Who will be the 2016 Republican Nominee?

[Derec]

It's more than a month since the midterm elections which means that it's time for my regular poll of major party candidates.
I did only the Republicans in 2012 since Obama was the incumbent, but in 2008 I had both Republicans and Democrats. The 2008 Democratic thread is particularly interesting for its sense of deja vu.
I also did a later 2012 Republican poll in mid-2011 when the shape of the eventual field was clearer.

The age given with every candidate will be their age as of January 20th, the inauguration day.

Gov. Jeb Bush (FL) - almost 63

"I'm with stupid."
Considered the smart brother (smart enough to have sat out 2012 perhaps?), popular Florida governor, important swing state, married a Mexican and converted to Catholicism. Daughter has drug problems. Is 8 years long enough time since W for another Bush?

Dr. Ben Carson, M.D. (MD) - 65

"Ok, perhaps a slight exaggeration"
Successful neurosurgeon, political outsider. Strident opponent of Obamacare. Very religious (7th Day Adv.), creationist and socially conservative. Is he this cycle's Herman Cain?

Gov. Chris Christie (NJ) - 54

"Is that pizza?!"
Governor of a blue state, controversial style, weight problems, plagued by Bridgegate (although perhaps that will help him in Minnesota

Sen. Ted Cruz (TX) - 46

"Hello ladies!"
An eclectic background: a Canadian-born Hispanic with a Southern Baptist preacher father. Fresman senator, elected in 2012, prior to that solicitor general. Tea Party guy.

Gov. Mike Huckabee (AR) - 61

"Gosh-darn and fiddlesticks, I would have worn platforms had I known Tyra was so tall!"
Former governor of Arkansas, former Baptist preacher, socially conservative and economically more (American style) liberal. He did really well in 2008 and could in fact have won the nomination if Fred Thompson hadn't spoiled his SC run. But will he be the bass player of the 2016 field?

Gov. John Kasich (OH) - 64

A relatively moderate 2nd term governor from the crucial swing state of Ohio. Won in 2014 with almost 2/3 of the vote.

Gov. Susana Martinez (NM) - 57

2nd term governor of New Mexico. The only Southwesterner and only woman in my hypothetical field.

Sen. Rand Paul (KY) - 54

"Here's looking at you, kid."
Eye doctor, senator from Kentucky and a fake libertarian - he is a asocial conservative and more interventionist than his old man. Once did a fillibuster on drones but has changed his position again in light of IS. Burning question: are those curls natural or does he use tiny curlers like Bradley Cooper in American Hustle?

Mike Pence (IN) - 57

"At least it's not 'My Pet Goat'."
Was thinking of running when he was a lowly congressman. In 2012 he got himself elected governor on a Tea Party platform - slashing spending, pushing social conservatism. Could play well in the primaries.

Gov. Rick Perry (TX) - 66

"Get some!"
Rick Perry wants to ride again. Perhaps he is just a glutton for punishment. He didn't do well at all in 2012 and blamed it on pain medication. Is indicted for public corruption.

Sen. Marco Rubio (FL) - 45

Pretty young, freshman senator. Might have to share Florida spotlight with Jeb and youngster/Hispanic spotlight with Cruz. Standard issue teabagger except for tentative immigration reform attempts.

Gov. Mitt Romney (MA) - 69

"pork chop on a stick? Genius!"
Why not some leftovers from 2012? Pull a Nixon if you will? Well, for one he is old - older even than Hillary. Also I do not see how Mitt improved his position since 2012.

Cgm. Paul Ryan (WI) - almost 47

Another young guy, from a purple state. However, only a congressman and also a failed running mate and neither have played well in presidential nominations in the recent past.

Sen. Rick Santorum (PA) - 58

Runner up in 2012 but mostly due to being last non-Romney standing. Hasn't done much since being ousted from Senate in 2006 other than run in 2012 and making a crappy Christmas movie. Very socially conservative, and synonymous with "frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex".

Gov. Scott Walker (WI) - 49

"I just hope my tie doesn't get caught in a driveshaft!"
Democrats love to hate the governor from Wisconsin, but he won 3 elections in 4 years in a purple state that last voted for a Republican for president in 1984. Thus he is a survivor. He also severely cut taxes and the budget.

