Rand Paul

Rand Paul Wins Michigan Straw Poll, Still Struggles for National Approval

Latest poll has him at 4 percent among GOP voters.

|

No wars = no votes?
CNN

It probably should not be a surprise that Sen. Rand Paul would be performing well in the state (Michigan) that brought us libertarian conservative Rep. Justin Amash. The fact that John Yob, Paul's national political director (recently seen getting punched by a Marco Rubio aide), is a political consultant from the state certainly doesn't hurt either.

The Paul campaign's apparent heavy investment in a weekend straw poll at the Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference in Michigan paid off with a win. From The Detroit News:

The Paul campaign celebrated the straw poll victory as a sign that the libertarian-minded senator's presidential bid remains alive, despite registering single-digit numbers in national polls.

"This is an organization test that indicates that (Paul) will over-perform in other organizational contests such as Iowa, Nevada, Minnesota and other caucus states that come before the March 8 Michigan primary," said John Yob, Paul's national political director and a Grand Rapids-based GOP consultant.

The candidate said winning the straw poll — which he did in a similar vote on the island in 2013 — was an honor, "as it is voted on by the most influential Michigan GOP members, grassroots leaders and party activists from throughout the country…"

The top five presidential candidates in the straw poll each barnstormed Mackinac Island Friday and Saturday, engaging in retail politicking among 2,200 Michigan Republicans attending the state party's 31st biennial leadership conference. The top two vote-getters, Paul and Fiorina, were the last candidates to speak Saturday night at the Grand Hotel.

A pollster noted that Paul's campaign in Michigan brings in a lot of "true believers" of the candidate to vote in the straw poll. Sounds a lot like his dad in that respect. The other four GOP candidates who attended the conference were Carly Fiorina, Gov. John Kasich, Sen. Ted Cruz, and former Gov. Jeb Bush. That's also the order they placed in the straw poll.

Even if the event was particularly Paul-friendly, he probably needed the pick-me-up. After last week's debate, Nick Gillespie noted that Paul had used his platform to promote libertarian-friendly positions like reducing direct intervention overseas, not immediately tossing out the Iran deal, and pulling back on the war on drugs and mass incarceration.

The reward for Paul's well-articulated deviation from hardline orthodoxy was being called the debate's big loser in one post-debate poll. Gravis Marketing polled 1,337 registered Republicans for One America News Network. Their poll had Carly Fiorina as the clear winner of the debate with 33 percent of the vote. But when they asked Republicans who they thought lost the debate, the big loser was Rand Paul, getting a thumbs down by 32 percent of those polled. Donald Trump came in next, with 17 percent calling him the debate's loser. (Interestingly, Trump also came in second place as the debate's winner, which helps illustrate the polarization the GOP is struggling with.) More than half the Republicans polled said they had a less favorable opinion of Paul after the debate.

What could account for this gap between what the polled Republicans say versus what libertarian conservatives might have perceived from Paul? The answer may be down in the poll's demographics. When asked to describe their politics, 47 percent called themselves "very conservative," as opposed to "slightly conservative" (31 percent) or "moderate" (20 percent). And 75 percent said they do not consider themselves to be members of the Tea Party. In addition, 70 percent said they've already decided they were going to vote the party line come the 2016 election. Also, the largest age demographic participating in the poll were past retirement age. The 65-plus crowd constituted 38 percent of the vote.

Fiorina may seem like an "outsider" from her lack of government experience, but her emphasis on the Planned Parenthood fight, going after Hillary Clinton, and her very hawkish attitude toward dealing with other nations puts her right in the midst of a good chunk of traditional conservatism. She deviated to support Paul's ideas that we should let states experiment with their own drug laws and to reduce mass incarceration, but added a huge caveat that drugs are really, really, really bad.

The latest CNN/ORC poll has Paul bringing in a mere 4 percent of the vote among Republican candidates. That puts him in eighth place, currently. But hey, he's still beating Gov. Chris Christie, so that's something.

