He won the CPAC straw poll, he is second in the latest national poll, he leads in New Hampshire, the first in the nation primary and now he is the favorite among likely voters in the first in the nation Iowa Caucus.
Senator Rand Paul must be doing something right.
There are still a few of the snubs his father used to get. Policymic ignored him as a GOP contender, insisting with a straight face that he does not break into the top five contenders. (Condoleezza Rice who polls 3% in Iowa apparently meets the stringent Policymic threshold.) But no matter how the power brokers want things to be, Rand Paul, is proving to be popular with the masses, representing the first real political movement since Ronald Reagan.
While the views of the son, Rand Paul and the father, Ron Paul are sometimes different, both represent a strong sentiment against corruption. The poll in Iowa may show Rand’s campaign picking up right where his father’s campaign ended.
By the way, don’t let anybody tell you that Dr. Ron Paul’s presidential campaign of 2012 was for naught. Dr. Paul showed great appeal to Independents, Youth and Hispanics. It was the very crowd that eventually went to Obama and sealed the fate of the doomed GOP ticket. And it is the group that the GOP now needs for any resurgence.
Astonishingly, in 2012, the smug power brokers in the Republican Party ridiculed and broke their own rules to marginalize and hurt Dr. Paul and his followers. While publicly proclaiming a “big tent” to Youth and Hispanics, the GOP security guards cut off microphones to Ron Paul Hispanics at State Conventions and escorted duly elected young Ron Paul delegates off the floor of the RNC in Tampa. During the campaign, Governor Mitt Romney openly laughed at him. No one’s laughing now.
A recent poll conducted by the McKeon & Associates for Freedom to Choose PAC, found Dr. Paul’s son, Senator Rand Paul, with a commanding lead over all other possible GOP, presidential contenders in the first in the nation contest in Iowa.
Here are the results of voters most likely to vote in the 2016 Iowa Caucus.
Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul 39%
Florida Senator, Marco Rubio 20%
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie 11%
Former Fla. Gov. Jeb Bush 10%
La. Gov. Bobby Jindal 3%
Condoleezza Rice 3%
Support for Rand Paul among Independents likely to vote in the GOP Caucus was striking and bodes well for a general election contest. 67% favored the Kentucky Senator, Rand Paul. 30% favored Governor Chris Christie, all other candidates failed to muster any showing at all among these voters.
In 2012, the New York Times and all of the national network media declared Mitt Romney the winner of the Iowa Caucus. Only months later did they reverse themselves to say that Senator Rick Santorum had won. This blogger was told that it took threats from the Governor’s office and from fellow GOP leaders, before the Iowa State GOP Chairman would finally release the votes from selected counties that put Santorum over the top. The Chairman, a Mitt Romney supporter, resigned shortly after.
For the rest of the year, the New York Times, the Associated Press and all the major networks continued to show that Ron Paul had only 3 delegates from the Iowa Caucus. Meanwhile, national polls showed him doing better than all other GOP contenders – except for Romney – in a head to head face off with President Obama, and tied within the margin of error with Romney. These were ignored as the national media continued to marginalize Dr. Paul.
In fact, the Paul supporters openly declared that they, not Santorum, had won the Iowa delegation. They contended that if the news had been reported truthfully and the following contests had been allowed to take place according to GOP rules, Dr. Paul would have arrived as a force at a brokered RNC.
The final Iowa vote on the floor of the Republican National Convention was 22 for Dr. Ron Paul and 6 for former Governor Mitt Romney. In a final irony, Dr. Paul’s Iowa state co-chairman was voted in to replace the disgraced Romney operative who had been running the State GOP and had withheld votes to assure that his man would get media credit for a win he didn’t earn.
Most people want fairness and despise the expanding corruption that pervades American society from its food supply, to its national media, to its monetary system to its government relationship with Wall Street and K Street and yes, to the corruption of its two major political parties. What good is an election if the only two candidates to choose from are produced by a corrupt process? How is that really democratic or free?
This recent poll in Iowa is a good sign. It shows that the mood of the people is beginning to reach the flood stage. It shows that the corruption that has bankrupted this nation and made a very few, very rich at the expense of all the rest of us, has finally been exposed for what it is.
