Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Tuesday, March 4, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 820)

stock markets

Traders on NYSE navigate the markets. (Photo: REUTERS)

What’s the most important factor for economic progress?

There are several possible answers to that question. We can take a big-picture view and argue that the key is free markets and small government, and there certainly is lots of evidence in favor of this assertion when you compare countries over time.

But what if we narrow our focus and try to identify, for instance, the key characteristic of a free market. At times, I’ve highlighted the importance of both property rights and the price system.

Private property gives people the right incentives to both produce and conserve, a lesson learned early in American history.

An unfettered price system is a mechanism that best ensures resources are efficiently utilized to serve consumers.

But we need to augment this list by also including the valuable role of the profit motive.

This Prager University video, narrated by my friend Walter Williams, succinctly explains the issue.

I especially like the section where Walter asks what institutions and entities leave us happy and contented. The answer, at least for most of us, is that we’re more likely to be satisfied in our dealing with private companies operating in competitive markets.

That’s because the profit motive gives them an incentive to treat us well, both to boost their reputations and so we’ll be repeat customers.

Simply stated, in a true free market, entrepreneurs, investors, and business owners can only become rich by providing consumers with things that make our lives better.

But our dealings with government (or government-enforced monopolies like cable companies) tend to be less rewarding, whether it’s because bureaucrats are taking our money, bossing us around, or simply treating us poorly.

So the next time some politician or pundit complains about “evil profits,” just remember Walter’s wise words from the video.

P.S. I’ve shared two other videos from Prager University, one of the Laffer Curve and one about statist policies and the Great Depression. They’ve both very much worth watching.

P.P.S. It goes without saying (but I’ll say it anyhow) that profits are only admirable if they’re earned honestly. There are fraudsters in private markets who rip off consumers and there are crony capitalists who use coercive government policies to line their pockets. These groups deserve disdain and punishment.

P.P.P.S. Walter Williams is one of America’s best public intellectuals. I’ve cited his work numerous times, but your first stop, in learning more about him, is this video from Reason TV.

Politicians and pundits complain about “evil profits,”

 

rand_paul_getty2015

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kty., speaks to media. (Photo: Getty Images)

Libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has officially announced he will run for president in 2016, gearing up for an event in Louisville Tuesday. Paul, 52, will become the second Republican candidate to announce a White House bid following the announcement of Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, late last month.

“I am running for president to return our country to the principles of liberty and limited government,” Paul said on his website RandPaul.com. The techie announcement comes as no surprise, as Paul has effectively and dominantly utilized social media and other technological practices to raise money and support in the past.

On Monday, Paul’s camp released a video ad teasing the announcement and promising a “new kind of Republican.”

“On April 7, a different kind of Republican will take on Washington,” the video says at the open.

Following the “Stand with Rand” rally at the Galt House Hotel Tuesday afternoon, which they expect “well over a thousand” supporters and a large media presence to attend, Sen. Paul will take off to the races, visiting early primary and caucus states to build support for the GOP nomination among voters and donors alike.

Sen. Paul, the son of three-time presidential candidate Ron Paul, R-Texas, will ironically make the pitch he is more electable and his brand of libertarian Republicanism is more palatable to non-traditional GOP voters. It is a different approach to Sen. Cruz, who intends to maximize the vote among the Christian right, but there is at least some early evidence to support his pitch.

As PPD recently examined, polls suggest Sen. Paul has a far better shot at winning the nomination and a general election juxtaposed to previous libertarian and libertarian-leaning candidates than other pundits want to admit. Paul has consistently run stronger than other GOP hopefuls against Hillary Clinton, and has demonstrated the greatest potential to expand the party’s appeal.

Aside from enjoying support from conservatives, independents and libertarians, the senator has actively courted young and minority voters. Paul has made a point of visiting college campuses, including UC Berkley, and historically black colleges, and minority communities. Paul opened the first GOP outreach field office in Detroit last year.

 

In 2013, the senator began visiting constituencies Republicans have rarely courted in recent elections, reaching out to minority voters in inner-city neighborhoods.

In January, Paul advanced his unconventional efforts by hiring Chip Englander, the former campaign manager for Illinois Republican Bruce Rauner, who defeated incumbent Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn last November.

