Rand Paul

Poll Finds Rand Paul to Be GOP Presidential Frontrunner for 2016, But He'd Still Get Aced by Hillary Clinton

|

A new poll conducted by Public Policy Polling finds Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to be the GOP frontrunner for 2016, closely followed by, well, everybody else: 

The numbers are: Paul 16, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Paul Ryan each at 13, Cruz at 12, Rubio at 10, Rick Santorum and Bobby Jindal at 4, and Susana Martinez at 2. Cruz has proven to be such a darling to the far right that he actually already leads among 'very conservative' voters with 20% to 18% for Paul and 17% for Ryan. Christie gets 24% with 'moderate' identifying Republicans but doesn't do better overall because he's at just 7% with 'very conservative' ones.

While Paul has a slight lead over fellow Republicans, PPP found that he has the worst odds against Hillary Clinton: 

She still leads all of the GOP hopefuls but in many of the cases it's by tight margins- 1 point over Chris Christie at 43/42, 2 points over Paul Ryan at 46/44, 3 points over Jeb Bush at 44/41, 5 points over Marco Rubio at 45/40, and 8 points over Rand Paul at 47/39. Obviously it's early but you can see a picture here that's been painted in many key Senate races over the last two cycles- the person with the most support from Republicans is also the weakest general election candidate.

What does it say about the electorate (or maybe PPP's polling?) that Paul Ryan would do better against Clinton than Paul? Maybe nothing. Still, color me surprised that a guy who's made absolutely no overtures toward personal freedom would do better than Paul against a Democrat. 

NEXT: Obama Says Reporters Tell Him His Ideas Are "Great"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. OT:

    “It’s interesting, in the run-up to this speech, a lot of reporters say that, well, Mr. President, these are all good ideas, but some of you’ve said before; some of them sound great, but you can’t get those through Congress. Republicans won’t agree with you,” Obama said.

    Brilliant!

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-…..z2a4npLJQx

    1. Damn rethuglicans. Keeping the chosen one from greatness!

    2. Those reporters know what’s up! Why can’t the Rethuglicans heed their wisdom?

    3. Lucky he’s the same after all he’s been through.

    4. How sad. If those dirty Rethuglicans would just let him, he could pass something as good as Obamacare.

    5. my best friend’s step-sister makes $79 every hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for five months but last month her pay check was $18618 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site….. http://WWW.CNN13.COM

  2. Something tells me that these polls are like all other polls: complete bullshit.

    1. I know the voting population is insane by any rational standard, but I’m having a hard time believing that Clinton would have a hope in hell. So many people hate her–almost all of the GOP voters, the Obama fan club within the Democrats, others–not to mention that she’s got taint all over her from old scandals and more recent scandals, as well as a pretty good case for her lacking any real competence. Not to mention a deep fatigue with the fucking Clintons, Bushes, et al.

      Too many want to assume she’ll be a female Obama, but the problem is that she’s not some blank slate. Too late for that.

      Romney lost in large part because he caused division within his party and wasn’t really popular with anyone other than a few demographics. Clinton is in far worse shape. Bet she doesn’t even get nominated.

      1. -So many people hate her

        Methinks of that quote by Pauline Kael.

        1. I’m not talking about around here. It’s not like it’s some big secret that the Obama clique and the Clinton one are at odds, for instance. And, to be sure, the party is very likely going to go a different direction if 2014 is a disaster.

          1. I think Obama clique find Hillary likable enough, and surely preferable to any Republican.

            1. You’re assuming a nomination. I’m saying she won’t get even that.

              1. Who will beat her there? Cuomo? O’Malley?

                Don’t hold your breath.

                1. I’d say some young, unqualified, party machine hack, but I said below I didn’t think that would work again.

                2. That chick from MA that beat Scott Brown?

                  1. Lizzie Warren could only win in Massachusetts. I would bet money that she would shit herself in any debate, go crying about how mean men were, and talk herself out of the presidency.

                    She’s got more embarrassing skeletons in her closet than Obama does, and she’s already got enemies in the media who have been willing to publicize them.

                    1. “Lizzie Warren could only win in Massachusetts. “

                      To be fair, her psychotic “You are all property of the government cuz Social Contract” and limitless fraud would have gotten her over big in Cali, NYC and probably Illinois as well.

                      But then, on the other hand, her win in Mass. was pretty tight and likely would not have happened had she not had Martha Coakley pulling every string and dirty trick she could to ensure Warren’s skeletons stayed in the closet.

                    2. While people on the right think that speech was nuts, people on the left think it was one of the most brilliant speeches in the history of mankind.

                    3. I wish you were right, but she’s got all the lefties and kids all hot and bothered. I can’t read a video game forum I frequent without the people there slobbering over her all the time.

                  2. BTW, Kwais, how did that business with the NYPD over getting stranded in JFK with a firearm turn out?

      2. she’s got taint all over her

        There is some rumor about her and that Huma girl

        1. She’s got better taste in women than her husband.

          And Human doesn’t have a Weiner on her in that picture.

      3. So many people hate her

        You think more people hate Hillary than hated Obama?

        1. Actually, yes. I know that’s absurd, and I think it’s not true now, but I think Obama lucked out in people not fully realizing how corrupt and inept his administration really is. That’s starting to happen now, but, of course, it’s too late. The media helped delay that, as we all know.

      4. “So many people hate her”

        It wouldn’t at all be a stretch to call her the most reviled woman in the country, not even counting Benghazi.

        1. Her favorable just fell considerably, but to 60%.

      5. Her scandals will seem even worse when it’s other Democrats beating her over the head with things like Benghazi and the Arab Spring. Just wait until another Dem primary candidate combines the “3 A.M” ad she used on Obama, and the timeline of events in Benghazi.

        1. Seriously, the clip of her saying “What difference at this point does it make?” can be used in so many ways for opposition ads.

          1. Especially considering that the Middle East will be much more fucked in 2016 than it is in 2013.

            The candidates on the left are going to try and create the facade of “Not Obama”. It’s going to 2008, only in reverse.

    2. I wouldn’t be surprised if it accurately measured what people said today, three years away from the election and absent any campaigns by anyone. But that’s pretty meaningless because, well, three years out and absent any campaigns.

      I remember Hillary being the ‘inevitable’ President in 08.

      1. There’s that, too. These early polls are usually wrong about who will be the nominee. But that’s just a reflection of the difficulty in predicting the future and not a causal relationship.

      2. I remember Hillary being the ‘inevitable’ President in 08.

        And she was, up until Senator Obama pointed and said, “That woman has no business being president.”

