E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Friday, October 28, 2016

Let's not be pollyannaish about Rand Paul in 2020

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 12:30 PM (#)

Would the Republican Party be headed toward victory if we had nominated Rand Paul? I contend that any of the other Republicans would be crushing Hillary Clinton right now, but a case can be made for Paul. While it is true that Paul had a unique opportunity to expand the Republican voter base, we should not be unrealistically optimistic about Paul's chances, either what they would have been this year or what they will be in 2020.

First, there are a number of Republicans turned off by libertarianism. There are the more old-school Republicans, of course, but many Christians of all ages are wary of the social stances libertarianism takes - specifically on drug decriminalization. Paul would have had some problems unifying the GOP base had he won the nomination, and if he is the nominee in 2020 he will face that same problem.

The biggest problem for Paul would be interventionists within the party, because of his skepticism of U.S. military adventures around the world. That is the biggest complaint I hear from even libertarian-leaning Republicans who believe we as a nation have a moral obligation to project power in order to defend and promote our values around the world. When John McCain said back in 2013 that he would consider voting for Hillary Clinton over Paul, the fact that Clinton is much more willing than Paul to commit military forces was one of the main reasons behind that statement.

Paul is also going to have trouble convincing "law and order" types in the Republican base to vote for him in order to win a primary or to get them motivated in a general election. Republicans are very wary of candidates who are perceived as "soft on crime," and that label has been applied to Paul. He will need to convince Republican voters that he will be tough on crime while also making the case that overcriminalizing everything, unduly harsh punishments and restrictions on due process are actually anti-conservative positions that are unfair and give government too much power.

I would have voted for Paul in a femtosecond, and I will vote for him if he is the 2020 nominee, but he does face some challenges. Paul will need to overcome these challenges if he is going to be a serious contender for President of these United States in four years. Republicans who would love to see a President Paul cannot ignore or brush aside these challenges. If they want him to win (either the nomination or the Presidency) they must be realistic and not allow themselves to be blindsided by those challenges. Now is the time to start addressing them.

(0 Comments)

Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.

Comments:

Post a Comment


Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.