The GOP Establishment’s consultant class quietly (and sometimes publicly) mocked Rauner for reaching out to traditional Democratic voters, including inner-city minorities, many of whom endorsed and subsequently voted for him. Rauner, who PPD accurately predicted would win, proved the talking heads wrong.

But Paul has thus far lined up almost the entire Kentucky delegation behind him, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Reps. Justin Amash, R-Mich., Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, and Mark Sanford, R-S.C., will also be supporting Paul and will even appear with him at rallies this week.

The camp will try to maximize their unique fundraising potential that blends moderate-to-big money with grassroots “money bombs,” an effective tactic used by his father. In the weeks following his announcement, Sen. Cruz raised roughly $4 million.

Libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has officially

north-korea-navy-kim-jong-un

Kim Jong-un pays a visit to Unit 158 of the navy of the North Korean People’s Army. (Photo: AP)

North Korea has declared a no-sail zone for its ships off its east coast indicating a suspected missile launches is possible ahead of a high-profile visit to Seoul this week. On Friday, the regime in Pyongyang fired four short-range missiles off its west coast in what South Korea condemned as an attempt to increase tension during its annual joint military drills with the United States.

The two rivals have been in a tense standoff over the arrest of two South Korean nationals the North Korean regime accused of espionage. However, it is not clear if the latest no-sail zone in the area off the Korean peninsula’s east coast was a direct indication of an imminent missile launch.

“There are no signs of peculiar movements,” South Korean defense ministry deputy spokesman Na Seung-yong said during a briefing.

North Korea has reported to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) before previous long-range missile launches, which it claimed were rockets to launch satellites. But Nan said neither the IMO nor South Korea were made aware of the latest. North Korea is currently under U.N. sanctions because it is banned from developing ballistic missile technologies.

Meanwhile, the Defense Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter is due to start a three-day visit to South Korea on Thursday.

South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency quoted unidentified government officials as saying the no-sail warning has been in effect since April 1, which they worry indicates that a launch of a mid-range Rodong missile was “possible.”

North Korea last test-fired its mid-range Rodong missile in March 2014, which has a range of roughly 1,300 km (800 miles). The test was conducted while the leaders of South Korea, Japan and the United States were meeting to discuss the threat from the North, but Pyongyang did not issue a no-sail warning before that launch.

North Korea often fires short-medium range missiles into the sea as a response to the U.S.-South Korean drills, which it claims to be a preparation for war. Just last month, Pyongyang tested two short-range missiles off its eastern coast and did not declare a no-sail zone, which drew condemnation from Japan.

North Korea, which has threatened to carry out what would be its fourth nuclear test, is believed by experts to be very close to being able to put a nuclear warhead on a missile. The mid-range Rodong missile is at the top of the suspect list.

Kim Jong Un, the regime’s dictator, visited a navy unit to supervise torpedo attack drills on Saturday, according to state-run media.

The nuclear posturing comes as the P+5 announced they have reached a preliminary agreement with Iran to outline the framework of a nuclear deal. Critics have noted just how similar the deal appears to the one negotiated by President Bill Clinton in the 1990s (Compare Rhetoric On Iran Deal Vs. North Korea). North Korea obviously obtained nuclear weapons, regardless.

North Korea has declared a no-sail zone

iran-deal-press-conference

The EU’s foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, center, and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, right. FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP/Getty Images

By abandoning virtually all its demands for serious restrictions on Iran’s nuclear bomb program, the Obama administration has apparently achieved the semblance of a preliminary introduction to the beginning of a tentative framework for a possible hope of an eventual agreement with Iran.

But even this hazy “achievement” may vanish like a mirage. It takes two to agree — and Iran has already publicly disputed and even mocked what President Obama says is the nature of that framework.

Had Iran wholeheartedly agreed with everything the Obama administration said, that agreement would still have been worthless, since Iran has already blocked international inspectors from its nuclear facilities at unpredictable times. The appearance of international control is more dangerous than a frank admission that we don’t really know what they are doing.

Why then all these negotiations? Because these charades protect Barack Obama politically, no matter how much danger they create for America and the world. The latest public opinion polls show Obama’s approval rating rising. In political terms — the only terms that matter to him — his foreign policy has been a success.

If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular — hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own — as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler’s signature on it, and proclaiming “Peace for our time.”

Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.

Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country — Israel this time — to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.

Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: “The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion.”

After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war.” Chamberlain’s “Peace for our time” lasted just under a year.

Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair — to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a “citizen of the world,” or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country’s military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.

Secretary of State John Kerry, and other members of the Obama administration, are saying that the alternative to an agreement with Iran is war. But when Israel bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactors, back in 1981, Iraq did not declare war on Israel. It would have been suicidal to do so, since Israel already had nuclear bombs.

There was a time when either Israel or the United States could have destroyed Iran’s nuclear facilities, with far less risk of war than there will be after Iran already has its own stockpile of nuclear bombs. Indeed, the choice then will no longer be between a nuclear Iran and war. The choice may be between surrender to Iran and nuclear devastation.

Barack Obama dismissed the thought of America being vulnerable to “a small country” like Iran. Iran is in fact larger than Japan was when it attacked Pearl Harbor, and Iran has a larger population. If Japan had nuclear bombs, World War II could have turned out very differently.

If anyone examines the hard, cold facts about the Obama administration’s actions and inactions in the Middle East from the beginning, it is far more difficult to reconcile those actions and inactions with a belief that Obama was trying to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons than it is to reconcile those facts with his trying to stop Israel from stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

This latest “agreement” with Iran — with which Iran has publicly and loudly disagreed — is only the latest episode in that political charade.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com.

In less than one week since the

Clinton-Obama-nukes

Former President Bill Clinton, left, with President Barack Obama, right.

President Obama triumphantly touted a framework agreement had been met last week with Iran over their nuclear weapons program. But President’s Obama’s talking points on the Iran nuclear deal should’ve sounded familiar to you, because it mirrored the argument made by President Bill Clinton after he came to a deal that was supposed to stop the North Korean regime from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Bill Clinton Selling North Korean Nuclear Deal

Before I take your questions, I’d like to say just a word about the framework with North Korea that Ambassador Gallucci signed this morning. This is a good deal for the United States,” Clinton said at the press conference.

North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.

South Korea, with support from Japan and other nations, will bear most of the cost of providing North Korea with fuel to make up for the nuclear energy it is losing, and they will pay for an alternative power system for North Korea that will allow them to produce electricity while making it much harder for them to produce nuclear weapons.

The United States and international inspectors will carefully monitor North Korea to make sure it keeps its commitments. Only as it does so will North Korea fully join the community of nations.

Barack Obama Selling Iran Nuclear Deal

Today, the United States, together with our allies and partners, reached a historic understanding with Iran.

If fully implemented, this framework will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, making our nation, our allies, and our world safer.

In return for Iran’s actions, the international community has agreed to provide Iran with relief from certain sanctions — our own sanctions, and international sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council. This relief will be tied to the steps Iran takes to adhere to the deal. And if Iran violates the deal, sanctions can be snapped back into place.

President Obama last week tried to sell

Bill-Clinton-Rwanda-Getty

Former Democratic President Bill Clinton. (Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

A report based on newly obtained documents shows President Bill Clinton misled media journalists and the American people over the Rwandan Genocide.

The mass slaughter of Tutsi and moderate Hutu in Rwanda by members of the Hutu majority took place during the roughly 100-day period from April 7, 1994 to mid-July and claimed 500,000 – 1,000,000 lives. In the face of criticism from the right and left; at home and abroad; during and after, President Clinton has long claimed he was not fully aware of the horrific massacre.

“It may seem strange to you here, especially the many of you who lost members of your family,” Clinton said on March 25, 1998. “But all over the world there were people like me sitting in offices, day after day after day, who did not fully appreciate the depth and speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror.”

But according to a review panel’s newly released transcript and declassified State Department documents obtained by Colum Lynch of Foreign Policy from the Holocaust Memorial Museum, the administration had been warned of the planned genocide more than a year prior.

“I must rebut rapidly. President Clinton did not want to know,” Lt. Gen. Roméo Dallaire, the U.N.’s Canadian force commander said. “I hold Clinton accountable. He can excuse himself as much as he wants to the Rwandans, but he established a policy that he did not want to know.”

Then-Deputy Chief of Mission in Kigali Joyce Leader sent Washington a cable warning that Hutu extremists with links to Rwanda’s ruling party were advocating the extermination of ethnic Tutsis. The Clinton administration scapegoated what they depicted as a broken down bureaucracy that failed, a claim still repeated by officials.

