Rand Paul: I think Republicans may have over-emphasized voter fraud

posted at 3:21 pm on April 23, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via WaPo and RCP, another nugget mined from yesterday’s chat with Axelrod in Chicago. As with abortion, Paul’s “different kind of Republican” brand requires a compromise here. He knows that most voters, including those in his own party, support voter-ID laws; he also knows that those laws are easily demagogued as racist by lefties, which means that toeing the GOP line too closely could jeopardize Paul’s effort to connect with black voters. What’s a different kind of Republican to do? He insists that ID is a good idea — “I don’t think dead people should vote” — but concedes to Axelrod that the GOP has over-emphasized it in light of some data suggesting that actual fraud is negligible. (There are, however, many millions of invalid voter registrations on the books.) What did people expect him to say? He’s already come out in favor of restoring voting rights to nonviolent felons. He also says here that, unlike many GOPers, he supports early voting. All of this will be useful to him if/when Democrats start in on him for questioning the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He’s building a defense to racism charges and distinguishing himself from his party, which is unpopular with the constituencies he’s trying to appeal to, at the same time.

Anyway. While we’re on the subject of Paul oppo research, that Mother Jones piece that I mentioned earlier is blowing up among lefties, who seem convinced that Paul is now DOA in the primaries because he — gasp — noted that Jimmy Carter kept spending lower than Reagan. Is that right? Which of his opponents, please tell me, is going to attack him for complaining that federal spending has been too high, even under conservative leadership? It’s okay to criticize even Reagan so long as you’re attacking from the right; if you don’t believe me, stop and think how many Republicans you’ve heard say in the past year alone that we can’t afford a repeat of the 1986 amnesty that Reagan signed into law. If Paul’s comments about Carter and Reagan end up giving him trouble, it won’t be because he dared to question the Gipper. It’ll be because, allegedly, they’re further evidence of Paul’s foreign-policy weakness: The reason Reagan spent more, Paul’s critics will say, is because he was hellbent on bringing down the Soviet Union in a way that Carter never was. Deficit spending is lamentable but defensible if the cause it serves is noble enough. Would President Paul have refused to spend the necessary dollars even if it meant a reprieve for the failing Soviet Union? In that case, perhaps he’s too dovish after all. That’ll be how the Carter/Reagan comments are spun, if anyone even thinks to attack him on it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

You pretty much undermined your own argument, lol. If explaining to them how they are wrong about voter id is off the table, everything else they are wrong about in regards to the republican party is off the table as well.

Good job, lol.

xblade on April 23, 2014 at 6:03 PM

Who said anything about not explaining how they are wrong about voter ID. I said it shouldn’t be at the top of his agenda, and Sen Paul said we might emphasize it too much.

But then again, reading comp wasn’t your strongest suit, was it…?

JohnGalt23 on April 23, 2014 at 6:26 PM

You don’t say? http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2014/04/23/3429722/irs-records-tea-party/

libfreeordie on April 23, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Wow, a thinkprogress link from libfree. I’m sure it will be unbiased and wholly germane to the topic at hand.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 23, 2014 at 6:28 PM

A lot of people who have been trashing Paul for months have now decided that they can’t support him. Be honest, you never supported him.

rndmusrnm on April 23, 2014 at 6:31 PM

Does voter fraud occur at similar or higher rates vs. “we have to do something!!!” assault weapon shootings?
 
Then there you go.

rogerb on April 23, 2014 at 6:32 PM

Wow, a thinkprogress link from libfree. I’m sure it will be unbiased and wholly germane to the topic at hand.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 23, 2014 at 6:28 PM

I’m sure it must be at least as valid as Basement Pajamaboy’s Rush quotes…..

dentarthurdent on April 23, 2014 at 6:33 PM

With this statement and his fumble on abortion, Rand Paul is to the left of Bill Clinton now.

He has lost all credibility as a candidate for 2016.

Norwegian on April 23, 2014 at 6:50 PM

Had Romney done as well with Blacks as Paul did, that 86/13 split would mean 13.76 M votes for Obama, 2.08 M for Romney. A differential of 11.68 million votes.

The difference b/t those two outcomes is a net of 13.76 M – 11.68 M = 2.24 M votes.

Mitt Romney lost the popular vote by 2.48 M votes. That alone would have put him within 240 k votes of a popular vote victory.

