Rand Paul

Will Rand Paul Have to Risk His Senate Seat for the Presidency?

|

The Louisville, Kentucky's Courier-Journal highlights one big potential roadblock to Rand Paul's likely run for president: that it might prevent him from running simultaneously for his Senate seat, which he'd have to do in 2016 as well. (If he wanted to remain a senator, that is.)

A new poll shows Kentuckians might not be inclined to change existing state election law to make things easier for Paul:

only 15 percent of Kentucky registered voters think Paul should run for both offices, the survey finds. By a 24-22 percent split, slightly more believe he should run only for his Senate seat than make a bid for the White House. And a third of voters oppose the freshman senator running for anything.

Paul enjoys a 39 percent favorability rating in the state, the poll shows. Thirty-two percent of registered voters view the senator unfavorably, while 24 percent say they are neutral.

The National Journal wrote last month with more on the situation Paul finds himself in—and why the actual polled will of the people of Kentucky might not be what matters:

Under current Kentucky law, Paul must choose to be on the ballot for one or the other. His Republican allies in the Kentucky state Senate have already pushed through a measure to let him run for both, but it has languished in the state's Democratic-controlled House.

"Our position is that a man who can't decide which office to run for isn't fit for either office," said Democratic Kentucky House Speaker Greg Stumbo. "I don't think that bill will ever see the light of day as long as I hold the gavel."

Paul has been helping Kentucky Republicans fight this year to win back control of the state House to pave the way for him. Lyndon Johnson successfully got Texas law changes in 1960 to allow him to run for both the Senate and the presidency/vice presidency, the National Journal notes.

NEXT: What War Is Good For

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. IMO, he should have to *give up* his senate seat to even run for another office.

    They all should. Its patently obvious that they can’t fulfill the duties of one job while campaigning for a second, especially one that involves the amount of travel and fundraising the a presidential run has.

    1. By that logic, Obama should give up his presidency right now.

      1. OK, works for me.

        1. Me too.

    2. As opposed to those office-holders who weren’t fulfilling their duties in the first place. Not thinking of any current POTUS in particular.

    3. I don’t get that logic, at all. I think you’re going to have to explain it more. I don’t really know of any job that stops you from shopping for another job if you don’t first quit your current one.

      Let Rand campaign for POTUS. If he doesn’t WIN, he’s still a Senator. What is the problem with that?

      1. He won’t be Senator after 2016 unless he also runs for Senate, since his term as Senator expires in 2016.

        1. Ok, right, but what I’m saying is why can’t he run for both? I don’t see the point. I can try to keep my present job and look for another job at the same time. Most people I know do this every day. And I really don’t see a moral reason why it should be different for politicians.

          1. What if he wins both? He quits the Senate and leaves the people who voted for him with whomever the governor appoints (assuming that’s how it works in that state, I don’t know for sure)? For six years? That’s hardly fair to the voters. Though it is more faithful to the pre-17A constitution.

            1. Even in states that do allow for a gubernatorial appointment, they also allow for a special election to follow. So the appointee would have, at most, two years. Probably less, depending on how the law calls for the timing of the special election. But no appointee gets a full six-year Senate term.

              1. That’s why you sometimes see states with both of the Senate seats on the ballot in the same year: one regularly-scheduled election for a six-year term, and then a special election to fill the two or four year remainder of the term for the other seat.

      2. It always seems inappropriate to me for people to run in the general election for an office that they don’t intend to occupy if things go well for them.

        Though I can understand some arguments for allowing people to keep one office while running for another.

        1. I still don’t get that. I can look for another job and keep my current one if things don’t go well, or the other way around. Yet this is not considered immoral.

          1. I don’t know about immoral, after all, it is just a job, but it seems like it is on poor taste and sort of dishonest. Maybe that shouldn’t matter.

            It would also hurt third party candidates who have managed to get elected to some lower office. I could reconsider my views on this.

          2. Try telling your boss that you’re looking for another job and that you may miss some time at work due to it.

            1. Why would I need to do that? If I’m missing too much work, that’s another deal. But if I’m using my own time, vacation, holidays, weekends to look, that’s another deal.

              Who said that missing work time was in the deal? I only said that it should be ok to run for another office while keeping your existing one, not that you could go awol and keep your job.

