In response to:

Rand Paul 2016?

TaxFree1031 Wrote: Nov 21, 2012 9:11 AM
He has been a U.S. Senator for only two years. He has never run a government, such as a state, city, or county. He is unqualified to be President, just like the doofus who just got reelected.
howardhill Wrote: Nov 21, 2012 9:13 AM
key words got elected then reelected , of course we nominated the most electable candidate moderate mitt the mormon and look what that got us
TaxFree1031 Wrote: Nov 21, 2012 9:14 AM
Beating an incumbent is nearly impossible, That's the main reason so many better qualified Republicans declined to run in 2012.
Hamilcar Barca Wrote: Nov 21, 2012 9:27 AM
Jimmy Carter did it in 1976.
Ronald Reagan did it in 1980.
Bill Clinton did it in 1992.

Walter Mondale did not in 1984.
Bob Dole did not in 1996.
John Kerry did not in 2004.
Mitt Romney did not in 2012.

Three out of seven is NOT nearly impossible.
TaxFree1031 Wrote: Nov 21, 2012 9:30 AM
Does the fact that Reagan, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama had NO primary opponents mean anything?
Earl29 Wrote: Nov 21, 2012 10:34 AM
Really? Since 1976, three incumbents have lost; four have won. Hardly an overwhelming edge to incumbents.

Yes I know we are all thinking, "2016 already?" But yes, 2016 already. Senator Rand Paul is interested in a run for the White House when President Obama makes his exit in four years.

Rand Paul, a pro-life member of the U.S. Senate from Kentucky who is the son of former presidential candidate Ron Paul, says he is potentially interested in seeking the Republican nomination in 2016.

“That’s classified,” Paul told ABC’s Jonathan Karl when asked if he intended to run. “Am I interested and thinking about that? Yes.”

“I’m not...