Yeah, Romney should’ve given a speech to the NAACP or something.

vlad martel on April 23, 2014 at 6:53 PM

libfreeordie on April 23, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Laugh of the day

You have zero credibility and you call yourself erudite and an assistant professor. It s/b criminal to allow you to assist anyone.

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2014 at 6:54 PM

libfreeordie on April 23, 2014 at 6:25 PM

The NYT has Hagan up, by a lot…and…really, really, really, the sun rose in the East.

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2014 at 6:55 PM

John Galt,

Rand Paul’s performance among Kentucky’s African-American voters in the 2010 midterm was about average for what a GOP candidate can expect in a two-way race.

Comparing how Romney performed against Obama is dishonest because Rand was running against a white candidate ad Romney was running against the Black messiah.

Had Rand Paul ran against Obama, he would have performed about the same as Romney among black voters, which is to say he would’ve been crushed.

Here is how the GOP presidential nominees have done among African-American vote since 1976:

1976: Gerald Ford – 17%

1980: Ronald Reagan – 14%

1984: Ronald Reagan – 9%

1988: George H. W. Bush – 11%

1992 – George H. W. Bush – 7%

1996: Bob Dole – 12%

2000: George W. Bush – 9%

2004: George W. Bush – 11%

2008: John McCain – 4%

2012: Mitt Romney – 6%

So Rand Paul’s 13 percent in Kentucky in 2010 was nothing special. Obama wasn’t on the ballot, which depressed African-American vote, and he wasn’t running against Paul.

Hell, even Bob Dole nearly matched Paul’s 13 percent in 1996.

Pincher Martin on April 23, 2014 at 6:56 PM

What’s more, Galt does not deal with white turnout, which was the flip side of my calculation. Romney lost in part because of the depressed downscale white vote in the Rust Belt. Going after the black vote doesn’t help gin that white demographic up and may in fact hurt voter turnout among those blue collar white voters.

The math is simple, but unfortunately it seems to be beyond Galt’s ability to do. In general, for every one percent of the white vote a GOP candidate loses in a presidential race, he needs to make up for it with an additional seven percent of the black vote (or Hispanic vote).

That’s because seven times more whites vote than do blacks (or Hispanics).

Pincher Martin on April 23, 2014 at 7:01 PM

Hey Rand!

Over 44,000 Voters Are Registered in Both Maryland and Virginia…

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/04/over-44000-voters-are-registered-in-both-maryland-and-virginia/

idesign on April 23, 2014 at 7:03 PM

Rand Paul goes to a great deal of trouble to employ careful messaging and strategically placed word choices and phrases on any given issue. He’s always maneuvering, always positioning, every possible response to any query ever-so-carefully rehearsed and focus-tested.

troyriser_gopftw on April 23, 2014 at 4:05 PM

i can’t stand politicians like that. sadly, 95% of them are like that! ugh.

Sachiko on April 23, 2014 at 7:07 PM

I could never bring myself to trust this guy. He’s a gadfly. Just two weeks ago a report in my state (NC) found that 35,000 people registered here voted in another state in the 2012 elections. In that study fewer than half the states participated so the actual number of fraudsters is likely much larger and that’s with the administration subverting both True the Vote and scores of other voter integrity advocacy groups. But Rand doesn’t think that’s a “significant problem? And he decides to share this nugget with Axelrod?! Nitwit.

ncjetsfan on April 23, 2014 at 7:15 PM

You don’t say? http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2014/04/23/3429722/irs-records-tea-party/

libfreeordie on April 23, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Actually if you bothered to read your own link, it’s even MORE damning. It says that way more liberal keywords were on the BOLO lists to be selected for extra scrutiny, and for longer amounts of time. So when the groups that were actually subjected to extra scrutiny ended up all being conservative ones, the chance of that all happening by coincidence is actually LESS than previously believed.

And if you can’t trust TP, who can you trust?

The IRS provided the heavily-redacted lists to ThinkProgress

Wow, now I’m TOTALLY convinced their reporting is an accurate reflection of reality!

CapnObvious on April 23, 2014 at 7:26 PM

Rand is quickly becoming a political hack. Chalk up another one for the inside the beltway good old boys. Sad!

fight like a girl on April 23, 2014 at 7:26 PM

Perhaps Rand is being a bit too clever here for some people.

He is taking some of the sting out of voter ID while still not proposing any changes to it. But it sounds better.