              1. Sure, but I think in practice, running for Pres precludes you from doing whatever it is your supposed to be doing as a Senator. I think Obama is a perfect example of someone who did absolutely nothing for his paycheck as Senator for the 2 years he was running for Pres.

                1. Maybe he can run for Senate again in 2016 and do nothing as president for the final two years. We can dream.

            2. Senators and presidents are employed and paid by the same organization.

      3. Lots of companies will get rid of you if your attention is on another job. And the law in KY says he can’t run for two offices at once. That is the problem.

    4. I wish my senators (Moobs and the other one) would spend more time running for president, and less time fucking up my state.

      1. There’s always that perspective, which is appealing.

        But the problem is that guys like that don’t stop doing stuff to fuck things up when they are doing something else. They have whole staffs to make sure that doesn’t happen.

  2. Lyndon Johnson successfully got Texas law changes in 1960 to allow him to run for both the Senate and the presidency/vice presidency, the National Journal notes.

    Stepping in the footsteps of LBJ, how wonderful. Well he will certainly step in his footsteps with regard to protests and hostility from the progs.

    1. I wonder why, since the senate and presidency are now both solely federal jobs, that the state should have any say in it whatsoever.

      I’d say that if they want to make those rules then they can claw those seats back to themselves and start footing the bill for salary and benefits.

      1. The State is the one responsible for holding elections and for drawing district boundaries.

        1. I think that if I were running the state I’d take all that and toss in Congresses lap and say ‘you broke it, you bought it’.

    2. In 1960 Johnson was the conservative on the ticket and opposed by progressives. Nor does support for one thing Johnson did mean people support everything he did. A better example would be Joe Lieberman who ran for Senate and the VP slot at the same time. Progressives did object to that and it was legal in CT. Rand is not simply trying to do this, he wants to get the law changed just for him.

  3. And, shit, his favorable/unfavorable numbers are pretty bad, especially for a fairly reliable GOP state.

    1. Libertarian moment!

    2. Might have something to do with not being an establishment Republican.

    3. He’s an anti-war Republican from Kentucky who argues in favor of letting felons regain their voting rights.

      I’m amazed he’s managed to take the positions he has on drug legalization, interventionism, and felon rights while maintaining any sort of support in a right-wing state.

      1. That was my point. 39% ain’t terrible for a libertarian in a red state.

    4. 2 gop governors in my lifetime. State house has been democratic controlled forever (possibly literally).

      Voted for every D who won for president since 1960 except Obama.

  4. Well, if he loses, he can move to Montana and run for senate. Not like there is any competition here.

    1. Well, if he loses, he can move to Montana and run for senate

      Or raise dental floss.

      1. Thanks for linking that. I’d forgotten how much that song rocks.

  5. OK, if I were to look solely to the Constitution as written, any state has the power to decide who gets to run for President. I would say that if they want to exclude sitting Senators, or Senators running for re-election, that’s totally constitutional.

    Though if we look at the version of the Constitution adopted by the courts, the states are required to allow a much broader group of candidates to run for President. Progressives, at least, who support these doctrines, lack the standing to complain about Rand Paul running.

    1. Though if we look at the version of the Constitution adopted by the courts, the states are required to allow a much broader group of candidates to run for President.

      I don’t know what this refers to. How have the courts changed who states have to let run for office?

  6. This only affects the ballot in Kentucky. He can be on the ballot for president in the other 56 states (per Obama) while being on the ballot for Senator in Kentucky.

    1. He’d probably need those electoral votes, though. But I suppose the electors could vote for him anyway on a second ballot if they were for a republican.

      That would actually be an interesting thing to see. How would a candidate for a major party with no chance of winning do in a state? Would people who supported Paul feel like it was a safe assumption that the votes would eventually go to the real candidate if the election was close enough, or vote Libertarian or just not show up?

    2. On a tangent, what would be the seven states the Reason commentariat would add to the Union (Six Californias or other such splits excluded)?

      1. Cuba
        Kurdistan
        Canadia
        Baja California
        And im out.

        1. 3 blue states to one red. No way man.

