If Rand Paul runs for prez in 2016, how well does he do in GOP primaries?

[Mr. Morden]

Does he have any hope of expanding support beyond the Paul base, and appealing to "normal" Republicans?

[Cliff Racer]

In a field like 2011? Yeah, he'd do decently well, especially if we factor out his father's run. But in a normal field he'd find himself without a real base of support. There are more talented outsiders, there are more talented fiscal conservatives, there are more talented Tea Party members, etc. I just don't see him getting much breathing room beyond fans of his father when there are other competent candidates in the ring.

[NHI]

In a field that will most likely include: Christie, McDonnell, and Rubio, Paul will have a tough time breaking out, though stranger things have happened.

I could see a Christie/Paul ticket as a possibility.

[A dog on every car, a car in every elevator]

I think this was high tide for the Paul family.  You had: widespread war fatigue, new military intervention initiated by Obama + a Tea Party/anti-government/anti-debt wave + in Romney, a frontrunner the base was extremely wary (culturally and politically) + a total vacuum of good alternatives to him, in Virginia, literally no alternatives.  And still, Ron Paul couldn't get very far.  And the GOP is a party that historically warms up to candidates the more they run.  And grandfatherly Ron is more charismatic than Rand.  I'd bet Rand would run worse than his Dad.

[Korwinist]

He'd probably do decently, but it would very heavily on who the other candidates are and how the national climate (politically) was.

On one hand, he really doesn't motivate Ron's old base as much as Ron himself, or even come remotely close to it. He's made a couple of votes that really ticked them off. They'd probably vote for him and provide an altogether reasonable percentage of the vote, but a somewhat apathetic libertarian voting bloc wouldn't win him any states. Furthermore, he very much positions himself as a conservative Republican as opposed to Ron's greater focus on foreign policy, so he wouldn't be getting as much independent or crossover vote either.

On the other, he's far more politically savvy when it comes to imaging; Ron had a habit of repeatedly saying the wrong thing at the wrong time whenever he came close to getting a wider base of support. Rand, meanwhile, has very similar views, but ensures that he always at least sounds like a hawk while not actually being one (Eg. "If Iran attacks us, we'll DESTROY them completely" as opposed to "Maybe if we stopped messing with Iran they'd stop threatening us and we could avoid another stupid war"), an is just as easily able to push his social con side without dragging in monetary policy.

In the right field, it isn't too hard to see Rand dragging together a coalition of old Ron supporters alongside Gingrich/Santorum social conservatives against moderates under someone like Chris Christie. In a hypothetical 2012 with Rand instead of Ron (ignoring "inexperience" and assuming that he is a two or three term senator for the sake of the argument), he probably could have beaten Santorum out of the gate, done a fair bit poorer in New England, and then won the midwest and south simply by sliding to the right of Romney on social issues and keeping them the focus. Of course, on the other hand, you could end up in a situation where a far stronger social conservative (A Huckabee equivalent) rises up, in which case Rand would basically just be "Ron Paul, but without the masses of followers".

[America First]

WAY better than his father.  Not only will he pick up his fathers supporters but also the far right type who have fond memories of the Tea Party

[CathKhan]

One advantage Rand has is that he's won a statewide race and has a statewide base. Ron hasn't even won a statewide primary, let alone a general election.

[Mr. Morden]

*bump*

OK, I started this thread a year ago, but it seems relevant again.  In PPP's latest national poll, Rand Paul has a 61% favorable rating, compared to just 13% unfavorable.  That puts him in far better standing within the party than I remember his father ever being in.  Ron always had a relatively low ceiling in the primaries, because a large fraction of the GOP electorate would never vote for him.  Could Rand conceivably break out of the libertarian ghetto within the GOP, and actually become a significant player in the race?  Could he actually win some primaries and/or caucuses?

[dudeabides]

He could win Iowa, but I doubt it. New Hampshire is Christie country. Obviously, Rubio will carry Florida. He could win in South Carolina, but I think either Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, or Marco Rubio will win there. See my timeline "What is LIKELY".

[Spiral]

Rand has the potential to do a whole hell of a lot better. The PPP polls have all shown him to now have very high approval ratings for Republicans comparable to that of Rubio and Bush, while the disapproval ratings for Ron were always greater than those who approve. Both Pauls have cobbled together a coalition of voters that includes liberals and moderates as well as libertarians and conservatives, and I think that Rand would be able to bring in more far-right Tea Party types that for the most part neglected Ron. He could very well win the nomination should everything fall in his favor. At the very least, he'll garner double-digit results in the early primaries.

[Mister Mets]

He's very well positioned in the early primary states.