John Shattuck, then-U.S. assistant secretary of State for labor, human rights, and democracy, still claims to have never seen the fax.

“I never knew about the genocide fax. I am not sure my colleagues in the African affairs bureau knew about it,” Shattuck claims. “Had this fax become more widely known in the U.S. government, it would have provided ammunition for those who were trying to resist.”

But the documents obtained by Foreign Policy aren’t the only ones to have surfaced that lend credence to the claims of the administration’s detractors, who say Clinton was more concerned with his political future than stopping a genocide he was fully aware of.

Classified intelligence reports obtained using the Freedom of Information Act in 2004 reveal the Clinton administration knew of the “final solution to eliminate all Tutsis” that resulted in the genocide in Rwanda as soon as April 1994. However, the Clinton White House buried the information to justify its inaction, and the information indicates the president had been told before the slaughter reached its peak.

The intel documents reveal the CIA’s classified national intelligence briefing was circulated to President Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, and hundreds of other senior officials daily. The secret briefing included near daily reports on Rwanda. One report, which is dated April 23, said rebels would continue fighting to “stop the genocide, which is spreading south.”

Yet, then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher did not authorize department officials to use the term “genocide” until May 21, and it was another three weeks before they began even using the term in response to media and public inquiries. When they did, they repeatedly downplayed the extent by claiming developments were simply “acts of genocide,” rather than a genocide in and of itself.

“Our lack of response in Rwanda was a fear of getting involved in something like a Somalia all over again,” said former deputy special envoy to Somalia Walter Clarke. On Oct. 3, 1993, 18 U.S. soldiers died in a blown raid in Mogadishu, which painted the Clinton administration as incompetent on foreign policy and weak on military matters, causing dissension in the ranks. The embarrassing failure soured the Pentagon’s attitude toward U.N. peacekeeping under the current president.

So, President Clinton and his cabinet allegedly decided to whitewash the genocide, including the word itself, and block the public’s access to any evidence of the mass slaughter.

“They feared this word would generate public opinion which would demand some sort of action and they didn’t want to act,” Alison des Forges, a Human Rights Watch researcher and authority on the genocide said in 2004. “It was a very pragmatic determination.”

William Ferroggiaro, of the National Security Archive, has been pushing back on the administration’s claim the system broke down for decades.

“Diplomats, intelligence agencies, defense and military officials – even aid workers – provided timely information up the chain,” he said. “That the Clinton administration decided against intervention at any level was not for lack of knowledge of what was happening in Rwanda.”

The latest revelations surface just as the former president’s wife, Hillary Clinton, the former first lady and secretary of state, is gearing up to run for president in 2016, herself. The details reenforce long-made criticisms of the Clintons, which hold the political couple has a pattern of misleading the American people and the press for political gain.

Secretary Clinton is struggling to deal with her own political firestorm over the deletion of emails held on a private server that was used to conduct all State Department business. The House Select Committee on Benghazi had requested the emails after others surfaced as a result of a FOIA lawsuit showing that her top aides knew the attack had nothing to do with an Internet video, which she had blamed in the hours, days and weeks following the attack in Libya that killed 4 Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Meanwhile, a document obtained by PPD dated April 1994 features talking points drafted by Clinton special assistant Tara Sonenshine as preparation for an upcoming Washington Post interview with the president.

“If anything, this is a case where our experiences in Somalia did NOT prevent us from doing the right thing,” the memo reads, which Clinton regurgitated. “Once it became clear that genocide was taking place in Rwanda, this country led the way in getting the UN to act.”

However, in March 2013, while speaking about Rwanda to CNBC, Clinton said he believed that if the U.S. intervened at the beginning of the genocide at least 300,000 people might have been saved.

Of course, those talking points, as well as the Benghazi talking points, are simply just not true.

A report based on newly obtained documents

california-drought

When writing about the Golden State, I generally focus on fiscal policy. After all, California is trying to become the France of America by imposing punitive tax rates and continuously expanding the burden of government spending.

And since this leads to the loss of jobs and competitiveness, California offers a helpful reminder that bad policy has consequences.

But let’s now look at another example of misguided policy in California. The state is suffering a drought, which obviously isn’t the fault of state lawmakers, but policies imposed by those lawmakers are turning the drought from a problem to a crisis.

The Wall Street Journal opines on the issue.

