Paul the elder never won a statewide popular vote in a primary or general election. Ron Paul has his base, but never could really reach beyond it. His son, Rand, is simply a better politician. The one thing that Ron did have was an organization set up to help him get votes in the early states. He got 21% of the vote in Iowa and 23% in New Hampshire in 2012.Of course, the GOP seems unable to resist handing the nomination to the next establishment candidate in line. But who would that person be in 2016? It would need to be someone who ran before and seems pretty bland and moderate. Is there anyone like that hanging around right now? Paul Ryan seems insufficiently old. Jeb Bush? Oh, my lord, the answer is Jeb Bush.
Rand, in my opinion, will likely inherit much of his father's organization. Assume that can give him 21% of the vote in Iowa and 23% of the vote in New Hampshire. It's quite possible that only high 20s are needed to win both states. One has to think that given Rand's political abilities, which his father failed to posses, he can win that extra 5% of the vote in each state to put him over the top.
Rand Paul winning either Iowa or New Hampshire, let alone both, would make him a big time power player for the 2016 primary season. It might even put him in a position to, dare I say, win the nomination.
March 11, 2013
"Rand Paul's 2016 presidential chances are better than most people realize."
Harry J. Enten analyzes the odds:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
73 comments:
Never happen.
I would vote for Rand Paul, but like the post says, the Republicans won't let him run. If they put up one of their old tired establishment candidates again (hello, Mitt!) I just won't vote. I am training myself not to care.
Of course the answer is Jeb Bush. So we're going to get another Bush/Clinton race - if things go according to plan, and they won't.
We'll also be setting up for George P. Bush vs Chelsea in 2020 or 2024.
Thank God we got rid of all that royalty and nobility crap back in the 1700s....
I like Rand, but realistically I just don't see it. Libertarianism scares most people, they want the comfort of a heavily involved government. Plus his view on foreign policy and the military are still a bit ambiguous, and if they're anything like his father's would turn off most conservatives.
Jeb should not run.
There is no way Rand Paul will both inherit his father's organization and supporters and win the Republican nomination. By virtue of winning one of those, he will have lost the other.
Gary Johnson 2016? The youth can get behind him.
Jeb Bush,I mean. Rand Paul, hell yeah. Just to watch the Loony Left's little brains explode if for no other reason.
Paul Ryan is the frontrunner in my mind. Jeb can't win the general election, any time he spends running will be wasted.
Rand Paul would not get my vote even for big pay...no matter which party. Big hero for a pointless charade recently. Can you say "gas-bag" and charlatan?
The evangelicals won't vote for Johnson due to his social policies though...
Jindal and Paul, or Paul and Jindal.
Watch out!
A lot has to do with how good or bad the country is doing by the end of Obama's term. If he makes Bush II look good Jeb has a chance. After all, he was the son Bush I thought was most likely and qualified intellectually to be President. GW was more aggressive, not smarter. When I look at Jeb Bush I see his mother -- very sharp personality.
Paul Ryan has never won a state election. Getting elected to a congressional seat is one thing; getting elected Senator is another.
Of course Rand Paul will inherit his Father's organization. Why do you think he declined the Libertarian nomination in 2012? If he had, it would have poisoned the well for Rand in 2016.
It would be better to get somebody who has more of an intuition for the Constition than Paul does.
Gary Johnson 2016? The youth can get behind him.
The only crowd-surfing candidate in the field!
Jeb sure seems like he is running.
I'm intrigued. I'd have voted for his father if he hadn't curled up into the fetal position at the U.S. border.
GW was more aggressive, not smarter. When I look at Jeb Bush I see his mother -- very sharp personality.
I don't know that GW was any more aggressive - he was just luckier in his opponent back in 1994. GW got to run against Ann Richards, who must have been awful. Jeb had to run against Lawton Chiles, who was the meannest and dirtiest pol Florida has produced at a state-wide level. All those push calls on the final weekend worked and Lawton eeked out a victory. If Jeb had won in 1994 he would have likely been the front-runner for the Presidency by 2000.
Paul Ryan, for all his faux conservativism, is much, much more Establishment than either of the sons of George H.W. Bush.
