GOP Nominee in 2016

[IceQube]

Who's going to be the GOP nominee in 2016?

[Fear Itself]

Rick Santorum. It's his turn.

pleasepleaseplease

[Kimstu]

Jeb Bush.

(I guessed him for 2012 originally and was wrong about that, so I'm doubling down.)

[Gangster Octopus]

Some Gay, black and/or hispanic woman.

[Der Trihs]

Some ideologically pure "movement conservative" nut who wins the Republican primary and gets annihilated in the general election, I suspect. Four years is a long time in politics of course, but right now the Republicans seem to be leaning towards explaining their losses as "we weren't conservative enough!"

[IceQube]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Jeb Bush.

(I guessed him for 2012 originally and was wrong about that, so I'm doubling down.)

What about his son? He's half-Mexican.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Bush

[DSeid]

Wait six months and see who is visiting Iowa.

[Fear Itself]

Why wait?

Marco Rubio Heads to Iowa

[Marley23]

It's way too soon to say. I agree the Iowa trip suggests Rubio is interested. There's reason to think Chris Christie will make a run since he thought about it this year. But it's too soon to have a real idea who could win (although I don't think it's too early to say Santorum has no chance). We'll have to see what the big issues are as a the campaign approaches. But it does make sense to say that a moderated position on immigration and better outreach to Latinos could make Rubio intriguing to some voters.

[drewtwo99]

I expect that Republicans are going to go balls to the wall with making sure they don't nominate another old white guy. I expect Rubio, honestly.

[China Guy]

What about Paul Ryan? I mean his marathon times are shit, but he's mental on pro-life?

[Marley23]

We'll see. Ryan didn't do too much for Romney in the end, did he? A week or two ago stories started coming out suggesting he might quit Congress and teach or something instead of getting forced into a bunch of difficult votes that could be attacked in 2016. The economy in 2015-16 is not going to be what it is now. Are they going to campaign on big spending cuts even though that didn't seem to be a winning issue?

[ITR champion]

I'd say that the three most probable choices at the moment are Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, or Chris Christie, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that it could be someone who's totally off the radar screen at the moment.

[foolsguinea]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Rick Santorum. It's his turn.

pleasepleaseplease

Hey! My "bright side" of a possible Rmoney victory was that it meant Santorum wouldn't be in position in 2016 to ride a popular-vote pendulum swing back into the White House!

Let me be sad that it's now possible again!

Oh well, the corrupt sap has four years, he has time to get in some giant financial scandal and ruin his chance.

But yeah, barring such a scandal, Santorum looks like the candidate of the religious right, and of a GOP that looks like today's GOP. That means he's the obvious choice at this point, because what's the point of being conservative if you aren't resistant to reform?

[computergeek]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Some ideologically pure "movement conservative" nut who wins the Republican primary and gets annihilated in the general election, I suspect. Four years is a long time in politics of course, but right now the Republicans seem to be leaning towards explaining their losses as "we weren't conservative enough!"

I'm a Republican who's been unhappy with the far Right of the party for awhile now, so I would love to see this happen, just to teach the far Right a huge lesson. And he/she has to be totally trounced by the popular vote, not just the Electoral Vote.

[Derleth]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Some ideologically pure "movement conservative" nut who wins the Republican primary and gets annihilated in the general election, I suspect. Four years is a long time in politics of course, but right now the Republicans seem to be leaning towards explaining their losses as "we weren't conservative enough!"

I still keep imagining that the Republicans will be at least animal-cunning enough to change strategies that don't work, so how about this: 2014 is it for the old-fashioned Religious Right. Make or Break time. If the Old White Dudes can't come through in the mid-terms, in 2016 the Republicans will woo the Conservative Hispanic vote and whatever Tea Partiers are still alive can pound sand.

On the other hand, if 2014 brings a few new House and Senate seats, maybe even a Senate majority, the Gerontocracy holds on for another cycle and 2016 sees another Romney-Like Humanoid get fed to the grinder.

