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

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

They don't, but they care more about some than others. What's so bad about that?

[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.

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.

Aww look at you thinking libertarians accept black people are human.

Why are practically all of your posts idiotic straw men? True leftists support ISIS, libertarians are racist, etc. Give me a break.

Then again, I guess claiming that Rand Paul is a racist helps you forget about all of the foreign blood on the hands of jihadist supporters like Hillary.

[Deus Naturae]

Dude, have you ever actually read what Rand said? Back when he said that he was uncomfortable with one aspect of the law, he still maintained that he would've voted for it anyway as the majority of it far outweighed whatever doubts he might've had. So, he always supported the CRA, and is not lying about it now.

Anyway, suppose a hypothetical President Paul were to magically repeal the portion of the CRA applying to private businesses. Racist businesses are not just going to start springing up everywhere...most likely businesses in places that are already very racist and probably already do discriminate (like that guy in Oklahoma) will just be more open about it. Compare that to all of the people whose lives have been ruined by drug sentencing laws, people who have been held and tortured without trial, people who have been droned and bombed in the Middle East, people who have been illegally surveilled on their personal devices and groped in airports. Consider how many of these people have suffered like this because of racist profiling. When you take all of that into account, can't you at the very least see the reasoning behind people who think that Rand would be better than Hillary, even if they don't agree with him on an irrelevant issue he would never pursue if elected?

[Deus Naturae]

The problem is you're assuming Paul will do the things you like and not do the things you dislike. In regards to what you listed, I'm pretty sure Obama talked really good on all those issues as well. How did that turn out again? Besides, my original statement wasn't really aimed at you anyway. You're a libertarian (presumably), so I'd expect you to support Paul. I talked about how I didn't understand why "leftists" would support Paul, but I'm guessing it goes back to the inexplicable "he'll do the things I like and not the things I dislike" thing.

Except that there is zero chance that he would every pursue the CRA issue if elected. It would have no chance whatsoever of succeeding, it would be a PR disaster, and based on his recent statements he just wishes that people would forget he ever said anything about it. In my previous post, I already listed a bunch of reasons that some leftists, even (or perhaps especially) those concerned with racism would have to support Paul over Clinton. The President has more control over foreign policy and the actions of Federal agencies like the NSA than he does over economic policy, so I don't know why you assume that he would only do things that anti-war leftist types dislike and nothing they would approve of.

[Deus Naturae]

Let's face it, Rand Paul's young fans are primarily white males, who are just a fraction of the Youth vote. The younger the demo, the more of them are non-whites.

Obviously his fans are not going to provide him with enough votes to win. I don't think that anyone has argued that he was going to win based on his fans alone. Most people aren't even arguing that he would win a large majority of young voters, just that he would be able to make inroads with that demographic due some of his unconventional positions. Same goes for blacks (even if you think he's a racist, Rand is bound to do better than the average Republican with this demographic).