      3. And she’s actually more repulsive now, especially with a Secretary of State record of incompetence behind her.

        It’s somewhat damning to the Dems that 5 years later they still can’t come up with anyone better than their last loser.

        But since I’m rooting for the country to self-destruct, the idea of President Hilary Clinton with Fed Chairman Janet Yellen sounds like a good start. Then we can watch the country cry “Sexism” along with “Racism” while the villages self-combust.

        1. I agree with the points, but disagree with the significance. Hillary has done a good job distancing herself from that stuff.

          A sad number of Americans rank the Benghazi affair up there with the EPA- that is something that make them grumble, but not something that will drive their votes.

          1. Besides the Benghazi conspiracy theory is complete nonsense. The place doesn’t even exist.

          2. A sad number of Americans rank the Benghazi affair up there with the EPA- that is something that make them grumble, but not something that will drive their votes.

            Sure, they don’t care when the GOP brings it up, but that will change when it’s other Democrats bringing clubbing her with it during the primaries.

            Obama is going to leave the country fucked up. Someone on the left is going to run as “Not Obama”, and try and hang every one of his foreign policy fuck ups around Hillary’s neck.

        2. I can imagine the conversations they will have in the council chambers of every nation in the world from Aussieland to Zaire.

          ‘The United States just elected a woman. Now is the time to strike.’

    3. Polls done correctly are a useful measure of what people are thinking at the time the poll was taken. The earlier the poll is taken, the less useful it is for predicting a future event.

      If you think polls are bullshit, what alternative means would you use to measure sentiment? Your gut? What you hear and read from your self-selected news sources and non-representative friends and family?

      1. I don’t presume to be able to measure sentiment; only fools who think they can do that with bullshit polls do that. You can’t predict what a mass of individuals will do with a sample of hundreds, and to think you can do so is absolutely asinine. Polls are for morons.

        1. Yes, you can predict what a mass of individuals will do with a sample of hundreds. It works very well. A sample of hundreds could very easily stand for the entire world and not be off by much.

          1. So you’re one of the morons who thinks incredibly small sample sizes of loaded questions mean anything. I guess polls are for you, then. Hey, how correct is this poll: who thinks Robert is a moron? I do! Sample size: one. That’s enough for you, right?

            1. Who says they’re loaded questions? When it comes to candidate preference, the poll question’s pretty much the same as the question the voting machine asks.

              And you didn’t choose a random sample for your evalu’n of me.

        2. “Polls are for morons.”

          Pffft. Tell that to John Kerry’s sweeping election victory in ’04.

        3. I dunno- polls pretty much had Obama winning all through 2012. Only at a couple points did Romney seem to edge temporary leads.

          And yet all sorts of people, including many people on Reason insisted that there was no way Obama could win. The polls turned out to be pretty close.

          Not perfectly accurate, but close enough that I wouldn’t call them bullshit.

        4. You can’t predict what a mass of individuals will do with a sample of hundreds, and to think you can do so is absolutely asinine.

          As far as sampling goes, yes, a sample of hundreds, properly taken, tells you something about the greater population, even one that has millions or billions of members. Obviously, the smaller the sample, the greater the error, so you always have to be mindful of the published margin of error.

          You are right that loaded questions will mess up your results. That is a problem with methodology, not with sampling or statistical theory.

          If you want to refute the entire field of statistics, go right ahead, but calling it bullshit or asinine does nothing for your case.

    4. What makes you say all polls are complete bullshit? It’s not like they’re at extreme odds with election results. They’ve never said Lyndon LaRouche was a frontrunner, for instance.

    5. No way Hillary polls over 35 percent in 2016. Americans won’t elect a grandma.

      And Rand Paul should (theoretically) do better against a Democrat, because he has some appeal to independents, just as his father did.

      So these poll numbers are complete nonsense.

      1. No, they’re not nonsense. The questions were about particular matchups that could very well occur in 2016. If Hillary turns out to be the Democrat, I can practically guarantee she’ll poll over 35% regardless of who the Republican is. Americans may not elect a grandma, but if she’s a major party nominee she has 40% of the vote practically bagged. And I wouldn’t easily dismiss her getting the nomination.

  3. Can we spend one year not worrying about presidential polling? I’m sure these early polls are really worth the time. Just ask the ’08 candidates Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton.

    1. Both of those candidates were close contenders for their respective party nominations. Early polls were close to the final results.

  4. Of course he would; Clinton’s got free stuff to hand out.

  5. Enough with the 2016 shit. Way too soon.

  6. A sad reminder that voters don’t give much of a crap about civil liberties. All they want is their free stuff.

    You would think Rand Paul would peel off some civil libertarians from the Democratic party, but if he is, they are obviously being replaced by big-government fans, judging by the support for Chris Christie.
    Nothing says big government like a fat guy from New jersey.

    1. This was pretty much my response to

      Still, color me surprised that a guy who’s made absolutely no overtures toward personal freedom would do better than Paul against a Democrat.

      because free shit is all that matters.

    2. You would think Rand Paul would peel off some civil libertarians from the Democratic party
      Rand has the unicorn rancher vote locked up.

    3. Not surprising when you consider civil liberties don’t affect most people’s lives much, or at least don’t affect them in ways they themselves notice. And I’m serious.

      1. Until it’s too late, and they’ve hauled off your son to the FEMA camp.

    4. Know when people pay att’n to civil liberties? When those deprived of them are rioting in the streets or setting themselves on fire, or something spectacularly serious like that.

      For the most part, civil liberties advance despite or in disregard of democracy, not because of it. Take for example one of the biggest civil liberty advances of my lifetime: the end of almost all censorship of smut in the USA. It’s not like there were pro-smut politicians campaigning on the issue, nor were there ballot initiatives.

      Now contrast that with the end of the draft. That was a big deal democratically because people made it a big deal. Smut peddlers never had big demonstrations, they got legal smut by means other than democratic ones. Selective Service had been in effect from 1948; even the Korean War couldn’t kill it; it took the upheaval of the Vietnamese War to do so.

      1. I blame the VCR.

        1. Nope, it happened with printed matter well before the VCR came onto the scene. Municipalities commonly censored books up until the 1960s. Then for a few years porn was sold under the guise of educational material, before finally that pretense was allowed to be dropped.

  7. This can’t be, I don’t know anyone who would vote for Clinton.

    That’s not true, I know several. But I choose to believe they’re imaginary. I mean, how can they possibly be real?

