Polls Show Paul As The “Battleground State” Warrior to Defeat Clinton

Paul Represents By Far the Most “Electable” GOP Candidate

by Josh Guckert

During each Presidential election, a majority of the 50 states are already decided long before polls close. Many states throughout the south and mid-west are guaranteed wins for Republicans, while most states on the west coast and in New England are safe victories for Democrats.

This leaves about 10 states which are on the “borders” between the aforementioned regions and are thus designated as “battleground states.” These few states typically decide the election. With this in mind, each party attempts to nominate candidates who are able to specifically draw votes from these eclectic regions of the country. While some of the “battleground states” are legitimately “toss-ups” in each election, others maintain their stature as “battleground states” in spite of being consistently dominated by one party over recent years.

The 2016 election has become even more important to the Republicans, as they have won the White House only twice in the past six elections, with both victories being extremely narrow triumphs by George W. Bush. With this in mind, the GOP is likely paying close attention to which candidates can build new coalitions and make their party viable once again by winning in places where it has not done well in recent years.

If this is indeed the case, there is only one candidate who is clearly the perfect choice for the Republicans: Rand Paul. Establishment types within the party often preach about selecting the candidate who can win, and if that is in fact the criteria, there is no better candidate than Paul.

While it has been long explained that Paul’s policy positions are far superior to his fellow contenders as well, this is a wholly separate matter. Polls from key battleground states have consistently shown Paul to be the best candidate to oppose likely Democratic Nominee Hillary Clinton in a general election match-up.

Most recently, a Public Policy Polling survey showed that in critical state Ohio, only Paul and the state’s Governor John Kasich poll ahead of Clinton. This is particularly noteworthy in that no Republican candidate has ever won the presidency without carrying Ohio.

The most important aspect of this poll is that it is far from an outlier: in addition to leading Clinton in Ohio, Paul has very recently polled ahead of her in Iowa, where Republicans have won only once in the past seven elections, Colorado, where there has not been a GOP victory since 2004, and Pennsylvania, where Republicans have not won since 1988.

In addition, even when Paul fails to top Clinton in these head-to-head comparisons, he nearly always does the best of the Republican field against her, signifying that he may have the upside to eventually take control in those contested states in the same way that he has in the above states.

Even more impressive is that while Clinton enjoys nearly 100% name recognition, most polls show Paul to be still unrecognizable to about one-fourth of the electorate. Once Paul introduces his message to voters around the country, it is not implausible to believe that he could begin to dominate in general election polling.

The country has not seen a critical realignment in the electoral college in a generation. Combined with the fact that the Republican Party simply cannot survive with its current demographics, Rand Paul represents a once-in-a-generation candidate who can permanently shift independents and disillusioned Democrats into the Republican camp. The polls that have been mentioned suggest that Paul could alter the current structure of American politics and expand “Republican red” into states that have not been considered winnable by the party in years. If the GOP is serious about winning in 2016 and beyond, they must nominate Rand Paul.