Rand Paul rocked Washington last week with his filibuster protesting President Obama's use of military drones. Not surprisingly, speculation about a Rand Paul 2016 bid began in earnest. Paul, himself, stoked the flames by saying he was interested. So just what are Paul's chances of winning the nomination and then the general?
Paul is a complex political figure who has a lot going for him and a lot going against him. Let's break it down into the good, the bad, and the ugly.
The Good
Paul's chances of winning the Republican nomination are probably far better than many would think. Paul's main appeal is based on positions and an ability to articulate those positions in a way that brings people over to his side. One can see this not only in the willingness of fellow Republicans to praise his filibuster, but Paul's 2010 senate victories.
In 2010, Paul overcame establishment opposition to win the Republican primary by an astounding 23 points. He then went on to defeat a solid opponent in Jack Conway in the general election by a solid 12 points.
These victories make Rand Paul very much unlike his father, Ron. 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.
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.
The Bad
Establishment candidates win presidential primaries and especially Republican ones. This is well documented in the book The Party Decides. It's the reason Mitt Romney suddenly found himself the favorite in 2012, after getting eaten alive in 2008.
Rand Paul is, despite the backing of the Senate leadership in his filibuster, not an establishment candidate. Once the "hey he stood up to Obama" tag wears off, the establishment might begin to realize that he's not their man. There's a reason why Paul gave his own reaction to the state of the union instead of allowing the Republican reaction to stand on its own ground.
Paul's own positions on civil liberties, drugs, and war fall well outside mainstream Republican positions. For some reason, I can't exactly imagine neo-conservatives going gaga over the first or the last of these. A majority of Republicans disapproved of Obama's decision to withdraw troops from Iraq even as 75% of the American public approved overall.
I can't imagine Christian conservatives loving his thoughts on drug policies. Indeed even as American support for marijuana legalization grows, 66% of Republicans oppose it. Being a forceful proponent of an argument can only go so far when most voters you are trying to gain oppose it.
The Ugly
Rand Paul is really, really conservative. He's the second most conservative senator, next to Mike Lee of Utah based on roll call votes. This is matched by the by the ideological ranking system based on campaign donors. Now some of this obscures his more libertarian positions listed above, though there's little doubt Paul's very conservative.
Paul's views on Martin Luther King Jr.'s civil rights strategy would scare many Americans. Paul does not believe the Constitution grants protections against racial discrimination in the marketplace. He has gone so far to once say that businesses could choose to turn down customers based on their skin color.
Paul was against the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). He is against the income tax. He's called Medicaid "intergenerational welfare".
History suggests that after losing two consecutive presidential elections parties tend to pick candidates who occupy more of the middle ground. Someone like a Jeb Bush. Paul would be the most conservative Republican to win the nomination ever.
And if Paul ever got past the Republican nomination, these positions could prove disastrous in a general election. Overwhelming majorities of Americans think Martin Luther King is a hero, approve of WAVA, think the percentage of income taxes they pay is fair, and like medicaid. In addition, Paul's libertarian streak ends on same-sex marriage and abortion. Paul is against both. Americans are for both.
While I don't believe ideology matters too much in general elections, Paul's out of mainstream positions would almost certainly cost him a few points.
Conclusion
Rand Paul is certainly in a better position than his father ever was to win the Republican nomination. I also think Paul has a better chance than Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Still, his anti-establishment and out-of-mainstream positions on a number of issues will likely prohibit Paul from winning the primary and the general election.