Am I missing anyone important? I hope to be able to post the Democratic version tomorrow.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

First off, thank you for using the phrase "fake libertarian" for Rand Paul. The more successful he becomes, the more people are going to mistakenly equate his views with libertarian views, in spite of Rand Paul explicitly denying that he is a libertarian.

This is going to be a tough primary, due to the lack of a clear "heir" as has been the Republican pattern for decades. But many on that list won't make it past New Hampshire.

Yes, you did forget one, Bobby Jindal. I'm not saying he'll make it, but he is commonly thought of as a potential candidate.

 

[ksen]

Where's Sarah Palin?

 

[Terrell]

Too early to know for sure who will run, but at this point, I'd suspect Jeb Bush.

 

[funinspace]

Who the hell knows...its way too early for anything but SWAGs. Though I did laugh at the Cruz pic, it kind of reminded me of a younger Bill Murry, though with extra hair...

 

[lpetrich]

I'm suspecting Jeb Bush because he's a member of the Bush family, an establishment Republican, and a supposed "moderate". That may make raising money the easiest for him. But it's a crowded field.

But the second-in-line tradition suggests Rick Santorum instead. He was second in the 2012 primaries. Here is how the candidates placed in the Republican primaries going back to 1960:

2012: Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul
2008: John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul
2004: George W. Bush
2000: George W. Bush, John McCain, Alan Keyes
1996: Bob Dole, Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes
1992: George H. W. Bush, Pat Buchanan
1988: George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, Pat Robertson
1984: Ronald Reagan
1980: Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, John B. Anderson
1976: Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan
1972: Richard Nixon, John M. Ashbrook, Pete McCloskey
1968: Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Jim Rhodes, Nelson Rockefeller, Harold Stassen, John Volpe
1964: Barry Goldwater, Nelson Rockefeller, James A. Rhodes, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., John W. Byrnes, William W. Scranton
1960: Richard Nixon, George Bender, Cecil Underwood, James M. Lloyd, Nelson Rockefeller

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'll vote for Mr "Guy who's name we'll have forgotten by early 2019"

 

[untermensche]

Jeb Bush is the clear front runner.

He has the political connections, the connections to donors, executive experience, and is a serious politician, not a clown like Santorum.

His drawback is his brother, which he can't rationally be blamed for.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

John Kasich almost has to be the guy, unless there is something hiding in the shadows. He is a Governor of a critical battleground state and won elections by good margins. He comes across as a "moderate" while actually being rather conservative. He has put forth seriously insane tax reforms that looks great in the short term to make him appear competent. He is mainstream, so he'd have the backing of the establishment, and while appearing "moderate", could get enough support from the whackos of the Republican Party. His strongest quality is his ability to keep his mouth shut regarding moral issues, and he never brings up rape. (That makes a Republican electable in the US)

He is what Scott Walker wishes he was. The only legit opponent is Jeb Bush, but I don't know if the country wants a monarchy. I could barely handle another Clinton. Forget a third Bush! Anyone else in that list likely loses by a landslide in '16. I think Kasich can win.

 

[funinspace]

Jeb the Romney Hedge fund sequel

Jeb should be fun to watch, if he does run...

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/features/2014-12-11/jeb-bush-has-a-mitt-romney-problem

Documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 27 list Bush as chairman and manager of a new offshore private equity fund, BH Global Aviation, which raised $61 million in September, largely from foreign *investors. In November the fund *incorporated in the United Kingdom and Wales*—a *structure, several independent finance lawyers say, that operates like a tax haven by allowing overseas investors to avoid U.S. taxes and regulations.

BH Global Aviation is one of at least three such funds Bush has launched in less than two years through his Coral Gables, Fla., company, Britton Hill Holdings. He’s also chairman of a $26 million fund, BH Logistics, established in April with backing from a Chinese conglomerate, and a $40 million fund involved in shale oil exploration, according to documents filed in June and first *reported on by Bloomberg News. His flurry of ventures doesn’t suggest someone preparing to run for president, according to a dozen fund managers, lawyers, and *private-placement agents who were *apprised of his recent activities by Bloomberg Businessweek.
<snip>
“Running as the second coming of Mitt Romney is not a credential that’s going to play anywhere, with Republicans or Democrats,” says John Brabender, a Republican consultant and veteran of presidential campaigns. “Not only would this be problematic on the campaign trail, I think it also signals someone who isn’t seriously looking at the presidency or he wouldn’t have gone down this path.”

