Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jeb Bush
He's not a flashy younger new-on-the-scene conservative star - but then, when has the GOP ever nominated such a candidate? 2016 is interesting because there is no obvious Republican nominee-in-waiting. The guy who finished second last time (Santorum) has little party backing and no substantial national profile. Going back four decades, through all the years that encompass the modern primary and caucus system for selecting major-party nominees, there has only been one year where the Republican Party did not have an incumbent Republican President of an obvious heir-apparent as a nominee. That year, the party establishment rallied around a the Governor of a large state who happened to come with instant name recognition due to his pedigree, and the built-in political infrastructure of his family. And his last name was 'Bush'. The year, of course, was 2000.
Do not underestimate the power of the establishment. And do not underestimate the fact that Jeb Bush will have his pick of the best Republican campaign staff there are to be had, as well as the immediate financial backing of the big players in the GOP, should he choose to run. He's probably the most able to unite the three legs of the proverbial Republican stool - the social, financial and foreign policy conservatives. None of those groups will be thrilled with him, but none should find him, as a whole, unacceptable. He comes with an added bonus of probably locking down his home state, the third-largest trove of Electoral College votes, and a swing state to boot.
But, does he run? My answer is - more likely than not. He is clearly thinking about it, and is keeping himself properly in the public sphere in the event he does decide to run. If he runs, he is the solid favorite. And if he doesn't run, the Republican nomination is radically altered. No Republican's decision will affect the nomination as much as that of Jeb Bush.
Rick Santorum
Here's a guy who gets no political respect. It's curious, considering how well he ran in 2012 - exceptionally well, on a basis of comparative resources. Consider Iowa - Santorum narrowly won the Iowa Caucuses, spending less than $2 million dollars in the state, while Romney ($36 million), Paul ($26 million), Perry ($16 million) and even Bachmann, Gingrich and Huntsman massively outspent him. And he might have done better in the two weeks following the caucuses had he been declared the winner, but the initial vote showed Romney winning narrowly, and the Iowa GOP was in no hurry to check and see if they might have gotten it wrong. When they finally did, the "Romney Wins Iowa Caucuses!" headlines had long served their purposes for the Republican establishment.
In the end, Santorum held tightly to second place during the primary/caucus season despite having so little support in both money and campaign infrastructure. He was the clear challenger to Romney during the early states, he held on second place even during the Gingrich surge around Super Tuesday, and in the million-plus primary/caucus votes cast during the rest of March, Santorum finished only 6000 votes behind Romney. Only in April, when he suspended his campaign, did he finally fade, but still he was the solid runner-up - a status he shares with Romney, McCain, Dole, GHW Bush and Reagan (twice) before they eventually won nominations in the future.
Does all this mean he can win the nomination? Yes. Does it mean he will? No. I'd put my money on Bush if he runs. And a Huckabee campaign (see below) could be problematic for Santorum, as their bases of support largely overlap. But absent Bush, it's very easy to see Santorum winning Iowa (again), then losing New Hampshire (it's hard to see him winning there), then winning South Carolina. That wouldn't make him the inevitable nominee, but it would make him the frontrunner and the favorite.
There's a lot fo be said about Rick Santorum, much of it unflattering, but 2012 showed that he has some deep appeal and can win votes without throwing ridiculous amounts of money at the voters in Republican primaries and caucuses.
Chris Christie
As I write this, the most recent golden boy of the GOP has crashed and burned. Even if he ultimately survives Bridgegate, his standing has taken a permanent hit as questions will not stop about what he might have known, and his defense can probably be nothing but that he was simply oblivious as to what his appointees were doing - a necessary but problematic claim for someone who touted his hand-on management style. While it was always a big question mark as to how Christie's angry, in-your-face style would play outside of the Northeast, Christie clearly has political mojo and a well-defined political style. It would have been fascinating to see how that style, untainted, played out in 2016. Now we'll never know. A few months ago, I'd have pegged Christie as a top-tier contender along with Bush and Santorum and perhaps Paul. Now, depending on how the bridge scandal plays out in the long run, that top-tier status is in very serious doubt.
Rand Paul
Rand Paul is a fascinating political study. He's tapped into this pseudo-libertarian vibe of the Tea Party and positioned himself as the heir to what some see as the new base of the Republican Party. He is certainly ahead of the political curve considering how new he is to the scene. The appearance of Ted Cruz has paradoxically helped Paul - while they appeal to largely-overlapping bases, Cruz is less of a threat to Paul and more of an asset by making Paul seem less radical and more mature and reasoned in comparison. That said, Paul's recent fixation on the Lewinsky scandal as a proxy attack on Hillary Clinton makes me doubt that he's really ready for prime time. On the other hand, his recent condemnation of the "subhuman mongrel" slur Ted Nugent hurled at President Obama suggests a willing and deliberate attempt to position himself as a 'voice of reason' on the right.
With Chris Christie's current travails, I think a strong case can be made that Paul is on the cusp of replacing the New Jersey Governor as the third top-tier candidate for the 2016 Republican nomination.