      2. The Moon!

        sin,
        Newt Gingrich

      3. Labrador
        Newfoundland
        New Brunswick
        Nova Scotia
        Saint Pierre and Miquelon
        Greenland
        Gitmo

        1. What, no Alberta?

      4. North NY
        West NJ
        West PA
        South Ohio

  7. Seems like his best option is to just not run in the Kentucky presidential primary. It is weeks after Super Tuesday so the nomination will likely be sewn up by then anyway.

  8. I don’t think Rand should run for President if it means giving up his Senate seat. I’m being selfish here, because I want MORE libertarians Senators not less. And while I think Rand can win the POTUS race as the GOP candidate, he’s never going to get the nomination. Just look at how desperately the GOP are pissing their pants trying to beat up the war drums and terrorist scare mongering. They don’t want Rand, they would rather have Hillary.

    1. Simply, don’t ask them. Tell them.

      I’ll be running for President, either on a Republican ticket or independent ticket until I either get the GOP nomination or win. Nice party ya got there. Be a shame if sumthin were to happen to it didn’t win a presidential election for the next 40 years.

      1. Well Rand won’t do it. And I sort of understand why. Following in his father’s footsteps, he still believes that taking over the GOP is the best way forward for libertarians. And I must admit, that I’ve come to agree with him, sort of… My voting habit is pretty set in that I will vote for an acceptable GOP candidate, but if the GOP candidate is shit, I will definitely defect and vote LP.

      2. He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing.

    2. Well, he could run for the other senate seat in 2 or 4 years or whatever it is.

      1. Primary v mcconnell would be awesome.

    3. “Our position is that a man who can’t decide which office to run for isn’t fit for either office,” said Democratic Kentucky House Speaker Greg Stumbo. “I don’t think that bill will ever see the light of day as long as I hold the gavel.”

      This sounds like Tom Murphy, the long-time Dem Georgia House Speaker. When the GOP complained about the gerrymandering he was doing to keep Georgia Dem long after it was a majority-GOP state, Murphy said that if they were stupid enough to be Republican it was their own fault they weren’t getting anything out of him. As long as he was Speaker, the House ran by his rules.

      Of course, this was reported as a “Chuckle of the Day” sort of piece in the Atlanta paper, that sly old dog, Tom, what a lovable old rascal he is. Once they brought in the voting machines and the Dems couldn’t teach dead people how to use them, the GOP easily took over the state and suddenly non-partisan redistricting became an issue with the AJC. Any GOP figure saying what Tom Murphy said (or what Greg Stumbo said here) would cause an acute fit of the vapors in the papers I’m sure.

    4. We’re probably better off with him, and many more like him, in Congress.

      It’s hard to see how someone promising no free shit, in today’s environment, can win the Presidency. By “today’s environment”, I’m referring in part to the unlimited gov’t spending keeping the 25% – 30% of the country who are not, or barely, working, living in relative comfort.

      I’m curious to see if we would go full retard and elect Lizzie when the financial shit hits the fan, or if a guy like Paul would have a shot.

  9. I think that if the economy gets better and more people are employed and have a positive outlook for the future, Libertarians will have an excellent chance.

    However, if real unemployment/under-employment is up and people are nervous of the future, I doubt that they would want to give up any safety nets (Romney Syndrome).

    1. Well, our safety net is about to implode and we’d better hope that libertarians have the answer because no one else does.

      1. With Social Security, I think the government (whatever party) will ultimately raise the FICA cap and not raise the benefits respectfully.

        Right now, the cap is $116k I think.
        Or maybe even start hitting capital gains for FICA.

        The Social Security agreement in this country is that the young and working pay for the old and not working (in hopes that one receives the same benefit once old/unemployed.

        I don’t see how to break this at this point without screwing grandpa. Not to mention that they are the most powerful lobby right now.

        1. Any system that relies on people dying before they can collect to stay afloat needs to be dismantled.

          1. Collision insurance pays you when you have a collision.

            Flood insurance pays you when you have a flood.

            Life insurance pays you when you DON’T have life.

            Does that not make sense to anyone else?

          2. Life itself is a pyramid scheme.

            Look at it in reverse, if a baby is born and there’s no one there to take care of him/her, that baby will most definitely die. The baby needs there to be people to assist.

            It’s the same with the disabled/retired.

            1. Look at it in reverse, if a baby is born and there’s no one there to take care of him/her, that baby will most definitely die. The baby needs there to be people to assist.

