Rand Paul

Rand Paul Wins Big in CPAC Straw Poll, Again


Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky pulled another first place win in the Conservative Political Action Conference presidential straw poll with 31 percent of the vote. Sen. Ted Cruz came in a distance second with 11 percent of the vote, and Neurosurgeon Benjamin Carson came in third place.

Rand Paul's office released a statement contending:

"The fight for liberty continues, and we must continue to stand up and say: We're free and no one, no matter how well-intentioned, will take our freedoms from us."

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie came in fourth with 8 percent, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and former Sen. Rick Santorum tied with 7 percent.

While Marco Rubio finished second to Rand Paul in CPAC 2013's straw poll, this year he only garnered 6 percent of the vote. Rep. Paul Ryan and Texas Gov. Rick Perry tied at three percent.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, former Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Gov. Sarah Palin tied at 2 percent.

NEXT: Join Reason & IHS for a Book Launch Party with NYT Bestselling Author Anne Fortier Weds., 3/12!

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. Rubio shot himself in both feet with his pro-amnesty statements.

    1. How DARE he be sane on immigration!

      1. Sanity is insanity, war is peace, blah blah

      2. I don’t think “make the US more like Mexico” counts as sane from a libertarian perspective. It does from a left/statist perspective, though.

        1. Because people go to another country to make it like the one they left.

          1. You do know that happens all the time, right? Ask residents of Colorado, Oregon, and Nevada about ex-Californians. Ask long-time Florida or New Hampshire people about ex-New Yorkers. Etc.

            But mainly, look at the beliefs and voting habits of Hispanic immigrants. They are less libertarian than the average American (except maybe when it comes to immigration).

            1. Never happened in Canada no reason to believe it would happen in America. None. Complete loony-toon ridiculousness.

              1. Canada has rather more restrictive immigration laws than the US, and doesn’t share a border with Mexico. And if you think Latinos are libertarians or even “natural conservatives,” you are sadly mistaken.

            2. New Hampshire’s becoming more libertarian. So no.

        2. I’ve been to Mexico, and found many things to prefer over the USA. The notable lack of molestation upon boarding an aircraft, for example.


          1. You are normally a voice of sanity around here, jcr, so I’m sure you don’t believe that making the US more like Mexico is going to make the TSA better.

          2. You’ve never driven in Mexico, have you?
            Your “ticket” costs however much you have on you.
            And, if your a tasty young female be prepared for a strip search.

          3. +1 donkey show

        3. It does from a left/statist perspective, though.

          Amusing that you think Mexico is more left/statist then the US.

          Then again maybe you have never tried to improve your property or been to the doctor in the US in the past 20 years.

          1. Well, it’s not uniformly so, no. But Mexico had generations of rule by the left-wing Institutional Revolutionary Party, has one giant teacher’s union, a nationalized oil company, and is generally steeped in left/liberal ideas. The beliefs and voting records of Mexican immigrants reflect this.

            1. Mexico has undertaken massive free-market reform in recent years and has moved to restrain the massive teacher’s union (does America not have the equivalent of this)?

              The beliefs and voting records of Mexican immigrants reflect this.

              Not really. Not that that is a legitimate reason to curtail the right to immigrate. The gall of nativists to seriously use ‘wah muh party won’t win’ as an argument is breathtaking.

              1. Yes, really. By supporting massive immigration you are supporting one libertarian value (free movement) at the price of all the others, because most Latinos are fans of big government.

                Not wanting the US to get less libertarian does not make me a “nativist,” so stop calling me that.

                The fact that Mexico is reining in the teacher’s union and has made some free market reforms says nothing about the beliefs and voting records of Mexican immigrants in the US. About 70% of Latinos voted for Obama in 2012.

        4. I love how being not in favor of deporting masses of people vital to the US economy somehow automatically equals open borders and full amnesty. You people are on crack and you are getting left behind.

