Which candidate do you like/dislike/want to win ?

[lnrw]

Dr. Rand Paul.

Sanders is probably the only other principled candidate

all the others are just different shades of brown and varying temperatures of hot air. especially trump and fiorina. showmanship, interview savvy and machiavellian expertise have them 'showing' well, like a real estate agent's present center piece.

clinton is garbage in a pant suit.

[Philly]

How principled do you think Rand Paul is? I see him as a guy who is riding the coattails of his father's principled movement but hedging at every turn to be more appealing to mainstream conservatives. He might retain more principle than most in the field, but he's still playing the same game.

[lnrw]

i think he's more principled than the rest and less than his dad.

being more closely aligned to my positions and the above makes him my favorite,.

but i suppose whoever can buy the most votes wins. he doesn't have the money to play that game.

is there a reason not to choose your favorite because they're playing the game?

[Philly]

No. You ideally want someone who plays the game well in advancement of whatever is important to you. I think being principled is important only for your very broad values, and overrated most of the time. Ron Paul had a lot more energy and momentum than Rand ever did, but he was so committed to being principled that he shot himself in the foot for any hope of broad appeal. But Ron did much better than Rand is doing, and I think part of that is because Rand is bad balancing principles and politics. He doesn't have any of the energy his dad did because he's spent the last 5 years trying to win the favor of insiders and DC people, which he's failed at because he's still too associated with his dad's outsider agenda. Ron Paul actually raised enough money to run a cool insurgent campaign. Rand is one foot in, one foot out and as a consequence he's appealing to almost no one.

You mentioned Bernie Sanders as being principled. He is. He's also raised more money than anyone expected, and is obviously polling better than anyone thought he would. But like Ron Paul, he's running into problems like the media not taking him seriously and the party elites treating him like a leper. I like Bernie's leftwing agenda and want to see him succeed, so I'd like it if he could make inroads and have his campaign be treated more seriously. But if he does it in a way that disillusions the grass root supporters who have gotten him as far as he current is, he'll just be a sellout to them and still too liberal for the establishment. That would leave him where Rand Paul is: playing the game, which he is not well suited to play.

[lnrw]

so the rest are better because they play the game better.

so what? they're only good at the game and will be the same shit once more.

there are people that do like Dr. Paul.

but the media plays their game too.

[Philly]

[lnrw]

the movement is very much alive. rand does not embrace it well and the movement does not endorse him well.

he just happens to be the best of a shoddy lot, for me at least.

i didn't miss your point, i just don't think it's important. it's just an observation. it's nothing new or revelational. anyone that's been around for presidential elections with a scintilla of common sense can tell you the same thing.

not denigrating you, just telling you that you're preaching to the choir.

it's just a replay. Ron Paul made the last one interesting for me. hope and change made it interesting for the left. sanders makes it interesting for the left this time, trump makes it interesting for the media party. they need electrons to fill the great electronic void.

but it's not interesting for me. i just like rand better than the rest. it's no more complicated than that, no matter how much verbiage is added.

it's just marking time until the next war to end wars,

[The dane]

[The dane]

[Ready-for-the-worse]