Hillary Clinton versus Rand Paul

[BluegrassBlueVote]

As much as I would love to see Paul beat Hillary, she's still too popular. If she runs he should wait things out, let his dad run again in the primary (as much I'd love him to win he won't) and Rand should focus on keeping his senate seat and wait till 2020/2024.

Rand will be old news by 2020. His time to make an impact on the national stage is now.

[Mr. Illini]

I am big fan of Ron and Rand (I'm pretty libertarian). I think they are strong candidates because they can tun libertarian-leaning Dem states like WA, CO, NV, and NH, while capturing the usual GOP states. That being said, I am not sure that anyone could beat Hillary in 2016. She is a strong candidate.

[Zarn]

something like this if hillary were to expose rand paul's crazy economics.

Fixed. Isn't 3 years out stuff fun?

[morgieb]

Hillary wins big.

But it'll be interesting to see the youth vote. Youth are more sympathetic to libertarianism than older people (IMO) and Hillary isn't that well liked by youth for whatever reason.

[Knives]

Hillary wins big.

But it'll be interesting to see the youth vote. Youth are more sympathetic to libertarianism than older people (IMO) and Hillary isn't that well liked by youth for whatever reason.

Lol okay.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Clinton is very much an overrated candidate. The Democratic version of Mitt Romney if you will. Her main strength right now is that everyone knows who she is; if Paul was nominated, the map would change very fast.

Now there's two ways this could go (assuming no major economic recovery or downturn, war, etc): it could come down to Paul's economic views (in which case it would be a straight up Red States vs Blue States election), or his more libertarian social views could become important, which would shift the map quite a bit. It would be fun to see her argue in favour of drone strikes and cutting back civil liberties during the election.

[Mehmentum]

Clinton is very much an overrated candidate. The Democratic version of Mitt Romney if you will. Her main strength right now is that everyone knows who she is; if Paul was nominated, the map would change very fast.

Now there's two ways this could go (assuming no major economic recovery or downturn, war, etc): it could come down to Paul's economic views (in which case it would be a straight up Red States vs Blue States election), or his more libertarian social views could become important, which would shift the map quite a bit. It would be fun to see her argue in favour of drone strikes and cutting back civil liberties during the election.

There's a difference between saying Clinton is overrated and saying she's the equivelent of Mitt Romney.  Romney never had a polling advantage against Obama (except perhaps breifely after the 1st debate), and didn't have even close the primary polling advantage that Clinton enjoys.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Everyone would be sick of hearing about Benghazi by the time election day came. Rand Paul really came across as unhinged there.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hillary wins big.

But it'll be interesting to see the youth vote. Youth are more sympathetic to libertarianism than older people (IMO) and Hillary isn't that well liked by youth for whatever reason.

Rand Paul is not a libertarian. He's anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti pot legalization, and so on, which puts him clearly to the right of places like Washington State on social issues.

[Blue3]

Since when is the Youth vote against Hillary?

[morgieb]

Since when is the Youth vote against Hillary?

Polls are showing that she's doing better with olds for whatever reason.

[Mr. Morden]

Since when is the Youth vote against Hillary?

Polls are showing that she's doing better with olds for whatever reason.

She does well among those under 30, but above 30 we don't see the same age gradient with her that we saw with Obama.  With Obama, there was a pretty clear trend with age, where the older age groups were his worst demographic.  With Clinton, many polls have the 30-45 age group as her worst demographic.

Latest PPP national poll for example:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_4313.pdf

fav/unfav spread of HRC by age:
18-29: +39%
30-45: -6%
46-65: +5%
65+: +3%

In the matchups against Republicans though:

Christie vs. Clinton:
18-29: Clinton +32%
30-45: Christie +2%
46-65: Clinton +1%
65+: Christie +4%

Rubio vs. Clinton:
18-29: Clinton +35%
30-45: Clinton +1%
46-65: Clinton +7%
65+: Rubio +6%

[Zarn]

I wouldn't say Romney. I would say more McCain. McCain would have been considered a general election god at some point.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Clinton is very much an overrated candidate. The Democratic version of Mitt Romney if you will. Her main strength right now is that everyone knows who she is; if Paul was nominated, the map would change very fast.

Now there's two ways this could go (assuming no major economic recovery or downturn, war, etc): it could come down to Paul's economic views (in which case it would be a straight up Red States vs Blue States election), or his more libertarian social views could become important, which would shift the map quite a bit. It would be fun to see her argue in favour of drone strikes and cutting back civil liberties during the election.

There's a difference between saying Clinton is overrated and saying she's the equivelent of Mitt Romney.  Romney never had a polling advantage against Obama (except perhaps breifely after the 1st debate), and didn't have even close the primary polling advantage that Clinton enjoys.

Democrats are sailing pretty well right now because of economic conditions and social issues. If Al Gore had been elected to two terms and been running things in the middle of the recession, Clinton would be polling as well as Romney.