And to the extent that George W. wasn't conservative enough, it was because he had to placate those Establishment types.
The Establisment candidate is probably going to be someone like Chris Christie. You know, someone who will give us "adult supervision."
Rand Paul has a shot largely because he comes across as the sane one in the Paul family.
R. Chatt said...
A lot has to do with how good or bad the country is doing by the end of Obama's term.
I think that's another question that is answered merely by asking.
Does anybody really believe we'll be doing any better?
Without having to deal with John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Chuck Hagel, George Voinovich, Mel Martinez, John Warner, Trent Lott, Richard Lugar, Lamar Alexander, Mike DeWine, and more, George W. would have been a much more conservative president.
I don't see another Bush winning the nomination. I think there's a lot of Bush fatigue, even within the Republican Party. Besides, if the Republicans follow their normal approach Santorum should be the nominee.
The big determining factor for Rand would be whether or not other credible Tea Party candidates enter the race. None did in 2012, but there are a couple of possibilities this time.
It will come down to whether the Tea Partiers have a bigger voice than the "we must wage endless war with money borrowed from the Chinese" crowd.
I agree with Bender that the establishment candidate will be Christie. Who just might go all the way. But it's going to be a quirky year, just like 2008, with people sick of the incumbent. For example, I think the notion that Hillary Clinton is "inevitable" (again) is silly.
Nobody but Karl Rove wants Jeb Bush to be President.
Nonapod said...
Libertarianism scares most people,...
No it is only scary for their weak defense philosophy...as you have said.
Jeb Bush? The GOP is truly the stupid party.
Rand Paul would not get my vote even for big pay...
Here we go again. As in, "If Romney is the nominee, ..." redux 2016. The Rs are so screwed.
Re Jeb: Let's face it, the last Bush is the one singularly responsible for utterly trashing the Republican brand. Not so much for his policies (although some of them were unhelpful), but for his refusal to defend his policies. In the face of withering and unrelenting criticism and really cheap shots, Bush and Rove stayed quiet, ceding the debate to the left on the left's terms. The damage to brand has been extensive and maybe permanent.
.
The Bush previous to the last Bush was no better.
Bush fatigue, I hope, will stop Jeb in his tracks.
If they put up one of their old tired establishment candidates again (hello, Mitt!) I just won't vote.
Please don't not vote, 'cause then nothing at all will ever change.
If you (and others) start voting for third/fourth party candidates, then the TwoMainParties will take note of what issue(s) are drawing folks away, and adopt those issues in order to win you back.
This was how women got the vote in America, as well as how booze was outlawed and re-legalized.
If you don't care enough to at least show up on election day, then the political parties ain't gonna even try to win you over.
Aqua Buddha FTW!
Jeb was a pretty good governor but another Bush has no chance.
Paul/Palin 2016!
Paul has a shot, not least because he has some interesting opportunities to consolidate the support of the Establishment (by helping McConnell fend off a "challenge" from Ashley Judd in 2014), the Tea Party (his small government tendencies are real, and already appeal to them) and to the Paulites (his filibuster - which, contra Aridog, had both substantive and symboilic appeal - was chum to both them and the TPers).
G Joubert said...
Ref: "Rand Paul would not get my vote even for big pay..."
Here we go again. As in, "If Romney is the nominee, ..." redux 2016...
Don't even begin to include me in that crap. I voted for Romney.
I will not vote for Rand Paul under any circumstances, even if it means I don't vote for the first time in my life. His most recent Kabuki Theater charade is indicative of his depth...shallow as a pane of flat glass.
Rocketeer said ...
... contra Aridog, had both substantive and symbolic appeal ...
Care to illuminate the "substantive" part? I'll grant you "symbolic". Tell us just what, exactly, he accomplished? Other than headlines for a day.
Ou oh ou ah...he got Eric Holder's "word" .... impressive.
Oh, don't get me wrong; I don't think the substantive advantage of the filibuster had anything to do with the subject. Hint: Why do you think McCain and Graham threw their snit fit the next day?
P.S. - Why on earth would you ever think a filibuster even needs to have substantive component, anyway? It's politics: often, symbol is enough, and sometimes even better than substance. Which ties back in to the McCain and Graham's tantrum, as well.
