What states can Rand win in 2016?

[compromise]

What states do you think Rand Paul has a good chance of winning in and what states do you think he doesn't have a good chance of winning in?

I think:
Extremely high chance of winning: Minnesota, Maine
Very high chance of winning: Kentucky, Louisiana, Vermont
High chance of winning: Iowa, North Dakota, Alaska
Moderate chance of winning: New Hampshire, Virginia
Low chance of winning: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania
Very low chance of winning: Florida

Of course this depends on who else is running, but Ron Paul's results in 2012 (and possibly also Santorum's) can allow us to make some guesses.

[69360]

Primary or general?

He has to win IA and NH in the primary or it's game over.

[Bastiat's The Law]

IA, NH, NV are all very high probabilities. Iowa probably presents our best chance to win a state.

SC is moderate.

FL is virtually impossible, unless Rand steamrolls IA, NH, SC then it becomes more of a toss up.

[supermario21]

I think he can do well in Ohio if he turns out SE Ohio. The Republican base in Southern Ohio is also very close to Kentucky and he might be able to do well there, although Santorum would be the early favorite there if he ran.

[KingNothing]

All of them.

:D

[jcannon98188]

None of them. Unless something changed grassroots was castrated by the GOP. Their will put up Rubio or someone who will steamroll everything.

[Brett85]

None of them unless he can get the Kentucky law changed to allow him to run for two offices at once.

[DylanWaco]

I'd say Rand has zero chance in SC, unless the rest of the crop are northeastern Republicans.

If you he can't win Iowa he'll be finished. Really there is no excuse for him not to win Iowa

[libertyfanatic]

I'd say Rand has zero chance in SC, unless the rest of the crop are northeastern Republicans.

If you he can't win Iowa he'll be finished. Really there is no excuse for him not to win Iowa

Voter fraud

[mz10]

The liberty movement is very strong and well-organized in Massachusetts, he may not win here but he's gonna get quite a few bound delegates.

[eleganz]

Not winning Iowa and New Hampshire is unacceptable for 2016. It was unacceptable this year for Ron as well.

[whoisjohngalt]

The liberty movement is very strong and well-organized in Massachusetts, he may not win here but he's gonna get quite a few bound delegates.

The new GOP rules prevent you from getting bound delegates if you don't win if I'm not mistaken?

[whoisjohngalt]

None of them unless he can get the Kentucky law changed to allow him to run for two offices at once.

Kentucky's primary is sometime in May. He will have plenty of time to bow out and run for Senate if the POTUS campaign isn't going as expected.

[Southerner]

...
He has to win IA and NH in the primary or it's game over.

I disagree. While that may be true for your "ordinary" GOP candidate, (because of MONEY) I think Rand can lose IA, NH, SC & FL... as long as he places at least 2nd to 4th in all of those, He can still be nominated. Just imagine how many states RON could have won or got 2nd in, if he had not taken his foot off the accelerator after SC in 2012. jmho

[eleganz]

The new GOP rules prevent you from getting bound delegates if you don't win if I'm not mistaken?

The theory is since it was a sham convention none of the new rules count. Which makes sense. What better way to discourage an entire movement than to make them think the rules are favored against them?

[mello]

Two things need to happen:

1st) We need to get enough people in charge at the local & state levels to prevent getting screwed over by insiders gaming the system.

2nd) We need to try to get rid of as many electronic voting booths as possible & switch them over to paper ballots so there can be a physical record of the vote.

[Keith and stuff]

Guessing right now, I'd say quite a few. Perhaps most of the Southern states outside of FL. Much of the Midwest and some of the West. Maybe more. It depends on a bunch of factors like which candidates run and how well he does in the early states. Being tied with the Tea Party will hurt him in the Northeast where the Tea Party isn't popular but maybe help him in the Southeast.

[RickyJ]

Very low chance of winning: FloridaIn the general election he must win Florida or he has no chance. If you really think his chances of winning Florida are low, then that has to change before 2016 or we need someone else to run.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I disagree. While that may be true for your "ordinary" GOP candidate, (because of MONEY) I think Rand can lose IA, NH, SC & FL... as long as he places at least 2nd to 4th in all of those, He can still be nominated. Just imagine how many states RON could have won or got 2nd in, if he had not taken his foot off the accelerator after SC in 2012. jmho
That's not how it works. You have to build momentum and be a proven winner to prevail and be taken seriously by the media and voters. Nobody likes swimming next to a drowning man.

