Let's face it, if Libertarians really had THAT much political heft, Ron Paul wouldn't be running for a nomination he can't win in the primary of a party he doesn't belong in.
Rand Paul's spotlight-stealing father, Ron, announced he was officially running for president today, meaning in the last two days two old career politicians made an announcement I already thought they'd made to try to win the nomination of a party that's spent the last two years running career politicians out of town on a rail.
But Paul's no Newt Gingrich. While Newt clings tight to the old-time "conservativism" - Paul's a libertarian. Like a real one, not a Republican that didn't feel like calling themselves that anymore after 8 years of George Bush. You know who I'm talking about.
Then again, Paul holds office as a Republican. And is running for president not as a Libertarian, but as a Republican. Oddly, that's his biggest political problem.
Paul's likes include pocket-sized constitutions, winning straw polls, and, based on what I learned in the South Carolina Fox debate, the legalization of heroin. Oh, and running for President. His dislikes include doing particularly well in those elections. In 2008, he sought the GOP nomination, winning no states and garnering only 1.6% of the delegates at the GOP convention.
I will give him this - he makes the debate interesting. It's not the same old boilerplate god, gays, guns and geficit geduction you get from some of the more viable mainstream GOP candidates. Personally, his libertarianism tends to border on anarchism for my taste, but among those who do like him, they really, really, REALLY like him. The presence of his people at the debate was noticeable, and as I mentioned, his organization seems to specialize in winning straw polls.
Electorally is a somewhat different story. Here's Paul's performance in the last 10 publicly released polls of the GOP field:
PPP (5/10) - 8%
CNN (5/1) - 10%
Quinn (5/1) - 10%
Fox (4/27) - 7%
Ras (4/26) - 8%
Gallup (4/20) - 6%
ABC (4/17) - 2% - open ended
McClatchy (4/14) - 7%
According to PPP, the field in which Paul fares best is one devoid of Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump. Even then, he only tops out at 12%. Removing Sarah Palin and running the "leaner, meaner GOP primary" model that still may be the best bet of how things shake out, he gets 8%, finishing a point behind Michelle Bachmann, who also won't win the nomination.
Paul's best chance of getting some national traction is easy (in theory) - do well in the early primary states of Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Nevada. I'm not sure he'll say anything at the debates that will cause masses of GOP primary voters to flock to him (in fact, the opposite may be more likely), so he'll have to win it where it counts. So, how's he doing in those states?
In Iowa, Paul gets 6% in PPP's "whole field" poll, topping out at 16% in a scenario involving just him, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, and Tim Pawlenty. Of course, with only five choices, it's understandable his numbers go up. I'll put it this way - there's no scenario by which I can see him finishing first or second in Iowa. He seems more suited for a maverick-state like New Hampshire, doesn't he?
Maybe not. In fact, he seems to do worse in New Hampshire than he does in Iowa. PPP DOES have him finishing second to Romney in one of their permutations, but he doesn't ever crack 20% in any of their polling there. In most of the fields tested, his New Hampshire numbers are like his national numbers - poking into the teens on occasion, but mostly stuck right around 10%.
It's much the same story in Nevada or South Carolina. Paul seems to be one of those candidates who will always get his couple of percentage points, but when push comes to shove, his appeal, at least among the group of folks who vote in Republican primaries, is limited.
Here's Paul's inTrade tale of the tape:
2.8% chance of winning the GOP nomination (sell!)
1.3% chance to win the presidency (sell!)
35% chance to win the Ames, Iowa straw poll (buy!)
I don't mean to come across as overly harsh on the guy. His point of view is one that folks should be exposed to, and as I mentioned, he spices up the GOP conversation by offering a point of view that few others articulate as well as him (and this includes his son, who wears Libertarianism like an 8 year old trying on his dad's shoes). But there's just not enough votes there. The Teapublicans may whoop and holler when Paul talks about doing away with government this or government that and "getting back to the constitution." But when social conservatives realize what that means about gay marriage, drug legalization, and the military, the act wears thin quick.