Rand Paul

In reality, I highly doubt the Libertarian Party would nominate Rand Paul. They will most likely go with Gary Johnson again (unless Rand doesn't win the Republican nomination and then seeks out the Libertarian nomination).

Now, hypothetically it could work because the Libertarian Party could nominate a different VP candidate. So then on election day, we will see the Democrat nominee, the Republican nominee (Rand Paul and whatever VP would be on that ticket), and then the Libertarian candidate (Rand Paul and the VP for that ticket). Now a problem that could arise would be what if Rand Paul won the majority of the votes when tallying the Republican votes and 3rd party votes together, but what if it was actually split (like 35% Republican ticket, 28% 3rd party)? Say the Democrats got 37% of the vote. Does this mean that the election goes to the Democrat or since it was agreed people want Rand Paul, does it go to him? Then it comes down to choosing the VP candidate.

This problem is why I doubt two parties will nominate the same man. Now it has happened in the past only one other time, back when the Whig party was still around, but in today's society, I doubt it could work.

I think many libertarians fear that Rand will pander to the right on social issues such as gay marriage, but I honestly don't see him opposing that once he's in office

Recently, I have become a fan of Rand Paul. The more the "hawks" attack him, the more I like him.

So since the debate last week, Rand Paul has been attacking both Donald Trump and Chris Christie. Do you guys think this is a good strategy? I think some attacks are good to show people why they aren't the right candidate for the job, but it seems to be turning off a lot of voters (especially the Republican voters who believe that no candidate should attack another Republican candidate). They think he is in cahoots with Fox and the GOP to shut down Trump because Trump is a "threat to the establishment." Should he move his focus back to the issues and pairing himself up against the Democrats (most likely Hillary)? Or should he continue trying to "expose" Trump and Christie?

Clyde, I agree, I think he needs to attack to show people that Trump is a chump. haha I was just saying it seems to be turning off voters because they think he has been bought off by the GOP and is just like any other politician. But agreed, he is doing what it takes to stay in the game and does shine in debates when he gets a real question that he can show off his solution to the issues. I personally don't trust Trump since he has been a major flip-flopper in recent years and hasn't changed over time (like most politicians who change). I too came to Libertarianism after being a Regan Conservative so I am able to listen to these guys and see who feels genuine and who doesn't (but that doesn't mean I will vote for many of them).

I think attacking the other candidates is wielding a double-edged sword moment. He is getting air time and press talk and gaining some voters, while losing voters at the same time. Agreed polls don't matter at this point and in the past polls this early never come to fruition.

And on your P.S. topic, Trump would most likely go after Christie's weight (as he has gone after Rand's height). So it would be entertaining, but hold no value (like the rest of his campaign). haha