It shows that Rand Paul commands a following much bigger and much wider than his father ever had. But it also shows that his father’s campaign was more than Quixotic. Dr. Paul did not run in vain, and all of those thousands of people who were shut out or whose votes were thrown away, or whose bones were broken or whose election was nullified, did not give up a year of their lives in vain. Dr. Paul was the pace car. And now the real race for America’s future begins.
Join the discussion on FACEBOOK now.
And who do you favor for the GOP nomination in 2016? Vote below.
Vote for your favorite for 2016
30 thoughts on “Rand Paul out front in Iowa and nobody’s laughing now!”
please whatever they do , DO NOT let Jesse Benton anywhere near his campaign.
Jay Tea remembers Jesse Benton. Doug remembers Tampa. I remember Maine. We must put an end to Amendment 21. Obama should never have been president, the votes were rigged. Paper trail voting will stop all this.
Haven’t we all had enough of this circus? Time to go back to Amway Doug.
His final paycheck from Uncle Ronnie last year was a cool half-million. Not sure he could scam as much at Amway.
What Doug doesn’t mention (but the article he links to does) is these results are biased:
“A poll conducted by Illinois-based pollster McKeon & Associates for Freedom to Choose PAC, a pro-gun group, found Paul with an early lead over other possible presidential contenders.”
OOPS! Rule number one of a propaganda writer is not to provide links to something that takes the credibility away from your message.
How is this biased? All the potential Republican candidates in the poll are pro-gun.
Scott Doug lifted the entire passage sans the part that it was a pro-gun group from the article. He intentionally omitted it. While
“All the potential Republican candidates in the poll are pro-gun.” not all have as close ties to gun rights groups like Paul, who actively fund-raises for NAGR.
Doug pulled this same game on Paul supporters throughout the 2012 primaries: claiming victory based on obscure polling then calling conspiracy and shenanigans when those victories never materialized. But hey, send Rand some money anyway. Doug wants another big payday (he made half a million last year from Uncle Ron).
“Pro-Gun?” How about “Pro-Constitution!”
Rand Paul thinks cops should use drones against Americans as far as us Oath keepers are concerned and Veterans ..He is a Red Coat a Turn coat and should be placed in the Red Coat hall of shame !!!c Plus that nice stab in the back to his own Father we haven’t forgotten..He might look good ,smell good in his nice fancy clothes but he is still Rand Paul Turn coat!!! We don’t need him, he needs us and we aren’t moving !!!
Rand Paul just can’t be trusted !!!..He won’t get my vote !..Not Jesse Benton the Catholic Hater and Bigot i’am just not impressed!!!
I agree with you Angie, he’s voted enough wrong issues to put him in the with the bad boys. Who is your choice?
It is really early and much can happen before the 2016 Presidential campaign begins, but it is encouraging to see Rand leading in Iowa. I’m hoping Rand pulls in enough votes of social conservatives in addition to the liberty voters to win the nomination, then and emphasize the liberty message in the general election.
Enumerate the points about RP that let you say he’s rabid. I don’t see a single one, Bring the troops home and protect our own borders, is that one? Stop this run around Congress and starting new wars with a pen, is that one? So far I’m for Ted Cruse, do you have a problem with Ted? Do you have a problem with RP wanting to keep our sovereignty? Getting out of the UN? Stop spending money we don’t have? Tell me Tex2.. Where do you stand on these issues?
Social conservatives will NEVER win the White House. A significant number of repulicons fled the party due to their influene and now register independent.
If anything they registered democrat. Just as long as they get out.
Like it or not, social conservatives are still a large block of votes in the Republican Party. I am socially conservative and voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries in 2008 and 2012, and would be glad to see him run again in 2016.