Rocketeer said...
Oh, don't get me wrong; I don't think the substantive advantage of the filibuster had anything to do with the subject. Hint: Why do you think McCain and Graham threw their snit fit the next day?
Skip the hint...just tell me in cogent English what the substantive accomplishment was in fact.
I could care less what McCain or Graham have to say.
Rocketeer said ...
It's politics ...
It is Kabuki Theater...especially when the perpetrator of the filabluster votes for cloture himself.
Rocketeer said...
P.S. - Why on earth would you ever think a filibuster even needs to have substantive component, anyway?
Uh...quoting you here ...
his filibuster - which, contra Aridog, had both substantive and symbolic appeal...
Regardless of my position, you asserted the existence of something substantive. So you tell me, okay.
PS: we're wasting time here, as I suspect we both support the same basic things. Our difference is that you think R. Paul does too, and I don't.
If your cutoff for whether you would vote for a candidate or not is based upon that candidate never playing politics (for example: never performing a "Kabuki Theater charade" of a filibuster) then you'll probably find it impossible to find a candidate to vote for.
You shouldn't have any illusions about professional politicians at the national level. Pretty much everything they do is image focused, substance is almost incidental.
Substance? I thought it was Paul's emphasis on pulling power away from the executive branch back to the Senate (and to Congress). I haven't heard anyone else make that argument as clearly. Too bad the Senate would rather go out for dinner with the O than develop some backbone and do their jobs. They should be fighting him tooth and nail; instead, they are letting him make them irrelevant.
The GOP all too often gives the nod to the person next in line, but given 2 straight drubbings by a weak opponent and the lack of an obvious Bob Dole or John McCain out there right now, 2016 is the best chance for a new face.
Skip the hint...just tell me in cogent English what the substantive accomplishment was in fact.
He got the executive branch to admit, for the first time in over eleven years, that there is a limit to the powers granted the Presidency by the AUMF.
The very fact that so many hawks wet their pants over the issue is indicative of its significance.
It's interesting to me that for 2016 on the Republican side there is Ryan, Paul, Rubio, Jindal, Christie and even Bush. Maybe a couple others. (Bill Whittle!?)
On the Democrat side there is... ? ...? ...? Old, tired and ineffective Hillary Clinton who has had major health issues (which ought to disqualify her, but won't). Who else do they have? Cuomo, who lacks personality and is shacking up with the cooking show lady? Is that all they've got?
Airdog,
It's the mindset. Many good conservatives and libertarians vowed to never vote for Romney if he won the nomination, and they didn't. Voila! 4 more years of The Bamster. That showed us.
Now comes those vowing to never vote for Rand Paul. And I assume they won't.
And we can do a lot of these. There are right-center people out there right now vowing to never vote for
--Jeb, if he's the nominee
--an establishment Repub nominee
--a moderate Repub nominee
--a libertarian who gets the nomination
--a tea partier nominee
Did I miss any? Like I say, the Rs are so screwed.
Thank goodness that Harry J. Enten (Dartmouth '11) is willing to put his years of proven success on the line to help us all w/ the urgent task of forecasting an election that's 3 years away.
We really can't afford to wait much longer to figure this out.
Also, Ari, if you'll take time to re-read what was claimed, it was that Rand's filibuster had substantive *appeal*, not that it was a substantive accomplishment.
I.e., both the substance of Rand's speech and the symbolism of it were appealing.
Is the country read for a small govt and states right candidate? The answer to that question will determine Rand's chances.
If Obama's serial fuckups [Obamacare, deficit spending, incompetent administration, promise to close GITMO, weak weak ecomomy, etc ] get any widespread notoriety, the Repubs could win with Rand.
On the Democrat side there is... ? ...? ...?
In 2008 the Democratic nominees were a half-term senator, a one-term senator, and a former one-term senator. The half-term senator got the nomination and two terms as President. This suggests that the Democrats don't really need someone with great experience to win.
John Hickenlooper of Colorado is someone to keep an eye on.