I would say it is a more palatable way of reaching the same political end. I see nothing that indicates that Paul wants to interfere with voter ID laws.

Toocon on April 23, 2014 at 7:30 PM

Reagan said in his biography that he wanted to focus more on deficit reduction but could not thanks to the Dems controlling Congress. He called for a line item veto for the President, which is what he had when governor of California. Maybe Rand should research things a bit more in the future.

Jack_Burton on April 23, 2014 at 7:35 PM

Rand, stop running for president.

Cindy Munford on April 23, 2014 at 8:01 PM

Reagan said in his biography that he wanted to focus more on deficit reduction but could not thanks to the Dems controlling Congress. He called for a line item veto for the President, which is what he had when governor of California. Maybe Rand should research things a bit more in the future.

Reagan did great controlling non-military discretionary spending, but his military budgets and entitlements were too much a challenge for him.

On the other hand, Reagan won the Cold War, and so perhaps he deserves credit for those budget surpluses in the late nineties which were largely the result of the peace dividend.

Pincher Martin on April 23, 2014 at 8:05 PM

Be honest, you never supported him.

rndmusrnm on April 23, 2014 at 6:31 PM

I never supported him.

Now you be honest. You voted for Obama didn’t you?

kcewa on April 23, 2014 at 8:18 PM

It looks like Rand and Jeb are in a contest to see who can piss of the most conservative voters before declaring that they are running in 2016. Never in my lifetime have two well known candidates said so many things to disqualify themselves as Rand and Jeb. They won’t even carry their base. Forget the black vote.

inspectorudy on April 23, 2014 at 8:37 PM

I used to think that while I would not vote for Rand Paul that there might actually be a small chance the guy could actually keep up the facade he shows the world long enough to sucker many other people. I am starting to think I was way too kind to the guy. He really does not have the acting skills.

astonerii on April 23, 2014 at 8:42 PM

Too cute by half Rand .
Who will run ?

Lucano on April 23, 2014 at 8:44 PM

I used to think that while I would not vote for Rand Paul that there might actually be a small chance the guy could actually keep up the facade he shows the world long enough to sucker many other people. I am starting to think I was way too kind to the guy. He really does not have the acting skills.

astonerii on April 23, 2014 at 8:42 PM

He’s trying way too hard to appeal to too many different constituencies. And he comes off looking rather stupid and lame for it.

Bitter Clinger on April 23, 2014 at 8:57 PM

Every time some new Republican has come on the national scene I’ve cheered. The Republican Party desperately needs a conservative maverick to come along and smash the current establishment consensus, which is quickly burying the party – and conservatives among with it – in ten feet of horseshit.

But too many of these new guys just try to fit in. They might make a stab or two at some different approach, but the establishment consensus molds them more than they mold the establishment consensus.

Pincher Martin on April 23, 2014 at 9:07 PM

Uh ho, another Republican going squishy to appeal to an imaginary voter at the expense of the angry white voter. Another discount for the for the white guy delivered by a Republican. Clearly the man has so clue to what he is doing.

shelbyco on April 23, 2014 at 9:13 PM

For the Pauls hoof in mouth disease is apparently genetic.You liber(al)tarians best gag him now.

redware on April 23, 2014 at 9:18 PM

As much as I’d love a Rand Paul presidency, it’s time to face it: it’s not going to happen.

He’s a vanity candidate. Period.

The thing to understand is that you can hold these opinions and other McCain-Mavericky thoughts and thoughts Paul’s on Iran and war and still be qualified to be President.

But you have to lie. All politicians do it. As Paul pointed out, Reagan did it. He obfuscated his intentions on foreign policy. That is to say, he lied.

A political campaign is a three year lie. Even the most principled serious candidate has to lie because there are simply too many issues for a person to possibly care about, much less have a cogent policy. You either are willing to do it, often and glibly, or you’re a vanity candidate who wants to feel good about himself.

Rand Paul is a Republican who would credibly and cleanly be outflanked in public perception on national security by Hillary Clinton. It would happen easily and you’re a fool in an echo chamber if you think otherwise. That would put his ceiling at about -8.

In this case, he’s a Republican who’s showing he doesn’t care if Republican partisans vote for him either in the primary or the general election. Vanity candidate.

HitNRun on April 23, 2014 at 9:18 PM

This guy is a moron. Why empty your gun before a gunfight?

faraway on April 23, 2014 at 9:43 PM

Ted Cruz is going to eat Jeb as a snack and then chow down on Rand for lunch…..

