Rand Paul will be the president of the United States within minutes of a non-existent hell freezing over.

The last thing this country needs is yet another shill telling us that America is going to be destroyed if we don't continue to empower the empowered and give more wealth to the wealthy.

(November 15, 2014 at 3:19 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(November 15, 2014 at 3:14 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Hasn't the person with the most money behind the campaign always won? Safe bet then.

No. republicans outspent dems in both of Obama's elections and the Koch brothers still lost. Big money does have an impact, yes, but it is not impossible to beat as both Obama's elections proved.

Long term democrats have sucked at midterms. That is more a messaging and turnout problem than a money problem. [/font]

Actually Obama did out spend his opponents.

(November 15, 2014 at 3:40 pm)stonedape Wrote: Actually Obama did out spend his opponents.

That's what I heard

(November 8, 2014 at 6:06 pm)KUSA Wrote: Opinions?

[about Rand Paul's bid for president]

Three words:

Self appointed ophthalmologist.

(November 15, 2014 at 3:40 pm)stonedape Wrote:

(November 15, 2014 at 3:19 pm)Brian37 Wrote: No. republicans outspent dems in both of Obama's elections and the Koch brothers still lost. Big money does have an impact, yes, but it is not impossible to beat as both Obama's elections proved.

Long term democrats have sucked at midterms. That is more a messaging and turnout problem than a money problem. [/font]

Actually Obama did out spend his opponents.

Shhh...stonedape.....your disturbing Brian37's re-write of history.

Thinking about it I think this man has a real chance. From a marketing prespective he is better material then either Obama or Bush. Watching his interveiw it occurs to that the way he addresses the public is the same way you might address a coworker on a elevator. That is a great thing, he is easy to understand and speaks sense. There is also the fact that he is better educated and more scientifically literate then any president since Reagan at least. I'd market him from several Angles. To the republican public I'd market him as raised Texan and family that speaks sense. I'd also paint him as a family man, that has many positions like his father's but is more flexible. To the dems I'd market him as a youthful and well educated kind of reniassance man, that ran a clinic for the poor and what's out of foreign wars. For the disenfranchised like myself I would do away with the change crap and tout what he says and his voting record.
By no means would it be easy as but if he got the Republican nomination then he's on good footing, if not there is still a chance, just it'd be a very uphill battle.

(November 15, 2014 at 6:29 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Thinking about it I think this man has a real chance. From a marketing prespective he is better material then either Obama or Bush. Watching his interveiw it occurs to that the way he addresses the public is the same way you might address a coworker on a elevator. That is a great thing, he is easy to understand and speaks sense. There is also the fact that he is better educated and more scientifically literate then any president since Reagan at least. I'd market him from several Angles. To the republican public I'd market him as raised Texan and family that speaks sense. I'd also paint him as a family man, that has many positions like his father's but is more flexible. To the dems I'd market him as a youthful and well educated kind of reniassance man, that ran a clinic for the poor and what's out of foreign wars. For the disenfranchised like myself I would do away with the change crap and tout what he says and his voting record.
By no means would it be easy as but if he got the Republican nomination then he's on good footing, if not there is still a chance, just it'd be a very uphill battle.

I think Paul would beat Clinton if he got the nomination. Clinton is a good candidate on paper but sucks when you put her out before the public.

Men she's not even that great on paper. She wouldnt be a horrid president, just more of the same. Just Paul needs a good marketing team and I'm not sure the Republicans will have fucking clue how to get him to a non repub audience. Not to mention I think Hilary is a fucking that chop your balls off if you give her half a chance. Then again that's politics. All in all though I think he could win, especially if he could take the high road and let her expose her self.

Rachael Maddow is great, but I don't think the ophthamology thing is all that relevant. I'm not voting for medical expertise.

The CDC said spit and sweat particulates can spread ebola. He didn't take it any further than that. It's not like he said you can catch it from a fart in an elevator.

(November 15, 2014 at 6:34 pm)Heywood Wrote: Clinton is a good candidate on paper but sucks when you put her out before the public.

She's getting worse all the time. Right now, she's running to the right of Obama. As if we haven't had enough of center-right Democrats.

---

(November 15, 2014 at 6:55 pm)stonedape Wrote: Rachael Maddow is great, but I don't think the ophthamology thing is all that relevant. I'm not voting for medical expertise.

To me, it tells us about his integrity.

That goes a long way with me. Insult me or tell me what I don't want to hear but never lie to me. Above all, I value honesty.