BUT CAN HE MAKE IT THROUGH A “REPUBLICAN” PRIMARY?
|| By FITSNEWS || U.S. senator Rand Paul of Kentucky touted his electability as a trio of new “Republican” presidential hopefuls officially entered the race.
According to a new Wall Street Journal/ NBC poll, Paul trails presumed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton by just four percentage points – 47-43 percent – in a hypothetical November 2016 matchup.
That’s the closest any “Republican” comes to Clinton – an “electability” case Paul supporters have been making for weeks.
“Rand Paul is the Republican candidate most likely to beat Hillary Clinton in a general election,” a statement from his campaign read.
That’s true … especially in so-called “swing states” (i.e. recently Democratic states) the GOP desperately needs to recapture.
For those of you keeping score at home, the WSJ/ NBC poll had Clinton beating former Florida governor Jeb Bush and U.S. senator Marco Rubio by identical six point margins (49-43 percent) and beating Wisconsin governor Scott Walker by a 50-40 percent margin.
Now … is a candidate’s ability to attract votes in a general election a good reason to support them in a primary?
This website mercilessly ripped the “electability” argument (ahem, myth) when it was advanced four years ago by eventual “Republican” nominee Mitt Romney. Of course to be fair, Paul makes a much better case for “electability” than Romney did. Romney’s electability argument was, well … bullsh*t.
But as much as we are ideologically inclined to like Paul, the more he strives to be more “electable,” the more he morphs (our opinion) into something he’s not. Or at least something he shouldn’t be.
Which is worth keeping an eye on …
Anyway, why is Paul pushing this narrative now? Easy: The GOP field doubled this week with the addition of retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. Their official entrances added to a slate already featuring Paul and his senatorial colleagues Rubio and Ted Cruz of Texas.