NEXT: The Scott Walker Campaign Disaster

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. I’ll reiterate, the best thing that could happen for classical liberals/libertarians/anarchists is Rand Paul bowing out gracefully early and focusing his attention on building power within the Senate.

    If he were to win this cycle, Rand Paul, lacking a powerful legislative block backing him up, would almost certainly be a one termer eaten alive by the civil service.

    1. Perhaps. But that might kill any future presidential ambitions (granted I think the chances of him ever being president or even getting the GOP nomination are really low). Has there every been an instance of a candidate running for president, falling on their face and not even competing, and then winning a nomination in a future year? I know people like Romney, McCain, Reagan, etc. ran and lost prior to winning the nomination, but they were all serious contenders in the race.

    2. eaten alive by the civil service.

      How so?

      1. The civil service is essentially a fourth, unchecked branch of the government.

        For example, it’s widely known now that the EPA has been colluding with enviornmental groups to set public policy, in a manner far more destructive than the sort alleged against the Cheney energy policy group in the early days of the Bush II presidency. This collusion included working together to create the appearance of scientific consensus and a value free consideration of public comments while utterly undermining them as the group lurched toward a predetermined conclusion.

        Now, let’s say you were president and want to reign this in. How are you going to do it? How are you going to cope with the PR campaign and pressure put on congressmen to prevent you from pressuring the EPA to allow children to be poisoned? How are you going to deal with the PR campaign of whistleblowers levelling false allegations that you are keeping them from doing their job properly?

        Now imagine that coming from the army, coming from the border patrol, coming from the justice department, coming from the business community, teh education blob, the park service, the FDA.

        Obama allowed these guys to run free of most lets or hindrances.And they will not surrender such power. They will scream to the American People that your actions are making the people less safe, that thanks to you, they are no longer protecting the people. And it will work.

        1. You’re always good for an accurate, yet depressing viewpoint.

        2. Thanks Tarran, very well reasoned and argued.

          1. Don’t thank him! He gives me a case of the sads.

            1. Don’t thank him! He gives me a case of the sads.

              It may give you the sads, but I think anytime someone takes the time to put together a coherent argument that actually answers the question asked, they should be thanked. I do appreciate his analysis, even though I think he is wrong, it is still nice to see a well reasoned response.

              1. Judge Chamberlain Haller: Mr. Gambini?
                Vinny Gambini: Yes, sir?
                Judge Chamberlain Haller: That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.
                Vinny Gambini: Thank you, Your Honor.
                Judge Chamberlain Haller: [firm tone] Overruled.

              2. If you disagree with me, that means you are either very stupid or so evil as to be worse than Hitler! 😉

                1. You know who, uh, else was worse than… worse than… uh…

                2. If you disagree with me, that means you are either very stupid or so evil as to be worse than Hitler! 😉

                  Nope, simply a difference of opinion.

              3. What is with people being polite? YOU ARE LIBERTARIANS. Act like it.

            2. So what. It’s just more tear crust to add to your juggling.

              1. That crust has nothing to do with tears.

                Unless you cry through your penis.

        3. How do you do it? Obviously, you run on doing these things. And if you manage to get elected, then the majority of the voters are more likely to be behind you when you actually try to do it. But if you are a stealth candidate, hiding what you actually intend to do, then you are right that the civil service will quite easily overcome and defeat you.

          1. Reagan ran on eliminating the DOE and DOEd. Yet he increased their budgets and is remembered as a fiscal conservative and hailed as the party’s one true saint.

            When someone in the debates points that out and is applauded for it by the GOP audience, I’ll start believing that there is hope. Until then I’m going to assume that any talk of cutting is bullshit.

            1. Did reagan increase their budgets or did the democrat controlled congress with veto power do it? I might be splitting hairs, but there is a distintion….

      2. “He’ll take our JERBZ!!”

