In 1964 the Republicans voted for the civil rights act by over 80%. The Democrats - less than 70%.

 

So something is not adding up here....

 

I don't have the stats to back this up but weren't some of the Democrats who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act Dixiecrats like Helms and Thurmond who later became Republicans? Again, I just assumed that was the case, I don't have any way to back up that assumption without doing a considerable amount of research.

If we need a candidate who can win the middle, often represented by voters in states like the ones listed above, does that not show credibility that Rand has the likability, power and resources to do it?

 

Based on what?

Based on what?

 

My answers below.

 

Again, money, fundraising capability, current polling, likability, popularity, and ground game.

 

Rand only candidate to beat Hillary in New Hampshire (38.5% to 36%) and in Colorado (48% to 45%).

 

Also, this:

 

"The poll does suggest that, among Republicans, Paul has the most reach with young voters. Clinton leads Bush and Huckabee by 21 and 11 points respectively among 18- to 29-year-olds, but Paul ran even with her among voters in that demographic, with both earning 43 percent of the vote."

 

Rand Paul Leads Hillary Clinton in KY, NH, CO in Potential 2016 Matchup | National Review Online

 

 

What you're referring to is already out and about. Attacks are directed at him daily -- from the left and especially the right.

 

He is one of THE most, if not most, searched and written about politician according to Google. He has arguably the best fundraising numbers of any prospective presidential candidate. He is constantly on top or in the top tier of any poll, both against members of his own party, and against Hillary.

 

POLITICO ran a question to political operatives/campaign managers as to which GOP politician they wanted to endorse their candidate out of the many prospective 2016 GOP presidential candidates. Rand topped that wishlist.

 

The negatives are having a tough time breaking through the glass.

 

All numbers (fundraising, polling, popularity) indicate nothing but positives for the junior Senator from Kentucky.

 

My post was to demonstrate to people who believe that Rand is too extreme to win a general because he will alienate the Independents or Moderates, that theory simply doesn't hold.

I don't have the stats to back this up but weren't some of the Democrats who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act Dixiecrats like Helms and Thurmond who later became Republicans? Again, I just assumed that was the case, I don't have any way to back up that assumption without doing a considerable amount of research.

 

Google 'civil rights act of 1964 voting record'

 

Voting on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, by Party « Tony's curricublog

 

and

 

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182

Very limited data to make a broad statement on Paul.

I think if you remove the ® or (D) from beside each candidate, mark out their name and just list their positions on the issues...Rand Paul would get more support form both sides on BGP than anyone else. I think his position on most issues is more in line with I's, R's and D's on BGP than anyone else.

Very limited data to make a broad statement on Paul.

 

You could probably argue that if his numbers weren't consistent. But they are.

You could probably argue that if his numbers weren't consistent. But they are.

 

Consistency is irrelevant until a larger data base is achieved.

Consistency is irrelevant until a larger data base is achieved.

 

"People are going to see what they want to see."

 

I see the numbers.

"People are going to see what they want to see."

 

I see the numbers.

 

As do I.