Chris Matthews: Take my word for it — Rand Paul will be the GOP nominee in 2016

posted at 2:11 pm on August 8, 2013 by Allahpundit

Money line: “This is what I do for a living.” Didn’t he predict a Bush/Clinton race in 2016 just nine months ago? If he believes what he says here about the parties swinging like “pendulums” from moderate nominees to ideologues and then back again, why would he have named Jeb as a strong contender last November?

In fact, the roots of the counterargument are in Matthews’s own shpiel here:

Most of the time, they head to the center.

This is what Republicans did most successfully in 1952 – when, after twenty years of Roosevelt and Harry Truman – they wanted back in the White House. They ran the general who received the Nazi surrender and won big.

In 1956 and 1960 they stuck to the middle, with Ike the second time, then Richard Nixon.

In 1964, the right said it was its turn and blew the roof off the Cow Palace out in San Francisco – mocking Republican moderates and liberals like New York governor Nelson Rockefeller – then getting killed by Lyndon Johnson in November.

I don’t know how useful Ike comparisons are; he was a “moderate,” yes, but as a political figure he’s sui generis given his war credentials. He was, though, highly “electable,” and I think Matthews is right that when a party’s out of power for a long time, electability gets even more of a premium from primary voters than it usually would. When the GOP nominated Goldwater and the Democrats nominated McGovern, they were each just four years removed from controlling the White House. Republicans in 2016 will be eight years removed and potentially facing an unusually famous, formidable non-incumbent nominee in Hillary. They’s also got demographic pressures on them to tack towards the middle that the party hasn’t had recently. Under circumstances like that, do you roll the dice on an ideologue or, out of sheer exasperation from being shut out of power so long, do you double down on pandering to centrists? That’s the logic for nominating Jeb or Christie.

Even so, I’m surprised he named Paul rather than Ted Cruz as the ideologue whose moment in the sun he thinks is coming, just because Cruz seems to loom larger in Matthews’s imagination as the embodiment of all that’s foul about the tea party. If you’re looking to accuse your opponents of embracing an extremist ogre in their choice of nominee, why not name a guy whom you’ve called a “terrorist” instead of Rand Paul? Which is not to say, though, that Matthews is wrong; I don’t think Paul will win, but I made the case myself yesterday that he could be unusually strong in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Unless Paul does something Rubio-esque to sabotage his conservative credentials over the next year, one of the big political subplots of 2014 will be establishment Republicans quietly gearing up to stop him in the early primary states. They can probably stop him in South Carolina or Florida in 2016 if he wins only Iowa or New Hampshire; if he wins both, that’s dangerous to them and they know it. They’ll get moving early to make sure it doesn’t happen.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

His word is worth exactly 0.

Schadenfreude on August 8, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Won’t matter a bit. Rand Paul can’t do it alone.

rickv404 on August 8, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Chris Matthews: Take my word for it — Rand Paul will be the GOP nominee in 2016

No thanks, you get tingles in your limbs D*ckhead.

ToddPA on August 8, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Chris Matthews?

He’s that guy who always tinkles down his leg when he sees Obama, right?

Is he still around?

Why?

coldwarrior on August 8, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Will Chris Matthews still be on the air in ’16?

portlandon on August 8, 2013 at 2:16 PM

War on women

Schadenfreude on August 8, 2013 at 2:17 PM

So why is anything this pantload says on the site. He is nothing but a lib windbag. Wouldn’t spit on him if he was on fire.

rjoco1 on August 8, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Why does MSNBC still have these old white crackers on?

faraway on August 8, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Funny how Mathews stopped his argument in the 60′s. Moderates: McCain, Dole, Bush Sr (when not following Reagan), Ford and Romney lose. Conservatives Reagan, Bush (he ran as the “extremist”), Nixon (more conservative than the Rockefeller types) won. In recent history going hard right has better results for Republicans than going for “electable.”

Democrats on the other hand only win when they put forward someone who is either Centrist (Bubba) or masks their beliefs (Obama).