        1. “He’ll take our JERBZ!!”

          Nice.

        2. Gerbils? You’ll have to pry them from my cold, dead ……uh, hands.

    3. Right.

      I am still pissed out of my mind at Gary Johnson for walking way from a guaranteed seat in the Senate. I get a woody thinking about a Rand/Johnson/Amash triad ham-stringing legislation for 30+ year careers.

      1. 30 year woody? You should consult a doctor or maybe an exorcist.

        1. patient: Nurse, I have an erection that won’t go away. No matter how many times I do it, it still won’t go away. What can you give me?

          nurse (grabbing purse): I have 32 dollars in cash, and you can have my wedding ring.

      2. I dunno about this. Gary has been getting more radical since he left public office. I fear that holding a Senate seat would have the opposite effect. Better for our cause that her run as the LP candidate and loose, yet be able to speak freely and introduce more people to the common sense positions of the LP.

    4. “If he were to win this cycle, Rand Paul, lacking a powerful legislative block backing him up, would almost certainly be a one termer eaten alive by the civil service.”

      Reagan dealt with a Dem-dominated Congress and was a very successful two-term president. This doesn’t hold up.

      1. very successful two-term president

        Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%?compared with Reagan’s 3%?in the government’s take of “national income.” And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan’s requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.

        The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn’t count the recently signed $4 billion “drought-relief” measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981?and $477 billion in 1987.

        I suppose the civil service would find that successful.

        1. “Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%?compared with Reagan’s 3%”

          Hold on here. Reagan’s tax cuts grew the economy a great deal, and increased tax revnue-could that not account for an increase in the take of ‘national income’? Does the ‘government take’ here include only the federal government or include states?

          ” in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan’s requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.”

          I’m fuzzy on the back and forth but didn’t Reagan have shutdown fights with Congress? Maybe those ‘requested budgets’ were the compromise?

          I do not want to hagiograph Reagan. His WoD ramp up and some other things were very bad but he was still very good for freedom. He ended the Fairness Doctrine and suspended the Community Reinvestment Act for a couple things. Those won’t show up in ‘national income’. He also let Volker be awesome.

          1. Reagan had 4 main accomplishments (in order):

            1) Straightening out the tax code
            2) Letting Volcker do his thing
            3) Giving lip service to limited government
            4) Being present when the Soviets economically collapsed

            1. “Being present when the Soviets economically collapsed”

              He no doubt accelerated that process. “Letting Volker do his thing” was integral to getting the price of oil to fall as much as it did, which killed the Soviet petro-state.

              Ending the Fairness Doctrine should be on that list.

      2. And yet federal spending and the deficit skyrocketed during his term, and the War on Drugs was ramped up, among other things. Reagan might not have been the bogeyman the left makes him out to be, but he wasn’t anything to write home about from a libertarian POV

        1. He was far from perfect, but still the best president since Coolidge. What hope we have today is largely thanks to him. He let the computer industry develop relatively unmolested for one thing.

        2. Also: NAFTA. Imperfect as it is, NAFTA was a big step in the direction of free trade. We are all far better off for it.

          1. NAFTA was passed in 1994. I’m at a loss to explain how you think that somehow was Reagan’s doing.

            1. Cut Cytotoxic some slack. He’s Canadian, and besides, he wasn’t born for like another six years after that.

              1. Hell no, I’m not cutting him any slack. His continued war boner pisses me off, particularly since he or anyone he knows won’t be paying for the intervention he advocates and won’t be going to carry it out either. I’ve been in the military, so I recognize the damage the actions he supports causes to soldiers and their families, not to mention the places we are sent to fight. I’d imagine the closest he’s been to a military engagement is seeing the Expendables on television. The least he can do is get his facts straight before typing.

                1. (I am saying he is a child, is all.)

