Rand Paul - Potential 2016 Presidential Bid

They aren't. The status quo is going to win out unless a serious event happens, like the total collapse of our economy. That may happen, but if it doesn't, the general public will walk into the voting booth in 4 years and vote for a slight variation of the same theme.

 

Perhaps for some, but you'd see a definite shift in numbers.

 

Everyone in my neighborhood had at least 2 family members locked up on drug offenses. I dunno...

 

Can we expect that like we expected Gary Johnson to get 5% of the vote?

 

Ron Paul was not the Libertarian Party Candidate, Gary Johnson was. If we compare spending by candidates then the Obama campaign spent $13.31 for every vote Obama received. The Romney campaign spent $12.53 for ever vote Romney received. The Johnson campaign spent less than $3.00 for every vote Johnson received. Additionally Romney and Obama had over 1000 times as much media coverage when compared to Johnson.

There is a very valid argument that money buys votes in presidential elections.

 

Of course. Most people didn't know who Gary even was, sadly. Put a guy on the national stage, in the debates, etc, and that's a whole different situation.

 

The welfare state is so strong, that minorities would rather be on the dole and have family in prison, apparently....

 

It's always interesting that when political parties use their power to exclude candidates from the political discourse they like to show how effective it is. Had Johnson been included in the presidential debates he could have received enough electorial college votes to stop either Romney or Obama from being elected. Now that would have been interesting.

People don't typically vote for someone when their message is completely blocked by the power elite.

 

All else being equal, that would be a selling point to minorities. However, Libertarians would advocate for a substantial roll back of the social safety net (if not a complete dismantling of it) if they stick to their principles of small Government ( Unless that's something they intend to keep as is? I doubt it. It's an insolvent and unsustainable system that minorities are absolutely addicted to. They would need to do something about it. Ending the wars and cutting Government programs won't save those programs, which are unfunded by the tens of trillions. Even a whiff of reform will cause the left-wing machine to begin its fear mongering campaign. Look at what they did to Paul Ryan's plan. A Paul Ryan lookalike rolling a Grandma off a cliff. The Democrat would just need to reassure minorities that their welfare is not going away under their plan, and they will retain their iron grip.

 

Irrelevant. You were boasting about his 5% status at a time where he wasn't on the national stage or the debates.

 

That's right. You don't think the motivation to be sheltered and to eat would trump getting family members out of prison, where they are sheltered and fed?

 

Sure. But what does that have to do with this hypothetical scenario?

 

Yes, but Paul Ryan was also a social conservative and promoted that same message. People live in fear of getting pinched by the man and everyone likes to smoke pot. I think that there are a lot of people who could be persuaded to give it a shot--especially if they also weren't talked down to. Like instead of saying: Get your lazy ass off welfare and get a job, they said we're going to keep your men home and no longer in prison and with this freedom we expect you to rise the message would be received better.

 

It shows that your ability to predict the successes of libertarian candidates is suspect. If you were wrong about Gary Johnson getting 5% of the vote, maybe you're wrong about blacks showing up to vote for libertarian candidates with an anti-war on drugs platform.

 

I have a feeling if, let's say, someones brother and father were locked up, they'd rather them get out than stay in, even if it resulted in welfare cuts or abolishing it all together.

I'm not saying everyone, but the numbers would not be 90%+ Black and 70%+ Latino support of Democrats at this point.

 

I just don't see libertarians winning a sizeable amount of blacks if they intend to reform the redistribution system they've been tapped into for decades. Blacks love those Government programs. It's going to be hard to take them away from that.

 

Well, I didn't say 5%. I said 2% and I was close in a lot of states. I had a feeling the Ron Paul supporters would not move to Gary.

 

The two don't correlate, because the scenarios are totally different in this instance. We're talking mainstream expose and a spot in the debates, which Gary Johnson did not have. We're also talking about minority support, not support overall. White people barely knew who Gov Johnson was, and that number was lower for minorities.

I successfully convinced a few of my friends, who are minority, to vote for Gov Johnson a few days before the election. They didn't know who he was prior.

You're underestimating the power of national exposure, as I did in this election.

 

They are barely scraping by as is. I think most would rather let their dad and brother stay in prison a little longer than receive less money, or no money at all, next month. The need to eat and not be homeless is a very strong motivator.

 

I kind of doubt when the GOP will be desperately trying to win over Latino voters....

that they're going to nominate somebody who feels that Motel 6 should have the right to refuse accomodations to guests based on race if they want to.

 

I'm still trying to figure out why he was polling as high as he was. If Ron Paul people weren't going to vote, and Democrats and Republicans alike wound up settling for the lesser of two evils in the end, why support GJ in the polls?

 

I was responding to XL.

 

Again, that's not relevant to what I'm talking about. Gary Johnson did not have a national stage really in this election, and certain polls were still claiming he had 5% of the vote. You relied on that information, and it ended up being wrong.

 

The anti war on drug message also comes with a totally different spending and economic message. If more jobs were available, prices were cheaper, homes were more affordable, etc, those problems wouldn't be as prevalent. The candidate would need to do a good job selling those points to them.

 

I think a lot of people talked themselves into voting for a 3rd party, but when it came down to it, they chickened out and voted against the worser of the two evils.