  8. Why wouldn’t people vote for Hillary

    She is an expert in both cattle futures and real estate

    She is both not some woman who will just stand by her man and a woman who will stand by her man

    Her health care plan brought everyone in Congress to vote the same way in the sprite of bipartisanship

    She reached across the political spectrum and searched confidential FBI records of Republicans in the hopes of adding them to her husbands administration

    She rooted out the entrenched White House travel office

    She cut spending by eliminating the unneeded Bengasi Consulate

    1. Well, she is likable enough.

  9. Less polls (even if I like the result), more alt-text.

  10. All you need to know is that it’s not Rand Paul’s turn. How is the turn system determined? It’s your turn when the RNC decides it’s your turn.

    In 2008, it was John McCain’s turn.

    In 2012, it was Mitt Romney’s turn.

    In 2016, it will be Marco Rubio’s turn.

    To lose.

    1. That doesn’t make sense, Rubio didn’t run last time. It should be Santorum’s turn.

      1. *Ahem* The RNC will tell you when it’s your turn.

        1. “It’s Paul Ryan’s turn”

          1. I think this would be a good bet.

            1. Normally, Paul Ryan would be a safe pick. However, in the peculiar and deluded thinking of the Stupid Party, they will likely say they need a minority to counter “the female vote.”

              1. That is what Vice Presidential candidates are for!

          2. Yet another reason not to go to the polls.

    2. Hardly. I think the GOP will win the presidency, given what will likely be some serious dislike of Obama, but the question is who? Paul would be great, but he’s going to have an uphill climb to to get there.

      I suspect Christie is one of those people say will do well but will actually bomb quite early. Maybe Cruz? Definitely not Rubio–he hurt himself dramatically with the immigration reform business. As much for how he handled things as for any substantive objections.

      1. DONT FORGET THE WATER!!!11!!1!!!!!

      2. -I think the GOP will win the presidency

        I’d take that bet.

        Historical chance to elect the first woman President? Check.

        Republicans providing lots of fodder for War on Women message? Check.

        Republicans providing more fodder to inspire blacks and Hispanics to the polls? Check.

        Last time the historic chance to elect a black man derailed the historic chance to elect a woman, and I don’t see any black man in sight to derail it this time (and even if there were, that box has been checked you know!).

        1. Janice Rogers Brown? She’s a twofer!

          (Oh, and she’s eminently qualified, but I guess that’s not the main point)

          1. I’ll be happy just to get her on the Supreme Court. Could we trick Obama into nominating her? She is the daughter of Alabama sharecroppers. And no black women on the Court, either.

            1. I wouldn’t support Rogers for dogcatcher after her opinions in the detainee and wiretapping cases.

        2. “Republicans providing lots of fodder for War on Women message? Check.

          Republicans providing more fodder to inspire blacks and Hispanics to the polls? Check.

          In case you haven’t been paying attention for the past few years, the Republicans don’t actually have to provide any fodder.

          As long as we live in a society where ‘private’ abortions are not funded by tax dollars and black people don’t automatically receive racial preference in all things Democrats will whine about their imaginary Wars.

      3. Hardly. I think the GOP will win the presidency, given what will likely be some serious dislike of Obama, but the question is who?

        Never put it past the Stupid Party to retake the Senate in 2014 and then do something incredibly stupid.

        Definitely not Rubio–he hurt himself dramatically with the immigration reform business. As much for how he handled things as for any substantive objections.

        Doesn’t matter. The Stupid Party backed a guy who is Obama in whiteface for 2012. And the go-along-to-get-along Republicans who helped kill Amash’s amendment yesterday will line up and do their duty and deliver the nomination to Rubio.

        1. Obama is in free-fall. He ain’t going to become popular in the next few years. The last thing anyone will want is a clone.

          1. Free-fall? Hardly. He’s doing what he’s always done. Twirling, twirling, twirling his way towards peace and security for all Americans.

            Or something like that.

            1. I don’t think it’s working very well anymore. But I could be wrong. Heck, I thought the economic anemia would kill his reelection hopes. We’re a dumber country than I thought.

              1. Rombot 2.0 was not properly calibrated to achieve victory against The One.

          2. I like your optimism, but I seem to remember someone saying that no way Obama wins Florida, what with the crappy economy and his python policies.

            1. I do, I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

              1. +1 fish called Wanda

        2. Doesn’t matter. The Stupid Party backed a guy who is Obama in whiteface for 2012. And the go-along-to-get-along Republicans who helped kill Amash’s amendment yesterday will line up and do their duty and deliver the nomination to Rubio.

          I believe Tulpa is already the pick for (insert prospective GOP candidate not named Rand Paul) H ampersand R campaign manager.

          1. I believe Tulpa is already the pick for (insert prospective GOP candidate not named Rand Paul) H ampersand R campaign manager.

            I’m sure it will work out just was well as it did last time.

            And it will be the fault of the Republitarians and the Libertarians who refuse to hold their noses and vote for the Stupid Party’s designated candidate.

      4. On the national level, betting on the stupid party acting stupid is a good way to never lose money.

        It’s way too early, but by the next election the process of canonizing Obama will have begun by the press. (He’s already survived three scandals that would have derailed another presidency with an adversarial press. The nearly ten years of crony capitalism and poverty will be the “new normal” by that time. Can’t fault Obama for that. It was unexpected. Besides, the brilliant leadership of Obama kept the tigers away (and kept women out of rape camps. You know how much the christfags love rape camps!).

        The GOP will select a middle of the road cock sucker, who will, during the election, be portrayed as the second coming of Hitler by the press. It doesn’t matter if his views are to the left of the progtard candidate. Team blue all the way, bitches!

        1. He hasn’t survived the scandals. Watergate took two years. These won’t likely take as long, and things may accelerate if the GOP has both houses, but they will take some time.

          What will be interesting is whether the continuing revelations about these scandals ends up peeling away party support for Obama. That’s really what ended Nixon’s presidency.

  11. It boggles my mind that Clinton is still electable after Benghazi. I guess if it doesn’t happen in the October before an election no one cares.

    1. Clinton has been attacked so many times and for so long that most people ignore the attacks now. Conservatives should be careful about that, making every thing into the ultimate treasonous scandal effectively dips the target in Teflon.

      1. Don’t forget the female “you go, sister, we’ve got your back against the Republican meanies” vote.

        1. According to my girlfriend, she “gets shit done” and “is awesome.” Yes, she reads Jezebel.

  12. OT: Cult of personality and pride, mixed together in a devilish cocktail.

    Obama: Reporters tell me my ideas are ‘great’

    (NOTE: Already featured in the 24/7 feed)

    1. What’s the difference between what we have now and the British monarchy we separated from?

      1. Regular elections?

        I hate the dynasties we have as well, but there is a considerable difference. And it’s not like this is a new thing, think of the Adams family.