I support Cruz in ’16, but would be more than happy with Paul as nominee or running mate. I say Cruz only because I find him to be more persuasive with his arguments on the stump. They fit the same mold though.

eski502 on August 8, 2013 at 2:19 PM

There would be far worse choices than Paul.

In fact, most of the names being mentioned would be far worse choices than Paul. On both the conservative and electability fronts.

Which is not saying that I’m in Rand Paul’s corner. I have some significant concerns about him. I just happen to have more and deeper concerns about most of the other names being mentioned.

Chris of Rights on August 8, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Wow, just wow!!!

Schadenfreude on August 8, 2013 at 2:20 PM

They can probably stop him in South Carolina or Florida in 2016 if he wins only Iowa or New Hampshire; if he wins both, that’s dangerous to them and they know it. They’ll get moving early to make sure it doesn’t happen.

Sooner or later, this split is going to give rise to a third party, and I don’t think that’s necessarily a good thing. But, it is going to happen.

a capella on August 8, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Will Chris Matthews still be on the air in ’16?

portlandon on August 8, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Will Chris Matthews’ liver survive until 2016?

Resist We Much on August 8, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Reagan, Bush2, Nixon, Bubba, and Obama had one thing in common. They were fighters. They wanted it.

faraway on August 8, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Christie is not a fighter, he’s a (Obama) lover.

faraway on August 8, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Paul woud win Iowa and NH. Cruz, if in play, could steal Iowa.

When was the last time someone won the nomination without one of those two? Christie can’t win Iowa and would be a tough sell in NH. Nor can Rubio. Jindal does not have the popularity to too compete with any of these guys and I do not think Republicans will accept another Bush.

The only hope for the “main stream” is Walker stealing Iowa or NH. Or, a Steve King type stealing Iowa and delaying the real race between everyone else.

eski502 on August 8, 2013 at 2:24 PM

I’m surprised he named Paul rather than Ted Cruz as the ideologue whose moment in the sun he thinks is coming, just because Cruz seems to loom larger in Matthews’s imagination as the embodiment of all that’s foul about the tea party. If you’re looking to accuse your opponents of embracing an extremist ogre in their choice of nominee, why not name a guy whom you’ve called a “terrorist” instead of Rand Paul?

That’s not Matthews. I watched the guy from his CNBC days. This was old-school Hardball, not current prog delusionals.

This wasn’t a takedown of the “far right” via electing Rand.

Matthews is looking at how Rand leveraged Christie and how Maher backed Rand.

That’s about a half-dozen times Paul has done that in a year. Paul understands how to approach issues while keeping your core isues and arguments intact.

Matthews knows that is going to appeal to wide swath of people and Christie does not have the cache to get the base to hear him out. Like Rubio, it’s not what they did, it’s how they went about it.

The keys point is the opening.

“I believe the Republican party is going to go hard-right in 2016. It’s going to someone from the growing hard-right wing of the party, something it hasn’t done since 1980″.

That’s not a slam at the right, it’s a warning from Matthews to the Dems. He’s saying if this guy can clip Obama’s real veep, Christie, then Hillary’s a clay pigeon.

Matthews should know. He was with Carter.

budfox on August 8, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Chris Matthews?

He’s that guy who always tinkles down his leg when he sees Obama, right?

Is he still around?

Why?

coldwarrior on August 8, 2013 at 2:16 PM

.
Riddle me this?

WHY is he featured so often on this site?

The only reason I cam come up with is AP has a secret crush on him.

PolAgnostic on August 8, 2013 at 2:32 PM

OT: Just end Football now (before things get worse).

nobar on August 8, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Squishy Gop will screw us over once again

cmsinaz on August 8, 2013 at 2:36 PM

because Cruz seems to loom larger in Matthews’s imagination as the embodiment of all that’s foul about the tea party.

More than enough reason to vote for Cruz right there.

Sterling Holobyte on August 8, 2013 at 2:37 PM

he calls that “a living”. some folks get institutionalized for what you do, chris.

t8stlikchkn on August 8, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Unless he takes a sip of water during a speech, right, Tingles?

The Schaef on August 8, 2013 at 2:41 PM

I used to be amused by this dope, but now I’m burnt out on his douchiness and racist overcompensations.

