd emphasize it to the extent Trump did. Also, Rand Paul has been unwavering in his support for the second amendment, Mr. Trump has not been. Of course, Trump would not be the first arrogant blonde haired socialist to take away people's guns in world history while blaming entire groups for the nation's problems.

Also, let me be frank here. Kelley Paul would be a far better role model for young women than Melania Trump. I don't believe that young women should be subjected to having a first lady who wears a lot of makeup and made a name for herself by marrying a bitter angry old man. She'd appear in all the gossip columns and women would feel intimidated to live up to her "standards."  Kelley Paul is a loving mother and a far better role model, not to mention more attractive.

[Fuzzy Bear]

 My own guess is that the GOP would lose in a mini-landslide.  It would be the start of a retooling for a different 2020 New Republican party.  The GOP is the larger of the two major parties in fact, but this won't manifest itself in Presidential elections unless there are some serious changes made in its Presidential nominating process.

Larger in what sense? Elected officials?

Perhaps.  I could see the Democrats carrying Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, and maybe Georgia if folks believed that the GOP flat out screwed Trump.  The overall percentage of the Democratic vote at that point would also be higher, and this would auger will for a number of Senate and House races.

[dudeabides]

Trump because the establishment and corporate interest would never let a Libertarian be president.

I totally disagree with that. The establishment knows that they can work with Rand Paul, Mitch McConell and Paul have a great relationship. No one can work with Donald Trump, no one.

I can tell you as a conservative with some libertarian views, I'd take Paul over Trump easily despite my strong disagreements with Rand Paul on foreign policy. Why? On many of the economic issues, I am 100000% with Rand Paul, especially on the Federal Reserve and the need to start abolishing entire agencies of government. Overall, I believe this field of GOP candidates would be far better on the economy than Obama and the Democratic hopefuls. Donald Trump would be worse for the economy than Obama and the Democrats. The trade policy Trump advocates would lead to inflation via lower wages and higher prices. It would be an absolute disaster. Also, notice in the debate the other night, Trump didn't walk back his support for socialized medicine. He said he's for private health care. So, which is it? There's a 50% chance he'd fight for socialized medicine, and if the Democrats ever won the majority again, he'd get his way. Rand Paul would repeal Obamacare and replace it with free market solutions. Also, Rand Paul never described himself as "very pro-choice." It is extremely disturbing that not only would someone be pro-choice, but they'd emphasize it to the extent Trump did. Also, Rand Paul has been unwavering in his support for the second amendment, Mr. Trump has not been. Of course, Trump would not be the first arrogant blonde haired socialist to take away people's guns in world history while blaming entire groups for the nation's problems.

Also, let me be frank here. Kelley Paul would be a far better role model for young women than Melania Trump. I don't believe that young women should be subjected to having a first lady who wears a lot of makeup and made a name for herself by marrying a bitter angry old man. She'd appear in all the gossip columns and women would feel intimidated to live up to her "standards."  Kelley Paul is a loving mother and a far better role model, not to mention more attractive.

The establishment and Rand would never workout because of the donors. Paul would remove corporate welfare and audit the fed. His chairmen would pursue tight monetary policies. This is detrimental to the establishment. Not to mention the foreign policy. Furthermore, Paul and Mcconnell now have a rocky relationship. Mcconnell and Paul are constantly fighting each other and it is obvious that Mitch tries his best to hide Rand. I cannot see this work.

I think there are two aspects to this. The first part is, who is better for the corporate donors who give to the establishment? If Paul wins, he'd get rid of corporate welfare, but he'd also get rid of burdensome mandates and slash taxes. A few executives, mainly in the green energy sector who don't give to the GOP anyway, would be angry but most would appreciate a pro-growth economic environment. By contrast, it would be devastating to corporate America, and to the economy, if Trump gets in, places tariffs on foreign goods, and starts taxing overseas activity by large companies.

Secondly, for politicians like Mitch McConell and John Boehner, who are they better off with? With Paul, there would be some disagreements, but they could also work with him on some things. He'd be better for their donors and their careers. Paul would campaign with them, raise money for them, and try to unite the party. Trump would be sending out angry tweets at 4 a.m. about them if they didn't go along with his agenda. Republicans would lose midterm elections if Trump somehow won, guaranteed.  

[Skye]

Well, Paul actually has a chance in the polls against Hillary, so...