        1. I was thinking more that the presidency seems to control more and more of the real power (even though Congress has more of it, in theory). It’s really absurd, when you think about it, how much time is spent on what the president is doing or saying. He’s not supposed to have that kind of role in our system.

          1. I see your point there. I mentioned this in the morning thread, the GOP could vote to totally defund Obamacare today, but it doesn’t. What in the world?

            1. Indeed. One of the advantages the parliamentary system in Britain had back when the monarchs were actually part of the government and not a UK theme park was that they generally saw themselves as having to fight the monarch for their prerogatives. I think the Founders expected the same thing here, but that’s not how it worked out.

              It makes no sense to me at all that the GOP doesn’t play chicken all the way with Obamacare, which has the popularity of Manimal during its original run.

              1. It’s insane. If you are already going to vote for its end, why not vote to defund it?

            2. I mentioned this in the morning thread, the GOP could vote to totally defund Obamacare today, but it doesn’t. What in the world?

              It was a dumb question when you asked it then too.

              1. Why?

                1. Because the majority party of one part of one branch of the US government can’t “totally defund” anything.

                  1. That’s not entirely true. Appropriation bills have to originate in the House.

                    1. That’s not entirely true. Appropriation bills have to originate in the House.

                      A bill to de-fund PPACA was passed in 2011. It is still funded. Now what do you suggest?

                    2. That’s not right, is it? They’ve defunded parts of it, I think.

                      How far the House wants to push this stuff is the real issue. It can’t repeal on its own, but it can get very draconian about funding anything, including unrelated expenditures. Not passing a budget at all or allowing this continuing resolution nonsense to continue is also an option.

                    3. Appropriations Committee Releases Fiscal Year 2013 Financial Services Appropriations Bill

                      Washington, Jun 5 –

                      Department of the Treasury ? The bill includes $12.3 billion for the Treasury Department, which is $77 million above last year’s level and nearly $952 million below the President’s request. However, in comparison, after adjusting for annual rescissions, the underlying bill is $43 million below fiscal year 2012.

                      Internal Revenue Service (IRS) ? Included in the bill is $11.8 billion for the IRS ? the same as last year’s level. The legislation does not provide any of the requested increases to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), and prohibits transfers of funds between the Department of Health and Human Services and the IRS to implement PPACA.

                      http://appropriations.house.go…..tID=298250

                    4. -Since much of the implementation of ObamaCare is a function of the discretionary appropriations process, and since most of the citizens we represent believe that ObamaCare should never go into effect, we urge you not to bring to the House floor in the 112th Congress any legislation that provides or allows funds to implement ObamaCare through the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Health and Human Services, or any other federal entity. We also urge you to take legislative steps necessary to immediately rescind all ObamaCare-implementation funds.

                      http://rsc.scalise.house.gov/u…..uly_18.pdf

                    5. This.

                    6. And the mechanism for funding it were passed with the bill. So, what do you do, collect the penalties and taxes without repealing the bill? Sure, that will pass the Senate and get signed.

                    7. Doesn’t the budget have to be approved (normally) every year? The whole thing? So even if a law authorizes an expenditure, what if it’s tossed out of the budget?

                    8. Doesn’t the budget have to be approved (normally) every year? The whole thing? So even if a law authorizes an expenditure, what if it’s tossed out of the budget?

                      You said budget…hahahaha

                    9. When the government starts to run out of money again, they will face-off again and threaten each other with a government shut down. I would go along with shutting it down over repealing PPACA…sure. But to say that’s just simply voting to “de-fund” is nonsense.

                      De-funding already been passed once. It didn’t go anywhere. It still has to be passed by the Senate and signed, whether part of a CR or in a budget, or alone.

                    10. De-funding already been passed once. It didn’t go anywhere. It still has to be passed by the Senate and signed, whether part of a CR or in a budget, or alone.

                      No it doesnt.

                      Passing a budget without it is enough. You dont need to specifically pass a defunding.

                      And if a budget doesnt pass at all, dont pass a CR.

                      Easy to do.

                      Not funding something is the easiest thing to do, you just have to have balls to carry it thru.

                    11. “Passing a budget without it is enough. You dont need to specifically pass a defunding.

                      And if a budget doesnt pass at all, dont pass a CR.

                      Easy to do.”

                      Well, fuck rob, why didn’t anybody think of that? While we’re at it we can de-fund SS and Medicare too. It’s so easy…see? Why go for the small stuff?

                    12. Of course, the real issue here isn’t what’s legally possible for Congress or the House. It’s what they’re capable of doing politically. Will they do anything to effectively repeal welfare programs? Not with the people currently in office, no.

                    13. Now you seem to just fall back to the claim that they don’t have the backbone to do it, but of course that’s what we are complaining about.

                    14. Now you seem to just fall back to the claim that they don’t have the backbone to do it, but of course that’s what we are complaining about.

                      Why are you complaining about it? Are you a disgruntled Republican? If the House and Senate pass a bill to de-fund Obamacare and Obama signed it, there would be no funding for Obamacare. Out of those, one has passed a bill. Whose fucking fault is it Obamacare is funded?

                    15. Look, this whole discussion could be summarized thus: The House could force the issue but won’t. It kinda sorta did, but not really.

                    16. I’m simply saying that if they are going to take the time to vote to ‘repeal’ Obamacare dozens of times why not take one meaningful vote to defund it? I don’t like Obamacare, it’s unpopular, and these guys are on record against it. So actually do something.

                    17. I’m simply saying that if they are going to take the time to vote to ‘repeal’ Obamacare dozens of times why not take one meaningful vote to defund it?

                      Are you being willfully obtuse or what?

                      House Votes to Defund ‘ObamaCare’ as Government Inches Closer to Shutdown
                      Published February 18, 2011

                      http://www.foxnews.com/politic…..z2a5LtTKdU

                2. You might as well be asking “Why doesn’t Justin Amash just totally defund Obama, dude?”

          2. Along those lines, who had more executive power: George III or Barack Obama?

        2. Well I did like Carolyn Jones.

      2. We’re not allowed to comment on our king’s teeth for fear of unsheathing some uncomfortable racial history.

        And the British monarchy has cuter babies.