RadClown on August 8, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Palin would win if she wanted it.

Because the field would be split between Palin and a whole slew of non-Palins. Ultimately, though, Palin would unify the GOP. Because she is both a libertarian and a socon, she has both, and libertarians aren’t upset at her soconism, and vice versa. She’s strong on defense, but not a neocon. There’s a non-elitist Reaganesque magic about here. She is the candidate we really want, and she will garner our enthusiasm across the board. So Run Palin Run.

anotherJoe on August 8, 2013 at 2:50 PM

It makes me think about the old saying about a broke clock being right.

Tater Salad on August 8, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Why does MSNBC still have these old white crackers on?

faraway on August 8, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Enough with the slurs. You may think it’s OK because you’re being flip. But it’s not because you’re being racist. I don’t care if you yourself are white.

I am one of those people who finds the c-word offensive. It’s not any more acceptable than any other slur.

You have your right to speak. I have mine. We both win.

Capitalist Hog on August 8, 2013 at 2:51 PM

How many years has he been on MSNBC?That’s how many I haven’t watched him.

docflash on August 8, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Enough with the slurs. You may think it’s OK because you’re being flip. But it’s not because you’re being racist. I don’t care if you yourself are white.

I am one of those people who finds the c-word offensive. It’s not any more acceptable than any other slur.

You have your right to speak. I have mine. We both win.

Capitalist Hog on August 8, 2013 at 2:51 PM

It’s not racist if it’s against white people.

happytobehere on August 8, 2013 at 2:53 PM

All I know is that nothing I say or do will have any influence whatsoever on who gets the nomination. My vote means nothing, and my money means nothing in the presidential primary. A couple of early small blue primary states and a handful of big donors will determine it.

juliesa on August 8, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Pretty funny putting up a photo of Megyn Kelly on one side of the HA screen and a pic of Chrissie Em on the other.

You’re one cruel mofo, Allah.

Bruno Strozek on August 8, 2013 at 2:58 PM

The 2016 elections is next Tuesday folks… be ready… Oh wait it is only August 8 2013… I thought from Allahpndit everyday threads about the 2016 elections that we are having them next Tuesday….

mnjg on August 8, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Capitalist Hog on August 8, 2013 at 2:51 PM

The above-noted ofay toolbag is still a cracker.

M240H on August 8, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Well, I’ve been figuring for a while with all of the tyrannical offenses against basic personal liberties committed by the current administration that the time was ripe for somebody like Rand Paul.

But now that Chris Matthews has said this, smart money is on Bobby Jindal. Or Mike Pence. Tingles is dumber than an ugly dog’s butt.

Gingotts on August 8, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Not if Karl Rove, Ann Coulter or Jeb Bush has anything to do with it.

MoreLiberty on August 8, 2013 at 3:02 PM

AH no he won’t. Thank you Crissy

Delsa on August 8, 2013 at 3:03 PM

“Chris, fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life.”

Dean Wormer

Athos on August 8, 2013 at 3:07 PM

I never thought I’d say this, but I hope Chris Matthews is right.

Rand Paul isn’t my first choice, but, given that no one is actually running yet, we could do a lot worse than him.

Further, I think I could happily vote FOR Mr. Paul, rather than against whatever harbinger of doom the Democrats nominate.

makattak on August 8, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Matthews is reflecting a phenomenon that I find fascinating — the view on the D side that the Republican party is in the grip of crazed ideologues and that reasonable pragmatists cannot be nominated. Paul fits Matthews’ image of a crazed ideologue, so there he goes.

I always point out to my D friends — on what basis do you form this conclusion about my party’s nominating process? Our last nominating process produced Romney. The one before that, McCain. Before that, Bush 43 twice. Before him, Dole. Before him, Bush the elder.

There are a lot of models one could apply to the Republican nominating process, but demanding ideological purity is NOT one of them.

Chuckles3 on August 8, 2013 at 3:09 PM

I’d be more likely to listen to the predictions of Dick Morris over Chris any day of the week… and that’s saying something!

