FiveThirtyEight: "The Rand Paul Will Win Over Young Voters Myth"

[JRP1994]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-rand-paul-will-win-over-young-voters-myth/

Very interesting points.

[Deus Naturae]

Thing is, Paul has much more room to improve among youngs than any of the other GOP contenders. Christie may be about tied with him now, but Christie's numbers are likely to stay more or less the same (if not decline if either of his investigations turn bad) as the election approaches. Paul has a much better chance of seeing his numbers among youngs improve as more people find out how his positions differ from most Republicans.

Also, some of those points about Paul's positions are just dumb. Most young people don't really care about foreign aid. On foreign policy, they're going to agree more with an anti-war candidate who opposes foreign aid and the UN than they will with an interventionist who supports those things.

[dmmidmi]

From the NY Times Magazine article cited by Mr. Enten:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Kennedy had no idea what the hell she was talking about on MTV, and she has no idea what the hell she is talking about now.

[IceSpear]

The notion that people will discard their beliefs on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, the Civil Rights Act, the environment, etc. just because of muh foreign policy is hilarious.

[Mr. Reactionary]

The notion that people will discard their beliefs on ... the Civil Rights Act ... is hilarious.

Because this is totally a campaign issue and stuff. After all, Paul has called for repealing it a whopping zero times and has expressed zero interest in a future repeal attempt. Such an important issue to this campaign.

[IceSpear]

The notion that people will discard their beliefs on ... the Civil Rights Act ... is hilarious.

Because this is totally a campaign issue and stuff. After all, Paul has called for repealing it a whopping zero times and has expressed zero interest in a future repeal attempt. Such an important issue to this campaign.

Because "whites only" signs are A-ok, as long as they're from a private business.

[Dixie Reborn]

Millenials are liberty leaning....Once Hilary outs herself as a neo-con when the media can't avoid it, it's a wrap.

[Rockefeller GOP]

The notion that people will discard their beliefs on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, the Civil Rights Act, the environment, etc. just because of muh foreign policy is hilarious.

Are you really that big of a hack to include the CRA thing?

[Joe Republic]

The notion that people will discard their beliefs on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, the Civil Rights Act, the environment, etc. just because of muh foreign policy is hilarious.

Are you really that big of a hack to include the CRA thing?

What's the problem here?  Rand Paul stated his opposition to the CRA on several occasions in the past, and recently backtracked.  Whether people believe him is a different story.

[IceSpear]

The notion that people will discard their beliefs on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, the Civil Rights Act, the environment, etc. just because of muh foreign policy is hilarious.

Are you really that big of a hack to include the CRA thing?

What are you on about? I know it's practically a requirement if you post about politics on the internet you must worship the Pauls (even if you're a "leftist"), but it's funny you'd call me a hack for stating a fact. He has stated multiple times he was okay with "whites only" signs as long as they were from a private business. Maybe he's backtracked since then, but I'm much more inclined to believe his previous statements, which by the way line up perfectly with his father bashing the CRA on the House floor as a "a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society." By defending this, you're doing a pretty big disservice to your username.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rand-pauls-rewriting-of-his-own-remarks-on-the-civil-rights-act/2013/04/10/5b8d91c4-a235-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_blog.html

[Free Bird]

I refer you to Rand's daddy...

[SWE]

The notion that people will discard their beliefs on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, the Civil Rights Act, the environment, etc. just because of muh foreign policy is hilarious.

Are you really that big of a hack to include the CRA thing?

How is it hackish to suggest opposing the CRA will hurt Paul?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

OMG ... he loves "liberty" ... can't wait to see how his arguments to privatise social security and his views on abortion and same-sex marriage, go down with the youngns. Let alone his arse-backwards view on the economy.

Or will they fall for the same crap on drugs and war that sucked in College kids for his dad, whilst ignoring the policies that will actively hurt them?

[Rockefeller GOP]

He clarified what he meant and reaffirmed his support for it.  I didn't agree with his original comments, but I highly doubt it will be this big campaign issue.  It will matter about as much as Hillary's "broke" comment.

[Free Bird]

He clarified what he meant and reaffirmed his support for it.  I didn't agree with his original comments, but I highly doubt it will be this big campaign issue.  It will matter about as much as Hillary's "broke" comment.

Why bother, Rock? They will defend anything Clinton does but lord forbid if Paul makes an odd comment.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

He clarified what he meant and reaffirmed his support for it.  I didn't agree with his original comments, but I highly doubt it will be this big campaign issue.  It will matter about as much as Hillary's "broke" comment.

Why bother, Rock? They will defend anything Clinton does but lord forbid if Paul makes an odd comment.

Saying numerous times... numerous that you opposed a pretty important clause of the CRA is not a big deal?

Clinton's comment was bone-headed and not especially sensitive, but it's not on par. For the record, while I'd support Clinton, I'm not a hardcore Clintonista. Because I'm assuming that's the angle you're going to take from here until November 2016.