Marco Rubio
Marco Rubio is another curious political figure. Seemingly, he's got it all: young, from a critical swing state with a lot of electoral votes, of a demographic the Republicans desperately need to mine for more votes, telegenic. But after an initial splash in 2010 and through to 2012, Rubio has largely disappeared. First, he was a key player on an immigration reform plan that included a path to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants. Then, after taking severe backlash from the tea party folks on his stance, he backed off that plan for a piecemeal approach - and lately the emphasis has been on slow, very slow. Predictably, this series of developments has alienated more people than it has pleased. This is not to say Rubio won't seek the nomination in 2016, but his future in Presidential politics seems to lay beyond that. Besides, he's young - he has many years to burnish his credentials (perhaps with a successful gubernatorial bid), select the right time to run, and in the meantime perhaps find a place in a Republican administration. In the short term, he seems far likelier to be a running mate than to head the GOP ticket.
Rick Perry
By all appearances, Rick Perry is gearing up for another run; one can only wonder if it is a serious bid to become President or simply an attempt to erase the stain of his 2012 train-wreck of a campaign by simply putting forth a respectable run. In the end, Perry finished 5th in Iowa and carried only two counties, and that was the high point of his campaign. While many candidates have won major party nominations after previously failing - Romney, McCain, Gore, GHW Bush, and Reagan all come to mind - only Bob Dole's crash-and-burn 1980 bid comes remotely close to Perry's 2012 bid by someone who would later win his party's nomination. And it took Dole another two tries and 16 years to do it. It seems that Perry is another Bill Richardson - he looks great at first glance, but as a national candidate he just doesn't know what he's doing.
Ted Cruz
The junior Senator from Texas has competed for the title of conservative month, following on the heels on the once-faddish Marco Rubio and Chris Christie. Bu Ted Cruz is a less-likely nominee than either of them, and I say that even accounting for Christie's current political problems. For a look at someone a lot like Ted Cruz, but with actual political talent on a national scale, there's Rand Paul. And for that reason alone, a Cruz candidacy is doomed - the all but inevitable Paul candidacy is going to take the lion's share of the national base they share, and the Texas portion of the base will disproportionately back Rick Perry over Cruz.
Mike Huckabee
The former Governor of Arkansas has some traits that make him a potentially serious candidate for a GOP nomination. Unfortunately, he also has a trait that overrules the rest of them. First, Huckabee nicely blends a strong social conservatism with a strong connection to a blue-collar base. In an era of Republican nominees that come off as Richie Rich (Romney, and to a lesser extent McCain) or who loudly profess their ignorance of economics (McCain) or simply seem detached from the common worker (Romney again), Huckabee's ability to speak the language of the common blue-collar man could be a major asset in a general election. And his 2008 performance, where he won 8 states and finished a strong third, suggest that he sknows how to win votes in a national campaign. But his time was probably 2012. By not running again at that time, much of what he built in 2008 has now been lost. Huckabee simply doesn't appear to have the fire in the belly for another bid. And without that, he has no chance.
Jon Huntsman, Jr.
Along with Gingrich, Huntsman was perhaps the best informed of the 2012 Republican candidates, an issues wonk steeped in the minutae of the political world. But he isn't angry enough or willing to toss the rhetorical grenades that would allow him to compete with the nomination-seeking masses. Will he be back? Probably. Will be be the nominee? Certainly not.
Scott Walker
Walker is a popular dark-horse pick with those who conveniently forget that the GOP never nominates dark horses. Nevertheless, Walker is a Governor in a blue state, though not a particularly competitive one. His minor popularity seems to rest largely on the laws he has gotten passed collective bargaining for public sector workers on the issues of pensions and health care for most constituencies (conveniently excepting the traditional Republican-supporting professions of law enforcement and firefighters). But that's a rather thin resume. True, he has won two elections - but then, Tommy Thompson won four Wisconsin gubernatorial elections, all by larger margins than Walker, and we all saw in 2012 how that translated to a Presidential bid. At best, Walker seems like the next Tim Pawlenty, which means little more needs to be said regarding his Presidential prospects.
John Kasich
While not as fasionable a pick as Walker, Kasich is both a more likely (though only relatively speaking) nominee and would probably be a better one. Though his reelection as Governor is uncertain, he is the favorite at this point. He also happens to govern a far more important state electorally than Wisconsin. However, a Kasich Presidential bid would probably be no more than an audition for the second spot on the GOP ticket, or perhaps a cabinet position in a potential Republican administration.
Bobby Jindal
For a long time, Jindal was an ascendant golden boy on the right. However, his national roleout - delivering the GOP response to President Obama's February 2009 address to a joint session of Congress - went over poorly, and he's held a lower profile since then. Currently, his approval rating as Governor of Louisiana is well under water, though since he's in his last term as Governor that isn't critical. Still, being from a small state that isn't particular relevant in Presidential politics, he'll need to have a compelling reason for a Presidential bid. Perhaps his best asset is his youth and reputation as an effective manager; he can go on to a future as a Senator or in a Republican administration, all the while picking the right time to run for President. That time won't be 2016, except perhaps as the obligatory trial run that virtually all successful GOP nominees go through earlier in their careers.
