Chris Cillizza:
You might have heard that Rand Paul has officially entered the presidential race.
"I have a vision for America," the GOP senator from Kentucky said, kicking off his campaign in Louisville on Tuesday. "I want to be part of a return to prosperity."
The announcement surprised no one since Paul has made clear for the better part of the past two years that he was going to run for president in 2016. But his announcement is a nice peg to try to answer this key question: Can he actually win?
The answer, I think, is yes -- although to do so Paul would not only need to overcome a crowded and talented field of rivals but also be on the leading edge of a transformation of the Republican Party, the likes of which we haven't seen in more than three decades.
Nate Cohn:
The libertarians remain too young and too few to present Senator Paul with a realistic path to the nomination. He has to win over a much larger share of more reliable Republican primary voters, who will have considerable reservations about Mr. Paul’s policies. The other problem he faces: Many of the voters most receptive to libertarian views tend not to vote.
More politics and policy below the fold.
Roger Simon:
There is a poison pill inside the Republican Party and if its presidential hopefuls keep swallowing it, they are going to choke off their chances for the White House.
The religious right has managed to convince some potential candidates that it is extremely powerful. It has convinced the more gullible ones that they must grovel, kowtow and genuflect before it.
This is nonsense. As I have written before, the religious right has not gotten the nominee it has wanted since Ronald Reagan. It is a paper tiger.
And by taking the poison pill that the religious right offers, the potential candidates risk alienating the rest of the nation.
Not my favorite pundit, but
Jennifer Rubin gives you an idea of the challenges Rand faces... from Republicans:
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) kicks off his presidential campaign today. As a freshman senator with no significant legislative accomplishment and a history of association with ideological extremists (his father, for one) and who is thin-skinned and oblivious to the threat from Iran, he bears an uncanny resemblance to the junior senator from Illinois who ran for president in 2008. And like President Obama, he benefits from lackadaisical reporting and sloppy analysis. Let’s take a look at 10 things pundits get wrong about Paul:
Greg Sargent on Iran:
[Scott] Walker’s attack is a reminder that Republicans continue to frame their opposition to any Iran deal in narrow terms — I pledge to stick it to Obama and undo his capitulation to Iran on Day One!!! — when in fact the talks also involve major allies, meaning all sorts of consequences could result from blowing up an international deal to which they are parties. Obama’s response did hint at the general idea that recklessly undermining our agreements with other countries would “embolden our enemies.”
It’s in this contrast that the outlines of the 2016 argument can be discerned. In her statement indicating support for the emerging Iran framework, Hillary Clinton did say that the devil will be in the details of a final deal. But she unequivocally endorsed the idea that a negotiated diplomatic settlement between the U.S., Iran, and the “major world powers” is the best way to achieve the goal of blocking Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon and strengthening the national security of both the U.S. and Israel.
Politifact:
Has Gov. Rick Scott changed his mind on Medicaid again? In 2012, Scott said he was against expansion. In 2013 he said he was for it. Now, he says he’s against it. Or does he?
PolitiFact Florida decided to put Scott’s position on expanding Medicaid on our Flip-O-Meter, to document whether he has changed position. Let’s follow Scott’s path over the past few years.
Pew:
Democrats hold advantages in party identification among blacks, Asians, Hispanics, well-educated adults and Millennials. Republicans have leads among whites – particularly white men, those with less education and evangelical Protestants – as well as members of the Silent Generation.
A new analysis of long-term trends in party affiliation among the public provides a detailed portrait of where the parties stand among various groups in the population. It draws on more than 25,000 interviews conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2014, which allows examination of partisan affiliation across even relatively small racial, ethnic, educational and income subgroups.