          1. “Vital to the US economy”? Yeah, we have such low unemployment, and such a pressing need for unskilled labor. Right….

      3. Is it sane to invite millions of poor people into your welfare state so they can vote to take more of your money and liberties away?
        Not even Sweden & Canada are sane enough to do that.

        1. Yes. Invite them in. Don’t grant them citizenship (permanent residency would be fine). Don’t grant them welfare.

          During the entire 19th century U.S. history was characterized by poor immigrants flooding en masse into the country, and it didn’t cause the end of days. If you’re concerned about immigrants getting welfare, then welfare is the problem. Go after that.

          1. Absolutely true.

            But you don’t actually believe there’s a snowballs chance in hell that the welfare state will be gotten rid of (short of national bankruptcy); or, that free movement of labor without the right to be “represented” with a vote is the goal of this political debate, do you?

            Don’t make the mistake of believing rational government is about to spring forth world-wide. Quite the opposite.

            1. ^This.

            2. We’ve been over this.

              Immigrants DO NOT use welfare at higher rates than income-matched Americans.

              Canada lets in immigrants more easily than the states, nativist lies notwithstanding. That is one of the reasons we are doing better than you in economics.

              1. Yeah, but it’s the end of Back to the Future/start of BTTF 2: No, no, no, no, no, Marty. Both you and Jennifer turn out fine. It’s your kids, Marty

              2. WE have never been over anything.

                Wether immigrants use less welfare is irrelevant. Legal immigrants should get zero welfare. Libertarians are entirely anti-welfare state, anyway. And, illegal immigrants ALSO get welfare IN SPADES. You don’t live in California, do you? You’re not a Welfare and Fraud Investigator, are you?

                Canada allows more legal immigration? Give me the numbers and some proof.
                Canada’s economy has benefitted from rolling back many elements of the welfare state that had spun out of control in the 90’s. Good job

                But, Canada wasn’t the one who bailed out the Peso. Canada didn’t force it’s taxpayers to bailout giant banks and Europe with Trillions. Canada’s government isn’t spending 1trillion dollars of your money policing the world. Canada’s dollar isn’t the world’s reserve currency. And, Canada isn’t overrun with tens of millions of illegal immigrants bankrupting it’s hospitals and voting to take your money by force.

                Canada is a nicely homogenized bed of “nativists” like yourself.

                You need to get out more.

              3. Immigrants DO NOT use welfare at higher rates than income-matched Americans.

                “Income-matched,” LOL. So I’m not supposed to object to millions of poor Mexicans because don’t use welfare more than millions of poor Americans? Why should we let in anyone who will go on welfare?

                Very, very few Canadian immigrant are from Mexico and points south.

              4. Who cares, if they match Americans in welfare, that is already way too fucking much.

      4. So libertarians are for a limited government, with the exception of some percentage of Anarchists who want no government? and totally open borders? No nations?

        So that small government would be a ?. One world government? Which is what progressives are after, in the long run.

        So Libertarians and Liberals have that in common, too.

        I support you guys in a lot of things, but just can’t see this open border thing working out very well in the long run. The U.S. would just become low hanging fruit for countries wanting to plunder our resources, by force if necessary.

  2. Fucking SoCons!!!

  3. You know who else won big with the pols?

    1. Kang?

        1. sloopyinca|3.8.14 @ 7:42PM|#
          “Kim Jong Un?”

          How did he do? Anyone know?
          If it was less than 100%, someone prolly won’t vote again.

          1. Somebody should sow Bo the results, because that’s a consensus.

    2. Lech Walesa

    3. George Washington?

  4. On topic: Take a look at Drudge. Their center column is their own straw poll. Here is the order…


    I guess they really don’t have much of an attention span, because the three establishment favorites are pretty much the first three in alphabetical order.