      3. The monarchs are at least honest about what they represent.

      4. Taxes are higher now and civil liberties are more routinely crushed.

        1. But if we hadn’t rebelled, we’d be Canada, so it must have been the right call.

    2. Because reporters are clearly the holders of all great economic knowledge from their years of intense study of macroeconomics…

    3. Like the courtiers and catamites attached to the White House would tell the emperor he has no clothes.

      1. “We need to do a better job of persuading people of the awesomness of his purple silk robe.”

  13. I have reached the point where I find it incredibly difficult to imagine any set of circumstances in which a Republican will be elected President. Including the resignation in disgrace of the current placeholder. Between their all too real incompetence and idiocy on a broad spectrum of issues, and the absurd caricaturization of them by the press on a daily basis, I think a Democratic slate of Anthony Weiner and Sandra Fluke could probably beat a Republican Dream Team.

    1. -I have reached the point where I find it incredibly difficult to imagine any set of circumstances in which a Republican will be elected President

      Considering most Republicans that’s not something especially lamentable.

    2. I think a Democratic slate of Anthony Weiner and Sandra Fluke could probably beat a Republican Dream Team.

      Eventhough that slate would spend most of its time fapping eachother to images of Lena Dunham.

      1. I really could have gone a long time without that image.

    3. I think the big question is whether the apparent rise of, well, let’s call it the somewhat-limited-government wing is for real, or whether it’s doomed to failure once the GOP begins to think it could win back control of the government.

      That wing seems to resonate pretty well with a lot of people right now and might be the best path for GOP success. Which means everyone in that wing should be burnt as a witch. But, if not, they may have some wins coming. Not, by the way, because voters are looking for limited government. But I think by 2016 they’ll realize things are really broken.

      1. A 3.8 trillion dollar federal budget is not “limited” government in any conceivable sense of the word. Neither is 3 trillion, or 2 trillion even.

        Break out the axes people. Defund everything.

        1. Well, to be sure, I agree, but I think some of those, like Paul, would defund the crap out of our government, if they could. The problem is that many in that wing, if we can call it that, aren’t for limits across the board.

    4. Lots of Dems were saying similar things in 2005 – along the lines of “If we can’t beat this jackass now, how the hell are we ever going to win?” 3 years later they had the trifecta.

      1. I have no love for the GOP, but I think rumors of their demise are somewhat exaggerated–everyone does remember all the talk in 2005 about the Republicans’ new “permanent majority”, right? Oh, but then 2006 and 2008 happened, and everyone was all, “Well, obviously this means total Democratic ascendancy and these guys will control government forever” then 2010 happened…curious how the main themes of the federal government’s activities (bailouts, crony capitalism, endless war) didn’t change much at all through all these upheavals and shifts of power, huh?

    5. I have reached the point where I find it incredibly difficult to imagine any set of circumstances in which a Republican will be elected President.

      People were saying the same things about Democrats during the 2nd Clinton term. That is would be GOP presidencies as far as the eye coudl see.

      8 years.

      And now its been 8 the other way. With rare exceptions, 12 is the max you can expect.

  14. Still, color me surprised that a guy who’s made absolutely no overtures toward personal freedom would do better than Paul against a Democrat.

    Most people don’t want freedom. They’re scared of freedom. They’re all eleutherophobes, just like our buddy Tony.

    What they want is someone to take care of them. They’re like the zoo animals that don’t want to jump the fence. They’re like the natives that keep building fake runways and fake control towers. They’re a bunch of spineless bastards. They’re….

    1. People are rational to be scared of (too much) freedom. We are social animals living in communities of millions. Too much freedom means inevitable conflict. People rationally accept restraints on their own behavior because it means other people are similarly restrained. What you exhibit is not a superior open-mindedness with respect to freedom, but magical thinking with respect to how much freedom people can actually enjoy while maintaining a remotely stable society, probably stemming from a laughably misplaced egotism. (You want freedom for yourself but I doubt you give much thought to what the same freedom for others will mean for your well-being.)

      1. Too much freedom means inevitable conflict.

        HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

      2. how much freedom people can actually enjoy while maintaining a remotely stable society

        I’d give up part of my freedom to punch you in the fucking mouth right now.

        1. -I’d give up part of my freedom to punch you in the fucking mouth right now.

          My, what a charming spokesperson for your beliefs do you make.

          1. Life isn’t always charming, asshole. Neither was a musket

            1. If you don’t care about how boorish you come off or how ugly you make your viewpoint look, perhaps you should care about the request by our host here that comments be civil.

              1. I don’t take advice about civility from assholes that celebrate an abortion saving them the discomfort of being responsible. Fuck off

                1. It’s hard for me to think that someone who lacks such basic human decency in rather small matters is all that worked up over the fate of embryos. But again, you should take some consideration for the appearance of the cause you say you care for before marring it with such behavior and/or comply with the request of the host who allows you to post here on their site.

                  1. It’s hard for me to think that someone who lacks such basic human decency in rather small matters is all that worked up over the fate of embryos.

                    It’s a blog. No actual blood is spilled here. I’m sure it’s hard for you to think…full stop

                    1. I care about libertarianism and therefore don’t care much for people tarring it with behavior that is not only boorish but also the raison d’etre of how people caricature libertarians: as people who preach non-aggression but talk about how they would “give up part of my freedom to punch you in the fucking mouth right now.”

                      I also have some basic respect for my host, whether that be at an actual residence or a virtual one. They likely have a good reason to request that comments posted on their site be civil. Your disrespect for your host and the property owner who invites you onto it is noted.

                      I imagine it is important for you to have the last word to continue cursing and threatening complete strangers and to continue to rationalize your behavior (my boorishness is excused by your support for abortion!), so I’ll leave you to it.

                    2. I I I me me me…blah blah blah.

                      You’re an insufferable cunt aren’t you? I have the last word, thanks. Blow it out your ass

      3. Tony, this is almost surely what those who favor and favored state restrictions on sexual and intimate relationships argued in support of those restrictions. I imagine you’re no fan of that, so why argue it?

        1. Tony argues it because he is bitten by the green monster and it owns his ass.

          You are actually missing Tony’s main point: We libertarians aren’t envious enough!

          Haven’t you noticed all the digs about people starving so that a billionaire can drive a Bugatti Veyron?

          We say “keep your mits to yourself!” But when one does that someone might amass alot of wealth! To an envious person this is a big problem. To a libertarian, it’s not a problem at all – so long as the wealth is amassed through production and/or voluntary trade.

