March 16, 2013

Rand Paul 25%, Marco Rubio 23%...

At the top of the CPAC straw poll.

Further back was Santorum in third place with 8%, then Christie at 7%, and then 2 Wisconsinites: Paul Ryan with 6% and Scott Walker with 5%.

45 comments:

edutcher said...

Paul and Rubio have gotten a lot of press, along with Cruz, but he's a freshman.

That Christie did as poorly as he did is (behind Santorum) shows his future in the Republican Party.

Hey, Benedict Arnold and Kim Philby were never trusted after they turned coats, either.

Synova said...

I don't know about Walker. I'm not sure he's got the presence to make it. He's got a good mid-western workmanlike demeanor, I think, instead of a dynamic one. Also, even if I don't put importance on his college, other people will. Christie will do better once he gets going because he does have presence. Santorum won't happen any more than he did before.

Rubio (in case phx is interested) is firmly moderate, but he might have the "fight" in him.

Paul and Ryan? Some people I really really like but tend to think are needed where they are. Though I'd register Republican to vote for Rand Paul.

Synova said...

Also, CPAC is a strong force, but not mainstream for Republicans. I'm not surprised they'd go for Rand Paul that strongly.

Which is actually sort of interesting because CPAC is strongly socially conservative, isn't it? And Rand Paul isn't.

Lem said...

How did the other doctor do?

Lem said...

I wont mention his name so as to not upset Althouse ;)

Lem said...

Ok the truth is I didn't remember his name just then.

Erika said...

Synova, I respectfully disagree about Christie. He's burned his bridges.

Lem said...

Christie has a temper problem.

I don't know that he has the temperament to be president.

Lem said...

There is also his health... which is a roundabout way of saying...

I cant say it.

Synova said...

Erika, I know he's burned his bridges with conservatives who pay attention, but the general election includes all of those people who don't pay attention.

edutcher said...

The only people who might hype him will be too busy hyping the Harpy ticket.

Humperdink said...

Christie didn't burn his bridges. They collapsed under his own ..... well you know what I mean.

Lem said...

I could come in here and mock the governor's... you know.

But I wont.

Derek Brown said...

No CPAC is not heavily social conservative, namely because its a bunch of college kids, and Rand Paul is social conservative if not to the level of Santorum. He is a Republican senator from Kentucky that should be the tip off. The Portman thing likely means the socons will congeale around someone with a history if social conservatism making Santorum relevant again surprisingly.

mariner said...

If Christie isn't conservative he has a bright future in the Republican Party.

The question is whether the Republican Party has a bright future, if it keeps headlining people like McCain, Romney and Christie.

Bob_R said...

CPAC deliberately (?) put some space between themselves and the Republican party by not inviting Christie. (Say what you want. He is getting votes as a budget cutting R in a deep blue state.) By inviting Trump instead they have invited contempt from more conservative people than myself (cf. e.g. Jonah Goldberg.)

I'm not sure what the Rand votes in the straw pole mean since Ron did so well. Is there a libertarian - conservative coalition forming? It has happened before (Goldwater, Regan) but it's always a tense relationship. There are a lot of very statistic conservatives and a lot of libertarians who skip over the parts of Hayek where he talks about accumulated wisdom.

commoncents said...

CPAC 2013 - FULL ANN COULTER SPEECH (VIDEO)

http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2013/03/cpac-2013-ann-coulters-full-speech.html

Derek Brown said...

In fairness to libertarians Hayek went out of his way to snub his nose at a conservatives in "Why I am not a conservative." But is Hayek really even a libertarian favorite he admits that he got alot of the argument for Serfdom from Belloc who is about as far from a libertarian as possible. But I really can't stand libertarians so ill admit that I have no idea where Hayek ranks in the libertarian pantheon.

Of those two coalitions its no accident that the one that was heavier on libertarianism was the one that couldn't creep past 40 percent.

Titus said...

I loved Sarah's speech.

She said, "I've got the rack and Todd's got the gun". Awesome.

Tits.

Synova said...

"Rand Paul is social conservative if not to the level of Santorum. He is a Republican senator from Kentucky that should be the tip off."