[Bastiat's The Law]

The theory is since it was a sham convention none of the new rules count. Which makes sense. What better way to discourage an entire movement than to make them think the rules are favored against them?
I agree 100%. They wanted to discourage the grassroots into leaving with their tail between their legs. The answer isn't to give up, but to double our efforts and fight even harder!

[Bastiat's The Law]

In the general election he must win Florida or he has no chance. If you really think his chances of winning Florida are low, then that has to change before 2016 or we need someone else to run.
We're talking republican primary. OP didn't put that in the thread title .

[loveableteddybear]

He has to win Iowa and New Hampshire, or he will be ignored. He CAN do it. Being that people down South are just plain stupid, if he starts pandering to them now, he can do better in SC. The war is not going to be an issue by 2016, so the things SC hate about Ron Paul will not be issues.

[mz10]

The new GOP rules prevent you from getting bound delegates if you don't win if I'm not mistaken?

Not true, the reason Romney got all of the bound delegates is because he won 71% of the vote, which was expected given that it was his home state. Had another candidate received a certain percentage (not sure what the number is), he would have received delegates.

[eleganz]

I disagree. While that may be true for your "ordinary" GOP candidate, (because of MONEY) I think Rand can lose IA, NH, SC & FL... as long as he places at least 2nd to 4th in all of those, He can still be nominated. Just imagine how many states RON could have won or got 2nd in, if he had not taken his foot off the accelerator after SC in 2012. jmho

No offense but I hope nobody takes this post seriously.

Things just don't work this way.

[Southerner]

If I wasn't serious, I wouldn't have bothered typing it. You disagree, fine. First, I think that Rand could win in all 3 of the first states. I also think he could come in 2nd or lower, and still have a chance after not winning any of the 3. Its highly unlikely, but possible. I preface all of this really not knowing what the future holds. If the economy is, by some miracle, much better in 2016, then whomever the democratic nominee is WILL WIN THE WHITE HOUSE, no matter who the GOP nominee is. (Especially if its Hillary) I say this because the majority of people are ignorant low information voters, and give all credit, or all blame mostly to whomever is President. The MEDIA will always be on the side of the democratic party, and that makes winning an uphill battle for any GOPster. The GOP has NEVER nominated a true "conservative" post Goldwater, and I'm not holding my hopes out that it ever will again. That doesn't mean that I can't do everything in my power to TRY to make it happen. To attempt to say what states Rand HAS to win in a primary 4 years out is fun and all, but a stab in the dark. He has to win a majority of the delegates. Period.

[mz10]

If I wasn't serious, I wouldn't have bothered typing it. You disagree, fine. First, I think that Rand could win in all 3 of the first states. I also think he could come in 2nd or lower, and still have a chance after not winning any of the 3. Its highly unlikely, but possible. I preface all of this really not knowing what the future holds. If the economy is, by some miracle, much better in 2016, then whomever the democratic nominee is WILL WIN THE WHITE HOUSE, no matter who the GOP nominee is. (Especially if its Hillary) I say this because the majority of people are ignorant low information voters, and give all credit, or all blame mostly to whomever is President. The MEDIA will always be on the side of the democratic party, and that makes winning an uphill battle for any GOPster. The GOP has NEVER nominated a true "conservative" post Goldwater, and I'm not holding my hopes out that it ever will again. That doesn't mean that I can't do everything in my power to TRY to make it happen. To attempt to say what states Rand HAS to win in a primary 4 years out is fun and all, but a stab in the dark. He has to win a majority of the delegates. Period.

I agree that there are no absolutes. If Rand is consistently placing second to, say, Rubio, and then Rubio gets into some kind of scandal, Rand would be in pretty good position. But barring an event like that, Rand has to win one of the first three states. That's just the way the nominating process works. Also, Reagan was a true conservative when he was nominated, so much so that he had a vigorous supporter by the name of Ron Paul.