These guys ain’t got a chance against a Cruz Missle.

redguy on April 23, 2014 at 9:59 PM

Ted Cruz, Scott Walker or Bobby Jindal — those are the only ones I will support. Rand can take a hike.

Conservchik on April 23, 2014 at 10:13 PM

Rand Paul: I think Republicans may have over-emphasized voter fraud this whole “Constitution” thing along with “States Rights”..you want voter ID?…ask pappa Fed.

Fixed it for accuracy.

Mimzey on April 23, 2014 at 10:14 PM

Pretty moronic thing to throw out there in an election years right after NC found 3500 illegal voter registrations.

hawkdriver on April 23, 2014 at 10:18 PM

The fact is, without a serious ID check system and better controls on mail and absentee voting, no one has any idea how much voting fraud goes on.

We do know that over 30,000 people voted illegally in North Carolina in 2012, the majority being registered in other states where they also voted (so it’s not just forgetting to take off the old registration, it’s deliberate). Another large subset were the dead – and they didn’t count those who died after early voting began, just in case they had voted themselves.

So once again, Rand Paul is shooting his mouth off about things he really doesn’t understand.

More like Daddy every day.

Adjoran on April 23, 2014 at 10:53 PM

I never supported him.

Now you be honest. You voted for Obama didn’t you?

kcewa on April 23, 2014 at 8:18 PM

Gary Johnson, but I live in a reliably “R” state.

rndmusrnm on April 23, 2014 at 11:16 PM

False – there is a lot of voter fraud. I have seen records of college students voting twice; felons voting; citizenship NOT checked.

Rand is as naive as any R politician who thinks voter fraud is a joke – it’s not and it’s hurting the American people.

I know – I worked elections statewide for 4 cycles – fraud and sloppiness are alive and well.

MN J on April 23, 2014 at 11:22 PM

He is a walking disaster

The Notorious G.O.P on April 23, 2014 at 11:30 PM

I think Rand Paul may have over-emphasized his commitment to defend the Constitution.

Ronnie on April 24, 2014 at 12:36 AM

Pincher Martin on April 23, 2014 at 6:56 PM

So, in other words, Rand Paul did better with Black voters than any GOP candidate for POTUS since 1984.

And in fact, more than doubled the performance of our last two (losing) POTUS candidates. He did better than GWB, who actually made serious efforts to garner the Black vote. As opposed to Rand Paul, who prior to the current push, made, AFAIK, no efforts to woo the Black vote.

So much for your statement that Rand Paul wasn’t attracting the Black vote. Which pretty much causes your entire argument to fall apart.

Got it…

JohnGalt23 on April 24, 2014 at 1:55 AM

False – there is a lot of voter fraud. I have seen records of college students voting twice; felons voting; citizenship NOT checked.

MN J on April 23, 2014 at 11:22 PM

The Wall St Journal disagrees…

JohnGalt23 on April 24, 2014 at 1:56 AM

We do know that over 30,000 people voted illegally in North Carolina in 2012, the majority being registered in other states where they also voted

Adjoran on April 23, 2014 at 10:53 PM

Study finds 765 cases of NC voter fraud in 2012 election

The N.C. State Board of Elections said last week that an interstate initiative found 765 voters who cast more than one ballot in the last election…

Mitch Kokai, spokesman for the right-leaning John Locke Foundation, said in an email that he doubts all 765 cases were legitimate fraud — but some likely were.

For those of you who learned math under Common Core, 765 << 30000.

Once again proving Rand Paul's point. When confronted with this issue, all too many people on the Right are content to just pull numbers out of their arse hole…

JohnGalt23 on April 24, 2014 at 2:02 AM

The Wall St Journal disagrees…

JohnGalt23 on April 24, 2014 at 1:56 AM

That settles it. The WSJ, being completely objective and unbiased on all topics potentially unflattering to the public perception of illegal aliens (doing things like illegally voting), has successfully proven a negative by flat out ignoring evidence to the contrary. I’m convinced.

CapnObvious on April 24, 2014 at 3:22 AM

Rand Paul is a nut that didn’t fall too far from his father’s tree.

crosspatch on April 24, 2014 at 4:37 AM

That settles it. The WSJ, being completely objective and unbiased on all topics potentially unflattering to the public perception of illegal aliens (doing things like illegally voting), has successfully proven a negative by flat out ignoring evidence to the contrary. I’m convinced.

