Is Rubio about to become the "establishment's" candidate?

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

The people wanted a REPUBLICAN Congress not a DEMOCRAT one so we govern it's Obama who isn't compromising with us.

How come you guys almost couldn't get a speaker then? Only the reluctant entry of Paul Ryan saved your asses there.

Seriously? Why are you asking stupid questions?

because Gog3451 is a liberal what do you expect? Smart questions?

[Gog]

The people wanted a REPUBLICAN Congress not a DEMOCRAT one so we govern it's Obama who isn't compromising with us.

How come you guys almost couldn't get a speaker then? Only the reluctant entry of Paul Ryan saved your asses there.

Seriously? Why are you asking stupid questions?

Quoted the wrong person here

[JonathanSwift]

Ron Paul is irrelevant to this discussion.

Name one way his son is doing better on the campaign trail.

He has a better ground-game and is running a more serious campaign. Additionally, more people respect Rand than Ron.

Really? I don't know anyone who likes Rand but doesn't like Ron, and the fact that he's doing worse than his father in the polls belies the assertion that he is running a more serious campaign. I voted for Ron Paul in 2012, but the fact is that Rand Paul is too low-energy to win the nomination, let alone the election. He's polling below ¿Jeb?, for crying out loud! All of you Paulites need to face the truth and coalesce behind the one VIABLE candidate who opposed the Iraq War and (as you point out) opposes the War on Drugs. The sooner you do that, the better.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Ron Paul is irrelevant to this discussion.

Name one way his son is doing better on the campaign trail.

He has a better ground-game and is running a more serious campaign. Additionally, more people respect Rand than Ron.

Really? I don't know anyone who likes Rand but doesn't like Ron, and the fact that he's doing worse than his father in the polls belies the assertion that he is running a more serious campaign. I voted for Ron Paul in 2012, but the fact is that Rand Paul is too low-energy to win the nomination, let alone the election. He's polling below ¿Jeb?, for crying out loud! All of you Paulites need to face the truth and coalesce behind the one VIABLE candidate who opposed the Iraq War and (as you point out) opposes the War on Drugs. The sooner you do that, the better.

Lol we're never going to back Trump, we'll abstain from the general or vote third party if he's the nominee no way in hell will I vote for Trump

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

And maybe the Trump trolls on here should wake up and realize Trump has a snowballs chance in hell to win the Presidency against Clinton

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

Ron Paul is irrelevant to this discussion.

Name one way his son is doing better on the campaign trail.

He has a better ground-game and is running a more serious campaign. Additionally, more people respect Rand than Ron.

Really? I don't know anyone who likes Rand but doesn't like Ron, and the fact that he's doing worse than his father in the polls belies the assertion that he is running a more serious campaign. I voted for Ron Paul in 2012, but the fact is that Rand Paul is too low-energy to win the nomination, let alone the election. He's polling below ¿Jeb?, for crying out loud! All of you Paulites need to face the truth and coalesce behind the one VIABLE candidate who opposed the Iraq War and (as you point out) opposes the War on Drugs. The sooner you do that, the better.

You've felt the Been?

[JonathanSwift]

And maybe the Trump trolls on here should wake up and realize Trump has a snowballs chance in hell to win the Presidency against Clinton

And I suppose you think that Paul would win easily, even though he does worse in general election match-ups than Trump?

[RI]

ITT:

[Gog]

And maybe the Trump trolls on here should wake up and realize Trump has a snowballs chance in hell to win the Presidency against Clinton

This is true. However let us not forget that Paul has a snowflake's chance.

[JonathanSwift]

Ron Paul is irrelevant to this discussion.

Name one way his son is doing better on the campaign trail.

He has a better ground-game and is running a more serious campaign. Additionally, more people respect Rand than Ron.

Really? I don't know anyone who likes Rand but doesn't like Ron, and the fact that he's doing worse than his father in the polls belies the assertion that he is running a more serious campaign. I voted for Ron Paul in 2012, but the fact is that Rand Paul is too low-energy to win the nomination, let alone the election. He's polling below ¿Jeb?, for crying out loud! All of you Paulites need to face the truth and coalesce behind the one VIABLE candidate who opposed the Iraq War and (as you point out) opposes the War on Drugs. The sooner you do that, the better.

There are many people who do not like Ron because of how he conducted himself. Rand is much more respectable in academia and mainstream politics. You obviously have no idea who supported Ron in 2012. Most of his supporters were not even conservative. He is doing worse because he is only appealing to the libertarian base right now and a few republicans. 2012 was a different time without Sanders or Trump. 2012 was also different because people were much more anti-war, anti-establishment, and hated both parties at the time. Ron appealed to that. Rand isnt trying to appeal to that.