                2. “His continued war boner pisses me off, particularly since he or anyone he knows won’t be paying for the intervention he advocates and won’t be going to carry it out either. I’ve been in the military, so I recognize the damage the actions he supports causes to soldiers and their families, not to mention the places we are sent to fight. ”

                  It is clear that your emotionalism makes you unsuited for objectively judging foreign policy endeavors.

                  1. And your complete lack of context does the same. Your assumption of emotionalism is laughable. It’s not emotionalism to recognize the damage done by the policies you advocate. War is not an abstract concept. It’s a real thing that destroys human lives on both sides, even when done for the best reasons.

                    The world is not a better, freer place and America is not better off after 14 years of the war on terror, let alone many more decades of interventionalism in the Middle East. And yet you continue to advocate for more and more war, which is particularly galling given that you want all of this done on your behalf without any risk to your life or treasure. I suppose you are capable of “objectively judging foreign policy endeavors” since you are in no way affected. Still, since it’s the lives of my countrymen and my money that you want to spend, fuck off, slaver.

            2. Reagan and Mulroney did a lot of negotiating for NAFTA.

              1. Reagan talked about a hypothetical free trade agreement around 79-80, but just about all of the negotiating and arrangement was done during the Bush I administration. Reagan and Mulroney negotiated a Canada-US free trade agreement, which you could view as a NAFTA precursor if you like, but NAFTA wasn’t Reagan’s doing. That’s leaving aside whether or not NAFTA has been a positive for the United States, which is far from a given.

      3. From a libertarian perspective Reagan wasn’t that great. Spending skyrocketed, government expanded, and future presidents, as Dick Cheney said, learned that “deficits don’t matter”. The economic good times that happened later on during his presidency were not very much his doing (neither was the recession of 81-82 that seems to be forgotten when discussing the Reagan good times). He introduced some tax cuts, but also presided over the raising of some taxes too. Members of his administration engaged in the illegal arming of Iran with American weapons in order to fund the Contras, a group with a horrible human rights record. He also supported many other anti-communist groups that arguably were as bad as the communists against which they were fighting. He also expanded the scope of the war on drugs and signed a bill strong-arming states into making the legal drinking age 21.

        On the positive side, he ended the price controls on oil and did get some taxes reduced. He does get some credit for taking a harder line against the Soviet Union as well as communism in general. He gets way too much credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union, however. His firing of the air traffic controllers was also a positive step.

        1. “He also supported many other anti-communist groups that arguably were as bad as the communists against which they were fighting.”

          Oh puh-leaze. No one was as bad as the commies, and further it doesn’t matter: the only legit goal of US foreign policy is protecting Americans, in this context, from the Soviet Union. Nicaragua and Americans are vastly better off for helping the Contras. That’s not to say that arming Iran or the way that Reagan carried out that affair was okay.

          “. He introduced some tax cuts”

          That’s a hell of a distortion. Those tax cuts were pretty massive.

          1. No one was as bad as the commies? Seriously? You need to go do some reading on the anti-communist groups in the Americas and the egregious human rights violations they committed. Then again, I suppose this only reflects your seeming worldview. Any amount of horror and destruction of human life is okay as long as long as the ultimate goal is attained.

            Furthermore, protecting Americans from the Soviet Union does not justify aid to all of these groups. The Sandinistas did not endanger Americans in any measurable way. The overthrow of that government occurred at the ballot box in any event, not because the Contras won a military victory.

            It’s hard to make a case that Americans are better off because we armed the Contras, especially given the absolute breakdown of the rule of law that went on and likely emboldened future presidents to do similar lawless activities. Moreover, Nicaragua basically has nothing to do with America’s prosperity, so your assertion is suspect, to say the least.

      4. Despite Reagan’s rhetoric, he was far from a shrink-the-government crusader, so it’s hard to understand how he compares to Rand Paul, who has gone on record as being for the elimination of entire departments. I lived through the Reagan years and the view from conservatives that it was some kind of golden age is baffling. The guy gave a great speech and looked damn good on television. He was also a tough bastard, getting right back to work after being shot. But this idea that somehow he stared down the tax and spend congress or beat back the civil service is just wrong.

