Why Rand Paul Is Not the “2016 GOP Front-Runner,” in One Chart

[DonViejo]

By David Weigel

You frequently see trial heats of a 2016 Republican primary come out with numbers like 16 percent for Rand Paul and 15 percent for Chris Christie. The headlines turn out like this: "Rand Paul is 2016 GOP front-runner," or "Rand Paul is 2016 Man to Beat." This often feels like an overstating of poll numbers that can be explained by margins of error.

I'm fond of this question in the new University of New Hampshire poll, and what it reveals about the acuity of polling 18 months before the primary.



Thirty-nine percent is exactly what Romney got in the 2012 primary—when Rep. Ron Paul scored a strong 23 percent, for second place. No one thinks that Romney will run again, but if you want to analyze these numbers at all, you have to see that 1) voters have not tuned in yet and 2) it's naive to think that Rand Paul starts a 2016 race with all of his father's support to build on.

###

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/07/11/why_rand_paul_is_not_the_2016_gop_frontrunner_in_one_chart.html

[newfie11]

1. What a list of losers nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. Hey ...

They left off the Mad Doctor Carson's name out of the poll!

[Historic NY]

3. You know its bad for you when they'd rather have a 2-time loser..

[nxylas]

6. You know the definition of insanity

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

[Rhiannon12866]

11. Thank you! My thoughts exactly!

[Cosmocat]

4. He's a smug, self entitled halfwit, but

he is one of their primary "front runners."

IDK if Romney will gin himself up for another run, even though in the moment it seems he has some polling strength, as you noted, people just haven't tuned in, and you have to believe two time loser's bottom falls out pretty easy once the party elements start to coalesce around their initial candidates.

I don't like the rat faced shit heel one bit, but I do think he takes on his father's base and builds on it.

Like it or not, name is the game in politics, and locally or nationally, you see, repeatedly, sons of big name pols going past where their father was.

He walked into a senate seat being a clownshow, starting out ahead of dad from day one.

One lesson I have sadly learned, do NOT underestimate the stupidity of the American voter.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. He's seen as a self parody in most of the country.

He got elected in one State, not in America. Most of America has no idea what he says because they are too amused by how he looks, talks and behaves. He might seem to have 'gravitas' in the South, but to most of the country he's a cartoon character. Smarmy, poorly kempt and self important.
And let's not forget the fact that his father never won a single State in his own Party Primaries. His father's 'base' is and was very small, comprised of people lacking in the ability to communicate to a larger public. 3 time loser Ron Paul's first run got him .5% of the vote. His best result ever came after his second failure, during his third attempt to get his own Party to vote for him. 2012 NH primary he came in second to Romney. Romney beat him by 15%.

[Cosmocat]

8. Yeah

Pretty much everything you posted could be said about W ...

Look, I am not saying he is a monster, and again, I find him repulsive personally.

I am just saying that people are flat stupid come election time, and he has enough name that from his father to be a viable contender.

[savalez]

9. "Halfwit Mitt"

No that's a bumper sticker!

[Gothmog]

7. Rand Paul has no chance of being elected

Rand and his daddy are hated by the GOP donor class. There is no way that Rand Paul will be the nominee

[anti partisan]

10. Mittens 2016

Bring on the Willard, again! It worked so well the first time. Seriously, do these guys ever learn? Yeah I get it, this article didn't talk about him running again but the buzz is that he very well may, and it looks like he could have an easy path to victory.