Today, I will cover Part II of what could be a billion-part series on the officially declared 2016 candidates (at least the one's who have a puncher's chance) and focus on Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who officially declared his candidacy yesterday in Louisville. Paul is going to be an interesting candidate, to be sure, one who is not the cookie cutter neoconservative that has defined the GOP for the last 15 years. But, like Ted Cruz, we should examine his strengths and his weaknesses.
Strengths
Rand Paul's greatest strength is his potential ability to craft a new coalition out of the American electorate for the GOP. His relatively dovish foreign policy stances can attract libertarians and even far-left peace activists, while his soft stance on marijuana and prison reform can also attract new faces to the Republican Party. Meanwhile, he still has the strong support of his dad's legion of devoted followers (a group that was better organized during the primary season than any other candidate, save Mitt Romney) and has made huge inroads among the base. Finally, he is not afraid to reach out to groups of voters the GOP tends to ignore (namely, black college students) and has had some success. Senator Paul has the potential to put together a winning coalition for the 2016 general election.
But what about the primary season? This could prove to be a little more difficult for Paul than even the general election, but he does have some advantages over other competitors. First, as previously noted, he can probably score the votes of some people who have never voted Republican in their lifetime (if, indeed, they have ever voted at all). In primaries with a dozen or more candidates, even a few thousand unconventional votes could make the difference. Second, his dad's old network of followers still generally support him and they have built up the infrastructure in many states (ESPECIALLY the caucus states) to help him secure the delegates of these states. In 2012, no campaign was able to exploit the archaic caucus rules to the extent of the Ron Paul campaign, and I have no reason to doubt that Rand will do the same. Third, Rand has actively courted the favor of the "establishment" wing by supporting figures like Mitch McConnell and making overtures to groups like the Chamber of Commerce. Unlike Ted Cruz, Senator Paul is generally well-liked among all branches of the GOP (Pete King, notwithstanding). This factor could make the "establishment" less willing to unite behind someone like Jeb Bush for a little while. He may seem unconventional, but Rand Paul will have the infrastructure and support necessary to launch a sustained campaign.
Weaknesses
Of course Senator Paul does have his weaknesses, as well. If he did not, then he would be the undisputed front-runner that the GOP currently lacks. Probably chief among Senator Paul's weaknesses is his tendency to say the wrong things for the right reasons. For example, not supporting the federal government's right to force integrated lunch counters in the civil rights era (despite saying that he would boycott such a restaurant and encourage others not to patronize the joint) was a rather dumb thing to say, even if his logic was rather orthodox. To his credit, Paul has become a much more seasoned and careful politician since those early days, but a year and a half is a long campaign that will inevitably result in some serious gaffes on Paul's part. In an age where everything is recorded and instantly spread around the world, a candidate as prone to saying dumb things as Paul will make some mistakes that seriously hurt his chances.
Next, Paul runs the risk of being squeezed out by the plethora of candidates who are running against Jeb Bush. Although popular with the base, the larger number of candidates makes it more likely that Paul will be many people's second or third choice because of one particular issue (be it gay marriage or foreign policy or immigration). Ted Cruz's presence in the race will make it tougher for Paul to win enough "liberty-oriented" Republicans to win the nomination. As with Scott Walker, the chances of non-establishment candidates diminish as more candidates enter the race and split the base.
Finally, Paul's dovish foreign policy could be a liability. A common phrase heard during the 2012 cycle was "I like Ron Paul, but not his foreign policy." I have no doubt that similar sentiments will be expressed about Rand, but to a lesser degree. Even if the number of Lindsey Grahams and Pete Kings in the GOP is diminishing, there will still probably be enough of these voices to stymie Paul's efforts. For all of Paul's efforts to moderate America's foreign policy, the militant foreign policy wing is still strong in the Republican Party. Rand is nowhere near as "non-interventionist" as his father, but I still expect to hear from the likes of Rick Santorum that Rand's foreign policy is "to the left of Barack Obama." That will make it difficult to win over pro-military (and perhaps, pro-Israel) Republicans, which will make his nomination more difficult.
