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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.