Ukiah on August 8, 2013 at 3:15 PM

They’s also got demographic pressures on them

Is that you Billy Bob? Is you makin’ some ‘shine?

clearbluesky on August 8, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Money line: “This is what I do for a living.”

Chrissy also effusively praised Chimpy Bush in May of 2003 after he landed on the aircraft carrier. Just sayin’.

Del Dolemonte on August 8, 2013 at 3:17 PM

People like to call Ike a moderate these days and I agree with the characterization to a certain extent, but his handling of illegals would get him called racist, xenophobe, rightwing nutjob these days just like any other serious conservative.

Valkyriepundit on August 8, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Stupid is strong in this one, as always.

Betcha Tingles breathed a heavy sigh of relief when he heard that Megyn Kelly was going to the 9 O’clock hour.

D-fusit on August 8, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Why should I take the word of someone that is completely out of touch with reality?

sadatoni on August 8, 2013 at 3:24 PM

If Another Mitt Romney runs, I would vote for RAND.

TX-96 on August 8, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Most political analysts or whatever you’d call Matthews would think it’s a little early to stick their neck out and predict the nominee for the 2016 election, but there you have it! Let’s see how many times he has to revise that prediction.

scalleywag on August 8, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Palin/Paul- just so I can watch the entire MSNBC staff openly convulse on the air. Bonus points for choking on their own vomit.

Scotsman on August 8, 2013 at 3:30 PM

I like Paul and Cruz. I would gladly vote for either. Both are fighters and even though Paul isn’t as conservative as Cruz, he respects religious freedom which is my number one concern at this time.

Rose on August 8, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Clown-nose off?

I think Rand Paul has about as good a chance as anyone currently being considered. Matthews reasoning is a little off, but not as whacky as I would excpect from an a$$clown.

Getting really tired of the absolutists on HA. Someone is going to be the GOP nominee, and he’s not going to be the #1 choice of 80% of us. I’m not saying I don’t agree with “let it burn”. Trust me – I do. But I think we still at least have a responsibility to vote for what we think is the best choice. I know that it’s not healthy to get emotionally invested, but it’s not cool to pour gas on the fire.

connertown on August 8, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Prissy has an opinion on something other than racism?

antipc on August 8, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Damn … that means Rand Paul can’t possibly be the candidate.

listens2glenn on August 8, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Rand Paul will be the Republican nominee.

Chris Christie will be the Democrat nominee.

That’s why that fight started early.

Mr. Arkadin on August 8, 2013 at 3:39 PM

This idiot hasn’t been able to think straight since his leg started bothering him in ’08. It’s quite the distraction, you know.

HiJack on August 8, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Why sure . . . we all know how incredibly reliable this leftist loser is.

rplat on August 8, 2013 at 3:43 PM

anotherJoe on August 8, 2013 at 2:50 PM

I want to puke. Hell no to Palin.

eski502 on August 8, 2013 at 3:45 PM

So Rand Paul is considered “hard right” now? Sheesh. These clowns at MSNBC have gone so far left off the deep end, I’ll bet they would consider John F. Kennedy as “hard right” if he was alive today.

TarheelBen on August 8, 2013 at 3:46 PM

MATTHEWS IS A MORON !!!

Rook on August 8, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Capitalist Hogbreath on August 8, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Go pull the stick out of your ass, you flaming hypocrite.

Try not to get the vapors, nancy-boy.

Solaratov on August 8, 2013 at 3:54 PM

It’s not racist if it’s against white people.

happytobehere on August 8, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Especially not if it’s against white, Christian, heterosexual males.

(Not sure that hogbreath fits any of those criteria; which may be why s/he/it is all wee-weed up)

Solaratov on August 8, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Capitalist Hog on August 8, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Hey there, piggy boy, I’m still waiting for those facts from you about the Tea Party members being “extremists”. I thought you and I were going to have a debate on that issue.

And, yes, I really am part of the Cherokee Nation in case you want to attack my heritage.