        1. People remember his very noisy victory over the air traffic controllers’ union, and choose to ignore the gigantic expansion in $$$ and powers of the federal government during his administration.

          Plus, Wall Street did rather well, and the Carter days of 12.65% inflation and 14.21% mortgages (I used FreddieMac’s data; both are rates at November 1980) were a thing of the past. Oh, and unemployment at 7.5%, though that was set to get a lot worse during the recession of 82.

          What are the current stats, were the Feds not intentionally screwing with the data? Mortgages would be great, but what’s inflation and unemployment, if we were still calculating them the way we did at the ass end of the Carter Administration?

          1. Facing down the air traffic controllers union and expanding free trade were big deals. That was a body blow to private sector big labour.

            All these posts are only supporting my contention that Reagan was far from perfect but still a big plus to freedom.

            1. By “all of these posts” I assume you mean your own, as I disagree with you and my posts are the majority of the remainder.

    5. “, the best thing that could happen for classical liberals/libertarians/anarchists is Rand Paul bowing out gracefully…”

      I really don’t understand why so many people are convinced Rand Paul isn’t worth supporting anymore… even as the actual Campaign is *just getting started*.

      Half act like he’s a lost cause, others insist that Doom is Unavoidable, the remainder seem to want to smugly insist “they told us so”.

      Maybe its that Libertarians are sort of perenially used to always watching the worst people win….

      …and that the “best” candidates who lean in our direction are born losers….

      but i just don’t get this retarded fatalism re: Paul, who – despite running a pretty shitty campaign thus far – hasn’t even had much of an opportunity to do anything at all.

      As I said before…. most people here seem content to call the game over in the first quarter. Its so freaking lame. The defense will be “But we’re *realistic*”. sure. I don’t actually think he’ll win either. But that seem no reason not to remain enthusiastic for him to improve.

      1. *noted =

        there is an article just below this one pointing out that Scott Walker is running at effectively 0 percent support.

        And Rand has a measly 4%.

        What would people have expected in June? Probably for walker to be in the low-double digits (12-15%) and Rand to be in the high single digits (~8%)

        I think if you assume (as i do) that trump reflects a popular interest which is going to evaporate, then Rand is more likely to benefit from renewed interest than some of the peers that were considered “stronger” not long ago.

        1. The big problem is that if you look at the latest CNN poll, Rand is second to Trump in Unfavorables and the more people get to see him- especially in the debates- the worse he does.

          It isn’t just name recognition- a large percentage of voters saw him in the debates and thought he LOST.

          I think many of Paul’s arguments could get Republicans on his side, not just the libertarians that agree with him already. The problem is that he is, sadly, not very good at articulating them.

      2. I agree with you that there’s a huge smug ‘I told you so’ faux-street smart douche factor going on here Gilmore but Rand has run a lousy campaign and Team Red seems to be intensely retarded this time around. Maybe we should wait until the first primary, I guess. Maybe the polls are just wildly off. That’s what happened in Britain’s election.

        1. “Maybe the polls are just wildly off”

          No, they’re correctly reading stuff that *means nothing*

          The only people who matter are primary voters in NH, IA, SC. and they are a small slice of a small slice of voters.

          ….and the only time their opinions will really matter will be within maybe ~3 weeks of the actual primaries in Feb 2016

          Hillary Clinton held a 20% lead over Obama up until a week before the primaries in 2008. It was “no contest” up until it was a contest.

          I already said Rand has run a poor campaign. I also said i don’t think he’ll win the primary. I just said that people’s assumptions are overblown at this still-early stage.

          1. You make a solid point.

    6. That’s sort of like all the nay-sayers who claimed Ron Paul could never have accomplished his agenda.

      Take the war issue, for example. Paul said he’d withdraw from the middle east. Others have claimed he couldn’t do it. But as CINC, he could simply order the military – “Come home now” and it would be a legal and binding order.