Well, he ought to, as he could use the support. I would also dispute the notion that 2012 was more "anti-establishment" than 2016.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Valid point; but even so his campaign has been lackluster.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I concede that I am no expert on the structure of the Paul campaign.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, Rand Paul will have dropped out by the time Texas votes, so if you want to waste your vote on a candidate who is no longer running, I suppose you have the right to do so.

[dudeabides]

Let me first of all say that Rand Paul deserves tremendous credit for trying to unite the Republican Party. I always agreed with Ron Paul on a few issues such as the Federal Reserve, corporate welfare, and his stance on same-sex marriage. But I'm not isolationist in foreign affairs. Rand Paul has taken the good parts of his father's libertarian platform but has sought to bridge the divide between conservatives and libertarians on foreign policy. I consider myself a hybrid between a conservative and a libertarian but because of foreign policy, I never even considered Rand Paul. Going into this campaign, I didn't like him and now, while I certainly don't agree with everything he says, I view him as thoughtful and much of what he says resonates with me. He is my third choice behind Bush and Rubio.

As for Donald Trump, I went into this process viewing Trump as lacking intelligence, being an egotistical blowhard, and not having a clue about public policy. I still believe that but would also add mentally ill, dishonest, bigoted, and an over rated businessman to the list of negative attributes associated with him. What is Trump doing to build the GOP? Alienating conservatives like me with his anti-free market, anti-Iraq War rhetoric isn't helping the party. Picking on Megyn Kelly and Carly Fiorina in a sexist manner doesn't help the party with female voters. Calling Mexicans rapists and winning the support of David Duke hasn't helped the party with minority voters.

But what I find very telling on this forum is the difference between the pro-Paul posters and the pro-Trump posters. Those who are supporting Rand Paul, while I might not always agree with them, have substance. They take positions that may not be as popular with many Republicans, but at least they are challenging conventional wisdom. What I see from Trump supporters is the use of talking points from the left or just trolling. What we have here is an echo of their respective campaigns. Paul is running as a non-traditional Republican and he's challenging the party's conventional thinking of the last three decades, Trump is just trying to win over people who want to hear yelling. To me, Paul's platform has appeal, Trump has no platform other than deport everyone, give health care to everyone, and let's get rid of free trade.  

[JonathanSwift]

Yes, 2012 was far more anti-establishment than 2016. People despised both parties and wanted real changed. They also were much more dovish than in 2016.

I agree that 2012 was much more dovish, but I disagree that an election cycle where Mitt Romney was consistently either in first or second place was more "anti-establishment" than one where Trump and Carson are dominating.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Rand's style is truly more effective than Ron's, then that fact will become clear in time. Thus far, it remains to be seen.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How so? Trump opposed the war in Iraq, and is willing to actually sit down at the negotiating table with Putin. Bush, Christie, Cruz, Fiorina, Rubio -- and really, most of the other Republicans running, not to mention Hillary Clinton -- are far more likely to start World War III than Trump is.

[tpfkaw]

Both Trump and Carson are more dovish than any of the 2012 candidates except Ron Paul.

[JonathanSwift]

Both Trump and Carson are more dovish than any of the 2012 candidates except Ron Paul.

If this aimed at me, then let me clarify: the attitude among the voters and the country as a whole was more dovish, not among the candidates.

Yes, 2012 was far more anti-establishment than 2016. People despised both parties and wanted real changed. They also were much more dovish than in 2016.

I agree that 2012 was much more dovish, but I disagree that an election cycle where Mitt Romney was consistently either in first or second place was more "anti-establishment" than one where Trump and Carson are dominating.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Rand's style is truly more effective than Ron's, then that fact will become clear in time. Thus far, it remains to be seen.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How so? Trump opposed the war in Iraq, and is willing to actually sit down at the negotiating table with Putin. Bush, Christie, Cruz, Fiorina, Rubio -- and really, most of the other Republicans running, not to mention Hillary Clinton -- are far more likely to start World War III than Trump is.

Let me say for starters that when I say 2012 was far more anti-establishment, I mean that people just hated both parties and wanted change regardless. Clearly, the end result stayed the same but no1 was passionate about Obama or Romney. They just picked the lesser of two evils or just voted at the end of the day. That does not change the fact that people despised Obama and Romney.

Trump and Carson are more polarizing. That is all. In reality, neither are really that anti-establishment besides trump. Their supporters are not overwhelmingly anti-establishment. Now obviously the establishment is not the frontrunner as of now. However, I must disagree with the notion that the two frontrunners are anti-establishment by default.

