Why won't the freakin' GOP nominate RAND PAUL!

[EliteLX]

He clearly, is the most electable & strong candidate on the table. Time and time again he's clearing best against the hottest contenders for the Dems and yet still the idiots at the GOP want to push Bush or Walker in? Rand has the charismatic personality, pulls youth & minorities, binds together the tea party & establishment wing, and God is the man not afraid to stand up for a punch for what he believes. Rand ultimately could fight & take states such as Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Virginia and more.

What is wrong with you people? Please, if you want the white house back, I beg of you to put Rand Paul in. He IS the man.

[Gallium]

I question how well he'd actually do in a general election.

Sure he polls best with independents right now, because him and his father have managed to position themselves as being different to other Republicans, but I wonder how well that'd hold up in a general election after the Clinton machine (and media in general) had finished with him. He could easily be painted as a far right nut, and he's shown a tendency to be gaffe-prone enough to enable that image.

I think he has a high ceiling and a low floor, but then again the GOP probably needs that against Hillary.

(And he's not going to the nominee because contrary to the internet noise libertarians only make up a minority of Republican voters. He alienates too many wings of the party to be viable).

[SATW]

1. He's not "the man" as he is pretty controversial, as other GOP candidates.
2. Telling other republicans something is "wrong" with us for not supporting Paul is hardly a way to get him nominated.
3. In what way does he even come close to binding the Tea Party and Establishment together?

[Peeperkorn]

He's gay.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Which minorities does he pull in?

[Vern]

Rand Paul would get destroyed in an election.

[Blair]

His demographic are people who are sick of US politics and see someone who is aware that the US has a bad foreign policy, he gets your attention... but then you see how he's just another tea-bagger who'd pull down the the protections such as cheaper health care, environmental protection, gay rights, civil rights, and well pretty much every other cause.

Can we get over this myth that Rand Paul is some sort of moderate hero who'll save and inspire America-he's just another crazy who got one thing right about NSA reform,

And how does he bind the establishment and tea party??? The establishment would rather have Ted Cruz

[pbrower2a]

Not a militarist, Rand Paul does not offer the gravy train of wars for profit. Militarism is becoming an increasingly-strident aspect of GOP politics. 

[Torie]

Putting aside the above poster's hyperbole, it is in fact true I suspect that about a third of the Pub base would vote for Hillary over Rand, once he is a fully known quantity out there on the Fruited Plain (unless he keeps tacking, and does it skillfully). I certainly would not vote for him, and despite my avatar, I still will probably vote for more Pubs than Dems in the future.

[The Mikado]

As much problems as there are with three-legged stool theory, it is very relevant in this case. Of the three legs, while Rand has the economic conservatives down, he is a dubious unknown quantity to social conservatives and is outright hostile to foreign policy hawks.

Plus, with Rand Paul more than any other figure in politics, there is a serious chance that he might forget his current persona and say what he really thinks at some point. That would be disastrous for him and makes him a huge loose cannon.

[CapoteMonster]

Putting aside the above poster's hyperbole, it is in fact true I suspect that about a third of the Pub base would vote for Hillary over Rand, once he is a fully known quantity out there on the Fruited Plain (unless he keeps tacking, and does it skillfully). I certainly would not vote for him, and despite my avatar, I still will probably vote for more Pubs than Dems in the future.

Lol We're way too polarized for that to happen barring Rand Paul killing a baby.

[Beet]

Other than Jon Huntsman, I'm not sure there are any better Republicans than Paul. The Democrats can't hold the White House forever... at some point a Republican will win it... wouldn't you rather it be someone like Paul than a social/economic/foreign policy conservative?

[senyor_brownbear]

wouldn't you rather it be someone like Paul than a social/economic/foreign policy conservative?

No.  Rand Paul is the most likely of the bunch to appoint "Social Security is unconstitutional"-level hardliners to the federal courts.

[TJ in Oregon]

He clearly, is the most electable & strong candidate on the table. Time and time again he's clearing best against the hottest contenders for the Dems and yet still the idiots at the GOP want to push Bush or Walker in? Rand has the charismatic personality, pulls youth & minorities, binds together the tea party & establishment wing, and God is the man not afraid to stand up for a punch for what he believes. Rand ultimately could fight & take states such as Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Virginia and more.

What is wrong with you people? Please, if you want the white house back, I beg of you to put Rand Paul in. He IS the man.

The bolded part is his problem: what he believes isn't what most of the Republicans believe. What's the point in winning if you don't believe in what you're voting for?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

He clearly, is the most electable & strong candidate on the table. Time and time again he's clearing best against the hottest contenders for the Dems and yet still the idiots at the GOP want to push Bush or Walker in? Rand has the charismatic personality, pulls youth & minorities, binds together the tea party & establishment wing, and God is the man not afraid to stand up for a punch for what he believes. Rand ultimately could fight & take states such as Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Virginia and more.

What is wrong with you people? Please, if you want the white house back, I beg of you to put Rand Paul in. He IS the man.

The bolded part is his problem: what he believes isn't what most of the Republicans believe. What's the point in winning if you don't believe in what you're voting for?