              Fair enought. Now tell us why you believe that this social construct should be taken out of the hands of people, families, and communities and be given into the hands of mega huge centralized government?

              1. I think all of us (Libertarians, Progressives, Conservatives, Communists, etc.) are not happy with the corruption that happens in all governments. We have the problem in Washington and we have the problem in municipal governments.

                I give you this, this is hard to obtain and to enforce unless we have a very transparent government (which I’m a fan of and doesn’t exist anywhere in
                America).

                To answer your question:
                why you believe that this social construct should be taken out of the hands of people…

                How else would we pay for this without skimming everyone if not with taxes?

                1. I think all of us (Libertarians, Progressives, Conservatives, Communists, etc.) are not happy with the corruption that happens in all governments.

                  Yet for some reason the left seems to feel (I never use the word “think” when it comes to the left, because they don’t) that the solution to corruption is more power. As if these people don’t stop corruption because they don’t have enough power, and by giving them more power they will be less corrupt.

                  That’s kinda like saying that by raising the minimum wage you’ll cause unskilled workers to become more skilled and work harder.

                  1. New York City has a Civilian Review Board.

                    Unfortunately, it doesn’t have much teeth. The members are appointed by the Mayor.

                    As far as the Boards recommendations, the Police Commissioner has the final say on what happens to a misbehaving cop.

                    But, if we had a freely elected Civilian Review Board that can actually fire and indict government officials for misconduct and crimes, we would be in better shape.

                    I guess I’m agree with the people that say we need more power.

        2. I am grandpa, and I’ll take half of what I paid in, right now, to opt out.

        3. Isn’t it a matter of time before they come after people’s 401(k)s? (Union, 403bs and all other gov’t pensions to be excluded ofcourse.)

          I mean, it’s not fair that you have all these bankster fat cat 1%ers with hundreds of thousands of dollars just sitting in their accounts while granny has to decide between food and medicine, Amirite?

          1. There’s several less offensive-sounding ways to accomplish that.

            There’s the Cyprus/Poland method of “helping people with retirement” by replacing all the “risky” assets in your 401k by safe Treasury bonds. To guarantee that that money is still there when you retire.

            Or they could embrace the California solution of enrolling all workers in the public pension plan. Because public pensions are much less risky than the stock market and stuff. Of course if there’s a crisis and the pension fund runs out of money, the public workers still get first dibs because they were the early adopters.

            1. True. Like how Obama replaced our substandard, junk insurance plans with real plans we can be proud of.

    2. I think that if the economy gets better and more people are employed and have a positive outlook for the future, Libertarians will have an excellent chance. Obama will get the credit.

      FTFY

  10. What difference does it make? The “electors for” column on the ballot doesn’t have to list his name. If he gets the Republican nomination for prez or VP, and he’s still on the ballot for US sen., and the Republican nominees for prez & VP, you think the electors from Ky. would decline to vote for him if he got re-elected to US sen.? Even if they did, he might not need their votes to win.

  11. Paul enjoys a 39 percent favorability rating in the state

    Perhaps a better verb than “enjoys”?

    1. Obama would kill for a +7 favorable-unfavorable differential.

    2. Tony|9.2.14 @ 10:35PM|#
      Paul enjoys a 39 percent favorability rating in the state
      “Perhaps a better verb than “enjoys”?”

      Perhaps you’re full of it?

  12. That dude jsut looks corrupt as the day is long lol.

    http://www.Crypt-Anon.tk

  13. I agree that most jobs will let you work and you can still look for another job. But virtually none of them will let you spend the bulk of you time for a year not doing your job will you try to get that new job. The system is really geared toward the career politician. Paul Ryan was running for VP while simultaneously running for re-election in 2012 and virtually ignoring the needs of his constituents to be on the campaign trail. Ron Paul did this too. You just cannot expect to do any justice to your job as a member of the House or Senate and campaign full time for the POTUS. At least for their own re-elections, they essentially shut down the whole place to go home and run. (Maybe they should just do that for most of 2016.)

  14. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail

    ———————- http://www.jobs700.com

  15. “I don’t think that bill will ever see the light of day as long as I hold the gavel.”

    Obstructionists!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.