Cherokee on August 8, 2013 at 4:16 PM

(Not sure that hogbreath fits any of those criteria; which may be why s/he/it is all wee-weed up)

Solaratov on August 8, 2013 at 3:57 PM

It’s just not very bright.

happytobehere on August 8, 2013 at 4:19 PM

I have a feeling that 2016 will be the year conservatives walk away if the GOP establishment runs another “electable” moderate. And by “electable” I mean Dole, McCain, Romney — which is to say losers.

There’s just no reason to cast a vote for “Caretaker of the Welfare State” Better to just let the Democrats destroy the country and get out of the way. The alternative is simply a slower death.

SAMinVA on August 8, 2013 at 4:30 PM

I have a feeling that 2016 will be the year conservatives walk away if the GOP establishment runs another “electable” moderate. And by “electable” I mean Dole, McCain, Romney — which is to say losers.

There’s just no reason to cast a vote for “Caretaker of the Welfare State” Better to just let the Democrats destroy the country and get out of the way. The alternative is simply a slower death.

SAMinVA on August 8, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Indeed!
“Why prolong the inevitable?”
- Feyd-Rautha

I hope the GOP is listening.
If they even care.

Sterling Holobyte on August 8, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Chris Tingletoes Matthews probably wishes Rand Paul would be the GOP nominee–a straw man easy to knock over by comparison to his crackpot dad, although Rand is by far more reasonable than his father.

By 2016, Rand Paul (and Marco Rubio) will have served one full term in the Senate, and might have to choose between running for President or for re-election to the Senate. Ted Cruz will have served 4 years of a 6-year term.

But why should Republicans pin their hopes on freshman Senators when Republicans control the Governor’s office in 30 out of 50 states? By 2016, Governors Scott Walker and Chris Christie will be in their second terms, Bobby Jindal may be in his third, and even Gov. Rick Snyder might get credit for turning Michigan around by 2016 after this year’s bankruptcy of Detroit.

No former Republican Senator has been elected President since the Depression. Ike was a war hero, Nixon and George H.W. Bush were former Vice Presidents, and Reagan and George W. Bush were GOVERNORS of large populous states (CA and TX). Since neither Dick Cheney nor Dan Quayle is interested in running (former VP’s), we need to look to a big-state Governor as our next candidate.

Steve Z on August 8, 2013 at 5:41 PM

As I have said many times, I prefer Rick Perry. I think he is currently the best person for the job. But I would love to vote for Rand Paul if he gets the nomination.

Jack_Burton on August 8, 2013 at 6:23 PM

What’s with Matthews and his “Let Me Finish.”

If he’s finished, why won’t he just shut-up?

For good!

EdmundBurke247 on August 8, 2013 at 11:12 PM

This old fart believes that Rand Paul is the kind of magnet we need to get the youth to quit voting for the #@*&#@ nation-destroying socialists.

Is Rand perfect? Far from it, but the way the Republican voters acted in 2012 (i.e. sit home and let Obama win because they found some reason to not like Romney).

Now, the $22 question: Can the Republican party morph from “Democrat lite” (and running another doomed-to-fail candidate like Jeb Bush or Chris Christy) to be more supportive of a “first principles” kind of guy like Rand?

I doubt the party bosses can make such a major shift and they’re probably willing to sulk and whimper while the Hillary machine spins up for 2016 and the sycophant media transitions from Obama to her.

However… if Rand can find enough funding to begin to spread his message (return to first principles, point out that the youth have been let down hoodwinked by Obama et al) early, well and often the disillusioned youth may be convinced that Hillary = continued failure and that the fundamentals that made us a great nation are worth returning to.

Today’s youth (mostly) don’t get their political info from the “NBC Nightly News” and suchlike, so it’s going to take some really savvy advisors to reach the youth vote by other means.

Paul/Cruz 2016!

E-R

electric-rascal on August 9, 2013 at 1:14 AM

There are times when other events prevent any chance of one party or the other winning.

Civil War, Lincoln’s Assassination led to many Democratic defeats.
1929 stock market crash led to FDR.
Kennedy assassination
Nixon impeachment, Agnew resignation

Goldwater ran in the wrong year.

jpmn on August 9, 2013 at 2:08 PM