 

[Derec]

First off, thank you for using the phrase "fake libertarian" for Rand Paul.

Thank you.

This is going to be a tough primary, due to the lack of a clear "heir" as has been the Republican pattern for decades. But many on that list won't make it past New Hampshire.

Could be the "new normal" as in 2008 and 2012 there was no "heir apparent" either. Ironically it is the Democrats who have a heiress apparent who is sucking all the oxygen out of the room.

Yes, you did forget one, Bobby Jindal. I'm not saying he'll make it, but he is commonly thought of as a potential candidate.

I think he was a few years ago but his star has definitely sunk a bit. I do not think it is likely at this point that he will run, or that he will gain much traction if he does. And I had enough candidates listed as it is.

Where's Sarah Palin?

In obscurity. Similar to Jindal, only times 10,000.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

They will run Cliven Bundy and Joe the Plumber.

 

[Derec]

Who the hell knows...its way too early for anything but SWAGs.

What the hell are SWAGs?
And yes, it's early in the process, but not too early. It's only a little over a year until Iowa (January 18th). And prospective candidates are already feeling the water. Then there's this:
G.O.P. Donors Seek to Anoint a 2016 Nominee Early
It's a good place to start looking at how the field evolves. No fun in asking the poll question if the field is already winnowed down too much.

Though I did laugh at the Cruz pic, it kind of reminded me of a younger Bill Murry, though with extra hair...

That's an insult to Bill Murray.

 

[dx713]

John Kasich almost has to be the guy, unless there is something hiding in the shadows. He is a Governor of a critical battleground state and won elections by good margins. He comes across as a "moderate" while actually being rather conservative. He has put forth seriously insane tax reforms that looks great in the short term to make him appear competent. He is mainstream, so he'd have the backing of the establishment, and while appearing "moderate", could get enough support from the whackos of the Republican Party. His strongest quality is his ability to keep his mouth shut regarding moral issues, and he never brings up rape. (That makes a Republican electable in the US)

He is what Scott Walker wishes he was. The only legit opponent is Jeb Bush, but I don't know if the country wants a monarchy. I could barely handle another Clinton. Forget a third Bush! Anyone else in that list likely loses by a landslide in '16. I think Kasich can win.

That's all fine and dandy, but that assumes republican voters will select for the best electable candidate, and not the most rabid base-pleasing one.
I'd bet (but only a symbolic euro, mind you) on Santorum. Base pleasing, campaign money, former number two, knows the drill... He has all the qualities to go through the primaries (of course, then winning the election will be another matter)

 

[funinspace]

What the hell are SWAGs?

Silly Wild Ass Guess

And yes, it's early in the process, but not too early. It's only a little over a year until Iowa (January 18th). And prospective candidates are already feeling the water. Then there's this:
G.O.P. Donors Seek to Anoint a 2016 Nominee Early
It's a good place to start looking at how the field evolves. No fun in asking the poll question if the field is already winnowed down too much.

It might work better creating a poll on who people think don’t have a reasonable chance of winning. I would say these can’t win the nomination: Palin, Romney, Rick Perry, and Rand Paul.

Though I did laugh at the Cruz pic, it kind of reminded me of a younger Bill Murry, though with extra hair...

That's an insult to Bill Murray.

Ok, an ugly butt faced version of Bill…

 

[funinspace]

John Kasich almost has to be the guy, unless there is something hiding in the shadows. He is a Governor of a critical battleground state and won elections by good margins. He comes across as a "moderate" while actually being rather conservative. He has put forth seriously insane tax reforms that looks great in the short term to make him appear competent. He is mainstream, so he'd have the backing of the establishment, and while appearing "moderate", could get enough support from the whackos of the Republican Party. His strongest quality is his ability to keep his mouth shut regarding moral issues, and he never brings up rape. (That makes a Republican electable in the US)

He is what Scott Walker wishes he was. The only legit opponent is Jeb Bush, but I don't know if the country wants a monarchy. I could barely handle another Clinton. Forget a third Bush! Anyone else in that list likely loses by a landslide in '16. I think Kasich can win.

