Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The inevitable Hillary will lead to President Rand Paul. [View all]AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)162. I know...
... they're really typos
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
290 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Rand Paul, Sir, Will Not Even Get The Republican Nomination, Let Alone Win The General Election
The Magistrate
Aug 2014
#1
indeed. Has this utter disdain for HRC blinded some on DU to electoral reality?
wyldwolf
Aug 2014
#33
I'm thinking: Maybe "principles" were never real enough to sacrifice to begin with...
2banon
Aug 2014
#164
What get me is the sure audacity of thumbing noses at the plight of the lower classes
rhett o rick
Aug 2014
#185
He still has not taken his running shoes off when confronted with the question..
busterbrown
Aug 2014
#94
Paul will collapse under national scrutiny, as did Bachmann, Palin, etc etc.
emulatorloo
Aug 2014
#133
You are right about Rand Paul in this regard (as well as with regard to other things):
JDPriestly
Aug 2014
#175
Yes, they will (re: Rand Paul stances preventing him from winning the GOP nomination)
stevenleser
Aug 2014
#173
And Hillary's nomination could rip our party in two, if not in 2016, in 2020.
JDPriestly
Aug 2014
#184
Great point. A H. Clinton-Sachs win will solidify the Conservative takeover of our Party.
rhett o rick
Aug 2014
#190
Good points. But partisanship just for the sake of partisanship does not get things
JDPriestly
Aug 2014
#289
The only thing inevitable about Hillary is that she will do Wall Street's bidding.
InAbLuEsTaTe
Aug 2014
#253
Sadly typical. We must end the discussion because we don't have any good reasons
rhett o rick
Aug 2014
#187
Who in their right mind would ever support someone who made such a boneheaded decision to support the invasion of Iraq?
InAbLuEsTaTe
Aug 2014
#254
In your opinion, who will get the Repub nomination? Don't leave us in suspenders. nm
rhett o rick
Aug 2014
#182
EXACTLY!! Get out of my head. I literally just posted the same point.
Liberal_Stalwart71
Aug 2014
#236
Unless you're part of the 1%, it's YOUR STRUGGLE TOO. It's both RACE AND CLASS Struggle together
2banon
Aug 2014
#248
I think a more accurate and useful way to conceptualize the situation
woo me with science
Aug 2014
#269
And you have a vested interest in maintaining the racial status quo; ...
1StrongBlackMan
Aug 2014
#271
Mischaracterizing what you are being told does not help your argument.
woo me with science
Aug 2014
#275
OH, please! Don't lecture us. We know where we are, were, and will always be. You see, we never
Liberal_Stalwart71
Aug 2014
#234
Very well said. I've noticed that tactic in the pro-corporate posting:
woo me with science
Aug 2014
#241
The Powers That Be ran a representative of the statis quo Democrats against
rhett o rick
Aug 2014
#192
The way some anti-Clinton folks heap praise upon Paul, they probably hope you're right.
conservaphobe
Aug 2014
#4
Obama is The Annointed One? That sounds like racist dribble that right wingnuts said about him...
Liberal_Stalwart71
Aug 2014
#67
Your "lazy logic". First you say, "nuh-huh, that didn't happen". Then, you say...
Liberal_Stalwart71
Aug 2014
#225
People mistake their opinions for facts and statistical analysis of the voters.
stevenleser
Aug 2014
#41
DU is as much a hall of mirrors as Free Republic or any other wingnut forum
emulatorloo
Aug 2014
#80
There is a LOT wrong with it. Opinions do not carry the weight of facts or statistical analysis.
stevenleser
Aug 2014
#110
That does not apply to this situation. The OP presented his opinions as fact.
stevenleser
Aug 2014
#153
Deeply held beliefs do not change in two years. Polls are never fantasy. They are either
stevenleser
Aug 2014
#107
"People mistake their opinions for facts and statistical analysis of the voters"
Veilex
Aug 2014
#116
I didn't change the subject. The entire OP is about Rand Paul vs Hillary. You changed the subject.
stevenleser
Aug 2014
#191
Romney has nothing to do with whether Rand is electable. Again, Romney is part of your strawman.
stevenleser
Aug 2014
#196
No, it's not, because I am talking about something completely different than your straw man.
stevenleser
Aug 2014
#200
Yep! Looks like it did in 2006 and 2007 when Hillary the Inevitable, the Annointed One,
Liberal_Stalwart71
Aug 2014
#238
oh, yeah, a wild 4 - 5 point swing in a +/- 4% error sample. All it takes is 50% + 1
wyldwolf
Aug 2014
#53
According to you. Not according to professionals like Nate Silver who accurately predict elections.
stevenleser
Aug 2014
#64
but yet some of his ideas are more progressive than Hillary's - on matters of war, for example.
