Presidential Campaign

Rand Paul’s dilemma

With Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) now jumping into the presidential field, he becomes the second major candidate to announce.

Paul is often described as the most “interesting” GOP candidate.

But he has a quandary, though. He has to grow his support, but in doing so, does he threaten his base?

First, let’s consider Paul’s strengths:

Politically, Paul is the only candidate who has the potential to win the first four states in the calendar.

Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina all set up as strong states for him, based on his appeal and how his father performed in the recent past.

But Paul also has weaknesses:

But the central question is: how much does Paul hurt his brand of libertarian conservatism when he tries to broaden his base?

{mosads}Does he risk his support going to a similar candidate like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)?

The more “mainstream” he becomes, the more he threatens to undermine his image as a libertarian conservative who is an original thinker and an outsider.

The most interesting question is: What would a general election of Paul against Hillary Clinton look like? It would turn traditional ideological battles upside down, with perhaps the Democratic candidate being more of a hawk than the Republican, but the Republican appealing more to younger voters. The electoral map would be unlike any we have seen in recent memory.

This is part of Paul’s strategy: to play up his electability, particularly as it relates to Cruz.

When Cruz announced for president two weeks ago, in response, Paul introduced a new word into the political lexicon: “winnability.”

Rand Paul and his team believe he can win the nomination and the general election, with a path through both minefields. That path begins today in Louisville, Ky.

Mackowiak is a syndicated columnist; an Austin, Texas-based Republican consultant; and a former Capitol Hill and George W. Bush administration aide.