Rand's style has been pretty effective in the Senate. Mcconnell let him take charge for the battle against Planned Parenthood. He effectively killed the Patriot Act. He's helped sponsor bills to legalize medical marijuana and some type of criminal justice reform has been placed on the table more often because of him and other Democrats. That's progress Ron could never have. He might have been the heart of the anti-war wing in congress along with Kucinich, but their styles were far too ineffective. Now will this help him win the GOP nomination? Probably not considering he has to convince voters. However, he has done more than his father ever did  in the past 4 years.

Trump might be willing to negotiate with Putin, but on his terms. He will not compromise. He's effectively ready to walk away. 

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about which cycle was more "anti-establishment."

Anyway, I agree that Paul is a good Senator. I like Paul. As I mentioned earlier, I was a big Ron Paul supporter in the last cycle. This time, though, it makes more sense to vote for someone who can actually win.

Also, walking away (or threatening to do so) can be an effective negotiating strategy.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

The Pauls and a few others are one of the only reasons WHY I'm a Republican if there isn't a somewhat libertarian candidate in the race I generally abstain from the primary or vote 3rd party if it's the general election did that in 2014 and 2012

[heatmaster]

We get it you hate Trump. You're worse than dudeabides in that regard

I will take that as a compliment bud!😊

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

The Pauls and a few others are one of the only reasons WHY I'm a Republican if there isn't a somewhat libertarian candidate in the race I generally abstain from the primary or vote 3rd party if it's the general election did that in 2014 and 2012

The Pauls run on a platform of hysteria, fantasy and anti-intellectualism. Rand's greatest accomplishment was destroying the movement his father spent years trying to build.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

The Pauls and a few others are one of the only reasons WHY I'm a Republican if there isn't a somewhat libertarian candidate in the race I generally abstain from the primary or vote 3rd party if it's the general election did that in 2014 and 2012

The Pauls run on a platform of hysteria, fantasy and anti-intellectualism. Rand's greatest accomplishment was destroying the movement his father spent years trying to build.

And Trump isn't doing the same right now either?

[Gog]

The Pauls and a few others are one of the only reasons WHY I'm a Republican if there isn't a somewhat libertarian candidate in the race I generally abstain from the primary or vote 3rd party if it's the general election did that in 2014 and 2012

The Pauls run on a platform of hysteria, fantasy and anti-intellectualism. Rand's greatest accomplishment was destroying the movement his father spent years trying to build.

[JonathanSwift]

Trump cant beat Hillary. He would get obliterated. Only Rand or Rubio can beat Hillary

Polling doesn't back up that assertion. The most recent Morning Consult poll, for example, has Trump tied with Clinton nationally, while Rubio trails by five points and Paul by six. Emerson College has Clinton losing to Trump by two, while beating Rubio by one point; they don't bother polling Paul. Both polls (and many others) show Trump as the second strongest general election candidate behind Carson. Of course, a year remains until the election, and the polls will fluctuate wildly during this period; but I'd like to see your evidence for the superior electability of Paul and Rubio.

[YaBoyNY]

The people wanted a REPUBLICAN Congress not a DEMOCRAT one so we govern it's Obama who isn't compromising with us.

And the people wanted a Democratic president. Twice.

He has compromised with your ilk enough.

Also, I feel bad for you lolbertarians. Living a life so completely and utterly detached from reality that you believe your deluded ideology has any actual relevance to the real world. Pitiable.

[JonathanSwift]

Trump cant beat Hillary. He would get obliterated. Only Rand or Rubio can beat Hillary

Polling doesn't back up that assertion. The most recent Morning Consult poll, for example, has Trump tied with Clinton nationally, while Rubio trails by five points and Paul by six. Emerson College has Clinton losing to Trump by two, while beating Rubio by one point; they don't bother polling Paul. Both polls (and many others) show Trump as the second strongest general election candidate behind Carson. Of course, a year remains until the election, and the polls will fluctuate wildly during this period; but I'd like to see your evidence for the superior electability of Paul and Rubio.

His ability to attract independents, young voters, and the fact that he is already doing better in some left-leaning states is enough before the general election even arrives. Hillary has no chance against him in a general election.

It's possible, and I know of some older (pre-Trump surge) polls that actually back that up. The Primary will be a much greater challenge to Paul than the general election would be. I don't see a realistic path to the nomination for him.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Would you rather us go to Ted Cruz, I'm a hybrid libertarian-conservative.

[Figueira]

Would you rather us go to Ted Cruz, I'm a hybrid libertarian-conservative.

Obviously I want everyone to vote for my candidate, but you can vote for whomever you want.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

DeadPrez if you're referring to me here you don't really havr any room to talk it's the purists like that who make Paul supporters look like nutjobs and i am not part of the "movement" for that reason.