Obama for 8 years followed by Hillary for 4-8 years would be far more disastrous that Rand Paul being elected.
Rand Paul is far more fiscally conservative than she (by a mile), and is more socially conservative than she (maybe not as much as Bush vs. Hillary would be) but still, he is NOT pro-choice.
So in him would be found two legs of the three-legged stool, and a position that isn't as interventionist as Bush, but not an isolationist either (despite what the LMSM says about him, since they fear him). Rand Paul is neither isolationist nor interventionist. He tends to be right down the middle.
Would we throw it all away if it came down to that one last leg of conservatism and let her walk in the WH?
Jeb Bush? No way. Romney? No way. Christie? No way. They are all RINOS.
Rand is Chamberlain in training, and I don’t mean Wilt...
It will not be Rand and Hillary, you can take that to the bank...
Imagine a debate. Hillary vs rand Paul
He would join candy Crowley in lauding her, her philosophy and her history/resume
No republican who negates the constitution and his current and future(WH) place in it vis a vis doing his job that will get elected