Could Rand Paul be out of a job in 2017?

Kentucky Republicans are worried that Rand Paul, who is running both for president and for the Senate in Kentucky, could wind up losing both.

A defiant Rand Paul is brushing off weak fundraising and weaker poll numbers as would-be donors and home state Republicans push him to abandon an uphill presidential bid to focus on his Senate re-election.

While showing some frustration, the first-term Kentucky senator this week claimed his superior political organization would prove wrong those doubting his chances in the White House contest. At the same time, he released fundraising numbers that place him squarely in the bottom tier of the GOP's 2016 class over the last three months, a painful symbol of stalled momentum for the libertarian favorite who was considered a major presidential contender earlier in the year.

...  a growing chorus of Republicans suggested that Paul's Senate re-election was by no means guaranteed, despite the state's strong GOP leanings and the lack of a clear Democratic challenger.

"He could lose both positions," said Patricia Vincent, chairwoman of the Graves County Republican Party. "He just needs to work a little bit more to make sure he still has a seat in the Senate."

What's left unsaid in this article is how Rand Paul may have hurt his Senate re-election bid by running for president.  First of all, running for two offices at the same time does not exactly inspire confidence.  And his showing in the presidential polls, around 2%, has deflated his superstar status.  He's been an unenthusiastic campaigner, and his close ties to Mitch McConnell have not made him popular with the base.  And then there have been his own comments, where he basically said that he was unlikely to win the presidential race – true, but not something a candidate should come out and say.

The Kentucky GOP want him to drop out of the presidential race and focus on re-election.  I wonder if he should go the other route instead – run for more and more offices at the same time.  The more he runs for, the better chance he has of winning something.  He could run for a House seat, a state Senate seat, maybe even a state assembly seat.  He could run for his local city council or school board.  If he wants to be sure of winning something, he could spend a lot of money blanketing his town with fliers and ads telling people what a great libertarian he would be on the local school board.  He would probably outspend his opponents 100 to 1 and be nearly guaranteed to at least win something.

Or, alternatively, Rand Paul could decide to run for just one office.  And he could also decide to stand for some principles, besides drugs and drones, that would excite voters.

This article was written by Ed Straker, senior writer of NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.

Kentucky Republicans are worried that Rand Paul, who is running both for president and for the Senate in Kentucky, could wind up losing both.

A defiant Rand Paul is brushing off weak fundraising and weaker poll numbers as would-be donors and home state Republicans push him to abandon an uphill presidential bid to focus on his Senate re-election.

While showing some frustration, the first-term Kentucky senator this week claimed his superior political organization would prove wrong those doubting his chances in the White House contest. At the same time, he released fundraising numbers that place him squarely in the bottom tier of the GOP's 2016 class over the last three months, a painful symbol of stalled momentum for the libertarian favorite who was considered a major presidential contender earlier in the year.

...  a growing chorus of Republicans suggested that Paul's Senate re-election was by no means guaranteed, despite the state's strong GOP leanings and the lack of a clear Democratic challenger.

"He could lose both positions," said Patricia Vincent, chairwoman of the Graves County Republican Party. "He just needs to work a little bit more to make sure he still has a seat in the Senate."

What's left unsaid in this article is how Rand Paul may have hurt his Senate re-election bid by running for president.  First of all, running for two offices at the same time does not exactly inspire confidence.  And his showing in the presidential polls, around 2%, has deflated his superstar status.  He's been an unenthusiastic campaigner, and his close ties to Mitch McConnell have not made him popular with the base.  And then there have been his own comments, where he basically said that he was unlikely to win the presidential race – true, but not something a candidate should come out and say.

The Kentucky GOP want him to drop out of the presidential race and focus on re-election.  I wonder if he should go the other route instead – run for more and more offices at the same time.  The more he runs for, the better chance he has of winning something.  He could run for a House seat, a state Senate seat, maybe even a state assembly seat.  He could run for his local city council or school board.  If he wants to be sure of winning something, he could spend a lot of money blanketing his town with fliers and ads telling people what a great libertarian he would be on the local school board.  He would probably outspend his opponents 100 to 1 and be nearly guaranteed to at least win something.

Or, alternatively, Rand Paul could decide to run for just one office.  And he could also decide to stand for some principles, besides drugs and drones, that would excite voters.

This article was written by Ed Straker, senior writer of NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.