[septimus]

John Huntsman seems to be very competent, good-spirited, advocating intelligent policies, etc. He might even be the Great Uniter America needs. Unfortunately, being a Mormon probably disqualifies him for 2016. ("Tried that; didn't work.")

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Derleth

I still keep imagining that the Republicans will be at least animal-cunning enough to change strategies that don't work, so how about this: 2014 is it for the old-fashioned Religious Right. Make or Break time.

But the Tea Party will probably get revived in 2014 not killed off.

It's a basic political reality. Midterm elections don't draw the numbers that Presidential elections do.

2012: 123,092,316 voters (approximately 50% - I couldn't find an official figure)
2008: 132,618,580 voters (56.8%)
2004: 122,294,978 voters (55.3%)
2000: 105,586,274 voters (51.3%)
1996: 96,456,345 voters (49.1%)
1992: 104,405,155 voters (55.1%)

2010: 90,682,968 voters (37.8%)
2006: 80,588,000 voters (37.1%)
2002: 79,830,119 voters (37.0%)
1998: 73,117,022 voters (36.4%)
1994: 75,105,860 voters (38.8%)
1990: 67,859,189 voters (36.5%)

So who votes in mid-term elections? Presumably the people who are most passionate about their political beliefs. So the people who vote in mid-term elections are more conservative or more liberal than presidential election voters.

And as the party out of power, the Republicans will be more pumped up. So you'll see more conservatives running and getting elected. And this will convince some people that 2012 was a fluke and the country is moving to the right. Just as 2010 convinced these people that 2008 was fluke and 1994 convinced them that 1992 was a fluke. And in the presidential elections of of 1996 and 2012, the more moderate voters showed up again and re-elected the President who supposedly had the voters away from him.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by IceQube

What about his son? He's half-Mexican.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Bush

And he's never held political office yet. He'll barely be age eligible in 2016. 2036 would be more plausible than 2016. Hey, maybe we need a thread for who will be the GOP nominee in 2036!

Let's not forget Bobby Jindal. His name is constantly circulated as a possible candidate.

What about Lindsey Graham? He's always on the talk shows, and seems to have a national presence. I understand the Tea Party has him in their sites for the next non-pure conservative to oust, so if he survives that, maybe he's got traction.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Let's not forget Bobby Jindal. His name is constantly circulated as a possible candidate.

Bobby Jindal calls on Republicans to “stop being the stupid party”. I wonder if Republican voters will get what he is saying, or just brand him as "not conservative enough".

[DSeid]

Which of this last crop's field of wishful thinkers and speculated might jump ins will try again?

Agreed that the GOP has a structural issue - midterms and primaries are a base gauntlet for a contender to get through. A filter with teeth. Many who would appeal to the critical mass of moderates and swing voters either do not pass through the filter or get very damaging squeezing through. Even with his cash load and organization well in place ahead of time and no one else of real consequence to have to run against Romney merely ran out of not-Romneys standing.

How does a more principled candidate with views that appeal to enough moderates and swings make it through that process? They'll need similar amounts of cash and organization. That contender therefore is starting now. A more moderate candidate off the radar now without the cash and organization in place by 1 year from now making it through the process? Doubt. A busload of contenders for the votes of the "true conservatives" ... sure, and one might be the last rat standing (apologies to Silva).

I'm betting some serious war chest building for Rubio is in progress and that he will be the one to beat. Christie first has to finish up winning his Governorship again and can then decide if he will join in. I honestly don't think he has the burning desire for it.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Bobby Jindal calls on Republicans to “stop being the stupid party”. I wonder if Republican voters will get what he is saying, or just brand him as "not conservative enough".

Yes, just heard that on MSNBC as I was typing. Oh, I didn't realize that (from your cite):

"Jindal, a Brown Graduate and Rhodes Scholar, is already a favorite of conservative intellectuals..."