[supermario21]

It also wouldn't hurt us if we had a few soap opera candidates like Cain and Bachmann. I remember seeing a Ron interview where he said his biggest jump in support came after Cain dropped out. We need to make sure we can sew up the "everyone but frontrunner" types because I see us as probably 3rd or 4th in line behind Rubio, Ryan, or Christie.

[XTreat]

With Tom Davis in the senate helping, a SC win in the primary is doable. That could possibly sweep the first three states, except maybe if Christie runs he will probably take NH.

In the general IA, VI, OH, KY, NH, WI, MI, swing states are all very winnable probably.

[Galileo Galilei]

I'd say Rand has zero chance in SC, unless the rest of the crop are northeastern Republicans.

If you he can't win Iowa he'll be finished. Really there is no excuse for him not to win Iowa

Watch out for Huckabee in Iowa. I would not be surprised if Huckabee is sent out against Rand to win Iowa. Huckabee has a lot of followers because of his national TV show on Fox.

The only way to beat Huckabee is to sell Rand like Romney was sold, convince voters that Huckabee can't win in the long run. That's might not be easy.

[anaconda]

Let's see...which ones did Reagan win in 1980? :D

[anaconda]

Watch out for Huckabee in Iowa. I would not be surprised if Huckabee is sent out against Rand to win Iowa. Huckabee has a lot of followers because of his national TV show on Fox.

The only way to beat Huckabee is to sell Rand like Romney was sold, convince voters that Huckabee can't win in the long run. That's might not be easy.

The Huckster should be an easy target for negative ads.

[compromise]

Watch out for Huckabee in Iowa. I would not be surprised if Huckabee is sent out against Rand to win Iowa. Huckabee has a lot of followers because of his national TV show on Fox.

The only way to beat Huckabee is to sell Rand like Romney was sold, convince voters that Huckabee can't win in the long run. That's might not be easy.

Won't Huck want to stick with his FOX show instead of going for another presidential run?

[Bastiat's The Law]

With Tom Davis in the senate helping, a SC win in the primary is doable. That could possibly sweep the first three states, except maybe if Christie runs he will probably take NH.

In the general IA, VI, OH, KY, NH, WI, MI, swing states are all very winnable probably.
I'm not sure Christie's Jersey appeal will translate to NH. Romney did being Gov of Massachusetts and having residence in NH. I could see Rand taking first and Christie second and being out of the race after that.

[Galileo Galilei]

Won't Huck want to stick with his FOX show instead of going for another presidential run?

He might, but they have ways of prompting people.

[Galileo Galilei]

The Huckster should be an easy target for negative ads.

Yeah, but will the evangelicals care or believe them?

[FSP-Rebel]

Yeah, but will the evangelicals care or believe them?
Hopefully the shape this country will be in in a few short years will be enough for the average republican to realize the urgency and the dire need for a true fiscal conservative as the nominee since the election will lean our way. Rand has to explain to the baby boomers and seniors how screwed they're gonna be if we don't cut spending with a meat hook and free up the private sector to open jobs for the youth to prosper and keep the game going. The easiest fix the establishment will have is curtailing or outright doing away with health care for those that are past their prime.

[Brett85]

Hopefully the shape this country will be in in a few short years will be enough for the average republican to realize the urgency and the dire need for a true fiscal conservative as the nominee since the election will lean our way. Rand has to explain to the baby boomers and seniors how screwed they're gonna be if we don't cut spending with a meat hook and free up the private sector to open jobs for the youth to prosper and keep the game going. The easiest fix the establishment will have is curtailing or outright doing away with health care for those that are past their prime.

Will the 2016 election really lean our way when President Obama has a 58% approval rating and the polls show that the American people agree with the Democrats on basically every single issue? It just seems like the American people have taken a sharp turn to the left to me. This certainly is not a "center-right" country anymore.

