How do you guys feel about Chris Matthew's thoughts on the 2016 GOP Run

[Saint Milei]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WB5vWJKfr4

I think he's spot on for both Dems and Repubs. A period of private action is probably coming and a "return to normalcy". I highly doubt a moderate-leaning Republican will be nominated.

[tallguy23]

I remember Mathews also said Rudy would be the nominee in 2008 and that Hillary was a shoo-in for the White House. He's no crystal ball.   

[Indy Texas]

I remember Mathews also said Rudy would be the nominee in 2008 and that Hillary was a shoo-in for the White House. He's no crystal ball.   

Before the voting started in Iowa, I was thinking it would be Clinton/Edwards vs. Giuliani/Thompson.

[Mr. Morden]

I remember Mathews also said Rudy would be the nominee in 2008 and that Hillary was a shoo-in for the White House. He's no crystal ball.   

Before the voting started in Iowa, I was thinking it would be Clinton/Edwards vs. Giuliani/Thompson.

The forum consensus on the eve of the Iowa caucuses was Clinton and Romney:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=67111.0
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=67110.0

[henster]

Rand Paul has a very decent shot of winning the nomination he'd probably the most far right nominee since Goldwater.

[Matty]

Rand Paul has a very decent shot of winning the nomination he'd probably the most far right nominee since Goldwater.

What exactly makes Paul far right? He is "leftist" on the issues of fourth amendment rights, sentencing laws, and foreign policy to an extent.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

He doesn't like open boarders and not pro amnesty either. The GOP are at a disadvantage politically. Their strongest candidates are Jeb and Portman.  But their will have base problems. I think Hilary will win regardless, but we will see.

[Mordecai]

Rand Paul has a very decent shot of winning the nomination he'd probably the most far right nominee since Goldwater.

What exactly makes Paul far right? He is "leftist" on the issues of fourth amendment rights, sentencing laws, and foreign policy to an extent.

You're kidding right? Left and right correspond to economic and fiscal policy positions, not social/foreign policy positions. Paul is far right because he holds basically the same views of his father except he doesn't seem so annoyed by the Federal Reserve or fiat money.

[bedstuy]

I tend to agree.  Ted Cruz or Rand Paul seem like the only candidates likely to win the Republican nomination at this point. 

I remember Mathews also said Rudy would be the nominee in 2008 and that Hillary was a shoo-in for the White House. He's no crystal ball.   

The only crystal ball on MSNBC is Krystal Ball.

[Whacker77]

Unless the bigger establishment names choose not to run (Bush, Christie), I just don't see Paul being the nominee.  The media isn't focusing on his eccentricities right now and they certainly haven't attempted to tie him to any of his father's more "unique" views.  And make no mistake, they will do that by late 2015 and early 2016.

I go back to a story recently written about the four factions of the Republican party.  The author, Henry Olsen, suggests the four groups are moderates/liberals (25-30%), somewhat conservative, very conservative evangelicals (20%), and conservative secular voters (5-10%).  The somewhat conservative group is the largest faction at 35-40% of the vote.

While Paul may start with the vast majority of the very conservative secular voters, that only gives him a base of 5-10% so he'll obviously have to branch out into other groups.  He's making a serious play to do that now, but other candidates will likely fill those slots and make it difficult for him to piece together the 40% or so he'll need to win in a contested field.  And the best evidence of that is the current RCP average.  Paul sits at 13%, or just above the 10% threshold for very conservative secular voters.

These numbers also show why "establishment" choices have dominated since 1988.  For instance, while Paul must significantly branch out, someone like Bush wouldn't need to do nearly as much.  He'd likely occupy a major portion of the somewhat conservative faction and he'd almost certainly do well with the moderate/liberal portion.  Just in raw numbers, that's as much as 70% of the primary vote.  And even if Paul were to get every secular vote and evangelical vote, he'd still have to snag some from the two groups an "establishment" choice would dominate.  And if Cruz is in the race, well he and Paul occupy the same sphere.

If Bush and Christie both decide to pass (that won't happen), then it's easier to see a path for Paul or Cruz, but the somewhat conservative and moderate/liberal factions dominate the primary.  I'd put the number at 65%.  It's why Romney survived and it's why neither Paul or Cruz is likely to win.  And in my opinion, that especially true if Bush runs, because I think he'll clear a good part of the field that would've competed for the somewhat conservative and moderate/liberal votes.

I just don't see Paul or Cruz unless a whole bunch of people say no (Bush, Christie, Rubio, Walker, Kasich).

http://nationalinterest.org/article/the-four-faces-the-republican-party-9930

[Mister Mets]

I'd disagree with Matthews in that Rand Paul's views are too unconventional to be part of the hard right. He has a chance of winning, but he's not a standard conservative the way Ted Cruz is.

I also wouldn't say he has a better than even chance of winning, given all the competition.

[Maxwell]

Matthews is a moron, and is wrong pretty much all the time. That being said, I think Rand Paul has a shot at the nom, and a better chance than some of the people mentioned. His base of people are growing in the party, and he's courting people outside of his regular fanbase, and seems to be the only candidate doing so.

[m4567]

Unless the bigger establishment names choose not to run (Bush, Christie), I just don't see Paul being the nominee.  The media isn't focusing on his eccentricities right now and they certainly haven't attempted to tie him to any of his father's more "unique" views.  And make no mistake, they will do that by late 2015 and early 2016.

I go back to a story recently written about the four factions of the Republican party.  The author, Henry Olsen, suggests the four groups are moderates/liberals (25-30%), somewhat conservative, very conservative evangelicals (20%), and conservative secular voters (5-10%).  The somewhat conservative group is the largest faction at 35-40% of the vote.

While Paul may start with the vast majority of the very conservative secular voters, that only gives him a base of 5-10% so he'll obviously have to branch out into other groups.  He's making a serious play to do that now, but other candidates will likely fill those slots and make it difficult for him to piece together the 40% or so he'll need to win in a contested field.  And the best evidence of that is the current RCP average.  Paul sits at 13%, or just above the 10% threshold for very conservative secular voters.

These numbers also show why "establishment" choices have dominated since 1988.  For instance, while Paul must significantly branch out, someone like Bush wouldn't need to do nearly as much.  He'd likely occupy a major portion of the somewhat conservative faction and he'd almost certainly do well with the moderate/liberal portion.  Just in raw numbers, that's as much as 70% of the primary vote.  And even if Paul were to get every secular vote and evangelical vote, he'd still have to snag some from the two groups an "establishment" choice would dominate.  And if Cruz is in the race, well he and Paul occupy the same sphere.

If Bush and Christie both decide to pass (that won't happen), then it's easier to see a path for Paul or Cruz, but the somewhat conservative and moderate/liberal factions dominate the primary.  I'd put the number at 65%.  It's why Romney survived and it's why neither Paul or Cruz is likely to win.  And in my opinion, that especially true if Bush runs, because I think he'll clear a good part of the field that would've competed for the somewhat conservative and moderate/liberal votes.

I just don't see Paul or Cruz unless a whole bunch of people say no (Bush, Christie, Rubio, Walker, Kasich).

http://nationalinterest.org/article/the-four-faces-the-republican-party-9930

Agreed.

[Mordecai]

Rand Paul has a very decent shot of winning the nomination he'd probably the most far right nominee since Goldwater.

What exactly makes Paul far right? He is "leftist" on the issues of fourth amendment rights, sentencing laws, and foreign policy to an extent.

You're kidding right? Left and right correspond to economic and fiscal policy positions, not social/foreign policy positions. Paul is far right because he holds basically the same views of his father except he doesn't seem so annoyed by the Federal Reserve or fiat money.

Do you know what a political spectrum is?

Yes, but it seems you don't by your question. Do you know what libertarianism is? Do you know who Rand Paul is the son of? The guy who when he was running for President proposed a budget that would cut $1 trillion in spending in the first year.

For goodness sake, just because Rand wants to decriminalize marijuana doesn't mean he's left-wing. To think that you'd basically have to ignore his all extreme right-wing economic views.

[m4567]

I think Perry or Walker will get the nomination.

[Lupo]

Paul wins if he runs.  I just don't think he'll run in '16.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Matthews is kind of the Bill Kristol of the left, he's almost always wrong (remember his confidence in Michelle Bachmann?) ...

I've no idea who is going to be the nominee and while I think Rand Paul could do OK in places like NH, the nomination invariably goes to who wins the big states, NY, IL, CA, FL and OH - McCain, Romney, Bush. I don't think Paul winning in NH will be seen as anything other as 'libertarian wins GOP primary in Libertarian NH' - plus remember the RNC is planning the 2016 primary process being compressed. This will make a Santorum-Gingrich-like surge very difficult.

My gut reaction is that the candidate closest to the establishment will win - they will not risk Cruz, Paul etc - they both have massive landmines.

[HAnnA MArin County]

I would think Rand Paul's comments on Matthews's colleague's show about the Civil Rights Act would prevent him from winning the general, although it could help him in the primary. If all he can do is drag up the Monica Lewinsky scandal (and the obligatory GOP smear phrase BENGHAZI every other week) to hurt Hillary, he's in for a rude awakening.

That being said, Chris Matthews is a moron and I wish MSNBC would can him before they got rid of Martin Bashir.