Ashley Judd is from Kentucky... your point is?

No really... Rand Paul is Libertarian, if slightly more careful about what he says than his dad. So the claim that a Libertarian is a social conservative in a politically meaningful way is an extraordinary claim that requires actual evidence and not just "he's from Kentucky."

Synova said...

And by "in a politically meaningful way" I mean *politically* socially conservative.

A person can believe that drug users are stupid and that sex outside of marriage is wrong and that both things are a drain on society without believing that government is the proper place to address the issue.

tiger said...

Seriously who the fark cares about some straw poll takend 3.5 years before the next election.

Someone needs to give it a rest.

And I don't want to see one more farking word about a 'Hilary/Michelle' joint ticket in '16.

It is utter bull shiat to speculate on anything as remote as that.

Synova said...

Oh dear... people are talking about a "Hillary/Michelle" joint ticket?

Do the two of them even speak?

Freder Frederson said...

Just goes to show you what a bunch of out of touch wackos attending CPAC are (Let's forgive Frederick Douglass'es master for feeding and housing him).

SteveR said...

What difference, at this point, does it make? We'll be 20 Trillion in debt, we won't know anything more about Benghazi or Fast and Furious, Health Care costs will be soaring and service will have gotten worse. Guess whaat people will vote for more free stuff

Derek Brown said...

Is Ashleh Judd a Republican senator from Kentucky. No she isn't. Rand was in a pretty bruising primary fight he entered as the underdog. he in no way ran as a libertarian nor does he call him self such. If he had Greyson would be senator now. You don't win southern state republican primaries with libertarianism really you don't win any elections with libertarianism.

Synova said...

Can you provide any evidence other than his win that Rand Paul is a social conservative?

Obviously he ran on the Republican ticket... so did Ron Paul. Ron Paul also wins elections. (Just not presidential ones.)

One of the first things Rand did when he was elected was deliver a lecture about how healthcare can not be a "Right" because, as a doctor, he is not a slave. I can have rights to things I do myself, but I can't have a right that requires someone else to serve me.

Explaining things in those terms is explaining them in libertarian terms. Nothing particularly "Republican" about it.

So try to come up with actual statements or examples of his that show he is a social conservative in a politically meaningful way.

Paul Ciotti said...

Synova: Oh dear... people are talking about a "Hillary/Michelle" joint ticket?

Boy I hope not. But it would never work in any event. Neither of those them would ever be the other's vice-president. And what has Michelle ever done to qualify herself for either position besides wear $7500 dresses three nights a week?

Paul Ciotti said...

Derek Brown: "But I really can't stand libertarians."

Where did you learn to win friends and influence people so well? The Saul Alinsky playbook?

Revenant said...

can you provide any evidence other than his win that Rand Paul is a social conservative?

He is pro-life and has a 0% rating from NARAL. He isn't a social conservative in the Rick Santorum "we need federal laws enforcing strict Christian morality" sense, though.

Revenant said...

You don't win southern state republican primaries with libertarianism really you don't win any elections with libertarianism.

And yet he did both.

Achilles said...

You mean republicans might have a chance in 2016? Republicans need to unite the freedom coalition to defeat the free stuff coalition. Rand could do that. Conservatives need to stop trying to use the government as a tool to push morality. Demographics are moving away from that. If they don't embrace freedom and liberty they will forever be the minority. Do I think abortion is a good idea? No. But you fix this with the church and faith, not the government.

Christie supports gun control and is a traitor. If the establishment pushes Christie and gets him nominated in 2016 it is 3rd party time. Republicans need to stop handing out goodies like medicare part B and start actually shrinking the government.

Saint Croix said...

Rubio (in case phx is interested) is firmly moderate

Rubio is a Tea Party guy.

edutcher said...

tiger said...

Seriously who the fark cares about some straw poll takend 3.5 years before the next election.

Someone needs to give it a rest.

And I don't want to see one more farking word about a 'Hilary/Michelle' joint ticket in '16.

It is utter bull shiat to speculate on anything as remote as that.


Then why are the Demos and the Lefty media talking about it?

I agree with Paul Ciotti that it wouldn't fly (the catfights would be fun, however), but we need to realize the Lefties are already laying the groundwork for '16

tim maguire said...