[FSP-Rebel]

Will the 2016 election really lean our way when President Obama has a 58% approval rating and the polls show that the American people agree with the Democrats on basically every single issue? It just seems like the American people have taken a sharp turn to the left to me. This certainly is not a "center-right" country anymore.
He's only at a high rate now because of the shooting that is being broadcast ad infinitum. We certainly were a center-right country in his first mid-terms and more than likely will be in 2 years. If the GOP continues to go on defense then we'll get steamrolled. The likes of Boehner and his ilk are clearly pissing off the base and the rino picks for prez have a dampening effect. As we grow our ranks in the party, coalition-build, team up with nat'l conservative/Tea Party orgs to improve the footprint in the House/Senate then we can get the candidate we need for 2016 to prove the GOP isn't the corporate and warmongering party that doesn't care about the average guy.

[alucard13mmfmj]

Punch up and Punch down. Don't underestimate ANY opponent (like ignoring and not punching down Santorum).

[Keith and stuff]

I'm not sure Christie's Jersey appeal will translate to NH. Romney did being Gov of Massachusetts and having residence in NH. I could see Rand taking first and Christie second and being out of the race after that.

Everyday Rand continues to associate with the Tea Party hurts him in NH. The Tea Party isn't even popular with the majority of Republicans in New England because it is so associated with social conservatism. The again, while undeclared voters voted heavily in favor of Ron Paul because of his stances on things like War, that may not help Rand either. If Rand doesn't win IA, he might do worse among undeclared voters in NH than Ron Paul did. Those 2 issues may not be as important because if the Democratic Primary is very competitive, many of the more moderate undeclared voters might vote in the Democratic Primary.

NH might very well be a crowded field in 2016. I think it had around 30 candidates in 2012, maybe there will be 40 in 2016. It seems too hard to predict how NH will go right now. Rand will need to work very hard and spend a lot of money to take 1st in NH.

[mz10]

Everyday Rand continues to associate with the Tea Party hurts him in NH. The Tea Party isn't even popular with the majority of Republicans in New England because it is so associated with social conservatism. The again, while undeclared voters voted heavily in favor of Ron Paul because of his stances on things like War, that may not help Rand either. If Rand doesn't win IA, he might do worse among undeclared voters in NH than Ron Paul did. Those 2 issues may not be as important because if the Democratic Primary is very competitive, many of the more moderate undeclared voters might vote in the Democratic Primary.

NH might very well be a crowded field in 2016. I think it had around 30 candidates in 2012, maybe there will be 40 in 2016. It seems too hard to predict how NH will go right now. Rand will need to work very hard and spend a lot of money to take 1st in NH.

And quite frankly, war seems kind of popular with NH voters, given the performances of Ayotte and McCain.

[anaconda]

Yeah, but will the evangelicals care or believe them?

People believe advertizing. They are sheep. If I recall, the Huckster was a big government spender, paroled some violent criminal that he got a lot of egg on his face over, and had more than his share of ethics violation accusations. Look how easy it was to take down Gingrich with a little bit of focus and ad buys.

On the other hand, money doesn't grow on trees (at least, not for anti-establishment candidates).

[eleganz]

Everyday Rand continues to associate with the Tea Party hurts him in NH. The Tea Party isn't even popular with the majority of Republicans in New England because it is so associated with social conservatism. The again, while undeclared voters voted heavily in favor of Ron Paul because of his stances on things like War, that may not help Rand either. If Rand doesn't win IA, he might do worse among undeclared voters in NH than Ron Paul did. Those 2 issues may not be as important because if the Democratic Primary is very competitive, many of the more moderate undeclared voters might vote in the Democratic Primary.

NH might very well be a crowded field in 2016. I think it had around 30 candidates in 2012, maybe there will be 40 in 2016. It seems too hard to predict how NH will go right now. Rand will need to work very hard and spend a lot of money to take 1st in NH.

Well let's hope Rand has a great debate performance and our grassroots gets on the phone from home system and really drive the truth home.

We could win this, afterall, Rand has Ron's name recognition.

[Keith and stuff]

And quite frankly, war seems kind of popular with NH voters, given the performances of Ayotte and McCain.

I am not sure what Ayotte had to do with war in 2010. She was a Republican. She had been AG under both Republican and Democratic governors and had been known as a centrist. Since she was known as a centrist and it was a Republican year, she easily won.