CapnObvious on April 24, 2014 at 3:22 AM

Well, I suppose you could go with the opinions of people who say that BHO got more votes than there are people who actually live in the city of Philadelphia. Or that 30000 people voted fraudulently in the state of NC. Both claims demonstrably wrong, BTW.

As has happened on this thread.

Which goes to prove Sen Paul’s point. Some on the Right are far too willing when faced with the possibility that its our tactics or our positions that have caused the electorate to reject us, prefer to just make shiite up about how voter fraud is costing us elections…

JohnGalt23 on April 24, 2014 at 4:55 AM

Al Franken stole his seat with the votes of felons.

Lonetown on April 24, 2014 at 6:57 AM

I think Rand is a nice guy, but he talks too much. He seems so interested in being heard, that he talks so much and blurts out things that are so stupid that he finally gets around to offending people that respected him in the beginning.

That is no different from his dad and why his dad never got any-further in politics than what he did. The nuts never fall far from the tree. Hint hint Rand.

Nat George on April 24, 2014 at 8:45 AM

The funny thing here is how Rand thinks he’s going to connect with most blacks.

Bitter Clinger on April 23, 2014 at 3:26 PM

It’s the natural kinky hair. Won’t succumb to the evil white man’s hair straightener.

Nutstuyu on April 24, 2014 at 9:46 AM

Damn, Rand. Voter fraud is a major felony.

TX-96 on April 23, 2014 at 3:31 PM

But since it never happens, he won’t have to give any felons their voting rights back!!!11!11!!!!11!!

#BuckFarack

Nutstuyu on April 24, 2014 at 9:48 AM

Surprising to hear a republican candidate not insisting that the sun rises in the west.

everdiso on April 23, 2014 at 3:49 PM

Dimocrats are the ones that do that, using their advanced astrology science.

Nutstuyu on April 24, 2014 at 9:53 AM

North Carolina is currently seizing all 2012 Voting records due to Voter Fraud they know happened and multiple cases of People from Outside States voting.

Obama came close to stealing NC when all the Polls had Romney up 5 plus points. It was due to voter fruad

jp on April 24, 2014 at 9:57 AM

Well, I’m sorry, but if you believe this, then you’re wrong. Conservatives will win when they start doing the hard work of selling a conservative agenda and electing people who are good at selling a conservative agenda and who show how a conservative agenda is good for most people in the country.

And sometimes to be a good salesman, you have to make the hard sell. You can’t sell people the old stuff and then hope you can change their mind only after you’re in office. You can’t make yourself inoffensive to your enemies.

Pincher Martin on April 23, 2014 at 4:49 PM

It’s the terminology of “selling” the conservative brand that is the problem. In order to sell effectively, you have to become someone the customer wants to buy from. You can’t be yourself. I can’t tell my client that they are complete idiots, have totally fubar’d their systems, and only by hiring me for $200/hr can they hope to keep their company float–even though it’s the truth.

Conservatives have to decide: will they continue to be salesmen (like the GOPe) or will they simply tell it like it is whether people get offended or not.

Nutstuyu on April 24, 2014 at 10:09 AM

jp on April 24, 2014 at 9:57 AM

You Lie!!

Love,
RP

Nutstuyu on April 24, 2014 at 10:10 AM

37,000 North Carolina voters also voted in another state. Hundreds of dead people voted. Is North Carolina an aberration? I don’t think so. It is a big problem.

scboy on April 24, 2014 at 10:19 AM

I have personally seen Voter fraud. Precincts voting with 100% democrat voter participation with the early voting list not updated and wouldn’t ya know it? Those early voters come back to vote! A Van going from polling place to polling place unloading everyone to go in to vote each time… Ballot boxes not yet sealed being walked out to a car trunk so they can do some last minute stuffing at the house… Voter Id will not stop precincts that don’t have someone honest there to watch the election. During the last election some precincts gave obama 108% of the vote. How is that possible! Fraud is out there.

NTxOkie on April 24, 2014 at 10:27 AM

Let me think of a number of weird reasons for why a person might say what is obviously true.

PBH on April 24, 2014 at 11:02 AM

Remember, it was “negligible” voter fraud and legal hijinks that got us the idiot senator from Minnesota.