People love Christie because he's an unapologetic fighter for what he believes in and Republicans long for a leader who isn't embarrassed by his party's principles. But the things he believes in aren't conservative or Republican.

Gun control? He's for it. Fracking? He's against it. New Jersey corruption? You bet! Christie has no national future.

dreams said...

Christie will never get the Republican nomination for president because of his over the top suck up praise to Obama at a crucial time in the election. Christie stabbed Romney in the back and showed how selfish and disloyal a politician he really is, he has been a good governor in a very liberal state but if he wants to be president it won't be as a Republican.

Saint Croix said...

Can you provide any evidence other than his win that Rand Paul is a social conservative?

I feel like when we're talking about "social conservatives," we're really talking about sex. We're talking about abortion. We're talking about gay marriage. And maybe prostitution and pornography, too.

Rand Paul is pro-life, so in that sense he is clearly a social conservative.

Also Paul is not a supporter of gay marriage. "I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage,” he says.

I don't think Paul has spoken about prostitution. Stuff like prostitution and cocaine and heroin is how libertarians get in trouble.

You can avoid a lot of these issues by citing federalism. Crimes are state matters. Marriage is a state matter. A lot of this stuff is not a federal issue.

On the other hand, prostitution and drugs both implicate interstate commerce. What kills a Rand Paul candidacy is his opposition to the Civil Rights Act.

That was quite stupid. And hard questions in this area would clearly doom the Rand Paul campaign.

Saint Croix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Saint Croix said...

Paul's position on the Civil Rights Act is not only political suicide, I think it's a bad reading of the commerce clause.

99% of businesses are engaged in interstate or international commerce in one way or another. A doctor prescribes drugs that come from another state. A hotel has beds that are manufactured in China. A grocery store is filled with food items that were not grown in your backyard.

What this means is that you fall under federal power, and thus the federal government can require that you operate your business in a certain way. For instance, by not racially discriminating against your customers. Or the feds can require that you provide your employees a minimum wage.

I think we ought to free up businesses a lot more than we do, but legally the federal government has a lot of specific constitutional authority in this area.

Tank said...

What this, and previous, CPAC polls show is that their attendees are libertarian/conservative, unlike most of the United States of America, and unlike much, maybe most, of Republicans.

Michael McNeil said...

I think we ought to free up businesses a lot more than we do, but legally the federal government has a lot of specific constitutional authority in this area.

So you think the commerce clause rightly allows the federal government, as it claims, to tell a farmer that he can't grow food strictly for his own family's consumption simply because he drives a tractor made in another state? As in the Obamacare case, what federal authority wouldn't such a rationale allow the commerce clause to supposedly justify?

jr565 said...

Synova wrote:
No really... Rand Paul is Libertarian, if slightly more careful about what he says than his dad. So the claim that a Libertarian is a social conservative in a politically meaningful way is an extraordinary claim that requires actual evidence and not just "he's from Kentucky."

Well, like a new york republican ends up being a Michael Bloomberg. If Rand Paul is in Kentucky perhaps his Libertarianism is only in name only but he, to get elected, has to temper his libertarianism somewhat to be remotely palatable to Kentuckians.
I"m not saying I agree with that, only that's probably the argument.

And actually, I don't think hes quite as libertarian as his dad. And that's a good thing. If he were I wouldn't vote for him.

Saint Croix said...

So you think the commerce clause rightly allows the federal government, as it claims, to tell a farmer that he can't grow food strictly for his own family's consumption simply because he drives a tractor made in another state?

No, I think that case is overbroad. If you're growing crops for your own use you are not engaging in commercial activity, and thus are outside the scope of the commerce clause.

Different story for a farmer who is selling his crops.

I think the "stream of commerce" arguments are pretty sound and the "effects on commerce" arguments are often absurd and dishonest.

As in the Obamacare case, what federal authority wouldn't such a rationale allow the commerce clause to supposedly justify?

It seems to me that non-commercial activity is outside the scope of the commerce clause.

Saint Croix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Saint Croix said...

The Violence Against Women Act, for instance, is clearly not valid under the commerce clause.