Emphasis added. Of course smarts is no guarantee of success. I still say Mitt Romney was plenty smart. Stanford, Harvard (dual Law and Business degree), and that didn't help him. Jindal, though, has a much more compelling biography. Mitt was just some really, really rich guy in the end.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by John Mace

...is already a favorite of conservative intellectuals..."

I'm having trouble digesting that phrase. "conservative intellectual"? You mean there are some?

Seriously, you're getting Santorum. I think the 2012 run was just to get his name out there for 2016. He'll start 2016 with name recognition plus he won't get zapped by the Romney Death Star. Hillary will beat him senseless and maybe, just maybe, by 2020 the Republicans will rejoin the human race.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

I'm having trouble digesting that phrase. "conservative intellectual"? You mean there are some?

As many as there are liberal intellectuals.


What about Nikki Haley? Certainly not an old white guy and she is a TeaBagger (dammit!). I predicted in some thread a few months ago that if we lost, Pub leadership would say it's because we're not crazy-ass right enough. I hate being right.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

As many as there are liberal intellectuals.

Given how outright stupid American conservatism is I rather doubt that.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

What about Nikki Haley? Certainly not an old white guy and she is a TeaBagger (dammit!). I predicted in some thread a few months ago that if we lost, Pub leadership would say it's because we're not crazy-ass right enough. I hate being right.

She's just a silly little thing. South Carolina must be in wonderful shape, since she found the time to force each and every state employee to answer each and every phone call by saying "It's a beautiful day in South Carolina". With such a keen eye for issues of importance, how could she lose?

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

Given how outright stupid American conservatism is I rather doubt that.

If stupidity of ideals means that you can't be an intellectual, then that means there are no liberal intellectuals.

[Fear Itself]

Are you kidding? Conservatives have railed against intellectuals as the liberal elite for decades. Intellectualism and conservatism are mutually incompatible.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

She's just a silly little thing. South Carolina must be in wonderful shape, since she found the time to force each and every state employee to answer each and every phone call by saying "It's a beautiful day in South Carolina". With such a keen eye for issues of importance, how could she lose?

Wait a sec, are you saying that you think we may actually nominate a viable candidate? Then you have more faith in my party than I do.

[Barkis is Willin']

I think the GOP knows they can't just send in the next "it's my turn now" candidate in 2016. I'm not even sure who that would be, but it certainly isn't Santorum. I also can't see Jeb Bush getting much traction.

This article points out a couple potential candidates from Ohio. Governer John Kasich and Senator Rob Portman. Of the two, Portman seems more qualified to me, but probably wouldn't kick up much enthusiasm. Kasich has the charisma, but is more likely to beclown himself at some point during a long campaign.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Saint Cad

Wait a sec, are you saying that you think we may actually nominate a viable candidate? Then you have more faith in my party than I do.

Let's step back and look at the big picture. Imagine it's 2016- the economic recovery started picking up steam in 2013 and unemployment is down to say 6%. Due to the recovery and the end of some Bush-era tax breaks and the end to the Afghan war, the deficit is now a shadow of its former self. Obamacare has been implemented, with nary a death panel in sight and millions of formerly uninsured now have coverage. Against that backdrop, what would constitute a viable GOP candidate? I don't think there is such a thing. If I had to bet, they'll go hard right and get thumped. Of course the alternative would be to go moderate and get thumped.

[Death of Rats]

The plus to Rob Portman is that he can practice debate against himself!

[Enlightening Meditation]

The Bush/Clinton dynasty will resume:

Bush/Christie v. Clinton/Cuomo for 2016

Jeb Bush has a latina wife, was popular as governor of Florida, and has name recognition. Maybe the ticket will be Christie/Rubio if Jeb isn't interested in running.

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Let's step back and look at the big picture. Imagine it's 2016- the economic recovery started picking up steam in 2013 and unemployment is down to say 6%. Due to the recovery and the end of some Bush-era tax breaks and the end to the Afghan war, the deficit is now a shadow of its former self. Obamacare has been implemented, with nary a death panel in sight and millions of formerly uninsured now have coverage. Against that backdrop, what would constitute a viable GOP candidate? I don't think there is such a thing. If I had to bet, they'll go hard right and get thumped. Of course the alternative would be to go moderate and get thumped.

