Jeb Bush, right now at least, seems to be the inevitable choice in the same way that Mitt Romney was. Not necessarily because anybody really likes him -- but because he has the most money and a network of support amongst the power players in the party.
And "we need somebody who can beat Hillary! Who cares if our candidate sucks, it would be literally Armageddon wrapped in an apocalypse topped with Ragnarok if she got elected, so its not a vote for Bush, it's a vote against Hillary."
Rand is more likely to beat Hillary than Jeb is. Rand polls ahead of Hillary in Pennsylvania (20 pts), Ohio (18 pts), Iowa (6 pts), Michigan (16 pts), Nevada (6 pts), Virginia (13 pts), New Hampshire (4 pts), Maine (4 pts), and their tied in Colorado (9 pts). The only swing states where Jeb polls ahead of Hillary are Virginia (13), Florida (29), Ohio (18), and Nevada (6).
Bush could still win, but by a much narrower margin. Bush is just the neocon candidate being pushed by Fox News, just like Romney in '12, McCain in '08, Dubya in '00, and Dole in '96. As much as i hate biased news, we need a TV news source with a libertarian bias if we ever want to get a libertarian-minded candidate in the white house because unfortunately most voters pick whoever Fox or MSNBC tells them to.
I suppose this is the hip new meme to be regurgitated
He is for term limits and getting money out of politics, anti-war, pro-marijuana, against police militarization, acknowledges that global warming is a threat, against NSA spying and big brother, believes in evolution, wants to end the war on drugs, believes that drug laws unfairly target the black community and the poor in general, for gay marriage as a state issue, etc, etc.
Sure, I find a small portion of what he says to be warped, but to call this person a 'nut' is either dismissive or pure ignorance.
I fail to see how he would be considered a nut in comparison to any other politician ... It seems he is one of the few sane ones ...
Nonsense. I follow the news on a daily basis and "main stream" sources certainly talk about him as a candidate. Part of the problem is that the field is massive, but he is still discussed as a candidate.
Ron Paul was never a viable candidate. His views were too far outside of the norm for the party and even more so when it comes to the general electorate. Support for him never got very high and the media's coverage reflected that. They report on what people are interested in (this is partly to make sure people do not tune out and then lose advertisement dollars) and people were never all that interested in Ron Paul.
The dude would literally come in 2nd during a debate and not get any coverage. I distinctly remember hearing the news say "In first place Mitch Romney, in third place Michelle Bachmann and in fourth...." The MSM went way out of it's way to never mention him.
According to? You? There is no official scoring of debates, only polls. I do not recall being many polls that showed anything like that, especially amongst likely Republican voters in early primary states.
99
u/ForgedIronMadeIt Jun 01 '15
He is, he already announced.