    1. Considering a straw poll is just “hey, which guy are you most familiar with?”, I wouldn’t get too excited over Paul’s showing. As soon as the election draws nearer and the lunatic parade begins, the majority CPAC attendees will flock to the meaningless cipher that declares himself or herself the “most, truest Conservative ™,” which usually also involves saying a lot of stupid shit. Another reason why Paul won’t get the nod from them.

      1. I seriously doubt that anyone who isn’t familiar with every one of those guys is going to attend CPAC.

      2. Considering a straw poll is just “hey, which guy are you most familiar with?”, I wouldn’t get too excited over Paul’s showing.

        That and the fact that CPAC is always overrun with young Paultards that don’t in any way shape or form represent the mainstream of the party.

      3. Most truest conservative?

        I’ve been noticing a pattern of “most electability” over the past few years.

    2. Cruz is not an “establishment favorite”.

      1. You don’t think so? I’ve heard his name bandied about in the same articles as Paul, Christie and lately Bush. Maybe I’m confusing him with Rubio, but I thought Cruz was a bit of a SoCon/NeoCon darling.

        I suppose I could be wrong.

        1. Supposedly the GOP establishment dislikes him. Too much of a Tea Party bomb-thrower.

        2. Cruz is the latest “Anyone but Rand” candidate.

          I’m still not quite aboard the Rand Express but it would be nice to see some debates which don’t devolve into arguments over who holds the chains for the next four years.

          The establishment won’t let that happen, though. It’s all a game for far too many regardless of what they say they support.

        3. Rubio has fallen into GOPSTABLISHMENT line for the most part. Cruz and Paul goad them too much.

        4. How do ya think this would work:

          Hi, I’m Rand Paul. I am running for President and I will be on the ballot in November of 2016. I’d like it to be as the Republican candidate.

          In fact, I want to be your president so much, I’ll be running in every Presidential election for the foreseeable future until I win.

          1. LOL. It would be honest.

            1. For as much as his family has been fucked by the GOP, I’d love to see some payback.

          2. Old family tradition 🙂

        5. Rubio is who you’re thinking of. The Establishment hates Cruz more than Paul. All the conservatives I know who want Cruz as the GOP nominee like Rand as their second choice.

          1. Thanks for the clarification.

            As for Rubio, is he eligible to run if he wants to? What’s going on with the birther movement on the left?

            1. Wasn’t it Cruz who was born in Canada?

              1. Fuck, apparently I think they’re the same person. I guess you’re asking the wrong person.

                1. Yeah, it’s kind of hard to tell them all apart these days.

            2. Rubio parents were 1st gen Cuban immigrants who were naturalized, and he was born in Miami. I think his birth location alone makes him a “natural born citizen” due to 14A

        6. The Neocons fucking hate Cruz, with a passion.

          Pretty much everyone in Washington hates Cruz, excepting maybe Paul and Lee.

          Its really too bad he is so ridiculous on social issues.

    3. Scott Walker is still my prediction.

      1. He’s the RINO to watch.

        1. Ok, I’m from Wisconsin and all I have to say is Act 10 was the most amazing thing I’ve seen in politics in my (albeit short) life.

          1. Indeed. And he made it work and survived the recall. Talk about Napoleon’s dictum of attacking the enemy where he is strongest.

            I don’t know where SIV gets the idea that Walker is a RINO.

            1. Public spending has increased a great deal lately under Walker’s reign. Act 10 was amazing though.

              1. Not according to this:

                Total state and Local Spending
                2014: $52.4 billion
                2013: $53.5 billion
                2012: $54.6 billion
                2011: $56.7 billion

      2. Waaaaalllkaaaaaahhhhh!

    4. The Drudge Poll listed above _is in_ alphabetical order. That is the list of the potential candidates in the poll. Not the results.

      In this online poll, Senator Rand is number one with something over 44,000 votes (roughly 30%) and Senator Cruz is second.

      1. It had not occurred to me that at the time you posted, the ABC order might have been the voting tally. My apologies if so.