The liberals who run California have long purported that their green policies are a free (organic) lunch, but the bills are coming due. Lo, Governor Jerry Brown has mandated a 25% statewide reduction in water use. Consider this rationing a surcharge for decades of environmental excess. …During the last two winters amid the drought, regulators let more than 2.6 million acre-feet out into the bay. The reason: California lacked storage capacity north of the delta, and environmental rules restrict water pumping to reservoirs south. …no major water infrastructure project has been completed in California since the 1960s. Money is not the obstacle. Since 2000 voters have approved five bonds authorizing $22 billion in spending for water improvements. Environmental projects have been the biggest winners. …studies show that mandates and subsidies for low-flow appliances like California’s don’t work because people respond by changing their behavior (e.g., taking longer showers). Despite the diminishing returns, Mr. Brown has ordered more spending on water efficiency.

In other words, the government-run system for collecting and distributing water is suffering because of a failure to generate enough supply and because non-price mechanisms aren’t very effective at limiting demand.

So what would work?

The WSJ suggests market-based pricing.

And the good news is that it is a small part of the Governor’s new proposal.

The most proven strategy to reduce water consumption is market pricing with water rates increasing based on household use. …To his credit, the Governor has instructed the State Water Resources Control Board to develop pricing mechanisms… Not even Gov. Brown can make it rain, but he and other politicians can stop compounding the damage by putting water storage, transportation and market pricing above environmental obsessions.

By the way, it’s worth noting that market-based pricing is actually the most effective way of achieving the environmental goal of conservation.

So if you want more water for fish, make sure it’s priced appropriately.

To elaborate on this topic, Megan McArdle, writing for Bloomberg, explains that subsidized water encourages overuse.

California’s problem is not that it doesn’t have enough water to support its population. Rather, the problem is that its population uses more water than it has to. And the reason people do this is that water in California is seriously underpriced… While the new emergency rules do include provisions for local utilities to raise rates, that would still leave water in the state ludicrously mispriced. …the average household in San Diego pays less than 80 cents a day for the 150 gallons of water it uses. …Artificially cheap water encourages people to install lush, green lawns that need lots of watering instead of native plants more appropriate to the local climate. It means they don’t even look for information about the water efficiency of their fixtures and appliances. They take long showers and let the tap run while they’re on the phone with Mom. In a thousand ways, it creates demand far in excess of supply.

Megan agrees with the WSJ that market-based prices are far more effective in controlling demand than non-market restrictions and mandates.

Having artificially goosed demand, the government then tries to curb it by mandating efficiency levels and outlawing water-hogging landscaping. Unfortunately, this doesn’t work nearly as well as pricing water properly, then letting people figure out how they want to conserve it.

And while it may be a challenge to figure out the “market rate” when water is being provided by a government monopoly, it’s safe to say that this rate is a lot higher than it is today.

…we could set some minimum amount of water that would be sold at a very cheap rate, with any excess charged at market rates to reflect the actual supply and the cost of providing it. This would be hugely unpopular with homeowners who have big lawns as well as with farmers.

There’s a semi-famous saying that “if you want less of something, tax it; if you want more of something, subsidize it.”

I don’t know if somebody famous uttered that phrase, or something like it, but the point is correct.

The bottom line is that subsidies encourage over-utilization, inefficiency, and insensitivity to price. That’s true for health care and higher education, just as it’s true for water.

Now let’s look at a video that helps illustrate the damaging impact of subsidies.

It’s not completely applicable because water isn’t sold by profit-making companies, but this video from Marginal Revolution explains how consumers will demand a much greater quantity of a product when the price is artificially low because of subsidies.

Indeed, the video even uses California water as an example.

P.S. The MRU videos are superb tutorials. In prior posts, I’ve shared videos explaining how taxes destroy economic value and highlighting the valuable role of market-based prices, and they’re all worth a few minutes of your time.

P.P.S. Shifting from substance to California-specific humor, this Chuck Asay cartoon speculates on how future archaeologists will view California. This Michael Ramirez cartoon looks at the impact of the state’s class-warfare tax policy. And this joke about Texas, California, and a coyote is among my most-viewed blog posts.

P.P.P.S. Paul Krugman has tried to defend California’s economic performance, which has made him an easy target. I debunked him earlier this year, and I also linked to a superb Kevin Williamson takedown of Krugman at the bottom of this post.