McCain lost in NH, partly because people were so against Bush, and much of that was due to war. Many (maybe most) of the anti-war/pro-peace voters will be participating of the Democratic Primary in 2016, though. They likely wouldn't help Rand Paul, anyway. You never know though.

[mz10]

I am not sure what Ayotte had to do with war in 2010. She was a Republican. She had been AG under both Republican and Democratic governors and had been known as a centrist. Since she was known as a centrist and it was a Republican year, she easily won.

McCain lost in NH, partly because people were so against Bush, and much of that was due to war. Many (maybe most) of the anti-war/pro-peace voters will be participating of the Democratic Primary in 2016, though. They likely wouldn't help Rand Paul, anyway. You never know though.

Good point about Ayotte. As for McCain, I was referring to his primary performances in NH, he won in both 2000 and 2008.

Honestly, I think a lot of people from my side of the border are defecting, which makes NH a lot more difficult. The more Deval raises taxes, the more refugees you're going to see.

[Keith and stuff]

Good point about Ayotte. As for McCain, I was referring to his primary performances in NH, he won in both 2000 and 2008.

Honestly, I think a lot of people from my side of the border are defecting, which makes NH a lot more difficult. The more Deval raises taxes, the more refugees you're going to see.

McCain campaigned as a centrist, so he did well in NH. He didn't talk about religion much (it is a big mistake to talk about religion in NH) and had moderate policies which he championed to bring up, like campaign finance reform. I remember, the media called him Maverick. It also helped that he is a war hero. 40% of the electorate is undeclared in NH. That might be less than MA but it is a larger amount, and they are able to vote in either primary.

With Amazon now charging sales taxes in MA, that is going to further help NH businesses in Seabrook, Hampton, Salem, Derry, Hudson, Nashua and Rindge. NH is more socially liberal than it used to be and slightly less fiscally conservative (but even the NH Democrats are still against both a sales tax and an income tax). This is partially because of Masshole refugees. Overall, it is a good think. NH gets the more socially conservative GOP folks from MA. They move to NH and tend to vote GOP. NH also gets the more Fiscally moderate Democrats. They move to NH and vote for moderate Democrats. The problem is the refugees from NJ and NY (but that's a different story.)

It's great because most of the free staters in NH who run for office run as either socially tolerant Republicans or fiscally conservative Democrats. And frequently, we win. The only problem is, we need more free staters. More than half of the free staters who have run for state rep. in NH as Republicans or Democrats have made it through the primary and been elected in the general election. I think 35 to 37 have run and 19 to 20 have won. That's pretty good odds. But we need 80 or more to run every cycle. I don't think that will happen until a few years after we reach 20,000 signers, though. However, I was told a group to encourage free staters, Ron Paul supporters, Gary Johnson supports and other libertarian types to run for state rep. is forming in NH right now. Things just keep getting better.

[mz10]

McCain campaigned as a centrist, so he did well in NH. He didn't talk about religion much (it is a big mistake to talk about religion in NH) and had moderate policies which he championed to bring up, like campaign finance reform. I remember, the media called him Maverick. It also helped that he is a war hero. 40% of the electorate is undeclared in NH. That might be less than MA but it is a larger amount, and they are able to vote in either primary.

With Amazon now charging sales taxes in MA, that is going to further help NH businesses in Seabrook, Hampton, Salem, Derry, Hudson, Nashua and Rindge. NH is more socially liberal than it used to be and slightly less fiscally conservative (but even the NH Democrats are still against both a sales tax and an income tax). This is partially because of Masshole refugees. Overall, it is a good think. NH gets the more socially conservative GOP folks from MA. They move to NH and tend to vote GOP. NH also gets the more Fiscally moderate Democrats. They move to NH and vote for moderate Democrats. The problem is the refugees from NJ and NY (but that's a different story.)

It's great because most of the free staters in NH who run for office run as either socially tolerant Republicans or fiscally conservative Democrats. And frequently, we win. The only problem is, we need more free staters. More than half of the free staters who have run for state rep. in NH as Republicans or Democrats have made it through the primary and been elected in the general election. I think 35 to 37 have run and 19 to 20 have won. That's pretty good odds. But we need 80 or more to run every cycle. I don't think that will happen until a few years after we reach 20,000 signers, though. However, I was told a group to encourage free staters, Ron Paul supporters, Gary Johnson supports and other libertarian types to run for state rep. is forming in NH right now. Things just keep getting better.