Ari,
I wasn't contesting the notion that Paul's filibuster had a substantive purpose, which was twofold: to highlight the President's and Democrats' hypocrisy on due process, using the specific to feature the general, and to steal headlines from the headline-stealing gimmick of "The Dinner." I was questioning your seeming assertion (admittedly, I was just inferring, so correct me if I'm wrong) that a filibuster need have a substantive purpose to have a beneficial result.
A lot of things can, and probably will change in the next three years. Right now, Rand Paul comes across as the leader of the crazy wing of the party. Another Barry Goldwater maybe, and that memory is maybe one that will keep him out of the nomination.
My guess right now is that one of the Hispanics is a much better shot. They both seem to have joined Paul in his fillibuster, and are members of a demographic that would be very useful in rewinning the White House.
Many good conservatives and libertarians vowed to never vote for Romney if he won the nomination, and they didn't. Voila! 4 more years of The Bamster. That showed us.
More conservatives sucked it up and ended up eating that sandwich and voting for Romney than did all of those moderates and centrists who insisted that if only the Republicans would nominate a centrist like Romney, they would vote for him in droves, just like they insisted that they would vote for McCain if he ever got the nomination and, in both cases, they of course bailed and voted Democrat.
My guess right now is that one of the Hispanics is a much better shot. They both seem to have joined Paul in his fillibuster, and are members of a demographic that would be very useful in rewinning the White House
Ted Cruz can't run (he was born in Canada).
Sigh. Yes he can. His mother was an American citizen. That makes him a native born American.
The very fact that so many hawks wet their pants over the issue is indicative of its significance.
I'm the only person I know who had a pants-wetting reaction to Rand's filibuster. Who are the other hawks? I could use the moral support.
I think I'm for Jindal, based solely on his speech at the Gridiorn Dinner Saturday night.
Lots of good stuff, but this may be my favorite line:
"I ran into Joe Biden earlier today. I don’t think he recognized me though. He asked me to go get him a Slurpee."
Make that "Gridiron."
Rocketeer said ...
I was questioning your seeming assertion ... that a filibuster need have a substantive purpose to have a beneficial result.
My error of expectation it appears. There never was even a slight intention to block Brennan's confirmation as DCIA. Nothing is serious to these 100 posers except posture. Nonapod is right...politics is a game and any substance is incidental.
I'm pissed off because even I was sucked in for the early hours...then I realized what was going on. That is why I call it Kabuki theater and charade...and I still do. Brennan is the last man who should be DCIA, so of course the bi-partisan schmucks had to stage a stunt and then confirm him anyway.
No one gave a damn and that includes Paul. It was a stage, that's all. In the past, how many Senators who filabuster also voted for cloture? Speaking of cloture and the threat thereof...why is it again that we've had no budget for 4 years?
I will give the current Democrats credit...they are masters of Three Card Monte.
And y'all are correct, I am wasting my time having any expectations beyond the superficial. After my military and federal guises, I have no faith left in anyone...at least not above the rank of GS-14, Master Sergeant, or Lieutenant Colonel.
cubanbob said...
Jeb was a pretty good governor but another Bush has no chance.
Agreed. I would have voted for Jeb for governor again if he hadn't been term-limited, especially over that turncoat, Charlie "Oompa-Loompa" Crist.
Clyde said...
cubanbob said...
Jeb was a pretty good governor but another Bush has no chance.
Agreed. I would have voted for Jeb for governor again if he hadn't been term-limited, especially over that turncoat, Charlie "Oompa-Loompa" Crist.
3/11/13, 3:17 PM
Tru dat. It appears the eternally tan Charlie is going to run as a democrat in the next election. Life can be weirder than fiction so there is the possibility the fate may decide just for fun to have a Clinton-Bush rematch in 2016. It wouldn't be prudent but there you go.
Scott Walker for President!
Scott Walker should do it, but no one will let him because somehow not having a college education disqualifies him, even if he's managed to govern circles around the Ivy league boys.
Hick is the only bright spot the Dems have going for them. I think he would win the nomination. CO Dems have bought this state for the next few years. Though the gun position might sink him.
Paul Ryan is disqualified. He couldn't carry his home state. Hopefully, the Republican party has rethought the strategy of nominating someone who can't even give you electoral votes.