[IceSpear]

He clarified what he meant and reaffirmed his support for it.  I didn't agree with his original comments, but I highly doubt it will be this big campaign issue.  It will matter about as much as Hillary's "broke" comment.

Why bother, Rock? They will defend anything Clinton does but lord forbid if Paul makes an odd comment.

It's funny you say that, since the "dead broke" comment ignited a month long media firestorm of Hillary bashing about how she was out of touch, Mitt Romney 2.0, etc. Paul's CRA comments got some buzz back in 2010 and then pretty much fizzled out, but expect it to be brought back up again, if not in the primary than certainly in the general election.

Anyway, one comment was a stupid but ultimately irrelevant gaffe that has little impact on anything, whereas Paul's pertains to an extremely important piece of legislation that protects the rights of minorities. I'd hardly call them equivalent. And it's not as if it was just a gaffe or a slip of the tongue for Paul, he was very consistent on the matter pre 2010.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

The notion that people will discard their beliefs on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, the Civil Rights Act, the environment, etc. just because of muh foreign policy is hilarious.

Look at how True Leftists talk up the Libertarians - who openly want to destroy the social safety net - because of MUH NSA and MUH DRONES.

[Bull Moose Base]

Rand Paul will do exactly as well against Hillary Clinton as his father did against Barack Obama.

[IceSpear]

The notion that people will discard their beliefs on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, the Civil Rights Act, the environment, etc. just because of muh foreign policy is hilarious.

Look at how True Leftists talk up the Libertarians - who openly want to destroy the social safety net - because of MUH NSA and MUH DRONES.

Yeah, I don't get it. In my experience with True Leftists, their main problem with the Democrats tends to be that they prioritize social issues over economic ones, which is a fair concern. But if that's the case, you'd think libertarians would be their worst enemy.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The notion that people will discard their beliefs on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, the Civil Rights Act, the environment, etc. just because of muh foreign policy is hilarious.

Look at how True Leftists talk up the Libertarians - who openly want to destroy the social safety net - because of MUH NSA and MUH DRONES.

Yeah, I don't get it. In my experience with True Leftists, their main problem with the Democrats tends to be that they prioritize social issues over economic ones, which is a fair concern. But if that's the case, you'd think libertarians would be their worst enemy.

But... drones?

[Bull Moose Base]

Rand Paul will do exactly as well against Hillary Clinton as his father did against Barack Obama.

Poll consistently equal with her if not better?

I'm not sure. I don't bother paying attention to how either Paul would do in a general.

[Deus Naturae]

The notion that people will discard their beliefs on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, the Civil Rights Act, the environment, etc. just because of muh foreign policy is hilarious.

Look at how True Leftists talk up the Libertarians - who openly want to destroy the social safety net - because of MUH NSA and MUH DRONES.

Yeah, I don't get it. In my experience with True Leftists, their main problem with the Democrats tends to be that they prioritize social issues over economic ones, which is a fair concern. But if that's the case, you'd think libertarians would be their worst enemy.

But... drones?

Believe it or, some people care more about not blowing up villages in the Middle East and violating the Constitutional rights of countless people than they do about Social Security. You might not like it, but sometimes people have different priorities than you.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The notion that people will discard their beliefs on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, the Civil Rights Act, the environment, etc. just because of muh foreign policy is hilarious.

Look at how True Leftists talk up the Libertarians - who openly want to destroy the social safety net - because of MUH NSA and MUH DRONES.

Yeah, I don't get it. In my experience with True Leftists, their main problem with the Democrats tends to be that they prioritize social issues over economic ones, which is a fair concern. But if that's the case, you'd think libertarians would be their worst enemy.

But... drones?

Believe it or, some people care more about not blowing up villages in the Middle East and violating the Constitutional rights of countless people than they do about Social Security. You might not like it, but sometimes people have different priorities than you.

I wasn't aware people only had one issue to care about.

[IceSpear]

The notion that people will discard their beliefs on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, the Civil Rights Act, the environment, etc. just because of muh foreign policy is hilarious.

Look at how True Leftists talk up the Libertarians - who openly want to destroy the social safety net - because of MUH NSA and MUH DRONES.

Yeah, I don't get it. In my experience with True Leftists, their main problem with the Democrats tends to be that they prioritize social issues over economic ones, which is a fair concern. But if that's the case, you'd think libertarians would be their worst enemy.

But... drones?

Believe it or, some people care more about not blowing up villages in the Middle East and violating the Constitutional rights of countless people than they do about Social Security. You might not like it, but sometimes people have different priorities than you.

Like allowing private businesses to turn away darkies because "muh private enterprise"? I'd think that's a tad more important than droning a terrorist enclave in Yemen or collecting telephone metadata, but that's just me.