That's all fine and dandy, but that assumes republican voters will select for the best electable candidate, and not the most rabid base-pleasing one.
I'd bet (but only a symbolic euro, mind you) on Santorum. Base pleasing, campaign money, former number two, knows the drill... He has all the qualities to go through the primaries (of course, then winning the election will be another matter)

Yet, the Repugs recent picks, wouldn't fit that pattern:
2012: Romney
2008: McCain - yeah neocon warrior, but certainly not a moral crusader
2000: Shrub - appeared somewhat as a moderate

Sanatorum didn't have much money behind him last time, though I have no idea if that has changed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

John Kasich almost has to be the guy, unless there is something hiding in the shadows. He is a Governor of a critical battleground state and won elections by good margins. He comes across as a "moderate" while actually being rather conservative. He has put forth seriously insane tax reforms that looks great in the short term to make him appear competent. He is mainstream, so he'd have the backing of the establishment, and while appearing "moderate", could get enough support from the whackos of the Republican Party. His strongest quality is his ability to keep his mouth shut regarding moral issues, and he never brings up rape. (That makes a Republican electable in the US)

He is what Scott Walker wishes he was. The only legit opponent is Jeb Bush, but I don't know if the country wants a monarchy. I could barely handle another Clinton. Forget a third Bush! Anyone else in that list likely loses by a landslide in '16. I think Kasich can win.

That's all fine and dandy, but that assumes republican voters will select for the best electable candidate, and not the most rabid base-pleasing one.

Despite the radicals doing everything they could in '12, Romney was still nominated.

I'd bet (but only a symbolic euro, mind you) on Santorum. Base pleasing, campaign money, former number two, knows the drill... He has all the qualities to go through the primaries (of course, then winning the election will be another matter)

Santorum was the hail mary from the radicals on the right. No way in heck can he actually win a nomination. I think Martha Coakley will win the Democratic nomination before he wins the Republican nomination.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Ted Nugent

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This is going to be a tough primary, due to the lack of a clear "heir" as has been the Republican pattern for decades. But many on that list won't make it past New Hampshire.

Could be the "new normal" as in 2008 and 2012 there was no "heir apparent" either. Ironically it is the Democrats who have a heiress apparent who is sucking all the oxygen out of the room.

Actually 2008 and 2012 follow the heir apparent pattern, as the 2nd place in the previous primary is often the 1st place in the next primary and it has been that way for decades.

1976, 1st place Ford, 2nd place Reagan
1980, 1st place Reagan, 2nd place Bush
1984, negligible primary opposition
1988, 1st place Bush, 2nd place Dole
1992, negligible primary opposition
1996, 1st place Dole, distant second Buchanan
2000, Bush Jr cut to the front of the line, 2nd place McCain
2004, negligible primary opposition
2008, 1st place McCain, 2nd place Romney
2012, 1st place Romney, 2nd place Santorum (assuming the votes were honestly cast and honestly counted)

Yes, you did forget one, Bobby Jindal. I'm not saying he'll make it, but he is commonly thought of as a potential candidate.

I think he was a few years ago but his star has definitely sunk a bit. I do not think it is likely at this point that he will run, or that he will gain much traction if he does. And I had enough candidates listed as it is.

Yeah, overall, but I'd say some on your list also have as little of a chance as Jindal, and some maybe less.

 

[Derec]

Actually 2008 and 2012 follow the heir apparent pattern, as the 2nd place in the previous primary is often the 1st place in the next primary and it has been that way for decades.

Yes, the "runner up" effect is very strong in the GOP as I have myself posted on this board in numerous threads. However, I see "heir apparent" and "previous runner up" as two separate things.
For example, I would view George W Bush as "heir apparent" even though he didn't run for president before, because he had a broad support in the party from early on.
McCain and Romney for all their "runner up" bonus didn't have that and had to go through a long, grueling and bloody primary process. Especially McCain, whose candidacy was on the ropes for a while there.

So Hillary is both the "runner up" and is "heiress apparent" if we are to believe early polling.

Yeah, overall, but I'd say some on your list also have as little of a chance as Jindal, and some maybe less.

Perhaps I'll do another poll in the summer with declared candidates. But this poll is of my impression of the candidates at this stage of the game. But I do have "somebody else" as an option. Maybe I should have put Jindal for Ryan though. Too late now.