BTW, I couldn’t remember his name, so I googled “idiot senator from minnesota” and wikipedia is #1 result with “Al Franken”.

virgo on April 24, 2014 at 11:31 AM

What is the best way to attract conservatives? Lurch to the left! It worked great for the last 2 GOP nominees!

Brock Robamney on April 24, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Which goes to prove Sen Paul’s point. Some on the Right are far too willing when faced with the possibility that its our tactics or our positions that have caused the electorate to reject us, prefer to just make shiite up about how voter fraud is costing us elections…
JohnGalt23 on April 24, 2014 at 4:55 AM

Actually they reject you because you Paulnuts are just plain out of your mind

Brock Robamney on April 24, 2014 at 11:57 AM

Ted Cruz is going to eat Jeb as a snack and then chow down on Rand for lunch…..

These guys ain’t got a chance against a Cruz Missle.

redguy on April 23, 2014 at 9:59 PM

^^^^^^^^^^
Preach it, brother!

Bob Davis on April 24, 2014 at 12:07 PM

Who do we turn to?? They keep disappointing

Jpalm32 on April 24, 2014 at 12:31 PM

John Galt,

So, in other words, Rand Paul did better with Black voters than any GOP candidate for POTUS since 1984.

If you’re numerate at all, you know there’s no essential statistical difference between what Rand Paul got in 2010 and what Bob Dole and George H.W. Bush got in 1996 or 1988, or what George W. Bush got in 2004. It could be a measuring error. It’s that small and that insignificant.

>And in fact, more than doubled the performance of our last two (losing) POTUS candidates.

And that was already explained to you, dufus. Paul wasn’t running against the black messiah. McCain and Romney were.

Paul also was competing only among African-Americans in Kentucky, who apparently are not a representative sample of African Americans in other states. McCain, for example, won 8 percent of the African-American vote in the state in 2008 – that was double the percentage he won nationally.

That makes Rand Paul’s performance among that demographic even less impressive than I initially thought. I’m sure if McCain had been running against Paul in Kentucky, he would’ve beaten Paul among African Americans.

Pincher Martin on April 24, 2014 at 1:18 PM

Good picture

Schadenfreude on April 23, 2014 at 3:57 PM

Great article. Thanks for sharing it Schad.

Steele on April 24, 2014 at 1:20 PM

Do you reject Satan and all his works?

Well, of course, but I don’t think we should marry ourselves to extreme positions.

claudius on April 24, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Pincher Martin on April 24, 2014 at 1:18 PM

If you’re numerate at all, you know there’s no essential statistical difference between what Rand Paul got in 2010 and what Bob Dole and George H.W. Bush got in 1996 or 1988, or what George W. Bush got in 2004. It could be a measuring error. It’s that small and that insignificant.

Nonsense. I can’t say for sure that it’s nto measuring error. I also can’t say for sure that the actual Black vote for Rand Paul wasn’t several points higher or lower, and likewise for the POTUS candidates. Only that there’s a likelihood of the measurement being within a certain margin of the actual. But 13% is significantly better than even the 11% Bush got in 2004. It represents, over the nation, hundreds of thousands of votes shifted.

And that was already explained to you, dufus. Paul wasn’t running against the black messiah. McCain and Romney were.

Name calling aside, blaming our opponent for poor performances… yeah. Another example of Loserspeak…

JohnGalt23 on April 24, 2014 at 1:53 PM

Name calling aside, blaming our opponent for poor performances… yeah. Another example of Loserspeak…

You’ve been accusing me of “Loserspeak” since the beginning of this discussion, and now you’re getting weepy after I called you a dufus?

I’m not blaming anyone. It’s just a fact that the African-American community identified personally with Obama and were heavily invested in turning out to vote for him because he was the first serious African-American presidential candidate.

So any comparison of how Romney and McCain did in the AA voter demographic needs to take that into account. You, predictably, didn’t because you want to pretend that Paul’s performance among African Americans was more impressive than it really was.

Name calling aside, blaming our opponent for poor performances… yeah. Another example of Loserspeak…

You’ve been accusing me of “Loserspeak” since the beginning of this discussion, and now you’re getting weepy after I called you a dufus?

I’m not blaming anyone. It’s just a fact that the African-American community identified personally with Obama and were heavily invested in turning out to vote for him because he was the first serious African-American presidential candidate.

So any comparison of how Romney and McCain did in the AA voter demographic needs to take that into account. You, predictably, didn’t because you want to pretend that Paul’s performance among African Americans was more impressive than it really was.

