[T]he ground game that [Paul's] team is planning is pure realpolitik. His staff is focused on the delegate math and party rules that could determine the next Republican nominee — a game-theory style of presidential politics at which the Paul team is particularly adept....
[I]n a close-fought, state-by-state contest between two or more competitive candidates, the campaign that best understands the intricacies of delegate allotment will have a real edge — and at this point, that campaign is almost certainly Paul’s. Like Obama in 2008, Paul is a first-term senator who, aware of his underdog status, is spending the campaign’s early days planning for all the scenarios it can envision.
११ एप्रिल, २०१५
"The Best Reason to Take Rand Paul Seriously Has Nothing to Do With His Politics."
Writes Jim Rutenberg in the NYT.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२० टिप्पण्या:
I've always been intrigued by the coining of the term "realpolitik," if only because its mere existence implies that there's very little real about politics in general.
I'm sure none of the other campaigns have thought of this.
*facepalm*
"I'm sure none of the other campaigns have thought of this."
It's the problem Hillary Clinton didn't account for in 2008.
@Althouse, and probably isn't accounting for in 2016.
Like Obama in 2008, Paul is a first-term senator who, aware of his underdog status, is spending the campaign’s early days planning for all the scenarios it can envision.
Except in 2008, the Left wing of the Democratic Party didn't like HRC, and in Obama saw the opportunity to make history & expatiate their historical sins. For all the Obama campaigns delegate forecasting, they actually "rode the wave" to victory.
Paul brings none of that "electricity" to the Republican side. He's just one more white among the crew, with a sorta Libertarian outlook that spooks as many Republicans as it draws. Paul's big problem isn't gaming the delegates; his big problem is getting the Republican dogs to want to eat his brand of dog food.
Not particularly keen on Rand Paul, but one virtue he offers is the way he takes it to the Clintons. He flat out labels Bill Clinton as a sexual predator, which is the quintessence of speaking truth to power. While campaigning for Mitch McConnell last go round, he hammered Alison Lundergan Grimes for bringing Bill Clinton to KY to boost her campaign. He just called out Bill Clinton for what he is, and that is something I find refreshing.
Like Obama in 2008, Paul is a first-term senator
I can't figure if this is damning with faint praise, or a back-handed compliment.
Rand's (and others') libertarianism is to Republicans and conservativism what Obama's (and others') progressivism is to Democrats and liberals.
And eventually it tends to come full circle. Libertarianism and progressivism are more alike than Rand would care to admit.
Derbyshire rejects Paul because he's too stupid on immigration, with Paul adapting his views to the shape of the container he's poured into.
A negative view of delegate counting.
Paul will inherit many of his father's followers and only needs to thread the needle in foreign policy.
I don't like him but maybe that is just my feeling about ophthalmologists. Just kidding.
At the same time, Establishment Republicanism and liberal Democrats are more alike than Romney, McCain, Boehner, et al. would care to admit.
Rand Paul is obviously running for vice president. He's doing a great job, too. His tactics make sense in that he will have an inflated relevance early, though not a lot of staying power. He will bring a devoted following that actually adds to the tally instead of just being the same people who would vote for the nominee no matter what. All he has to do is prove himself with ripostes to the press. Oh wow, look at that, that's what he's doing lately.
(politically) he's weak on foreign policy and strong on making waves. I'm sure Walker and Cruz would love his endorsement in a few months.
"Rand Paul is obviously running for vice president...."
I don't believe anyone does that. Obvious or not.
Randall is running to do things his way according to his reality. But who is going to follow him into the theoretical land on trust?
Ann Althouse said...
It's the problem Hillary Clinton didn't account for in 2008.
Did she not account for it, or did she just not do it as well?
My point is not that Paul is not trying this. But everyone else is trying it too. I'm not convinced that Paul is doing it better than the other campaigns.
"He flat out labels Bill Clinton as a sexual predator, which is the quintessence of speaking truth to power."
Chicks dig Clinton. Ya know in more mature countries of the world it's not a big deal. It also shows what a fraud Paul's libertarianism is.
"I don't believe anyone does that. Obvious or not."
Absolutes are usually wrong! I think a large percentage, though probably not a majority, of presidential candidates, are not actually running for president. They are bolstering their brand for the many reasons one would do that (speaking fees, other offices, promotion of certain issues, testing and paving the way for a more serious presidential run in the future, etc).
Rand Paul fits the bill better than most for this role, as his negatives such as foreign policy are muted, while his positives are almost enhanced, as the VP is often a foil for the press and an critic.
Sometimes, as with Paul, it is pretty obvious.
" Ya know in more mature countries of the world it's not a big deal. It also shows what a fraud Paul's libertarianism is."
I think this is some sort of troll attempt, by which you're suggesting that being a libertarian means being a hedonist to the extent of tolerating sexual predators. Of course that is sick, so you're either trying to be ugly for its own sake, or your are amazingly paranoid about the evil of those you disagree with politically.
Bill Clinton was the most powerful man in the world, and he abused his position against someone who was barely more than a kid, in one of the weakest positions in the government Clinton ran. Almost reflexively his people, such as Blumenthal, denigrated this intern as a deranged stalker. I don't understand why Rolling Stone didn't put out a column discussing this abuse if they are trying so hard to find one.
There was quite a pattern of this from many women, and it's sad that anyone out there, especially so many who deem themselves feminist, act as though all these women were nuts and evil and lying, even while chuckling that of course Bill Clinton was a bad boy.
If only Bill had divorced his wife, he could have courted some extremely attractive and intelligent women, openly, with his head held high. Why didn't he? Why were his conquests so consistent in being unattractive (frankly substantially more unattractive than Bill) and powerless? Why keep things in the dark?
Well, because predators prefer to maintain their advantage. It's why lions don't hunt tigers.
So Rand Paul isn't going to run for reelection to the Senate?
I always love how clueless these reporters are :
"He….likens the war on drugs to Jim Crow (The same Rand Paul who once said he opposed part of the Civil Rights Act ?)"
The parts of the Civil Rights Act that he said he opposed were the ones compelling private citizens to engage in commercial transactions against their will. A classic "mind your own business" objection to excessive government. How could the same guy think the government is too heavy handed in its "war on drugs' ? Doh !
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा