Daniel McCarthy

Why Marriage Isn’t About Reproduction Anymore

Rand Paul’s Anti-Drone Stand Makes Him a 2016 Contender

By Daniel McCarthy • April 3, 2013, 1:29 PM

dvande / Shutterstock.com

He’s now in second place among Republican 2016 prospects, according to a new poll from PPP. Before the filibuster, he was in sixth place. That protest against executive unaccountability and drone warfare not only changed the way Americans feel about drones but has begun to build a movement behind Senator Paul himself. Even apart from the fact I agree, or stand, with Rand on drones and presidential power, I’m impressed to see a Republican take a firm stand on an unpopular policy and turn public opinion by force of moral leadership. It’s been a long time since the GOP has tried that—moralizing yes, but that’s something else.

Here’s how the 2016 prospects look in PPP’s poll:

Marco Rubio continues to lead nationally, as he has on all four of our 2016 polls so far. He’s at 21% this month, basically the same as 22% the month before the State of the Union address. Rubio’s favorability of 62/10 is slightly better than 59/12 in early February. The whole water drinking episode hasn’t had any effect on his standing- nor has his stance on immigration reform.

The big move though has come from Paul. In early February he was in 6th place among Republican contenders at just 10%. Now he’s vaulted all the way up to 2nd place at 17%. Chris Christie is 3rd at 15% and Paul Ryan and Jeb Bush are tied for 4th at 12%.

Rick Santorum is at 5 percent. Bobby Jindal gets 4 percent. I’m a little surprised to see Paul Ryan doing relatively well—his latest budget didn’t get a warm welcome from the wonks, but then, that wouldn’t have much effect on voters, at least not yet.

Posted in Elections, Politics, War.

17 Responses to Rand Paul’s Anti-Drone Stand Makes Him a 2016 Contender

Nick says:

April 3, 2013 at 1:43 pm

Rubio is a puppet of Rave and Bill Kristol.

Rand Paul is nobody’s puppet.

Rand Paul 2016.

Balanced budgets in 5 years and no more wars.
Boris says:

April 3, 2013 at 1:56 pm

I think it would be very healthy for the whole country if Rand Paul were to win the Republican nomination in 2016. We could finally have the real debate that this country has been aching for. Unlike his father, he has not yet been marginalized to the point that he can be written off as a weirdo. In some ways he (and not opportunists and mediocrities like Bachmann and Perry) is the political embodiment of the Tea Party. Why not have a real referendum?

As an aside, I am certain that Paul would lose in Goldwateresque fashion, especially if the Democrats nominate Hillary. But even so, the debate would really, really help the country move forward in a constructive manner.
SDS says:

April 3, 2013 at 3:38 pm

Yes; I expect Paul would lose with a wide margin; as most Americans won’t want to lose their entitlements…but the debate, and public education; would be worth it….
Michael Powe says:

April 3, 2013 at 3:56 pm

OMG does anyone even care about his policy positions? I mean really. As a Democrat, of course I hope he or Rubio is the GOP nominee. Both endorse positions as popular as bad breath at a kissing booth. Neither has any idea how to get the economy moving. In fact, both are profoundly ignorant of the most basic elements of national economics. Both regard women as nothing but baby machines. Both endorse positions on firearms pre-cleared with the NRA and rejected by huge majorities of citizens. If Romney’s policy “clarifications” gave you whiplash, these two clowns will put you in a wheelchair.

The GOP needs a thorough house cleaning. It needs to stop promoting backbenchers in the hope that one of them will walk on water. It needs credible policy positions that are aligned with empirical reality. Schmoozing misogynistic climate deniers won’t get you there. As empirical observations ought to have verified for you by now.
mlindroos says:

April 3, 2013 at 4:19 pm

I largely agree with Michael Powe … the GOP won’t be able to win over a sufficient number of women and minorities just by fielding someone like Marco Rubio. Rand Paul is also an utterly conventional Southern Republican apart from some isolationist tendencies.

Things will change only when Republicans dare to elect their version of Bill Clinton … someone who is willing to tell voters he is vastly different from the party’s three previous nominees.
Noah172 says:

April 3, 2013 at 4:37 pm

Rand Paul is no Ron Paul: comprehensive/amnesty endorsement, free trade, sugarcoating his foreign policy views with expressions of love for America’s Most Important Ally(tm). There are plenty of other “mainstream” suck-ups out there. We need a bold, blunt-speaking leader.
Henri James says:

April 3, 2013 at 4:43 pm

I think Rand’s statements on drones do a lot to appeal him to democrats, moderates and certain classes of republican. A lot of people who are big supporters of the president are uncomfortable with how the US uses drones and how quickly discussions of drone use seem to be squelched. They just aren’t uncomfortable enough to really turn on Obama, even in their own minds.
Come a general election, the times when liberals felt more represented by Rand than by their own democratic president won’t be forgotten. It won’t win him an election, but it will open the door to a lot of people who would otherwise never consider voting republican.
Jose79845 says:

April 3, 2013 at 11:31 pm

Rand Paul has to turn into a bit of an idiot in order to get the Republican nomination. After that he can swing to the libertarian side to beat Hillary or whoever the Democrats put up.
WorkingClass says:

April 4, 2013 at 1:38 am

Paul’s appeal reaches far beyond the Republican Party. Politically active Libertarians and Independents and even Naderites like me want an end of Imperial wars and an end to the War On Drugs. There are many of us non-Republicans ready to back a Candidate who will finally reign in the Imperial Presidency.

And the working poor are far more numerous and no where near as stupid and shiftless as you think we are. Paul doesn’t offer any stuff. But he wants us to be free and he wants to bring our rulers under the same laws we must obey. And we need an economy that provides work and wages not war and welfare.

In a national election Paul would be seen as a populist. Don’t underestimate him.
Mightypeon says:

April 4, 2013 at 7:09 am

I think there are other things working potentially in Mr. Pauls favor:

1: The actuall left may very well consider foreign wars and the drug war to be the greater evil compared to Mr. Pauls views on the economy and thus hold their nose and vote Paul
2: This would means that whoever is the democrat candidate has to actually cover his left flank. In other elections, the republican candidate did that for him. A lot of people voted not for Obama but against Romney.
Such moving to the left would propably open additional gains for Paul in the center, and since such moving is not simple, you could end up with the Democratic candidate doing mistakes. Such mistakes become ever more likely the more the democratic candidate is out of touch with the country.
3: Rand Paul may still get votes of Ron Paul supporters that dont actually like him at all. Ron Paul for example was one of the few politicians that treated the occupy movement with some measure of respect (Obama teargassed the hell out of them, something they vividly remember), name recognition will count a fair bit here I guess.
Tim D. says:

April 4, 2013 at 7:51 am

Rand Paul’s views on foreign policy are appealing across the political spectrum, but I don’t see how well it’ll do for him on a presidential race since domestic issues trump everything else. For example, libertarian economic policies often eschew the excesses of capitalism and ignore the obvious fact that the entire US economy is geared towards big business.

In order to secure the nomination though, Paul will probably be forced to adopt orthodox Republican fiscal policies: paying for wars on credit cards, tax cuts for the rich, etc. We’ll hear more too about the evils of big government.

In other words, more of the same, essentially. I wonder how many more elections it’ll take before Republicans realize that the tune they have been beating to for the past 20+ years isn’t working. Also, I wonder how long it’ll take before the party comes out of the closet and admits that they too love big government.
PMMDJ says:

April 4, 2013 at 8:26 am

To secure the Republican nomination, he will have to adopt too many stances that will lose the votes of the moderates in the middle. And honestly, there’s no reason to think he really *is* that moderate in the first place.

He’ll tack to the right, like every other Republican nominee seeking the big chair, and thusly manage to secure the white Southern male block that is the new normal for Republicans. There simply aren’t enough libertarian votes to add to that to make a winning majority.
CK says:

April 4, 2013 at 11:33 am

Peace wins presidential elections.
ksatifka says:

April 4, 2013 at 2:54 pm

Whatever happened to Chris Christie (not mentioned by any prior commenters)? It was Ann Coulter who said (paraphrased) that without Christie as the nominee the GOP would choose Romney and lose. Is Christie now anathema to the GOP because he shmoozed with Obama after Sandy? (No, he did not cost Romney the election.) Granted he needs to lose mucho weight to be a factor.

When it comes to Rubio, he seems to me to be another, though younger and more telegenic, version of McCain, anxious to get the US into more insane neocon wars. I hope I’m wrong about this, but it sure seems so today. Rand Paul would be a bold statement by the GOP, but I’m old enough to remember Goldwater in ’64.
Dimitry Aleksandrovich says:

April 4, 2013 at 6:16 pm

If Rand Paul remains outside the neoconservative camp he won’t be nominated for anything. Not as long as neocons talking heads are still supposedly representing the majority of “conservatives” in America.
EliteCommInc. says:

April 4, 2013 at 11:41 pm

I am still a fan of Gov. Chris Christie.

While I appreciate Sen. Paul’s position on done usage against US citizens, especially in country. There’a a long way to go before the next election and his immigration, and drug positions have yet to be meted out.
Charlieford says:

April 7, 2013 at 2:25 pm

Rand Paul didn’t address drone strikes per se. He objected to drone strikes against American citizens on American soil.

So if that’s your concern, by all means, you’re welcome to him.

As for his popularity, I suspect it’s got a lot more to do with his visibly taking it to Obama at the depth of the Republican post-2012 doldrums.