A while back Ross Douthat published a column claiming that the Democrats didn't have anyone but Hillary for president. It was an odd column given that most Democrat voters seemed to prefer anyone other than Hillary last time they were given a choice. He might have been better served to focus on his own team, which really does have only one viable choice. As Rand Paul's recent article in the Wall Street Journal makes clear, he is the only Republican presidential candidate with any chance of winning in 2016. He has resolutely repudiated the Bush legacy in Iraq and in doing so has hacked out a way forward for his party. Any Republican candidate unwilling to do this will never win a presidential election because the failure of the Bush policies in Iraq was so complete and so toxic. Paul is the only candidate to put adequate distance between himself and the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld debacle. While this isn't a sufficient condition for presidential electoral success it is a necessary one.
A head to head match up between Rand Paul and Hillary would be much closer than Democrats understand at present and may not end up in their favor. He can be demonized is certain ways, primarily thanks to his father's long record of intemperate outbursts, but he cannot be dismissed as Bush III.
What does being White have to do with it?
ReplyDeleteI don't see him increasing the black or hispanic vote for the Republicans, in large part because of his father's history. But, he could be much more attractive to working class white voters than Romney was. I think he will distance himself from the finance/big business wing of the party, who have nowhere to go, and try to appeal more to the working/middle class white voters. The Democrats, who are the worst left-wing party on the planet, appear to give no serious thought to the plight of working people. With the correct approach Rand Paul could mop up a lot of white Democrats and independents who general vote Democrat.
ReplyDelete