Pincher Martin on April 24, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Galt,

For some reason, probably because it contained a hyperlink, the first half of my post didn’t clear. Hopefully, it will clear in a few minutes.

Pincher Martin on April 24, 2014 at 2:17 PM

I’ll try the first part again without the hyperlink:

But 13% is significantly better than even the 11% Bush got in 2004. It represents, over the nation, hundreds of thousands of votes shifted.

It’s not significantly better. You’re conflating Paul’s easier path in Kentucky against an easier opponent (i.e., white Democrat) for substantial gains, and you’re not looking at other factors.

In 2004, when running against John Kerry, George W. Bush received 12 percent of the African-American vote in Kentucky. And that was in a three-way race.

So Rand Paul’s 13 percent of AA in his state in a two-way race is nothing special. Bush hit it in 2004 – the last presidential election in which the Democratic candidate was a white man. Paul’s mark in 2010 is thus not an example of an over-performance in the AA voter demographic that any savvy candidate should rely on in the future. Paul didn’t distinguish himself in any way.

Pincher Martin on April 24, 2014 at 2:19 PM

Al Franken stole his seat with the votes of felons.

Lonetown on April 24, 2014 at 6:57 AM

The individual states determine the eligibility of convicted felons to vote. I assume that Rand was speaking about states that prohibit felons from voting (violent and non-violent).

Voting is a matter of state law. Even federal elections are governed by the laws in force in each of the individual states. Each state determines under what circumstances a convicted felon can or cannot vote. These laws vary rather significantly from one state to another.

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/list_6500867_states-allow-convicted-felons-vote_.html#ixzz2zpUTHw9f

See: http://www.ehow.com/list_6500867_states-allow-convicted-felons-vote_.html

BigAlSouth on April 24, 2014 at 2:25 PM

I just posted this comment to Galt:

In 2004, when running against John Kerry, George W. Bush received 12 percent of the African-American vote in Kentucky. And that was in a three-way race.

My original comment contained a hyperlink to a CNN exit poll showing Bush’s 12 percent performance in that election. The same link also showed that Ralph Nader received one percent of the Kentucky AA vote that year.

Pincher Martin on April 24, 2014 at 2:30 PM

Would President Paul have refused to spend the necessary dollars even if it meant a reprieve for the failing Soviet Union? In that case, perhaps he’s too dovish after all. That’ll be how the Carter/Reagan comments are spun, if anyone even thinks to attack him on it.

Rand Paul, the non-interventionist (I think he’s a closeted isolationist) would never have confronted Communist Russia the way Reagan did.

Lets not forget that spending was high also because of a democratic majority that wanted to go on a spending binge because of all the money Regan brought in taxes.

The point is, saying Rand Paul is dovish on foreign policy is being polite. The truth is, Rand Paul is a p*ssy when it comes to foreign policy.

A lot of people who have been trashing Paul for months have now decided that they can’t support him. Be honest, you never supported him. rndmusrnm on April 23, 2014 at 6:31 PM

I have never supported Rand Paul or Ron Paul. Never will. Anyone who knows me knows how much I despise these two men.

With this statement and his fumble on abortion, Rand Paul is to the left of Bill Clinton now.
He has lost all credibility as a candidate for 2016.
Norwegian on April 23, 2014 at 6:50 PM

Libertarians are economically conservative. But on every other issue, they lean left. Rand Paul is leans left on most issues because he’s a liber(al)tarian.

Which makes me wonder…why is Rand Paul in the Republican Party rather than in the Libertarian Party!? His views are closer to the Libertarian Party than the GOP’s.

Conservative Samizdat on April 24, 2014 at 2:32 PM

Rand will be the media’s new ‘maverick’

Sick of him already but you can count on him being the darling of the msm

Lee Jan on April 24, 2014 at 2:53 PM

The fact that Rand Paul is alienating the disingenuous Neo Con/So Con cabal that dominates the Republican party is probably a good thing from his standpoint. He doesn’t particularly care to jump through the hoops set by the would be masters. Why cooperate with those who set you up for failure?

Another Libertarian on April 24, 2014 at 3:21 PM

I have never supported Rand Paul or Ron Paul. Never will. Anyone who knows me knows how much I despise these two men.

People who have been tricked into supporting fascism/communism will always despise who they are told to. There is nothing objectionable about Ron Paul at all to a true conservative. He is a small government, pro life, Christian conservative. What is wrong with any of that? He doesn’t like the warmongering, which of course makes him anathema to those who profit from blood money.