          Now serious students of economic history recognize that in the presence of free markets, you get a large middle class, some rich people, and a shrinking pool of people in poverty. It wasn’t the existence of unions, for example, that ensured that a poor woman had access to stockings that 100 years previously were only available to the very wealthy. It was the expansion of production prompted by the opportunity to get rich off of one’s own labors.

          But to the envious, the very existence of the wealthy is the problem. To them it’s as much a crime as a mugger taking someone’s baby’s milk-money is to us.

          1. I think this is the cause of Tony’s frustration. A very envious person thinks it’s OK to take stuff that other people has because it’s intolerable that they don’t share their good fortune. Or, if they are opposed to taking, using force to prevent someone from getting more stuff.

            Consider Paris Hilton, for example. Now, I think we can all stipulate that Paris Hilton will consume far more than she produces. And her consumption is so frivolous as completely revolt my half Scotch-Yankee love of frugality.

            However, the wealth she consumes was amassed by people who loved her and gave it to her, and to a libertarian the fact that her dad and granddad wanted her to have that wealth they had worked so hard to produce is sufficient reason for her to have it.

            Someone filled with envy, though, looks at Paris Hilton and screams she doesn’t deserve that wealth, decent people do! They view her as being the beneficiary of a natal lottery, and rather than seeing her wealth as a gift of love, view it as a theft from their pockets.

            This is why I don’t think Tony will ever accept all the evidence thrown at him that he is wrong. Because to admit that forcible redistribution of wealth away from the halves would require him to confront the envy & greed that is the core of his being. Far more comfortable to repeatedly type out the same jingoistic slogans and to close his mind to reason.

            1. Liberals constantly make this mistake in my opinion.

              They say they value freedom in areas like sexual and intimate relations, but the exact same arguments Tony makes here are the ones used to invite government restriction into those areas. Laws punishing adultery? Can’t have so much freedom that people cheat on their families and this could lead to conflict (crimes of passion). Laws punishing pornography or ‘deviant sex?’ We know that spurs and inflames ‘unnatural’ desires that lead to broken homes, rape etc., etc. Can’t have that much freedom.

              How can you reject it there but not in areas like the minimum wage or what have you? You need a principle to consistently do that, and that is what something like the NAP provides. It can’t just be “oh, sexual freedom is important to me, paying below the minimum wage is not, so there!”

              1. This is a kind of slippery slope argument. In reality you are for restrictions on liberty–the ones the supposedly airtight NAP requires. But those restrictions (stay off my property and don’t assault me), while obviously good, are still limitations.

                Liberals simply have, in my opinion, a more holistic and complex view of the world. A minimum wage does restrict employers’ freedom, but that’s a good thing, because in a civilized society employers should not be free to pay below a certain amount. Not just because of an arbitrary moral judgment, but because (it is claimed) minimum wages raise all wages without significantly affecting employment rates. Liberals understand that more money in your pockets means more freedom, so to maximize freedom we ought to find a way to get more money in more people’s pockets. Apart from that it makes for a more robust economy, which benefits everyone including employers.

                The point is that living in a society, around other people, necessarily entails certain restrictions on freedom. Everyone here agrees on that. The key is to strike the right balance so that overall meaningful freedom is actually increased. Libertarians are the ones being selective–they always favor maximum freedom for employers instead of workers, the rich instead of the poor. It’s a rigged game.

            2. Cheap psychoanalysis is the last refuge of the libertarian. You really think it’s legitimate to dismiss all arguments in favor of downward wealth distribution by smugly muttering the word “envy”?

              I’ve got an Internet diagnosis for you. You’re such a fully propagandized little puppet that no matter how completely the system is rigged to favor upward distribution–meaning there’s very little to do with productivity and hard work, but people figuring out how to use their wealth to be parasites on the economy–that you act as an unpaid shill for the wealthy. Envy may be regrettable, but that’s just pathetic.

              They don’t need your help. Any natural economy will tend toward wealth concentration. You cannot claim that the wealthy have multiplied their wealth over the last 30 years to such a degree they have, while everyone else has stagnated, because those few elites have become that much more productive and hard working. Atlas Shrugged is a work of bad fiction. Reality requires positive action to downwardly redistribute, because the rich will always have more power and influence and thus will always get unfair advantages without that positive action.

              1. The last 30 years, a time of libertopia in the US with no regulations and no minimum wages or anything of the sort. Where have you been living, Tony? In the United States, regulations have only mounted, freedoms have been decreased, government involvement in every part of the economy has grown, and we have had a decrease in the middle class. What point are you trying to make here? It seems you are telling us that during the last 30 years of increased government program size and the general scope of government to regulate everything, things have gotten worse.

                1. That would be a valid argument if “size and scope of government” as a single measurement were a valid thing. You have to pay attention to what specifically happened. Worker protections rolled back, unions practically decimated, minimum wage stagnant, open and deliberate loosening of regulations on the financial sector, and gigantic tax breaks, mostly for the wealthy. We had bona fide Ayn Randians in charge of government for a long time. Did they make libertopia? Of course not, since that’s a child’s fantasy. What they did was everything they possibly could to favor the wealthy, corporations, and employers, over the prior consensus of putting in place protections for people who actually needed them.

                  Because the military grew enormously at the same time does not mean none of those things happened.

                  1. You stupid fuck, the regulatory state grew as much or more as the military in that same time period. And the Bush tax cuts went largely to the lower and middle class. You’re either retarded or incredibly dishonest.

        2. I’m perfectly comfortable taking things on a case-by-case basis, but the idea that too much freedom is a bad thing should be no more than a truism. Everyone here believes that with respect to the freedom to violate their property rights. OM is a radical and it is most likely true that he overestimates the amount of freedom that is good for people (or that they should rationally desire).

          His comment about most people being comfortable being zoo animals is both misanthropic and perhaps an admission that his social philosophy doesn’t take into account how human beings actually are–meaning it’s a failure.

      4. The only magical thinking here is in thinking that since you don’t trust people to act fairly and honestly for their own self interest, you’ll hand nearly unlimited power to some corrupt power seeking individual to rule them. What could possibly go wrong?

      5. You want freedom for yourself but I doubt you give much thought to what the same freedom for others will mean for your well-being.

        Tony, virtually NONE of the issues that agitate me on a day-to-day basis have anything to do with “freedom for myself”.

        I don’t smoke pot.

        I don’t walk around Michael Bloomberg’s NYC while having black or brown skin.

        I’m not on the No Fly list.

        I don’t want to open a plane manufacturing plant in South Carolina.

        I don’t want to open a microbusiness in Detroit.

        I am not physically capable of getting an abortion.