JaydenD
Aug 2014
#136
No, they are not "progressive," they all stem from his anti-government views.
SunSeeker
Aug 2014
#144
Actually I think the George McGovern defeat was pretty bad. Ironically, McGovern would have been a
still_one
Aug 2014
#28
And....to those who claim so confidently that Rand Paul would never even get out of a primary...
woo me with science
Aug 2014
#18
Paul will implode in national spotlight, as Sharon Angle, "I am not a witch," Sarah Palin, etc.
emulatorloo
Aug 2014
#87
Rand is a "true-believer" who cannot STFU. Shrub was a suit who did what he was told
emulatorloo
Aug 2014
#201
Progressives are going to vote for a man who said he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964
DemocratSinceBirth
Aug 2014
#106
You're making an argument for Democratic Party to take Anti-War and Anti-Wall Street positions
2banon
Aug 2014
#181
Sister to you please. No, they're connected. it's all connected. peel off that onion.
2banon
Aug 2014
#264
The thread is being very rapidly swarmed by the resident Third Way crew.
woo me with science
Aug 2014
#12
no swarming. This is a discussion forum. If you want a place where only your opinion is allowed...
wyldwolf
Aug 2014
#57
Oh come on now ...just as we are all warming up to the third way corporatist war hawks.
L0oniX
Aug 2014
#61
You and OP must have skipped out on politics 101. First, ensure you have support of your base.
stevenleser
Aug 2014
#25
Good point. They won't say anything, they just won't donate money or set up PACs and that is a big
stevenleser
Aug 2014
#174
All other analysis of the subject says otherwise. Rand would alienate 30-40% of the GOP base
stevenleser
Aug 2014
#21
+1 "...the rest of us can look out and see what is really happening..."
woo me with science
Aug 2014
#63
Can't wait until he allows businesses to discriminate based on race, can you?
emulatorloo
Aug 2014
#90
I just can't wait to see the status of women and minorities in this country
woo me with science
Aug 2014
#197
Rand Paul is a lightweight. I have no idea why anyone thinks he will be President.
TwilightGardener
Aug 2014
#24
Indicting Perry sure didn't add any "gravitas" to the status quo neocon crowd.
woo me with science
Aug 2014
#37
I really don't know. Probably Jeb. It was supposed to be Christie, but
TwilightGardener
Aug 2014
#45
I should also add, I think Paul Ryan will run and is less of a lightweight than Rand Paul.
TwilightGardener
Aug 2014
#75
you raise some good points, more likely Bush versus Clinton, as the elite battle it out
whereisjustice
Aug 2014
#43
besides money polluting politics, congress is basically same size as 1914 in spite of fact that
whereisjustice
Aug 2014
#209
His trip to do surgery on poor blind people in Nicaragua is his campaign in action and idiots
Autumn
Aug 2014
#65
Watching the tape of him weasel out of those questions by that woman in the resaurant was.....
wolfie001
Aug 2014
#88
Why not Eric Holder? Someone must have asked "why not Obama" about this time, 2006.
Fred Sanders
Aug 2014
#118
I prefer Warren or Sanders but nominating Hillary will not lead to Paul or the Apocolypse
pampango
Aug 2014
#207
"Either way, the Base of the Democratic Party will find themselves agreeing with Paul ..."
Scuba
Aug 2014
#211
The base of the Democratic Party includes black folk. Black folk are not persuaded
Liberal_Stalwart71
Aug 2014
#239
Hate To Say It But If Hillary Doesn't Clean Up Her Act...It's Rand Paul As Our Next President
iloveObama12
Aug 2014
#215
You said: Either way, the Base of the Democratic Party will find themselves agreeing with Paul
Liberal_Stalwart71
Aug 2014
#240
Excuse me. I didn't assert that black voters are the only Democratic voters.
Liberal_Stalwart71
Aug 2014
#249