I do too.

I wish.

I would be ecstatic if Rand Paul would get the republican nominee and go on to win it. I highly doubt he will but i genuinely think he would do much good for America. Kasich would be amazing too

He is polling at under 2% for Republican women. It isn't going to happen for him. You can't win with only young white males.

You'd think the most attractive of the Republican nominees would poll better for women, esp. young women.

Maybe Rubio's better looking.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Jun 8 2015 09:01pm

Women are more likely to use social services, work for social services, and are less likely to embrace ideologies of individualism and personal risk. That's why women typically aren't libertarians.

guess women just aren't crazy enough to think Rand is any different than every other crack-pot GOP candidate.

Well he did say among Republican women.

Um, words, meaning. Being more aggressive than his competitors in trying to build an infrastructure (because he knew he would run for president before them) is helpful for it's own sake, but that doesn't make the actual organization "substantial," which was the word you used. Being a Senator, it's likely that he can at least claim that he receives donations from more states than most of the governors (which is where that distinction is coming from), but as far as the actual organizational strength of the infrastructure he's created -- it doesn't even begin to approach "substantial." Paul is seriously entertaining the idea that he'll outright skip South Carolina completely. You don't skip key states if you have a substantial organization in all 50 states.

I'm obviously not ignoring the polling either (yawn), I'm only correctly applying the correct scrutiny to it: Paul currently enjoys an artificial standing that'll soon be replaced by fully fleshed-out opinions of him. That means his standing could improve or worsen, and there's every reason to believe it'll worsen. Right now the vast majority of respondents know little to nothing about his economic views and don't fully understand the rationale behind most of his social views either. The only thing that most respondents know about him are the eclectic foreign policy views that stand in contrast to those belonging to the rest of the field.

There are a lot of artificial elements to the early-primary polling, including Jeb Bush faring the same as Carly Fiorina against Hillary Clinton in various states. If anyone thinks that there isn't a very large artificial element to such polling then they clearly don't understand polling, campaigns, or both.

So what you're saying is that women can't be independent and need men?