        I currently do not attend any institute of higher education and therefore could not be falsely accused of a sexual assault at one.

        I am not an illegal immigrant.

        I currently have no disease that could benefit from treatment with a non-FDA approved drug.

        The list goes on.

        Virtually all of the liberty issues I am concerned about impact other Americans infinitely more than they impact me.

        And I want all of these “freedoms for others” regardless of any theoretical impact they may have on my own well-being.

        1. Indeed. The wierd thing is that liberals and progressives actually find it unfortunate that people would would “vote against their self-interest” by voting against social welfare programs that would benefit them.

          Their whole electoral strategy is to appeal to peoples self-interest by offering them financial benefits. Meanwhile, libertarians, who are supposed to be the party of Randian greed, have to campaign on the basic fairness and justice of NOT coercing people or stealing from them.

        2. Fair enough. Maybe you are Jesus-like in your moral superiority and we liberals are selfish little parasites. Because, while I have never needed nor never plan to need food stamps, I favor them, and not just because I have a bleeding heart for the poor. It’s also naked self-interest. Some twist of fate could cause me to go into poverty (that’s always possible in capitalism, is it not?), so I could need them some day. Furthermore, I benefit in an ambient way from not having lots of poor people around me who are also starving. Starving people have more incentive to commit crimes, after all, since they’re starving.

          I do not reject the idea that people act in their own self-interest and I don’t claim that it’s a bad thing. I just don’t see why people can’t act in their own self-interest by cooperating (and before you say they can, just don’t force me to do it, explain how hundreds of millions of people can cooperate without a measure of coercion and without some people not getting their way–if that’s too hard, explain how 10 people can do it). Cooperating for mutual benefit is like a hallmark of our species (and many others).

          1. It’s astounding that you think large groups of people can’t cooperate without government, or some form of coercion. Assuming you’re not really a sockpuppet, you really should examine your assumptions.

      6. Does reading this make anyone else think of The Grand Inquisitor chapter from The Brothers Karamazov?

  15. Its PPP, and its 3 1/4 years till the election. Take this poll with a mountain of salt.

  16. Jim Jong-un has better odds of being elected than Hillary, especially if she decides to run on a main platform of censorship like she did in ’08, which she will because she’s fucking obsessed with censoring video games and movies.

    Democrats take for granted that the woman is a complete nutcase who self-destructs at every opportunity she’s given, and they’ve already used up the gas in their “War on Women”-mobile obfuscating Obama’s disastrous economic/foreign/domestic policies over the past year.

  17. Jim Jong-un has better odds of being elected than Hillary…..

    Well he is more photogenic.

    1. And his jowls are smaller.

  18. Still, color me surprised that a guy who’s made absolutely no overtures toward personal freedom would do better than Paul against a Democrat.

    Will they ever stop being surprised that liberals don’t care about “personal freedom?” Besides, Rand Paul opposes abortion, doesn’t he? Isn’t the “personal freedom” that libertarians supposedly agree with liberals on just code for “abortion and gay marriage?”

    1. I have to say that for me abortion is as close to a ‘single issue’ determiner that I have. This is because I see no value in an early fetus and so I think forcing someone to carry it to term and then take care of it for 18 years because of its ‘rights’ is the most appalling government intervention I can think of right now. I also had a personal experience where but for an abortion my life, and several others, would have been much worse.

      1. And why is this issue even relevant 40 years after Roe v Wade? The odds of abortion being made illegal again are about as good as the Cleveland Browns winning a Stanley Cup at this point.

        1. -And why is this issue even relevant 40 years after Roe v Wade?

          Because of two numbers:
          5 (number to reach majority in SCOTUS)
          and
          80 (Ginsburg’s age)

          1. Can you name a single advanced country that has recriminalized abortion? So what makes you think the states will?

      2. No one is going to force someone to take care of a child for “eighteen years,” the demand for babies to be adopted far exceeds the supply. It’s just another stupid lie liberals tell. Even if it were the case, would the parents right to not take care of the child overrule the child’s right to live? If you can’t feed ’em, don’t breed ’em!

        1. -No one is going to force someone to take care of a child for “eighteen years,”

          I’ve got some dads paying child support that would like to dispute that with you.

        2. Shit, there’s a lot of people making my life worse. Stick ’em in a uterus so I can rid myself of them!

          1. Don’t confuse people with embryos and you won’t come to that conclusion.

            1. Don’t confuse people with embryos

              Even if they have all the characteristics of people except for where they’re located? Sounds very reasonable.

              1. Freedoms conflict. You have to choose: does the fetus have a right to be brought to term, or does a woman have the freedom not to be forced by the state to give birth against her will?

                There is no right answer, there’s only the more practical and humane one.

      3. Out of curiosity, have you ever read “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”?

    2. Re: GWIA?

      Isn’t the “personal freedom” that libertarians supposedly agree with liberals on just code for “abortion and gay marriage?”

      Pretty much. Sometimes, drug use, but most liberals don’t really mean it. If it weren’t for the fact that abortion and gay marriage are two topics in the kulturwar, liberals would not even bother with those, either.

  19. ilet’s call it the somewhat-limited-government wing

    I think there are some people, like Paul, who are for real; imperfect, but for real. I also think Republican Establishmentarians like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner will fight them every step of the way.

    1. I agree completely. That’s really the central battle of importance right now–will the old guard continue to prevail? I’m thinking they might not, but they’ve managed to do so for a while yet.

  20. Hillary will do what Boxer, Feinstein and numerous other tenured Democrats have often done, which is to remind the single-issue women voters out there that she’s for “choice,” even though the office of president can do precious little about the issue either way. Rand Paul should point that out, if he doesn’t want his otherwise libertarian ideas crowded out of his media coverage.

    1. -the office of president can do precious little about the issue either way

      Nominations?

  21. It says that the radicals are all that’s left in the GOP primary electorate. I think that’s pretty clear from this poll as well as obvious observed reality.

    1. How did I miss this?? Thank you Tony!!

    2. Any Republican, from any time, would be considered “radical” to the left. Look up what so-called “moderate Republicans” like Dwight Eisenhower said about racial issues. It is not the Republicans that have become more radical, it is liberals who have moved much farther to the left, the Republicans seem more radical, because yesterday’s common sense has become today’s “hate.”

      1. Nonsense. Sure, everyone was more racist in the 50s, but that’s not what I’m talking about. (Though current Republican attitudes on race is so embarrassingly retrograde that it actually makes my point.)