His dad had a respectable third place in Iowa.

His dad was strong in Nevada, and finished second in New Hampshire.

And as a southerner, he may have an edge in South Carolina over the likes of Paul Ryan and Chris Christie.

He could be a contender. He has the potential to do much better than his father, as he's younger, has been elected to statewide office and holds views that are more appealing to Republican primary voters.

[Starwatcher]

Rand Paul can't do any better than his father.

Ron Paul couldn't win a single state. And Rand is less charmismatic, more stern and angry, less experienced, and just a worst candidate.

And he has to know that he won't win. So he'll probably sit out 2016, unless, he feels like giving up his Senate seat (which he'd have to do per Kentucky law).

[Mr. Morden]

Rand Paul can't do any better than his father.

Ron Paul couldn't win a single state. And Rand is less charmismatic, more stern and angry, less experienced, and just a worst candidate.

Except he has one thing going for him that his father didn't: His father was stuck in the "libertarian ghetto" of the party, and didn't make much effort, if any, to appeal to "regular Republicans".  Rand is trying to hold on to his father's base, and expand out from that.

Regarding where he would do best, I still think the bulk of his support would likely come from the same pool of voters that his father won, and the fact that he represents Kentucky wouldn't really give him any special advantage in the South.  His father tended to have his best showings in caucus states (though also did very well in the NH and VT primaries), and did especially well in the West.  He didn't do so well in the South.

Here are Ron Paul's %ages from the first five states in 2012:

Iowa caucus: 21%
New Hampshire primary: 23%
South Carolina primary: 13%
Florida primary: 7%
Nevada caucus: 19%

In 2016, Florida is likely to be a bit later in the calendar, and Nevada likely to be back in the first four, perhaps even #3, after Iowa and New Hampshire.  That puts three potentially strong Paul states at the beginning of the calendar.

Other states where he might be able to do well include the AK, ID, ND, ME, MN, and ND caucuses, as well as the VT primary.

[bedstuy]

I think his only chance to win the nomination is the following:  Become the consensus far-right conservative candidate, raise a ton of small donor money from the internet, build a grassroots campaign that can out-organize the other candidates, win Iowa and South Carolina and hope the campaign breaks just the right way.  The stumbling block I see is that to win as an insurgent he's going to need a diverse coalition of conservative activist types.  Rand Paul isn't going to be a perfect fit for the home-school crowd or definitely the Neo-cons.  Also, he has to worry about a decline in the Tea Party movement. 

In any case, I really hope Rand Paul runs for President.  His policies are 100% cuckoo for cocoa puffs.  If he somehow won the Republican primary, he would epically crash and burn in the general election. 

[Mr. Morden]

To be clear, I think the chances of him winning the nomination are infinitesimally small, if only because the party establishment and donor class of the GOP would throw everything they could at him in order to stop someone with Paul's views on foreign policy from winning the nomination.

But I think he'd at least have a shot at being something like Pat Buchanan in 1996 (albeit appealing to a distinctly different base from the one Buchanan appealed to), doing well enough to win a couple of primaries, and appealing to enough voters that the other candidates have to worry about him.  The other candidates might actually make some efforts to appeal to at least some of his voters........rather than just ignore him completely, as the other GOP candidates did with Ron Paul in 2008.

EDIT: A fun timeline would be one in which Rand Paul actually squeaks out victories in IA, NH, and NV, but still goes on to lose the nomination because the party establishment freaks out, and puts all their support behind whoever his strongest challenger is.  I mean, if Buchanan had done about 3% better in Iowa back in 1996, then something like that could have happened back in that race.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

I don't think it's a given that Rand holds onto all of his father's base from 2012. I'm sure most of the Libertarians would stick around, but the disenfranchised Republicans will have a much better slate to choose from in '16 than they did between Romney and the circus of clowns.

[Mr. Morden]

I don't think it's a given that Rand holds onto all of his father's base from 2012.

Oh, not a given.  Just a possibility.  Ron had a high floor and low ceiling.  There was only ever a fairly narrow range of possibilities for him.  Rand could do better, but he could also crash and burn miserably.

[Matt from VT]

I don't think it's a given that Rand holds onto all of his father's base from 2012. I'm sure most of the Libertarians would stick around, but the disenfranchised Republicans will have a much better slate to choose from in '16 than they did between Romney and the circus of clowns.

Not a given, but if he can hold on to a lot of them, then he's got a shot because he will be more popular with the ultra conservatives than Christie. Of course he will have to fight Santorum for the tea party followers.

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

The Tea Party will endorse Rand much faster than Frothy.