Conclusion
Rand Paul's success will depend on a couple of factors; chief among them is not losing conservative voters to Ted Cruz and the dozen other conservatives vying to be the anti-Jeb candidate. He has the infrastructure in several states (especially Iowa) to win delegates, as his father did, but he also has a much better shot of winning actual primaries than his father ever did. Rand has done an admirable job of reaching across the various factions of the GOP to unite base conservatives, the "establishment," and bring in new voters into the party. He should not have any difficulty raising money, especially if he is able to get his dad's supporters to donate money, and he can tap into the pocketbooks of numerous conservatives and Republicans who did not support his father but do like him. On the whole, Rand has shown that his political tactics are far superior to the likes of Ted Cruz and therefore, Rand will be a tough candidate, there is no doubt about that.
Can he win the nomination? If enough conservatives either sit on the sidelines for this entire election season or drop out early, he could pose a serious threat to Jeb Bush. But if Cruz, Santorum, Huckabee, Carson, Rubio, Jindal, Walker, Kasich, and others not only run, but stay in the race for a while, he could have trouble winning enough primaries to force a convention fight or win the nomination, outright. Remember, as 2012 showed us, the political class' choice only has to win about 25% of the vote in a contest against numerous other opponents to win the primary (especially in states like Florida where the winner wins all of the state's delegates). So, to answer the question, if I was setting odds, Paul would probably be in 3rd or 4th place, behind Jeb, Walker, and maybe Christie. He has a fighter's chance, though, so it would be foolish to discount him at this point.
What about the general election? If policy was the only consideration, Rand could well be the GOP's best shot against Hillary Clinton because of his unorthodox Republican positions that could win over even some in the far left. But, policy is NOT the only consideration. Paul would likely have to run with Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire to balance out the gender and foreign policy handicaps, but that choice could also cost him some of his anti-war voters. Paul's one term in the Senate would be a definite disadvantage against Clinton's experience as a senator and as Secretary of State (and possibly as First Lady, as well...). He would be a decided underdog in this fight (but then, so would just about any candidate) but he matches up about as well with Clinton as any other Republican, at this point.
How long will Rand stand in the race? I doubt he wins the nomination, but he will win some delegates and run a strong campaign. If I was him, though, I would make sure to be on the ballot for Kentucky's Senate race next year.
Strengths
Rand Paul's greatest strength is his potential ability to craft a new coalition out of the American electorate for the GOP. His relatively dovish foreign policy stances can attract libertarians and even far-left peace activists, while his soft stance on marijuana and prison reform can also attract new faces to the Republican Party. Meanwhile, he still has the strong support of his dad's legion of devoted followers (a group that was better organized during the primary season than any other candidate, save Mitt Romney) and has made huge inroads among the base. Finally, he is not afraid to reach out to groups of voters the GOP tends to ignore (namely, black college students) and has had some success. Senator Paul has the potential to put together a winning coalition for the 2016 general election.
But what about the primary season? This could prove to be a little more difficult for Paul than even the general election, but he does have some advantages over other competitors. First, as previously noted, he can probably score the votes of some people who have never voted Republican in their lifetime (if, indeed, they have ever voted at all). In primaries with a dozen or more candidates, even a few thousand unconventional votes could make the difference. Second, his dad's old network of followers still generally support him and they have built up the infrastructure in many states (ESPECIALLY the caucus states) to help him secure the delegates of these states. In 2012, no campaign was able to exploit the archaic caucus rules to the extent of the Ron Paul campaign, and I have no reason to doubt that Rand will do the same. Third, Rand has actively courted the favor of the "establishment" wing by supporting figures like Mitch McConnell and making overtures to groups like the Chamber of Commerce. Unlike Ted Cruz, Senator Paul is generally well-liked among all branches of the GOP (Pete King, notwithstanding). This factor could make the "establishment" less willing to unite behind someone like Jeb Bush for a little while. He may seem unconventional, but Rand Paul will have the infrastructure and support necessary to launch a sustained campaign.
Weaknesses
Of course Senator Paul does have his weaknesses, as well. If he did not, then he would be the undisputed front-runner that the GOP currently lacks. Probably chief among Senator Paul's weaknesses is his tendency to say the wrong things for the right reasons. For example, not supporting the federal government's right to force integrated lunch counters in the civil rights era (despite saying that he would boycott such a restaurant and encourage others not to patronize the joint) was a rather dumb thing to say, even if his logic was rather orthodox. To his credit, Paul has become a much more seasoned and careful politician since those early days, but a year and a half is a long campaign that will inevitably result in some serious gaffes on Paul's part. In an age where everything is recorded and instantly spread around the world, a candidate as prone to saying dumb things as Paul will make some mistakes that seriously hurt his chances.
Next, Paul runs the risk of being squeezed out by the plethora of candidates who are running against Jeb Bush. Although popular with the base, the larger number of candidates makes it more likely that Paul will be many people's second or third choice because of one particular issue (be it gay marriage or foreign policy or immigration). Ted Cruz's presence in the race will make it tougher for Paul to win enough "liberty-oriented" Republicans to win the nomination. As with Scott Walker, the chances of non-establishment candidates diminish as more candidates enter the race and split the base.
Finally, Paul's dovish foreign policy could be a liability. A common phrase heard during the 2012 cycle was "I like Ron Paul, but not his foreign policy." I have no doubt that similar sentiments will be expressed about Rand, but to a lesser degree. Even if the number of Lindsey Grahams and Pete Kings in the GOP is diminishing, there will still probably be enough of these voices to stymie Paul's efforts. For all of Paul's efforts to moderate America's foreign policy, the militant foreign policy wing is still strong in the Republican Party. Rand is nowhere near as "non-interventionist" as his father, but I still expect to hear from the likes of Rick Santorum that Rand's foreign policy is "to the left of Barack Obama." That will make it difficult to win over pro-military (and perhaps, pro-Israel) Republicans, which will make his nomination more difficult.
Conclusion
Rand Paul's success will depend on a couple of factors; chief among them is not losing conservative voters to Ted Cruz and the dozen other conservatives vying to be the anti-Jeb candidate. He has the infrastructure in several states (especially Iowa) to win delegates, as his father did, but he also has a much better shot of winning actual primaries than his father ever did. Rand has done an admirable job of reaching across the various factions of the GOP to unite base conservatives, the "establishment," and bring in new voters into the party. He should not have any difficulty raising money, especially if he is able to get his dad's supporters to donate money, and he can tap into the pocketbooks of numerous conservatives and Republicans who did not support his father but do like him. On the whole, Rand has shown that his political tactics are far superior to the likes of Ted Cruz and therefore, Rand will be a tough candidate, there is no doubt about that.
Can he win the nomination? If enough conservatives either sit on the sidelines for this entire election season or drop out early, he could pose a serious threat to Jeb Bush. But if Cruz, Santorum, Huckabee, Carson, Rubio, Jindal, Walker, Kasich, and others not only run, but stay in the race for a while, he could have trouble winning enough primaries to force a convention fight or win the nomination, outright. Remember, as 2012 showed us, the political class' choice only has to win about 25% of the vote in a contest against numerous other opponents to win the primary (especially in states like Florida where the winner wins all of the state's delegates). So, to answer the question, if I was setting odds, Paul would probably be in 3rd or 4th place, behind Jeb, Walker, and maybe Christie. He has a fighter's chance, though, so it would be foolish to discount him at this point.
What about the general election? If policy was the only consideration, Rand could well be the GOP's best shot against Hillary Clinton because of his unorthodox Republican positions that could win over even some in the far left. But, policy is NOT the only consideration. Paul would likely have to run with Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire to balance out the gender and foreign policy handicaps, but that choice could also cost him some of his anti-war voters. Paul's one term in the Senate would be a definite disadvantage against Clinton's experience as a senator and as Secretary of State (and possibly as First Lady, as well...). He would be a decided underdog in this fight (but then, so would just about any candidate) but he matches up about as well with Clinton as any other Republican, at this point.
How long will Rand stand in the race? I doubt he wins the nomination, but he will win some delegates and run a strong campaign. If I was him, though, I would make sure to be on the ballot for Kentucky's Senate race next year.