        I’m talking about radical on economic issues (their rhetoric is practically straight from Ayn Rand, and their methods antidemocratic) and social issues (guns have never been as unregulated as they are now–even in the long lost libertarian world of the Wild West, you had to check your gun before entering towns).

        They’re in a vicious cycle, fueled by redistricting schemes and demagogues on the radio, of increasing radicalism, and if you can’t see that you’re just not paying attention. Democrats are only just making small noises about leaving the 80s- and 90s-era Reagan consensus and returning to real liberalism. The only people who claim Democrats have become radical are people who are themselves radical, and for some reason have no memory of the last decade or the decade before when they believed in all the shit they are now calling the devil (Obamacare was invented by conservatives, etc.).

        1. How can you possibly believe this? Since Reagan left office, the GOP has nominated George HW Bush twice, Bob Dole, George Bush twice, John McCain, and Mitt Romney (who is practically a walking stereotype of a mushy moderate northeastern Republican). Their leaders in Congress are John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. Do you really consider all these guys radicals? And your line about gun control is laughably false

  22. That’s what it says, alright.

  23. People were saying the same things about Democrats during the 2nd Clinton term. That is would be GOP presidencies as far as the eye coudl see.

    8 years.

    But BOOOOOOOOOSH!

    Seriously, if there is anyone in the Republican party establishment capable of honest introspection, I am unaware of them. And, as much as it pains me to say this [insert sampling error warning] I don’t think a large segment of the *voting* public sees the Obama Presidency as the unmitigated disaster we do.

  24. People are rational to be scared of (too much) freedom.

    Choosing from fifty different types of toothbrushes is hard. The government should establish specifications and designate a single supplier.

  25. Democrats aren’t really motivated by personal freedom. They’re motivated by sympathy and identity with group affiliations – women, ethnic minorities, unions, low-income families, whatever. Overtures to freedom from drones or surveillance are lost on them; attacking the government on civil liberties requirements the implication that conservatives are targeting minorities and/or young people.

    Rand Paul just speaks about these things in ways that appeal to conservatives (surveillance violates the rules) and libertarians (it violates freedom) but not so much in ways that appeal to progressives (it violates equality). Plus that whole civil rights act thing tarnished him unfairly and his drawl doesn’t help.

    1. I don’t deny the rather ugly identity politics dominating the Democrat party, but conservatives are just as tribal, just in other ways, hyper patriotic (you’re either with us or for the evil-doers!) and religious (war on Christmas) for example.

  26. Candidates that are more polarizing in their own parties will always underperform in polls done before they win their party nominations. A lot of angry birds in that poll today are saying, “I’d vote for Hillary before I’d vote for Rand Paul.” They are saying this, but it is a lie. These people’s brains barely function at all, and what little they can do does not include the ability to think about the future or the past. Whatever is happening to them now is the most important thing that ever has or ever will happen.

    I wouldn’t be shocked if an asshole like McCain or Graham were to endorse Hillary over Rand in a general, but when it comes down to it, the portion of the Republican base that loves to fight wars doesn’t actually care that much about foreign policy. They care about ranting on Facebook so that all their friends know that they are cool and tough and love the Army. They will vote for someone else in the primary and talk about how much they hate Rand Paul, but when the leaves begin to change, so will their tunes. They’ll say “I hate voting for Rand, but I a’int votin for no damn woman Democrat,” and they’ll stick with the Red Team.

    If Rand wins the nomination, he’ll get every Republican vote and pull the 5 to 10 percent or so of team blue who actually do care about personal freedom.

  27. “If Rand wins the nomination, he’ll get every Republican vote and pull the 5 to 10 percent or so of team blue who actually do care about personal freedom.”

    Just like Goldwater did in 1964. Or McGovern.

    1. Average hawks then actually believed there was a good chance that Goldwater’s foreign policy would get them killed by Russian nukes. I don’t think modern neocon voters actually believe they’re in any real danger, and will vote for their team before they’ll vote for someone who will protect them from the terrorists.

      I could be wrong, but that would be pretty remarkable.

  28. Re: Tony,

    People are rational to be scared of (too much) freedom.

    Especially when there’s so much rationality behind the qualifier “too much.”

    Right???

    Too much freedom means inevitable conflict.

    Yes. Slaves are very passive.

    People rationally accept restraints on their own behavior because it means other people are similarly restrained.

    If it were true that people accept the same restraints others suffer, it would not explain all the revolutionary movements of the last – oh, I don’t know – 500 years.

    What you exhibit is not a superior open-mindedness with respect to freedom, but magical thinking with respect to how much freedom people can actually enjoy while maintaining a remotely stable society

    Instead, a totalitarian police state is the closest there is to scientific thinking, I fancy.

    I mean, what other conclusion can be derived from your proposition, Tony? You certainly use every chance you get to prove you’re a good little Fascist.

    You want freedom for yourself but I doubt you give much thought to what the same freedom for others will mean for your well-being.

    I’m not paranoid, Tony. Unlike you, it seems.

  29. I’m perfectly comfortable taking things on a case-by-case basis [sic]

    As long as it takes – there’s only a mere 300+ million people in this country alone.

    I just can’t comprehend how you can stand there and think people will simply swallow your bullshit.

    OM is a radical and it is most likely true that he overestimates the amount of freedom that is good for people

    Unlike you, who does understand just how much liberty is good for people. Right?

    Ain’t you the arrogant little shit?

    I don’t advocate for freedom because I know how much freedom is good for anyone. I advocate for freedom precisely because I CAN’T KNOW how much freedom everybody wants. That’s up to each. But neither they, not you or me have the right to tell others exactly how much freedom they can have. That means everybody is ipso facto restrained by each other’s freedom, a fact that makes hash of your argument that freedom breeds conflict.

    His comment about most people being comfortable being zoo animals is both misanthropic and perhaps an admission that his social philosophy doesn’t take into account how human beings actually are–meaning it’s a failure.

    I say they’re like zoo animals because I understand incentives. Instead, saying that free people are barbarians (as you insinuated previously) is the trademark of a true misanthrope.

    1. Unlike you, who does understand just how much liberty is good for people. Right?

      No, I just take words for what they mean and understand that freedom is not always at all times a good thing. You agree with me about that, because you don’t think people should have the freedom to shoot you for no cause. Restriction on one freedom (freedom to murder), gain in another freedom (freedom, more or less, from murder). That’s how societies work.

      I don’t really have to go further because if you accept that basic premise then you can extrapolate all sorts of policies. If you don’t accept that basic premise, then I’ll be over to relieve you of your valuables presently (I have bigger guns than you do, so it’s perfectly fair).

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.