Examining past policies demonstrates subsidized water encourages

service-sector

Service sector workers employed in a typical cubicle position. (Photo: Reuters)

The pace of growth in the U.S. service sector slid in March to its lowest level in three months, though the survey largely matched Wall Street estimates. The Institute for Supply Management said Monday its gauge of service-sector growth ticked lower to 56.5 in March from 56.9 the month prior.

Readings above 50 point to expansion, while those below indicate contraction. The reading, which was the lowest since an identical number released in December, was in line with economists’ forecasts in a Reuters survey.

However, the exports index rose to 59.0 from 53.0 in February, marking the highest reading since February 2013. The employment index increased, as well, hitting its highest level since last October, with a reading of 56.6, up a tick compared to the 56.4 in February.

Unfortunately, the index of business activity fell to 57.5 in March, down from 59.4 in February and marking the lowest reading in a year.

The rise in the exports index was slightly unexpected considering the U.S. dollar’s strength and increase against other major currencies of more than 20 percent since last May. A strong dollar typically hurts demand for U.S exports and reduces the value of overseas sales when they are translated back into U.S. dollars.

The index is the latest piece of data indicating an economic slowdown in the U.S., though the service sector has a good deal of job creation in the past few years. Manufacturing is cooling significantly, with five straight months of decline, while job creation slowed overall to just 126,000 in March.

The pace of growth in the U.S.

A new Sen. Rand Paul ad teases the prospect the Kentucky libertarian will make a 2016 announcement this week, promising a “different kind of Republican leader.”

“On April 7, a different kind of Republican will take on Washington,” the video reads in the open, with an outline of Sen. Paul in the background.

Sen. Paul has been an outspoken critic of the party’s previous electoral strategy, championing civil liberties and arguing the base must be expanded if the GOP hopes to grow. He opened field offices in Detroit and other urban voting centers, proposing the “economic freedom zones” as an alternative to Democratic policies he says have failed minorities.

“Liberal policies have failed our inner cities,” Paul says in the video during a speech at the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

Whether Sen. Paul wins the Republican nomination or not his candidacy will have an enormous impact on the Republican Party.

As PPD recently examined, polls suggest Sen. Paul has a far better shot at winning the nomination and a general election juxtaposed to previous libertarian and libertarian-leaning candidates than other pundits want to admit. Paul has consistently run stronger than other GOP hopefuls against Hillary Clinton, and has demonstrated the greatest potential to expand the party’s appeal.

In 2013, the senator began visiting constituencies Republicans have rarely courted in recent elections, reaching out to minority voters in inner-city neighborhoods.

In January, Paul advanced his unconventional efforts by hiring Chip Englander, the former campaign manager for Illinois Republican Bruce Rauner, who defeated incumbent Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn last November.

The GOP Establishment’s consultant class quietly (and sometimes publicly) mocked Rauner for reaching out to traditional Democratic voters, including inner-city minorities, many of whom endorsed and subsequently voted for him. Rauner, who PPD accurately predicted would win, proved the talking heads wrong.

“It’s time for a new way, a new set of ideas, a new leader; one you can trust and who works for you,” Paul says in video. “And above all, it’s time for a new president.”

Youth voters are another voting bloc crucial to Paul’s coalition and base support, which he has sought to expand recently when he took a trip to UC Berkley to give a speech opposing NSA data mining and spying.

Paul not only won three consecutive CPAC straw polls, but he did so at a time when the conference underwent a dramatic demographic shift.

CPAC 2015 saw a record-breaking 11,344 in attendance, with the straw poll results coming from 3007 participants, a 20 percent increase from the year prior. Over 42 percent in the poll were students who came from all across the country, marking the greatest number of youth voters to ever participate in the CPAC straw poll.

“ON APRIL 7, one leader will STAND UP to DEFEAT the Washington machine and UNLEASH the American Dream,” the ad reads on closing.

A new Sen. Rand Paul ad teases

This week on Fox News Sunday Chris Wallace hosts George Will, Mara Liasson, Jason Riley, and Juan Williams. The panel discusses the Iran deal, religious freedom and the souring economy. Late last week the P+5 announced a tentative agreement on a framework to allegedly halt Iran’s nuclear program.

Last week, the Labor Department reported the economy created just 126,000 jobs, while a slew of other data indicate the economy may be headed for a recession.

This week on Fox News Sunday Chris

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial