Comment: I don't think that Sec. Clinton will even be the Dem nominee

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: or, she will be (see in situ)

I don't think that Sec. Clinton will even be the Dem nominee

When was the last time that the Democrats chose a 68 year old who has been around forever as their nominee for President? Republicans do that; Democrats choose a "fresh face" in his 40's or 50's. Clinton will seek the nomination, but, because of her age, the "retread" factor, and Benghazi, she will be less attractive than in 2008 (when she would have won, if there was ever a time when she would win).

Don't get me wrong... I would love to have Sec. Clinton as the opposition for Sen. Paul, for two reasons:

1. They would be starkly different on the issues, which would give American voters a clear choice for the first time since, at least, 1984 (whereas a young, fresh Democrat without any connection to the Obama Administration would mimic Sen. Paul's stands on war, due process, drugs, etc., blunting the contrast).

2. In addition to her own baggage, Sec. Clinton (because she was President Obama's Secretary of State) will be stuck with Obama's baggage as well. Iraq: Clinton for, Paul against; Libya: Clinton for, Paul against (and Benghazi will keep Libya in the spotlight); Obamacare: Clinton for, Paul against; Nationwide dragnet searches: Clinton for, Paul against; Wall Street bailouts: Clinton for, Paul against... the list goes on and on, but the point is that the matchup would leave Clinton defenseless on issue after issue. Young people, especially, would surge into the Paul column.

If Sec. Clinton is the opponent, and if the "small-government" third parties (Libertarian and Constitution) agree to cross-nominate Sen. Paul (so as not to draw off votes), then, unless the economy is doing significantly better, I predict that Paul wins by a 5-10 point popular vote margin and takes 35-40 states. I really don't think that it would be close.

A Constitutional, Christian conservative who voted for Ron and stands with Rand