Ron Paul for Senate?

Public Policy Polling reports:

The top two choices of Texas Republicans to be their Senate nominee next year are David Dewhurst…and Ron Paul. The duo is basically tied with 23% saying Dewhurst would be their top pick as the GOP candidate and 21% picking Paul.

Maybe a couple years ago the thought of Senator Paul would have seemed ridiculous but after his son breezed through both the Republican primary and the general election in Kentucky last year it seems a lot less far fetched that his dad might join him in the Senate as well. He has a highly committed base of supporters that at the least might help ensure him a runoff spot in what’s likely to be an extremely crowded GOP primary field and you have to think he would be the most well funded candidate in the race if he decided to run, given his already existent national donor base.

A much more obscure Tea Party candidate, Debra Medina, got 19% of the vote in the primary for Governor last year even though she was running against two heavyweights in Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchison. If she could get almost 20% against that pair, why couldn’t Paul get 30-40% against what’s likely to be a much weaker field of candidates? A potential Paul bid is well worth keeping an eye on.

Full report @ http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/01/ron-paul-for-senate.html

Poll referenced in Ben Smith column @ Politico.com: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0111/Paul_for_Senate.html

Ron Paul was The Libertarian Party candidate for President in 1988 and received 433,000 votes. Texas has open primaries so Libertarian voters will be able to ask for a Republican primary ballot if they want to support Ron Paul.

4 thoughts on “Ron Paul for Senate?

  1. paulie

    Part of the problem with this (at least if I remember what I heard or read correctly) is that if Ron Paul runs for US Senate and loses, he also loses his US House seat as well.

    Also, in one way it may be more advantageous for him to be in the House, as he and Rand can introduce House and Senate versions of some bills that would otherwise not be introduced in both chambers.

  2. NewFederalist

    Frankly, Ron Paul is too old to begin a career in the U.S. Senate. He should just stay where he is and let Rand do the heavy lifting in the Senate.

  3. Gene Berkman

    Paulie @ #1 – you are correct, it would be a gamble for Ron Paul to run for Senate because he would lose his seat in the House even if he loses the Senate primary.

    His 2008 run in the Republican primaries for President gave him more flexibility, raising his visibility nationally without having to give up his seat in Congress.

    Ron Paul ran in the Republican primary for Senate in 1984, when Sen John Tower retired. Paul lost to Phil Gramm, who was backed by President Reagan and the Republican establishment, who wanted to reward Gramm for quitting the Democratic Party.

  4. AroundtheblockAFT

    I know a GOP bigshot in Texas – he likes RP in one of their House seats, but knows the GOP would never support him for Senate because of his foreign policy views. They are still Remembering the Alamo and Hood’s Texas Brigade under R.E. Lee down there in Lone Star country.

Leave a Reply