Hillary vs Rand would be the weirdest election

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

You'd have the Democratic nominee to the right of the Republican on foreign policy and civil liberties, probably resorting to Cheanyesque rhetoric, she'd probably be endorsed by the Weekly Standard and the whole neocon crowd. I bet that Peter King would even speak at the Democratic convention as the token Republican turncoat. Also a lot of Millenials would probably vote for Paul. He could even pick off some black voters if he makes police militarization an issue.

[JRP1994]

Paul is probably the candidate best-suited to make serious plays at Colorado and Iowa, but probably wouldn't play well in Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida.

[Mehmentum]

Something like this:

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Paul couldn't get through the election without saying something completely tasteless and disgusting. Not to mention he makes Dukakis look charismatic.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Why would Paul play well in Iowa? Isn't he against ethanol subsidies?

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

Rand probably would win New Hampshire and Nevada. His strength would be in the west also and he might even make New Mexico competitive and even win if he picked Susana Martinez as his running mate.

[IceSpear]

LOL, the neocons would not endorse Hillary. Assuming Rand makes no overtures to them, they'll probably sit it out.

[BaconBacon96]

Iowa likes it's subsidies. Paul's economics aren't a fit for that state.

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

Funny because Hillary effectively is a neocon. I think that if Rand Paul ran as an isolationist he'd have a shot at winning Iowa. Plus that hasn't exactly been Hillary's strong state.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Iowa is probably going to any establishment candidate in 2016, a Paul and Hillary election there would be close. Hillary though would certainly win the election.

[Maxwell]

Why would Paul play well in Iowa? Isn't he against ethanol subsidies?

So was Ron, but he nearly tied for first there.

[GOON]

Rand defeats Hillary in the general election tbqh.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hillary would still win the bay area, but there would be quite a drop off from how Democrats normally do in the bay area.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Why would Paul play well in Iowa? Isn't he against ethanol subsidies?

So was Ron, but he nearly tied for first there.

I thought we were talking about the general election here.

[Maxwell]

Why would Paul play well in Iowa? Isn't he against ethanol subsidies?

So was Ron, but he nearly tied for first there.

I thought we were talking about the general election here.

Whoops I guess we are.

But I think ethanol subsidies are an overhyped issue, cause I'm not entirely sure it's make or break. McCain, who took a notable stand against ethanol subsidies, was going to lose Iowa whether or not he supported those subsidies, for example. Whether my thinking is true or not is up to the general election.

[Orser67]

A lot of mostly younger, left-leaning libertarians (or libertarian-leaning liberals) might have a tough choice to make, but I'm skeptical that Paul vs. Clinton would be significantly different from other elections. Both of them would move towards the middle of their party during the primaries, and there would be relatively few people who see them all that differently from Generic D and Generic R (although most of the people who do would post about it on the internet).

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

Paul would definitely win New Hampshire.

[Yelnoc]

Here's a potential "close election" scenario. Hillary wins by holding Ohio.

[5280]

Here's a potential "close election" scenario. Hillary wins by holding Ohio.

Ohio will be the 2000 version of Florida, with Hillary pulling it out.

[Blair]

If Paul was extremely charismatic and a great campaigner then it would be easier for him to win. From what I've seen and heard he isn't great on the stump