I was surprised that big-government establishment candidates like Mitt Romney and John McCain were able to get so many social conservative votes in 2008 and 2012, in spite of their not so conservative records prior to running for President. Romney basically re-invented himself right before he decided to run for President ~ 2006, and he got away with running on his changed image instead of his socially liberal record as Gov. of Massachusetts.
rand paul is for decriminalizing marijuana, not sure how exaclty that fits in some box, but its certainly not your father’s social conservatism. leagizing industrial hemp, being very pro 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment…. being highly religous is fine with me as long as you keep your religion off the trigger of a government gun.rand paul’s version fo conservatism could win alot of states that are currently viewed at “blue” christie, jindall, ryan, not so much.
And Doug will be front and center, raking in the dough from the rubes.
“We can no longer protect our own borders at the border, we MUST reach out where the bad guys are, or we’ll have more 9/11 events”
We can protect our own borders at the border if we focused on doing so instead of policing the entire world. It would be much less expensive and much better for our national security if we defended our own borders and quit meddling in the affair of other countries. That is what Ron Paul has proposed doing ~ his foreign policy.
tex2 is sick in the head, and is best left ignored.
“We can no longer protect our own borders at the border” – Why the hell not?
Please be specific.
I read your post and comprehended it. Your “specifics” are lacking in detail, and if you really want to debate, stick to discussing the issue and cut the name calling.
Our current foreign policy of policing the world will eventually come to an end when our government can no longer print or borrow money. It would be much wiser to change our foreign policy before that happens while we still have the resources to be able to adequately defend our country.
“tex2” is a troll and best left ignored.
tex2 watches ALOT of tv news. meddling in other countries business since the 1950’s if not earlier is why having the most powerful military in the world no longer works. but hey, lets pretend to be fiscal conservatives while supporting a foreign policy thats taken “defense” spending from 300 to 800 billion a year in a little over a decade. hence the problem with the gop, its not for limited government at all.
steve says (among other things):
“… taken “defense” spending from 300 to 800 billion a year in a little over a decade. hence the problem with the gop, ”
Uh, in case you haven’t noticed, your golden boy has had five, going on six years to change course here. But I guess “Blame Bush” is the new standard leftist dogma.
I, for one, am very excited. I hope you are involved in the next campaign Doug.
The social conservatives who only care for prenatal, and not for postnatal, life must take a good long look in the mirror. The face staring back will be one bearing a great deal of responsibility for the debacle of 2012. They must acknowledge that the obliteration of life with a lifetime of toil for a false store of value, or the extinguishing of life on a foreign battlefield, are not consistent with a pro life label. They were manipulated, pure and simple.
Ron Paul was (and I assume still is) pro life, from conception to natural death.
Anyone reading this, who already is savaging Rand Paul for this or that comment to the intrusive and ever-listening microphone, had better think very hard about what they’re doing. It is very hard to have a group effort when there are cannibals in the ranks. Many people will forgo involvement, to avoid the furious maelstrom of bickering–my description of Spring 2012.
Ron Paul is pro-life, I am pro-life, all conservatives are pro-life, any that say they are not so are not conservatives and do not follow Ron Paul.
Sorry, I should have used quotation marks: “social conservatives.” Those self-styled “social conservatives”, supporting other GOP candidates, are who I’m referring to.
I agree celticreeler. I am a social conservative and a big fan of, and voted for, Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012. Of all the people I’ve talked to about Ron Paul’s stance on the issues, our social conservative Christian friends and acquaintances have been the least receptive. Many were skeptical of Ron Paul’s pro-life position because he proposed taking jurisdiction over the abortion issue away from the Supreme Court and returning it to the States. Many were skeptical because he proposed ending all foreign aid, including foreign aid to Israel. Many were skeptical because of his non-interventionist foreign policy.
It seem to me that, in general, the liberty voters are much more informed on wide variety of issues where the social conservatives as a group gravitate to the candidate that SAYS they are pro-life and who is perceived to have the best chance of winning (i.e., per Rush, Hannity, Fox News, and a few national Christian organizations that have a huge following). I wish the conservative Christians as a group would turn off the talking heads and do more of their own research on the candidates.
Also, I agree with you ~ Rand Paul. Without a doubt, Ron Paul set the bar high for all subsequent liberty candidates to be evaluated by. I like Ron Paul’s approach to politics better than Rand’s, but if Rand successfully broadens his base of support, it would be a shame if enough liberty voters stayed home to keep him from being elected.