I've been waiting years
to see someone like him running for presidency, but I lack experience in Politics to determine if he could have a shot.
The US is however not a parliamentary system so coalition-building happens at the voter level rather than the legislator level. Many libertarians are forming a coalition-of-voters with the Republican party and by supporting Rand Paul are hoping to shift the Republican party libertarian-ward. He does not however currently represent a large enough ideological constituency that he would be able to form a coalition-of-voters large enough to actually be elected president.
> I've been waiting for years...
I'm curious what you thought of Ron Paul's candidacy.
After losing twice in a row, the Republicans know they have to change.
It's still early and the old style christian-conservative out-dated positions on foreign policy, "law and order" etc people are still around, but it's clear they are on the out.
The question is, how fast will the republican party change?
And a lot of that kind of change happens during these big elections.
So, early broad support for Rand Paul is exactly what could prompt the shift.
After all, when a party can count on a constituency (And at this point where are christian conservatives going to go?) they can take them for granted and seek out the constituency that is at risk.
That should be the Gay constituency for democrats who have taken them for granted and abused them for decades. (I'm not heterosexual, so that includes me, and that's why I haven't voted for a democrat for 20+ years.)
Are you sure? Incumbents rarely lose, and it was a very close election. Couple that with the wave the Republicans had in the midterm elections (especially in a few states that typically go blue), I could see the Republican party just thinking it's their turn now. If anything the Republicans would want to avoid a split caused by alienating their base.
I should note that I am not a Christian conservative, just doing some backseat political analysis.
But Romney wasn't a hardcore Christian Conservative either.
> If anything the Republicans would want to avoid a split caused by alienating their base.
The religious right may not love Rand Paul but they hate Hillary Clinton. Most of them would show up to vote against her regardless of who the Republican candidate was. Meanwhile Rand Paul has more appeal with swing voters and libertarian-leaning Democrats than any of the other Republican candidates. If he won the nomination he would have a solid position in the general election.
In light of the recent revelations regarding CGI I don't see how anyone, Republican or Democrat, could vote for Hillary Clinton. It'll be disastrous for the party to nominate her, and even worse for the republic if she wins.
Maybe, just maybe, one of his competitors will listen and be forced to adjust.
Think of all the people running for the Republican slot, this time and last time. Most of them know they have no chance.
They might just want to influence the debate, and move whoever wins closer to a position that they want.
Or they may be looking for book deals and talk show employment.
Or it might just be a way to enjoy good food for 18 months.
Or maybe they just have a huge ego and like to stand in front of cheering people.
When you're a politician you raise campaign chests, and when you retire, you get to keep those contributions.
So, running for president puts you on the national stage, allows you to raise a lot more money.
For someone like Ron Paul this was a win-win. He secured a nice retirement while getting out there and invigorating a grassroots Libertarian movement and also getting his message-- which I think nobody can dispute he's genuinely passionate about-- out there.
For someone like Rick Santorum, though, it's either to help secure his seat against his next challenger, or just greed...
Opposing or equivocating on gay marriage, no matter what the rationale, and some of his other more conservative ideas, will be a tough sell in the general election.
Consider that Clinton has been on the national stage for 30+ years, while Rand has only been on it for months.
That's way more than just "a shot", that's damn good.