Paul Ryan
I only include Ryan because people invariably think that occupying the second spot on a losing Presidential ticket launches a future Presidential career. It doesn't, of course - but people rarely pay attention to the lessons of history. Anyway, all signs are that Ryan knows this, and that he has no intention of even running.
To sum it up:
Bush is the favorite if he runs. If not, Santorum is a proven strong candidate in some respects with glaring weaknesses in others, while Paul shows serious promise, but is largely an unknown quantity. Given historical Republican nominating dynamics, it will very likely be one of this trio that the GOP nominates in 2016.
nice breakdown as you see it, just like the your study on the Democrat side, but it is still just a little too early. I would say, right after the mid term elections we can start to seriously examine the perspective candidates and start getting a feel for who is really going to run. Some on your list, I am guessing will not run and some will be gone before they get to first base.
Very well written, and very well done, but unfortunately you are like the rock music critic trying to assess a country or classical concert. You are not going to get it.
Rick Santorum has zero chance of being the 2016 nominee. He is a social conservative/fiscal liberal, and did not do well in the 2012 primaries. He would do worse in 2016 if he decides to run, which I doubt. Predictions go downhill from there...Huck has no chance. Christie has no chance. Jeb has little chance.
'[H]istorical Republican nominating dynamics" are close to meaningless. The sample size is too small. You have to put yourself into the moccasins of a 2016 Republican voter, but you can't do that since you are not one.
It's probably going to be Cruz, Paul or Ryan, but a Jindal, Martinez, Carson, or Walker is not out of the question.
If you guys put up Jon Huntsmen Jr against Clinton, I will probably vote your way. You can recapture the independent vote by putting someone up who is moderate, and smart. Huntsmen impressed the heck out of me in 2012.
Run Romney again? Thats...I can't believe they would be that foolish. For gods sake...RomneyCare!
If you guys put up Jon Huntsmen Jr against Clinton, I will probably vote your way. You can recapture the independent vote by putting someone up who is moderate, and smart. Huntsmen impressed the heck out of me in 2012.
Run Romney again? Thats...I can't believe they would be that foolish. For gods sake...RomneyCare!
Sorry, us primary voters are done letting the far left pick our Presidential nominees. You never vote for "moderates" anyway. Contrary to what is said now, when push comes to shove you'll be voting for whatever leftwing extremist the Democrats nominate. See 2008 and 2012.
Very well written, and very well done, but unfortunately you are like the rock music critic trying to assess a country or classical concert. You are not going to get it.
Rick Santorum has zero chance of being the 2016 nominee. He is a social conservative/fiscal liberal, and did not do well in the 2012 primaries. He would do worse in 2016 if he decides to run, which I doubt. Predictions go downhill from there...Huck has no chance. Christie has no chance. Jeb has little chance.
'[H]istorical Republican nominating dynamics" are close to meaningless. The sample size is too small. You have to put yourself into the moccasins of a 2016 Republican voter, but you can't do that since you are not one.
It's probably going to be Cruz, Paul or Ryan, but a Jindal, Martinez, Carson, or Walker is not out of the question.
As it has always been with both parties, it will be who can bring in the most money for the establishment GOP, from deep pocket corporate America. Nothing to do with electability, on the GOP side. It is all about the money.
That is why the Jeb Bush name is being pushed. He has deep pocket connections.
Sorry, us primary voters are done letting the far left pick our Presidential nominees. You never vote for "moderates" anyway. Contrary to what is said now, when push comes to shove you'll be voting for whatever leftwing extremist the Democrats nominate. See 2008 and 2012.
Reality-you cannot win without the independent vote. Period. I'm begging you, put up a real candidate. When push comes to shove I vote for the best choice I can make. And I want a choice I have to think about.....
Very well written, and very well done, but unfortunately you are like the rock music critic trying to assess a country or classical concert. You are not going to get it.
Rick Santorum has zero chance of being the 2016 nominee. He is a social conservative/fiscal liberal, and did not do well in the 2012 primaries. He would do worse in 2016 if he decides to run, which I doubt. Predictions go downhill from there...Huck has no chance. Christie has no chance. Jeb has little chance.
'[H]istorical Republican nominating dynamics" are close to meaningless. The sample size is too small. You have to put yourself into the moccasins of a 2016 Republican voter, but you can't do that since you are not one.
It's probably going to be Cruz, Paul or Ryan, but a Jindal, Martinez, Carson, or Walker is not out of the question.
I think Rubio will do better than some realize, but again, there are just too many "what ifs?" to take any of this too seriously right now. I do not think Ryan will get the nod.
Greywar: you are right about the independent vote, that is why I think Rand Paul stands a good chance. He can excite the young voter and many of them are or consider themselves independents.
I'm picking up definite hints that the GOP may choose to run Romney again...despite all conventional wisdom.
Where in the heck are you getting that idea? The GOP wasn't even totally sold on him last time around. A lot of the insiders were trying to talk anyone and everyone in to run against him clear up to the end of the primary season.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