    5. And yet Paul is winning it.

    6. They’re in alphabetical order by last name.

      1. Err… should have read on. Sorry.

  5. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie came in fourth…


    1. We need a few more juicy scandals.

  6. Well, that and about a buck and a quarter will get you a cuppa at Starbucks.

  7. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie came in fourth with 8 percent.

    Christie is Shrike?

    1. Can’t be. Christie’s got enough intelligence to be embarrassed.

  8. Making inroads with the GOP may be harder than I think.

    Read the insane comments on this thread.

    1. Using Disqus is insane.

  9. I caught a positive sign for this from twitter earlier (don’t remember where).

    Prices were raised for CPAC to try to get the college set/libertarians out (so that Paul didn’t immediately win the straw poll).

    Interesting that he still did.

    1. “Prices were raised for CPAC to try to get the college set/libertarians out (so that Paul didn’t immediately win the straw poll).”

      The So Cons attempted to manipulate the audience and thereby the vote?

      1. The So Cons attempted to manipulate the audience and thereby the vote?

        Lol have you ever been to CPAC?

        It’s fucking Beltway scum and the larval stages of same. Neocon rah rah and big government David Brooks style “conservatives” everywhere. SoCons? lol.

    1. On earth too.

      I don’t know why you are bitching: “After the investigation all officers were reminded to respect individual rights and human dignity, he said.

      “We want to respect people, no matter who they are — homeless, whatever,” Robinson said. “That situation’s been dealt with. Those officers understand.”

      See, they understand now. We can all rest easy.

      1. “After the investigation all officers were reminded to respect individual rights and human dignity, he said.

        So now they can’t just say they were following procedure!

        1. You know what really would have taught them a lesson? About a dozen petty theft charges, the same number of civil rights federal charges and conspiracy to violate civil rights.

          This is just power-hungry assholishness. It should come with a financial cost or else it won’t deter anybody.

  10. Also OT: Anybody out there have a fitbit? Mine has stopped charging properly and I’m curious if there’s an easy fix or if I have to return it.

    1. Bro, do you even lift?

      1. Yeah. I lift like all the time. Heavy weights and lots of reps.

    1. See: OUTRAGE Rand Paul Comes Down on the Side of Neocons on Ukraine


  11. Rand Paul Wins Big in CPAC Straw Poll, Again

    Isn’t this kind of like the Sports Illustrated cover curse?

    He’s doomed. Thanks, CPAC-vote Curse!

  12. Rand Paul Wins Big in CPAC Straw Poll – Again!

    “Who cares, he’s not REAL libertarian.” – Churlish libertarian.

    Rand’s greatest enemy might be (for all intents and purposes) his dad and his ARMY of rigid ideologues. Give it up dudes, Ron Paul performed worse than Ross Perot, who actually won a state. Rand’s tent is more “inclusive” of conservatives and independents. He’s the best of among people who actually has a chance.

    Rand may very well come around on SSM. But what if he doesn’t want to vaporize the department of education and close down every military base overseas? Oh no, I’m gonna stay home and let Hillary win. Ron Paul can run again in 2040.

    Stop it.

    1. Ron Paul performed worse than Ross Perot, who actually won a state.

      Perot did not win a state.

      In the GOP primary, Paul actually won a state (Iowa). Maybe some others too, because caucuses are weird.

    2. Ron Paul performed worse than Ross Perot, who actually won a state.

      Ron Paul brings people to libertarianism through persuasive argument; the political process is the medium through which he broadcasts the message. That’s how he wins.

    3. “Give it up dudes, Ron Paul performed worse than Ross Perot, who actually won a state.”

      Mitt won some states but lost the war because of Ron Paul and the rising tide of Ideologues like myself who’ve been “reached” by the ever-ridiculed Mises Institute crowd.
      We need more ideologues for truth and rationality instead of more equivocators.

      1. I give Dr. Paul credit for me finally taking an interest in politics. 2007.

        Maybe he’s not 100% Reason approved, but he woke up a lot of people.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.