But they are the Old Right Republican beliefs once carried by Robert Taft, Calvin Coolidge, and several current congressmen.

[TJ in Oregon]

He clearly, is the most electable & strong candidate on the table. Time and time again he's clearing best against the hottest contenders for the Dems and yet still the idiots at the GOP want to push Bush or Walker in? Rand has the charismatic personality, pulls youth & minorities, binds together the tea party & establishment wing, and God is the man not afraid to stand up for a punch for what he believes. Rand ultimately could fight & take states such as Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Virginia and more.

What is wrong with you people? Please, if you want the white house back, I beg of you to put Rand Paul in. He IS the man.

The bolded part is his problem: what he believes isn't what most of the Republicans believe. What's the point in winning if you don't believe in what you're voting for?

But they are the Old Right Republican beliefs once carried by Robert Taft, Calvin Coolidge, and several current congressmen.

But far from the majority of today's GOP. I, for one, will be very reticent to vote for Rand. If it's her vs. Hillary, I'll probably vote third part or a write-in if necessary.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

He clearly, is the most electable & strong candidate on the table. Time and time again he's clearing best against the hottest contenders for the Dems and yet still the idiots at the GOP want to push Bush or Walker in? Rand has the charismatic personality, pulls youth & minorities, binds together the tea party & establishment wing, and God is the man not afraid to stand up for a punch for what he believes. Rand ultimately could fight & take states such as Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Virginia and more.

What is wrong with you people? Please, if you want the white house back, I beg of you to put Rand Paul in. He IS the man.

The bolded part is his problem: what he believes isn't what most of the Republicans believe. What's the point in winning if you don't believe in what you're voting for?

But they are the Old Right Republican beliefs once carried by Robert Taft, Calvin Coolidge, and several current congressmen.

But far from the majority of today's GOP. I, for one, will be very reticent to vote for Rand. If it's her vs. Hillary, I'll probably vote third part or a write-in if necessary.

Even if Rand had a moderate/establishment wing vp?

[dudeabides]

He clearly, is the most electable & strong candidate on the table. Time and time again he's clearing best against the hottest contenders for the Dems and yet still the idiots at the GOP want to push Bush or Walker in? Rand has the charismatic personality, pulls youth & minorities, binds together the tea party & establishment wing, and God is the man not afraid to stand up for a punch for what he believes. Rand ultimately could fight & take states such as Ohio, Colorado, Florida, Virginia and more.

What is wrong with you people? Please, if you want the white house back, I beg of you to put Rand Paul in. He IS the man.

1. He's soft on terrorism
2. He's soft on crime
3. His "urban enterprise" plan has failed in the past and amounts to corporate welfare
4. He talks on both sides of his mouth on immigration
5. He's not raising money
6. He flip-flops too much
7. He cautioned Governors on voter I.D. law intended to prevent voter fraud
8. He has a shady past and a history of employing white supremacists
9. He wants to win by changing the GOP radically, not just on an issue or two
10. He is not good at giving speeches

[TJ in Oregon]

Even if Rand had a moderate/establishment wing vp?

Unless Rand is planning on dying soon, the VP doesn't matter much. I'm sure it will placate some, but I don't really see why that should make much difference. Our society and government are already horrendously individualistic; one of the very last things we need is Paul.

[Mister Mets]

The main reason is that the GOP like the other guys too. I'm sure there can be similar arguments for Walker (three elections in a purple state), Rubio (young Hispanic guy from swing state), Jeb Bush (conservative leader from swing state), Mike Huckabee (evangelical leader with blue collar appeal), Ted Cruz (true conservative and tremedous academic credentials) and Ben Carson (If enough black people vote Republican, we win!)

[YaBoyNY]

Putting aside the above poster's hyperbole, it is in fact true I suspect that about a third of the Pub base would vote for Hillary over Rand, once he is a fully known quantity out there on the Fruited Plain (unless he keeps tacking, and does it skillfully). I certainly would not vote for him, and despite my avatar, I still will probably vote for more Pubs than Dems in the future.

Lol We're way too polarized for that to happen barring Rand Paul killing a baby.

The whole "too polarized" argument is literally based on two presidential elections.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Putting aside the above poster's hyperbole, it is in fact true I suspect that about a third of the Pub base would vote for Hillary over Rand, once he is a fully known quantity out there on the Fruited Plain (unless he keeps tacking, and does it skillfully). I certainly would not vote for him, and despite my avatar, I still will probably vote for more Pubs than Dems in the future.

Then change it back.

[DS0816]

Re: Why won't the freakin' GOP nominate RAND PAUL!]

They fear Rand Paul.

[Maxwell]

Rand Paul just kind of oozes fringe candidate. He doesn't look very Presidential, he's bad at interviews, and is wildly inconsistent. I love Rand Paul, and because of how fractured the field is he has a better chance than he does in, say, 2020, but the Libertarian faction of the Party probably doesn't get him in office, and that's just the truth.

[Blair]

For the same reason the Democrats will not nominate Bernie Sanders: Because they would radically reform politics

Would Rand Paul reverse Citizens United?