The fact that so many self-titled “Conservative Republicans” despise an actual small government Republican tells you everything you need to know about the party’s most faithful. Thankfully, the willing dupes are shrinking in number as people start to wake up.

Another Libertarian on April 24, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Rand’s sadly a sellout. Yes dear voter, don’t care about your vote not counting because Dems stole your info to give your vote to others who vote the right way, THEIR WAY, and that for the price of a cigarette, and a soul. So tone down the rhetoric so we keep Harry Reid happy! Disgusting!

russedav on April 24, 2014 at 3:47 PM

People who have been tricked into supporting fascism/communism will always despise who they are told to. There is nothing objectionable about Ron Paul at all to a true conservative. He is a small government, pro life, Christian conservative. What is wrong with any of that? He doesn’t like the warmongering, which of course makes him anathema to those who profit from blood money.

The fact that so many self-titled “Conservative Republicans” despise an actual small government Republican tells you everything you need to know about the party’s most faithful. Thankfully, the willing dupes are shrinking in number as people start to wake up.

Another Libertarian on April 24, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Maybe you need to move to Colorado? Your precious pot is there, you know. Isn’t that what most (or all) of you Paulites are all about anyway? Forget all the other stuff, it’s the legal weed you’re after, right? Happy trippin’ over there, ya hear?

Bob Davis on April 24, 2014 at 4:52 PM

Would President Paul have refused to spend the necessary dollars even if it meant a reprieve for the failing Soviet Union? In that case, perhaps he’s too dovish after all. That’ll be how the Carter/Reagan comments are spun, if anyone even thinks to attack him on it.
Rand Paul, the non-interventionist (I think he’s a closeted isolationist) would never have confronted Communist Russia the way Reagan did.

Lets not forget that spending was high also because of a democratic majority that wanted to go on a spending binge because of all the money Regan brought in taxes.

The point is, saying Rand Paul is dovish on foreign policy is being polite. The truth is, Rand Paul is a p*ssy when it comes to foreign policy.

A lot of people who have been trashing Paul for months have now decided that they can’t support him. Be honest, you never supported him. rndmusrnm on April 23, 2014 at 6:31 PM
I have never supported Rand Paul or Ron Paul. Never will. Anyone who knows me knows how much I despise these two men.

With this statement and his fumble on abortion, Rand Paul is to the left of Bill Clinton now.
He has lost all credibility as a candidate for 2016.
Norwegian on April 23, 2014 at 6:50 PM
Libertarians are economically conservative. But on every other issue, they lean left. Rand Paul is leans left on most issues because he’s a liber(al)tarian.

Which makes me wonder…why is Rand Paul in the Republican Party rather than in the Libertarian Party!? His views are closer to the Libertarian Party than the GOP’s.

Conservative Samizdat on April 24, 2014 at 2:32 PM

Yes, yes, and hell yes to all of that! Great post!

Bob Davis on April 24, 2014 at 4:57 PM

Yes, yes, and hell yes to all of that! Great post!
Bob Davis on April 24, 2014 at 4:57 PM

Thank you.

Conservative Samizdat on April 24, 2014 at 5:34 PM

strike one…endorsing mitch mcconnel. strike two… trying to suck up to minority voters by suggesting conservatives under-emphasize voter fraud. strike three? no strike three.

gunowner on April 24, 2014 at 10:21 PM

He knows that most voters, including those in his own party, support voter-ID laws; he also knows that those laws are easily demagogued as racist by lefties, which means that toeing the GOP line too closely could jeopardize Paul’s effort to connect with black voters.

He still accepts the establishment’s rules, where appealing to the black vote is mandatory and appealing explicitly to the white vote is forbidden.

David Blue on April 26, 2014 at 6:25 AM

Does voter fraud occur at similar or higher rates vs. “we have to do something!!!” assault weapon shootings?

rogerb on April 23, 2014 at 6:32 PM

No.

Wow, a thinkprogress link from libfree. I’m sure it will be unbiased and wholly germane to the topic at hand.
Good Solid B-Plus on April 23, 2014 at 6:28 PM

Excellent argument. If anyone can impinge the credibility of a blog for unapologetic partisanship, it’s you, Hot Air.com poster named Good Solid B-Plus.

righty45 on May 10, 2014 at 11:26 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3