Republicans: who would you pick for 2016?

But what if the most conservative candidate that can win in the general is Hillary Clinton?

What’s Rubio done? Besides flub his SOTU response and flipflop on immigration? He’s been Hispanic, that’s pretty much all.

There are a lot of stories about Kasich’s quick temper. That tends to get candidates in trouble, and does not improve the partisan climate (but thanks for recognizing and hinting that you see it as a problem that a change of Republican faces could help).

Duplicate post.

Wouldn’t it also count if all else was equal?

I maintain that Reagan was an extremist who only got elected because of his charisma. If he was not so comfortable on camera and so disarming, I think Carter mops the floor with him. But I agree that Clinton, Obama, and Reagan were the only charismatic candidates since JFK.

We’ve also seen the anti-charismatics get their asses handed to them (Dukakis, Mondale, Dole) so it seems to me there’s a floor level of charisma you must have to win.

Rubio has thus far looked not ready for prime time. His signature issue seems to be hating Castro and the rest of the country has moved past that. At one time it was essential to be anti-Castro to win Florida but those times are past. To date, he hasn’t done himself any favors and his Iraq fumbling was about as bad as Jeb’s.

As I’ve said, Rubio hasn’t done much. He does have a distinguished legislative career, but that’s not the same as running the executive branch.

Clinton had an extremely hot temper, and Hillary does too. What matters is whether they can control it in public and in diplomacy, whether with foreign leaders or domestic ones. Has Kasich lost his cool when it actually mattered, or is he like Clinton, a guy who blows up at his staff when things go wrong?

Lindsey Graham could also change the partisan climate, he’s one of the most bipartisan guys in the Senate. He’d be the only candidate from either side who would start out with a Senate already willing to work with him.

I agree that Carter would probably have beaten Reagan otherwise, but then again, if Reagan wasn’t so charismatic the nominee probably would have been Bush, and due to voter dissatisfaction I think Bush would have won. When voters want change, it takes a lot to keep the incumbent in office.

Bush 41 was pretty anti-charismatic, but yeah, he got to run against Dukakis. Bush 43 was awkward too, but he ran against Kerry, who I’m surprised you didn’t mention. Can’t imagine someone less pleasant to listen to speak than him.

Rubio is nowhere near ready for primetime, but he’s got potential and sometimes guys like him get hot at the right time. He’s not threatening, and he’s young and handsome, so he’s got some things going for him without even trying.

Specifically?

John McCain thinks Kasich has “a hair-trigger temper”. Let that sink in for a moment.

Maybe. If he doesn’t go in promising to bomb Iran. And if he doesn’t give the hyenas an opening to whisper about his sexuality - that’s enough to keep him out of it.

Your favorite candidates are always guys who haven’t run yet, and haven’t been examined closely yet, aren’t they? As soon as they become real, you give up on them. Maybe it’s not them, yanno?

I haven’t given up on anyone, I’m just avoiding heavily boosting anyone since as you say, they haven’t been well vetted yet. Except for maybe Kasich. He’s been around way too long for anything to come out that would be particularly damaging. No one cares about a candidate’s temper unless they see it in public.

I was considering Christie until he made a huge deal about being against legalizing marijuana. Now, I dunno. Too early to care much. Let them thin the herd, and either one of them will impress me enough to earn my vote, or I’ll look at the Dem nominee if it is anybody other than Hillary, or I’ll write myself in while concentrating on local races down the ballot.

The only guys you still think can win are the ones who aren’t running. As soon as they do, you find out they can’t, either. There are also ones who meet all your other stated criteria, but with whom even you are familiar enough not to hope for - Rick Scott for instance - but they never make you think that the ones you disrespect less are only on your list because you don’t know enough about them yet to disrespect them.

There is no reason to think your latest Great White Hope, Kasich, will be immune to the problem any more than, say, your former A-List of Christie and Jindal.

Christie’s got some ethical stink on him now though. Not enough to disqualify him, but with Clinton the likely nominee I don’t want the waters muddied by a “The GOP nominee is a crook too!” campaign. We need squeaky clean.

At some point you’re going to need a name, though.

Adher’s far from unique in this regard. This was the reason for the repeated rise and fall of the non-Romney’s in the last campaign.

Oh, sure. But normally one expects people with so much interest in the subject to be aware of the problem and to consciously try to account for it.

That’s kind of a parodied version what I was trying to say.

A candidate’s race will not, by itself, win or lose an election. But if you find two candidates who can check off every box regarding qualifications, position, connections, etc. but one of those guys is white and one is black… does it not send a message about the party’s priorities which person they choose?

Elections are won on the cumulative effect of numerous messages. Maybe the minority candidate helps with a win.

But maybe it just helps send the message that the Republican party is not the party of old white guys, but the party of all people who believe that success comes from individual choices and free markets. This is a message that can easily get lost when stupid, bigoted, petty assholes start pandering to Iowa in the primaries. (No offense to Iowa intended; it just takes time to weed out the crazies and get down to real candidates.)

I like a lot of them, but all are flawed. At least I have choices. Your side is kinda stuck, although it’s a problem of your own making.

Not so fast. All humans are flawed, certainly, it takes no insight to say so, but there is a wide range of flawedness possible. You see more flaws in people who are running and are being assessed as candidates than in those who aren’t. That you do not deny.

The fact that *all *of your choices espouse policies that would be damaging to the country and the nation, and that many lack personal strengths as well, is not a point in your favor. Neither is your party’s inability to get its own organization and agenda in order (remember all those jokes you’ve been used to making about the Democrats’ disorganization?), inviting so many clowns to get in the car.

Well, in a perfect world, the Republicans’ 2008 implosion would have been followed by a fairly long period of good Democratic governance. We didn’t get that, so the Republicans are forced to remain out of the wilderness and at the forefront of governance while they still have a lot of issues to work out. It’s a situation where Democrats should be able to dominate, and could dominate, simply by governing the way people want. Competence wouldn’t hurt either.

You *might *admit you don’t think there can be such a thing. Because, you know, that’s what we’ve had.

Who I think will be nominated is Jeb. Who I’d like to be nominated is either Paul or Cruz. Pity Daniels will never give it a shot.

Fiorina helped run HP into the ground when she was there; why anyone would point to her tenure as evidence that she should be the Chief Executive is beyond me. Other than her gender, of course.

Had we heard much of Barack Obama, in May of 2007? He’d announced his candidacy in February, but wasn’t he still a bit of a cipher in the mainstream news at that time? I don’t recall hearing that much about him except that he had Jack Ryan’s old seat. The point being that maybe the eventual candidate for the GOP is still not quite on the radar yet. When’s the latest realistically that candidates have to declare?