I would argue against a reduced deficit. If Congress has proven anything, it is that no matter who is in charge the deficit will grow and I believe that $1T is the new standard and wouldn't count on it going below that. I am not so sure the Afghan War will be over in 2014 as promised.

The Tea Party was a good indicator of a viable candidate. Remember that TP was very popular as a fiscal-based party until it got hijacked by the nutters on the right. If we throw up a fiscal conservative that can present a comprehensive financial plan that is not blind tax cuts but is also not the neo-Keynesian spending but rather tax increases where appropriate (capital gains as income and corporate taxes are the two big ones) and reduced spending to pre-Bush2 levels along with being a social moderate on issues like SSM, abortion, education, etc. then that candidate will be very viable.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by Enlightening Meditation

Jeb Bush has ... name recognition.

That's not a strength for him.

[Oedipus]

Too bad we couldn't have thrown support behind Jon Huntsman. That dude seriously seems to have his shit together. Alas, I don't see him being able to get into the White House or on the ticket. Intelligance has no standing in the republican party right now.

[babygoat666]

Originally Posted by Oedipus

Too bad we couldn't have thrown support behind Jon Huntsman. That dude seriously seems to have his shit together. Alas, I don't see him being able to get into the White House or on the ticket. Intelligance has no standing in the republican party right now.

Huntsman sucks too.

[smithsb]

Here's my list of sixteen who will test the waters in no particular order (actually alphabetically):
Bush
Christie
Cuccinelli
Daniels
Haley
Jindal
Kasich
Martinez
McDonnell
Paul (Rand not RuPaul)
Portman
Rubio
Ryan
Santorum
Trump (I kid)
Walker

It's just a coincidence that it makes up 13 plus 3 alternates for the Celebrity Death Pool 2013

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

I'm having trouble digesting that phrase. "conservative intellectual"? You mean there are some?

They're a rare breed.

Seriously, you're getting Santorum. I think the 2012 run was just to get his name out there for 2016.

I don't know. He can be associated with the whole rape/abortion thing that seems to be the downfall of Republicans. I don't know that the voters in 2016 are going to vote in a far right, socially conservative type like him. But I could be wrong.

[drastic_quench]

Originally Posted by IceQube

What about his son? He's half-Mexican.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Bush

He's put his chips in the game. Four days ago, he filed to seek an office in Texas. The particular office is unknown, but perhaps the Texas General Land Office based on his enthusiasm during a previous visit.

After that, something in state or more likely federal legislature, and he'd be on the fast track for a 2020 or more likely 2024 run where he'd be 43 or 47 -- which is still youthful in presidential terms.

[Sarabellum1976]

I agree that the Republicans simply MUST find better candidates - ones that are likeable across-the-board, with crossover appeal, if they truly want to win another presidential election. Focusing on the far-right is simply not going to work. The far-right voters are going to vote for anyone that has an R next to his name anyway - it's the moderates that they need to try to appeal to.

Who are these candidates? I truly do not know. I think a lot of the aformentioned ones are very likely to try, but I don't think any of them could possibly win.

Colin Powell/Condoleezza Rice? That would bring out some voters, maybe. (If nothing else, it would be a truly interesting campaign, LOL) .

George P. Bush might have a shot a few elections down the road, if he doesn't foul things up around here in Texas. Not for 2016, though. He's got a strong draw from Florida and Texas, he's a Catholic and bilingual, to boot - and that could very well take him a long way, once the GWB scent has faded from the trail in about 10 years. The Bush name might very well be weighted more as name-recognition rather than the negative connotations that are so obvious right now.

I suppose we'll have a better idea of him after he's actually gotten himself elected to something. Which looks likely to happen sooner rather than later.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Sarabellum1976

Colin Powell/Condoleezza Rice? That would bring out some voters, maybe. (If nothing else, it would be a truly interesting campaign, LOL) .

