Paul is in second place behind Mike Huckabee.
Follow TLR on Google+
Could Rand Paul win the White House in 2016? Some people think so, but there are some who say they support him and his ideas, but are skeptical that he could actually win in 2016. Though Kevin D. Williamson is a commendable pro-liberty writer, his recent Politico piece on Rand Paul both raised good points and took intellectual shortcuts.
Arguing that Paul is not a viable presidential candidate, Williamson notes that “Four times as many Americans support pulling out of NAFTA or renegotiating it as support staying in. Paul, on the other hand, wants to make the whole world a free-trade zone.”
Williamson seems to be assuming that Americans wish to pull out of NAFTA because they dislike free trade and not because they resent top-down international organizations. If Americans are driven more by the latter motive, then they have good reason to favor Paul’s more non-interventionist foreign policy.
As the 2016 election draws nearer, agitated establishment interests are increasingly going on the offensive against the Kentucky senator. Written attacks on Paul from major progressive and neoconservative outlets are now an almost daily occurrence. Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and John Bolton recently criticized non-interventionism at a meeting of major Republican donors in Las Vegas. Attendees promised to organize a counter-campaign against Paul.
Nonetheless, Paul continues to do well in polls, recently placing second behind Mike Huckabee in Iowa. Real Clear Politics, averaging several polls, likewise places Paul in a close second behind Mike Huckabee.
A recent Blaze segment debunked some common talking points used to allege Paul’s unviability as a presidential contender.
4 comments