      Eliminating superfluous federal departments is another area where people claimed Ron Paul could not prevail. Perhaps. He certainly lacked the power to disband them. But he could order them to go home and sit on their hands. Congress would be spending money for the departments which were doing nothing. Literally, nothing. How long would that go on?

      Reducing surveillance of Americans? Make it clear than anyone who engages in the activity will be fired and if possible, prosecuted. Offer promotions for whistle-blowers. Done.

      None of these approaches is the normal “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine” approach to Washington politics. But then again, isn’t that approach the problem?

  2. I think Rand’s dismal performance thus far is pretty persuasive evidence that Team Red voters are just as unserious as their politicians about reducing the size and scope of government.

    1. Like a hunk of really old cheese, man. The statement- not you.

      1. He IS like a hunk of really old cheese, though. Hugh, i mean.

    2. Wait, Hugh, are you saying that people vote for what/who makes them feel good because their vote is worthless from a statistical perspective anyway, so they might as well at least get some emotional value out of it?

      But that calls into question the entire point of voting!!!

      1. No it doesn’t.

        1. I was being sarcast…you know what? You’re right. You really are the worst.

      2. I wasn’t saying anything even close to that, Epi. You’re just hearing what you want to hear again.

        1. You’re right, Hugh, I am brilliant. Thanks for noticing. Again.

      3. It’s amazing, isn’t it, that one must (generally) be tested in order to drive, but to participate in a much more important and profoundly-dangerous activity there’s essentially no requirement for knowledge or competence.

        But, enough about swimming.

    3. Not only that, but it’s clear and convincing evidence that the average American is a fucking moron.

      Personally, I’d favor poll testing.

      For example, if you cannot name three candidates for president, you don’t get to vote. If you haven’t put more INTO the system (through taxes, etc.) than you’ve taken out (welfare), you don’t get to vote.

      Voting is the process that determines policy and expenditures. If you’re too stupid, oblivious, uneducated, lazy to make even a minimal effort, if your sole goal is to take from they system you don’t contribute to it – you don’t get to decide what the policy should be or how the money is spent.

      1. Bring back random selection for most offices. It’s the one thing the Athenians got right.

  3. Paul needs to stop focusing on foreign policy during the primary. I know it is hard in a debate with 2 hours of foreign policy questions and one hour of what is your favorite soda…

    He should be pivoting these questions to things like domestic spying, TSA, etc. Asking how removing our liberty has made us any safer. Instead he goes down the rat-hole of who we should or shouldn’t bomb.

    1. I’m not sure he cares any more. I think he realizes he has no chance and is taking off the gloves, so to speak. And honestly, the TSA and domestic spying issue really isn’t that big a deal for either party’s primary voters. I wish it was, but there are a lot of issues people care more about (on the GOP side, this includes immigration, Iran/ISIS/foreign policy, abortion, and the economy).

  4. Thus, the libertarian moment can be summarized as:

    I was in the pool! I was in the pool!

    1. Was that before or after somebody took a dump in it?

      1. Carl has not yet removed what we believe to be a Baby Ruth bar…

    2. Breathtaking commentary, Rufus.

      1. Dunno if that’s sarc…but I’ll take it!

  5. I still approve of Rand Paul. But the Trump effect and the Hillary criminality has me jaded as fuck towards politics, politicians, and my fellow American voters. Maybe this is the intended effect? It’s going to take a lot of optimism to keep me able to give a fuck.

    1. You weren’t jaded until Trump and Hillary? How is that even possible?

      1. Not JADED-jaded.

        1. Indeed. A deeper shade of jade.

          1. Yeah, it does seem like it has digressed to a whole nother level.

      2. Today we learn that waffles just woke up from a 200-year coma.

        1. Maple syrup will do that to you.

          1. You mean the precious lifeblood?

            1. Exactly. The most important of the main food groups.

    2. Waffles, you need to be a little less jaded, and a little more Jaden Smith.

  6. It probably should not be a surprise that Sen. Rand Paul would be performing well in the state (Michigan) that brought us libertarian conservative Rep. Justin Amash.