The weird thing about Mass politics is that a lot of the people here (at least in my part of the state) are not all that fiscally liberal. There are so many reasons why Democrats win (better turnout operations, people voting on social issues, etc.), but the government is more liberal than the people, so there is a definite market for fiscal conservatism. Problem is the Mass GOP has been so inept for so long that it basically has to do a 180. You're right that those are a lot of the people we're losing to New Hampshire, the fiscal conservatives who are fed up with the one party state. Good news is we have a lot of newer voices like Jim Lyons and Ryan Fattman that are starting to inject new life into the state party. Its quite a struggle though.

I've thought about moving up to NH, I only live about 10 min from the border. All my political connections are here though, so I feel like this is the place I can have the most impact. I do think there is a chance for Mass to be more like a New Jersey, a blue state with pockets of red. The Mass GOP is going to have to stop stomping on the grassroots though, because that's where the change is going to start.

[alucard13mmfmj]

Well let's hope Rand has a great debate performance and our grassroots gets on the phone from home system and really drive the truth home.

We could win this, afterall, Rand has Ron's name recognition.

Rand may or may not be as good as Ron, but he is as close as we are going to get AND have a slight chance of winning. I am sure there are other statesman that is "pure" like Ron, but they just dont have the "name" power yet.

[FSP-Rebel]

Everyday Rand continues to associate with the Tea Party hurts him in NH. The Tea Party isn't even popular with the majority of Republicans in New England because it is so associated with social conservatism.

Is that what you've been hearing about Rand or is that speculation? I'd think the Tea Party folk, at least these days, would be seen as those that are holding the line on the establishment's cave on tax increases, nobody is talking about social issues. I suspect you guys up there have a decent amount of influence in the state and local GOP, so why are you short on confidence especially when Rand is almost single-handedly running the opposition on every major establishment play? As far as Ayotte goes, I get that NH folk mostly fall for moderates on a statewide basis but is there anyone in the party calling her votes into question? How can the party players and much of the citizenry that love their low taxes not see Rand, on the Prez short list, as clearly the most fiscally conservative?

[erowe1]

If he wins both NH and IA, then his odds go up significantly for every state after that. If he wins neither, they go down significantly. So his odds in each state are not independent variables.

[ssunlimited]

Rand HAS to win Iowa. That's his best chance!

[Bastiat's The Law]

Everyday Rand continues to associate with the Tea Party hurts him in NH. The Tea Party isn't even popular with the majority of Republicans in New England because it is so associated with social conservatism. The again, while undeclared voters voted heavily in favor of Ron Paul because of his stances on things like War, that may not help Rand either. If Rand doesn't win IA, he might do worse among undeclared voters in NH than Ron Paul did. Those 2 issues may not be as important because if the Democratic Primary is very competitive, many of the more moderate undeclared voters might vote in the Democratic Primary.

NH might very well be a crowded field in 2016. I think it had around 30 candidates in 2012, maybe there will be 40 in 2016. It seems too hard to predict how NH will go right now. Rand will need to work very hard and spend a lot of money to take 1st in NH.
I agree with most of what you say. I think Rand taking first is very possible. He's excellent at presenting himself as a candidate in townhalls and campaign commercials. Rand is also a great campaigner so he will go 110% and cover the entire state.

[Bastiat's The Law]

People believe advertizing. They are sheep. If I recall, the Huckster was a big government spender, paroled some violent criminal that he got a lot of egg on his face over, and had more than his share of ethics violation accusations. Look how easy it was to take down Gingrich with a little bit of focus and ad buys.

On the other hand, money doesn't grow on trees (at least, not for anti-establishment candidates).
Yup, we can expose the record and dirty laundry of our opponents but its very expensive to do so. You're also running adds to build yourself up simultaneously so that begins to add up to millions in advertising. We got to expand our fund raising network.