I think the guy to beat at this point is Paul Ryan, specially if he gets immigration reform done in some form or another (which is looking likelier at this point). He is a tea party/conservative guy coopted by the establishment Republicans, kind of what Rubio wanted to be.
I think it is more likely that the next Presidential will go to whomever is posturing as a moderate right than to another Democrat (at this early vantage point). It might well be Christie. I think he’s generally well liked on a national level, is currently going out of his way to move away from the reactionaries like Cruz and realistically guesses his best bet for becoming President is to appeal to the moderates of all parties who are tired of extremist stalemates.
It would be nice to think Hilary would get her shot, but at this time, despite the incredible (and in my opinion ‘appropriate’) backlash against the extreme right illustrated by the Tea Party, I think unhappy people trend to voting against the ruling party generally. It might well go Republican next time and Christie is probably the best of that loony lot.
Personally I think the Tea Party is dead and just waiting for self-realization to stop breathing at all.
Not only do I agree, I was the first one years ago to say Ryan was one to watch. However his coyness on his future plans is irritating at best, IMHO.
Also, IMHO, he will not take a VP nom in '16 and will go all in for the top slot.
The biggest problem with the Republican party when it comes to the POTUS election is primary voters [I have a major problem with the primary election system] tend to vote for the guy they consider “next in Line” which right now seems to be a fat blowhard from 'Jersey! But the Dems may fall into this trap as well by nominating Hillary, who could become the William Jennings Bryan of the 21st century.
They are still very very strong in Republican primaries.
Yes and no. That minority is extremely vocal in some few areas, but you can tell since Boehner and most of the GOP Presidential hopefuls are publicly disavowing them, that love affair is over.
Stopping the government over the national debt was a bad idea the first time and the GOP was stomped afterwards and then compounding it last fall was the death knell of Tea Party influence, imo.
However, it’s kind of a shame because if there is anything this country needs, it is politically aware and active citizens and another party, more if possible, to get our priorities straight.
I have to say I’m glad the GOP decided to pull their collective heads out of their youknowwheres because the only thing worse than our inane two party system which already fouls our legislation would be one party with no adversary. Totalitarian rule.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, which I’m not, I might think the public separation of some credible Republicans from the Tea Party, combined with the Duck Dynasty furor was a way of lending strength to the conservative voice through planned events, to avoid leaving us with one party rule.
In my opinion, however, there is little difference between the two parties and all of it is for show to make the masses think they have a choice. I think both parties are corporatist.
I’ll believe this when I see it. The fact that mainstream conservative groups are trying to raise tens of millions (an enormous sum in off-year elections) to run candidates against the Tea Party proves to me that they still see them as extremely potent.
As do I. This is the “all politics is local” adage. The Tea Party has lost clout in national politics, but that will make them push all the harder in local and state races. It will be several election cycles before we see any death knell of influence, and that’s the most optimistic scenario.
I think it therefore goes without saying that I agree even less with the rest of your post. Anybody who thinks this deserves any gains made by the Tea Party.
It will be an interesting watch, then.
I remember the die-hard Palin fans of yesteryear and one of the neat things I ran across during her stint as a vice-presidential hopeful was a site that actually ran what was essentially a minor stock market for the candidates. You knew when her stock bottomed out it was over. I might see if I can dig one up come election time that is accepting betting on Cruz or Paul Ryan. There have even been some hint Jeb might run and I can’t even imagine the slaughterfest on the GOP if they do that, but no doubt it would be endlessly entertaining.
I think the most fun GOP slate would be Jeb Bush/Sarah Palin. Election season is always so dreary; I think the diversion would be hysterical and reduce the boredom factor.
The chances of a Republican extremist being nominated in 2016 are definitely higher than in past elections, and I can’t help wondering what would happen if both parties ran extremists. Unlikely, sure, but it would be interesting to watch. Say, Paul Ryan against Elizabeth Warren? There would be high turnout among moderates out of fear of the opposing extremist winning, but large amounts of independents wouldn’t bother voting, or would vote third party.
That would be awesome.
In actually, the President only has so much influence so much of it depends on how Congress ends up being represented. I don’t think you’d see voter apathy, though. Probably just a lot of write in votes for Ron Paul. 
This x1000. To win the GOP nomination you must take extreme positions that will hurt you, perhaps fatally, in the general election. No wonder Romney’s strategist talked about an Etch A Sketch moment.
Honestly, it’d be interesting to see if Christie CAN bull through this sort of thing. Ignore the extremists, take his semi-moderate cross-party routine to the voters and say, “Fuck you, this is how I’m gonna win the Presidency.”
That, more than anything else, would indicate just how much ground the Tea Party has lost. That would either break its back or elevate it to Olympian heights.
The GOP is already working to change the nomination process, to keep the extreme wackos from dominating the conversation early.
Christie will probably go the Howard Dean route: not change his views on anything, but emphasize the points of agreement with conservative voters, and like Dean, be very partisan about it. What kills moderate candidates in GOP primaries isn’t being moderate on the issues, it’s being moderate about the opposition. Christie knows how to push the right buttons and I think he’ll be successful at doing that.
This will also make it easier for him to move back to the center in the general election. It’s easier to change tone than to change positions.
I think the Democrats actually have the bigger primary problem. Hillary CLinton is the prohibitive frontrunner, but we’ve heard that before. If she does sail through, great. If she’s getting bogged down in a long race by attacks from her left, and she feels the need to break left to win, that’s going to be a big problem in the general election. Plus she may end up having the same problem McCain did only worse, having to disassociate herself from an unpopular incumbent. Although that could change in three years, she might want to associate herself with Obama as much as possible by then.
Wow. Just…wow. (Balance of post edited because Not-Pit)
The thing is, though, that’s exactly where Christie’s moderation is: He’s willing to work with the other party, and doesn’t mind them getting what they want, as long as he gets what he wants, too. Remember all the right-wing furor about him working with Obama on Sandy recovery?
Sure I do. It caused him a lot more grief than any of his actual positions. Which was stupid. When did hurricane relief become a partisan issue? When was working with the President on said non-partisan issue a crime against the party?
However, Christie also knows how to attack Democrats. He’s good at it. I think he’ll give GOP primary voters a lot to like, and you figure after two straight losses they’ll really want to win. He’s the only one leading Clinton in some polls. Everyone else is 7-15 points behind. And his name recognition isn’t anywhere near Clinton’s, so I’d expect he’d lead by even more in an actual Presidential race.
When your party lost its shit. Which, I’m sure coincidentally, was about the time a black guy got elected president.
I’ve been hearing about the GOP losing its shit my whole life. I find that both parties find new ways to surprise me, but I don’t think they get more crazy or radical. I never thought I’d see a day when a party would label all criticisms of a law they passed “misinformation”, when much of the criticism turned out to be true. That’s pushing the envelope quite a bit, but I know why they did it: health care was a long time goal of the party and they’d literally do anything to get it passed. Good thing a human sacrifice on the floor of the Senate wasn’t necessary, because the rationalizations about the good of the many would have been on at least 50 Dem Senators’ lips.
Please proceed, Senator. I’m looking forward to your next mini-vacation from the Dope at the end of this year…