A Christie/Paul ticket or a Paul/Christie would be formidable. It would also seem to represent a significant shift in the party. Pragmatic Northeast moderate with bombastic temperament to get a make the party competitive among working class whited in supposedly blue states. Libertarian conservative tea partier from the South who somehow appeals to young voters and liberals.
Big government social conservatives and neocons would be the losers. Let the Democrats have them, I say.
A Christie/Paul ticket or a Paul/Christie would be formidable.
In the sense that matter and antimatter create a formidable explosion.
Seriously, offhand I can't think of two likely contenders with less common ground. They can't team up without one or both of them selling out the things he supposedly standards for.
"It would need to be someone who ran before and seems pretty bland and moderate. "
T-Paw. Bland and moderate screams "T-Paw." So bland and moderate that you probably forgot he existed.
Bush/McCain - or - I will slash my wrists dream team.
NO. No Bush NO clinton. NO!
Paul Ryan is making moves to cave on background checks and gun show restrictions in the house. If he supports ANY gun legislation it is over for him. If this happens it is also likely over for the Republican Party. If anything on gun control passes the house I will never vote for another republican and there are many with me. It will be new political party time.
Christie is terrible on gun control also. Look for his past statements on that issue to sink him. More than that he is a tubby Mitt and his Obama love fest ended any chance he had. His comments on the pork recovery bill just reinforces this.
Rubio tried to kill his chances with his activities on immigration but realized the ground was giving way and has backed off that. Definitely the front runner.
Paul actually has principles. That will go a long ways and he will draw a lot of young people from a demographic you don't see around here.
Jindal is the school choice champion. He is also ambiguous on enough issues and very under exposed if he gets on the stage he has a lot of upside. He has generally said the right things that I wanted to hear.
Jeb won't run. If he wins the nomination you will see the lowest base turnout ever. We don't forget that outside of war time W created a whole new entitlement program and ran some lovely deficits and massively increased spending. Democrat lite won't cut it those to around.
Achilles said ...
Paul actually has principles.
Got a list of a few of those?
While it is depressing, I agree with most of what you've said, except the bit about Paul. Even others here have said Paul is a politician first and therefore expectations of grit is silly.
Paul did a brief episode of "It's Howdy Doody Time" and now he's a hero? He voted for cloture on his own filabluster.
Let's see how he votes on defense related matters. Is he a man of principle for being one of four Republican Senators to vote Yes for Hagel's confirmation? He also voted for Kerry. Once cloture was secured, he was free to pose and vote nay on Brennan.
As Nonapod essentially said on another thread, I'm a sad victim of my own expectations. He's right.
Got a list of a few of those?
Yes, but why bother? You can't be reasoned out of a position you didn't reason yourself into.
Revenant said...
Ref: "Got a list of a few of those?"
Yes, but why bother? You can't be reasoned out of a position you didn't reason yourself into.
Either you have no list, or think you're too special to bother. Try me, I will read/listen...and it WILL NOT BE the first time I've changed my mind and admitted it here.
If you really believe Rand Paul is a worthwhile politician, explain why you feel that way. THAT is how minds and votes get changed...good points, not dismissive comments about my lack of reasoning power.
Truth be told, I would LIKE to think more highly of Senator Paul. His votes on Kerry and Hagel didn't give me that sense that he was a man for change. However, Kerry and Hagel are stooges. Brennan is not, he is a real operator with real power.
I think Brennan is Obama's reincarnation of LBJ's Robert Komer. Am I wrong there, too?
I AM asking you, tell me where I am wrong, particularly about Senator Paul. You say you can, I believe you ... so please do so.
Paul knows his stand on foreign policy is not popular in the Republican Party. It is one of the major blocks to him winning the nomination. I don't agree with a lot of it. Cutting Israel off and non-interventionalism are not my thing. But he sticks to it when it would be easier to soften up on that issue.
In addition if you were to pick out the legislator who if elected president would be most likely to eliminate the Ed department, the EPA, farm subsidies, and other sacred cows it would be him on constitutional grounds. I also believe he put forth a budget with actual cuts to federal spending. Ryan thinks lowering growth to 3.4% is good enough.
Post a Comment