    State boundaries are such arbitrary things. Often simply based on rivers. Doesn’t it seem odd that the people of certain states or even regions of the country would be so very statist while others would hold individualist views? Do they influence each other in informal public discussions? Do the all congregate to areas that match their general views? I’m sure there are studies but, fuck you, I’m not reading them.

    We know that voters in national races are essentially idiots, choosing their picks based on some offhanded remark one said or the hairstyle of another. But locally sometimes the majorities get it so right or so wrong.

    1. I couldn’t concur more if I had buckets of concurs. Rand won that thing because of the human mosquito cloud effect- not because the curly-headed freak was in Michigan. If Rand hits a pack just right he’d win on the corner of four states.

    2. Some (views) are arbitrary, but others make sense. Michigan, having a large international border, and tons of wilderness might inspire a certain set of views. Texas/AZ/NM and to some extent CA might have similar mindsets based on sharing a border with Mexico. States that border that have very different rules (think Nevada and Utah) might also produce a lot of localized differences in views.

      1. “tons of wilderness”

        …also ‘tons’ of cold water.

  7. Rand Paul will never be president. Anyone who still hasn’t accepted this fact needs to have their head examined.

    1. Your mood is like the sun masturbated soft fluffy stars on people and these soft fluffy star jizzies soaked into people and made them all turn today into Sunday so everyone could go out for a picnic where the shadows of the oaks and apple trees rippling gently on the striking green undulations carved by sweetly-murmuring brooks roiling under the love chirps of bobwhites.

      1. Please sell drugs to me.

        1. Don’t listent o CX – mainline me RIGHT FUCKING NOW! PLEASE!

      2. I know everyone else loves you, but this nonsense is stupid.

        1. Someone needs some sun masturbation…..

          1. I definitely do. It sounds quite pleasant.

          2. What kind of rads are we talking here?

          3. Sorry, I just don’t find drug addicts that amusing or insightful.

            1. What?!?!?!?

              Did you just say Caitlin Jenner is not a hero?!?

              1. He’s just an attention seeking whore.

                  1. A friend of mine regularly asks me if I saw the new South Park. Every time I tell him I don’t watch South Park. It’s the circle of life.

        2. I know everyone else loves you, but this nonsense is stupid.

          Not everyone. He’s a homeless man’s Hunter Thompson on a bottle of cough syrup and a handful of Dramamine.

    2. Never is a long time. Check your over-confidence.

      1. Never is exactly what I meant and nothing less. Rand Paul’s lifespan is significantly shorter than never. He will not be president, ever. Even if Canadians could vote for him.

        1. This here is the smug ‘I told you so’ douchery that Gilmore was talking about above.

          1. This here is the smug ‘I told you so’ douchery that Gilmore was talking about above.

            Don’t like it when someone steals your shtick?

            1. The difference is that I make cautious calls and back them up with logic and reasoning. I don’t pretend to be clairvoyant like you or Sparky do.

          2. Yes, that’s if exactly! Consider me in the smug “I told you so camp.” Then you’ll have something to whine about later on when he fails to win.

    3. Rand Paul will never be president. Anyone who still hasn’t accepted this fact needs to have their head examined.

      President of what?

      1. Pessimists of America. I was planning to go to their annual meeting, but they cancelled it. Didn’t think anyone would show up.

        1. I knew it! I told you that would happen!

  8. I’m a perpetual cynic, but I think Paul did great in the debate with his HnR like “Christie will send men with guns to your house” comment. I’m hoping that hits home with a lot of people. Also, he was fantastic on the Iraq/middle east portion.