In another thread someone recently suggested Obama might nominate Powell for another term at the state department. I don't understand why people are still hanging on to this positive image of Powell or see him as a candidate for president or a cabinet position, although I realize Obama used his endorsement in ads. Neither Powell nor Rice ever expressed any real interest in running for office, they're both inextricably associated with the Bush administration's failures in Iraq (to say nothing of September 11th), and if that were not enough, Powell will turn 79 in 2016. It makes sense to consider the possibility that the Republicans will put at least one person with a minority background on their ticket in 2016 - I heard someone speculate that their may never again be a major-party ticket made up of two white men - but it won't be Powell and Rice.

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by Marley23

In another thread someone recently suggested Obama might nominate Powell for another term at the state department. I don't understand why people are still hanging on to this positive image of Powell or see him as a candidate for president or a cabinet position, although I realize Obama used his endorsement in ads. Neither Powell nor Rice ever expressed any real interest in running for office, they're both inextricably associated with the Bush administration's failures in Iraq (to say nothing of September 11th), and if that were not enough, Powell will turn 79 in 2016. It makes sense to consider the possibility that the Republicans will put at least one person with a minority background on their ticket in 2016 - I heard someone speculate that their may never again be a major-party ticket made up of two white men - but it won't be Powell and Rice.

I think Powell's endorsement of Obama pretty much killed his support from the Republican party.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

I think Powell's endorsement of Obama pretty much killed his support from the Republican party.

There's that, too. He endorsed Obama twice.

[foolsguinea]

Originally Posted by Sarabellum1976

I agree that the Republicans simply MUST find better candidates - ones that are likeable across-the-board, with crossover appeal....

It's not just likability. Republicans have become so multiple-pledge ideological that they have a very hard time finding and nominating someone who's actually competent and professional--to any office, not just Prez.

If you choose the man who ticks seven ideological boxes over one who has experience, expertise, and credibility, you have a harder time running on your candidate's merits, and a harder time governing competently.

[Barkis is Willin']

Originally Posted by Sarabellum1976

The far-right voters are going to vote for anyone that has an R next to his name anyway - it's the moderates that they need to try to appeal to.

Actually, the biggest problem for the GOP is that this is not entirely true. "Moderate" republicans will not excite the far right enough for them to actually get out and vote. But, certainly, if you just appeal to the fringe, you'll lose the independents that Romney did get.

Until there is some kind of compromise within the party, they will have a difficult time winning state-wide or nation-wide elctions.

[Buck Godot]

Originally Posted by Derleth

On the other hand, if 2014 brings a few new House and Senate seats, maybe even a Senate majority, the Gerontocracy holds on for another cycle and 2016 sees another Romney-Like Humanoid get fed to the grinder.

Regarding picking up the senate: There are only 10 Democratic seats up for re-election as compared to 24 Republican seats. So unless there is a big political shift away from the Democrats its unlikely that the Republicans will pick up many seats.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Buck Godot

Regarding picking up the senate: There are only 10 Democratic seats up for re-election as compared to 24 Republican seats. So unless there is a big political shift away from the Democrats its unlikely that the Republicans will pick up many seats.

Just to clarify, those figures are for 2016. In 2014, it's expected to be 20 Democratic seats and 13 Republican seats. On its own that would suggest the Republicans should gain some seats, but of course that's also what people expected in 2012.

[Diceman]

I said it in the other thread, but I think Gov. Rick Snyder of Michigan might "peak" at just the right time to be a credible presidential candidate. He's done a good job of turning around Michigan's economy, he's been successful at pushing back against special interests, and he could swing a traditionally blue state for the Republicans in the election.

[Nancarrow]

Originally Posted by IceQube

What about his son? He's half-Mexican.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Bush

This Briton thinks that's a fantastic idea. You guys can show the world how hard you fought to throw off the shackles of hereditary monarchy, with a list of recent presidents that goes George Bush I, someone else, George Bush II, someone else, George Bush III.