    1. On substance, Rand hit out of the park at the debate. He was poised, calm and all his responses were rational and well-thought out.

      But your average voter doesn’t want substance, they want a “leader”, someone who will tell them what to do and make them feel good.

      Rand comes off more as a college professor than a leader, hence the perception that he “lost” the debate despite giving the best answers.

      1. Well, Rand was taking heat in the press for the perception that he is snippy and irritated, so I guess he went with calm and measured in the debates. That hasn’t worked out well.

        1. We all are a bit snippy and irritated around here. Perhaps we are his core audience and it only resonates with us. That has to be it. I think a more “popular” Rand might turn me off.

  9. I would for real start to worry that I was trapped in an acid trip gone wrong and way too long if the nation approved of Rand Paul.

    1. Total Recall

  10. Mission Accomplished

  11. Well, maybe when Trump supporters get bored with winning, they will get on board with Paul.

    1. ZERO chance!

  12. Rand Paul was doomed from the start. His entirely sensible and adult foreign policy ideas like not bombing everyone that looks at us funny and seeing if Iran complies with the deal before you “tear up the deal” have no place in the modern GOP.

    1. “not bombing everyone that looks at us funny ”

      Strawman.

      “seeing if Iran complies with the deal before you “tear up the deal””

      I’m sure Lucy won’t take away the football this time!

    1. You just did

  13. “not immediately tossing out the Iran deal”

    There’s nothing libertarian-friendly about the Iran deal. Real peace advocates such as myself oppose handing over billions of dollars to state-sponsors of anti-American terror.

    1. Real peace advocates such as yourself are usually at the front of the pack screaming for the deaths of all Ayrabs.

      1. Retards like yourself are usually attacking straw men and imaginary arguments, like you are here. That’s why you don’t succeed.

        1. Yes, I’m sure everyone else here knows just how much of a warrior for peace you really are. You’re just a toothless coward hiding in the Great White North wishing someone with actual power would listen to your ravings.

          1. He’s a tuff gai on the internet though. Very tuff.

            1. Hitting up random memes doesn’t a point make.

              1. I see you learned a new word: strawman. Now if only you could use it correctly…

                1. I’m using it perfectly correctly. You are welcome to understand it.

          2. That’s nice. I accept your concession and you may now bow out.

          3. Shorter Sparky: STOP DISAGREEING WITH ME YOU MEANY

            1. I suggest you find a dictionary and look up ‘irony’. And being a crybaby doesn’t suddenly make your point valid.

              1. Just as memes don’t make a point, neither do buzzwords. You don’t have a lot in your bag of tricks do you?

  14. I’m just thankful no one has mentioned what passes for a “punch” in today’s political discourse.

  15. It looks bad for Rand but the demographics side of things gives me hope. Rand is doing bad (but still wining a straw poll) with close to the worst possible voter mix. Hopefully this voter mix will change in a month or two, and he will do better. Hopefully also his supporters will turn up like they did at the straw poll at a higher rate than the others.

  16. Apple wants to build iCar. You can only charge up at approved iCharge stations, and all destinations will be vetted and approved by Apple before you can drive to them.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/21…..urces.html

    1. Also, it’s impossible to open the hood, and the engine only lasts for like a year.

      1. Everyone will upgrade to the iCar 6 anyway.

      2. Need an oil change? Cheaper to buy a new one.
        Need new tires? Cheaper to buy a new one.
        Need new wiper blades? Cheaper to buy a new one.

    2. Gas is under $2 a gallon here so … No thanks.

    3. Brilliant. Time to soak their horde.

      1. Time to short Apple

        1. “electric car”

          Yup. Short that.

    4. Re: Paul,

      You can only charge up at approved iCharge stations, and all destinations will be vetted and approved by Apple before you can drive to them.

      You can always rely on the good ole iWalk.

  17. lol, US POlitrcs. Best Politics money can buy!

    http://www.Full-Anon.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.