# The 2016 Republican candidates **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 9, 2015, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444 "2015-01-09T22:38:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/341 "2015-01-26T02:46:41Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Well, they all seem to want in. Maybe they are just delusional. It’s kind of a requirement really. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/342 "2015-01-26T07:01:19Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Bush and Romney aren’t exactly marginal, and by definition any blue state Republican governor is a serious contender. That makes four serious contenders right there, any one of whom would have won the nomination if they were up against the 2012 field. > > it’s a much stronger field, there’s no way one can rationally deny that. So just to be sure I’m following your argument, you’re saying that a group of candidates that included four current/former governors (Romney, Perry, Pawlenty, and Huntsman), one of whom had been Ambassador to China (Huntsman), a former Speaker of the House (Gingrinch), a former US Senator (Santorum), and two sitting members of the House (Paul and Bachmann), was not a strong field? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/343 "2015-01-26T07:39:49Z")
The field lacked the party’s biggest name(Jeb Bush) and the party’s VP candidate from the previous election(Palin). The governors in the current field were elected by bluer electorates(Kasich, Walker, Christie, Romney, Bush) than the 2012 field, which contained only two such governors(Romney, Pawlenty). It’s a stronger field. A lot stronger. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/344 "2015-01-26T11:26:37Z")
You’re saying the possible entry of _Sarah Palin_ makes this a stronger field? Seriously? When she made [this speech](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/25/sarah-palin-iowa-speech_n_6543762.html?utm_hp_ref=politics) in Iowa: > [@](#): > > “Things must change for our government. Look at it. It isn’t too big to fail. It’s too big to succeed! It’s too big to succeed, so we can afford no retreads or nothing will change with the same people and same policies that got us into the status quo. Another Latin word, status quo, and it stands for, ‘Man, the middle-class everyday Americans are really gettin’ taken for a ride.’ That’s status quo, and GOP leaders, by the way, y’know the man can only ride ya when your back is bent. So strengthen it. Then the man can’t ride ya, America won’t be taken for a ride, because so much is at stake and we can’t afford politicians playing games like nothing more is at stake than, oh, maybe just the next standing of theirs in the next election.” ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/345 "2015-01-26T11:40:03Z")
Only given her status, not her quality as a candidate. She also sat out 2012, which says that she also thinks she’s more likely to be President now than she would have in 2012. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/346 "2015-01-26T12:18:03Z")
I’d note that on the Democratic side, not a single big name has so much as expressed an interest in running yet. We assume Clinton will get in, but you’d think she’d be eager to dissuade opposition and get donors lined up. I think it’s more likely that she’s waiting to see what kind of environment she’s going to have to run in before making a decision. If Obama continues to rebound, great. If he falls on his face again, she might decide it’s not worth her time to run another losing campaign. So if we’re judging by confidence, the Republican side has all the swagger right now. They all want in. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/347 "2015-01-26T12:28:16Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Only given her status, not her quality as a candidate. She also sat out 2012, which says that she also thinks she’s more likely to be President now than she would have in 2012. She has a better chance of winning the Nobel Prize in science, starting at QB for the next Super Bowl champion, and succeeding Queen Elizabeth all in the same year than she does being elected president. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/348 "2015-01-26T12:29:17Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I hear Donald Trump ripped it up, and it looks like this time he is serious about running. Joy. Trumps’ obviously a smart guy, and competent too, but he can be out of touch with reality sometimes. A smart guy? And “competent”? No wonder you were fooled by the birthers. > [@](#): > > At least with the neurosurgeon we get a story that the Democrats can’t trash. Then all we have to do is teach Carson some message discipline. That’s easier than selling Trump to the public in a time of middle class anxiety. Sure, we can’t trash Carson. Unless we actually look at the words that have come out of his mouth. Then he’s eminently trashable. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/349 "2015-01-26T12:32:29Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’d note that on the Democratic side, not a single big name has so much as expressed an interest in running yet. We assume Clinton will get in, but you’d think she’d be eager to dissuade opposition and get donors lined up. I think it’s more likely that she’s waiting to see what kind of environment she’s going to have to run in before making a decision. If Obama continues to rebound, great. If he falls on his face again, she might decide it’s not worth her time to run another losing campaign. > > So if we’re judging by confidence, the Republican side has all the swagger right now. They all want in. Why would we judge by confidence? If we judged by confidence, Michelle Bachmann and Allen West would be joint rulers of the World Christian Empire. As far as big names, Obama wasn’t a big name until he started winning primaries. Neither was Bill Clinton. I don’t think Jimmy Carter was either. Democrats, in general, don’t become big names until they start to win primary states. That’s (part of) what the primary is for, at least for the Democrats – to give candidates the opportunity to make a big name for themselves. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/350 "2015-01-26T12:35:24Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > A smart guy? And “competent”? No wonder you were fooled by the birthers. He knows how to run a business. > [@](#): > > Sure, we can’t trash Carson. Unless we actually look at the words that have come out of his mouth. Then he’s eminently trashable. You can’t trash his background the way you would a Bush or a Romney. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/351 "2015-01-26T12:39:56Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Why would we judge by confidence? If we judged by confidence, Michelle Bachmann and Allen West would be joint rulers of the World Christian Empire. It’s not everything, as I said, but it is something. Generally, big names stay out of races that they don’t think they can win. It’s why Gore and Cuomo sat out 1992, and why Hillary and Gore sat out 2004. ANd it’s why Bush and Palin sat out 2012. Challenging incumbents is hard, so the big names generally wait until it’s an open seat when they feel they have a better chance > [@](#): > > As far as big names, Obama wasn’t a big name until he started winning primaries. Neither was Bill Clinton. I don’t think Jimmy Carter was either. Democrats, in general, don’t become big names until they start to win primary states. That’s (part of) what the primary is for, at least for the Democrats – to give candidates the opportunity to make a big name for themselves. Obama was a huge name, just not as huge as Clinton. Bill, as I mentioned, was the strongest of a weak field since the big names shied away from Bush’s 90% approval rating in mid-1991. Carter was not a big name, but the 1976 race did draw some pretty big Democratic firepower. Problem is, the other candidates kinda imploded leaving Carter standing. But Democrats have a problem now that they didn’t have back then, and I think they know they have a problem: no celebrity candidate, no turnout. And no, they don’t become celebrities by winning the nomination. Didn’t help John Kerry. won’t help Democrats other than Clinton either. Republicans, on the other hand, will turn out for John Bolton and Jeb Bush equally. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/352 "2015-01-26T12:43:08Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > He knows how to run a business. Maybe. I’m not convinced – he’s had a ton of spectacular failures, and he’s not exactly self-made. > [@](#): > > You can’t trash his background the way you would a Bush or a Romney. You didn’t specify “background”. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/353 "2015-01-26T12:47:34Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Obama was a huge name, just not as huge as Clinton. I’m not sure you’re right, at least for the U.K. Obama was huge over here from the very start of his presidential campaign, much bigger than Bill Clinton, and well-noted as an orator and black senator before that. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/354 "2015-01-26T12:47:53Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Obama was a huge name, just not as huge as Clinton. Bill, as I mentioned, was the strongest of a weak field since the big names shied away from Bush’s 90% approval rating in mid-1991. Carter was not a big name, but the 1976 race did draw some pretty big Democratic firepower. Problem is, the other candidates kinda imploded leaving Carter standing. Obama was not even close to a “huge name”. He didn’t even have the support of most black Democrats until he won Iowa! If you really think this, then your memory of 2008 is really, really bad. > [@](#): > > But Democrats have a problem now that they didn’t have back then, and I think they know they have a problem: no celebrity candidate, no turnout. If they had a “celebrity candidate” in 2008, it was Hillary, not Obama (at least, not during the primary). Obama made himself a “big name” and a “celebrity”. This opportunity exists for any Democratic candidate who campaigns skillfully. This is a made up problem. It’s not a real problem – this is what primaries are for. > [@](#): > > And no, they don’t become celebrities by winning the nomination. Didn’t help John Kerry. won’t help Democrats other than Clinton either. A skillful campaigner will become a “big name” and a “celebrity”, just like Obama did. The idea that he was a “celebrity” before the 2008 primary is just ludicrous… his name recognition was really, really low, and he didn’t even have the support of black voters. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/355 "2015-01-26T12:48:54Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > I’m not sure you’re right, at least for the U.K. Obama was huge over here from the very start of his presidential campaign, much bigger than Bill Clinton, and well-noted as an orator and black senator before that. He wasn’t a big name at all before the primary campaign started. He made himself a big name by collecting support and winning states. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/356 "2015-01-26T12:51:44Z")
That’s what I meant by story. Businessmen have failures. It’s called risk. the good ones have bigger successes than failures and there’s no question that Trump has been a success. Strangely, the way our politics works, it’s easier to get elected President if you’re a failure in the private sector than if you’re a success. See: GWB. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/357 "2015-01-26T12:55:36Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > He wasn’t a big name at all before the primary campaign started. He made himself a big name by collecting support and winning states. Obama was a bona fide celebrity from the moment he gave his 2004 convention speech, eclipsed only by Hillary Clinton. The guy wasn’t on local radio shows swearing up and down that he wouldn’t run for President. He was being interviewed by the big names and asked if he would run because he was a big name. You act as if he was basically Heidi Heitkamp until he won Iowa. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/358 "2015-01-26T12:57:13Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Obama was a bona fide celebrity from the moment he gave his 2004 convention speech, eclipsed only by Hillary Clinton. The guy wasn’t on local radio shows swearing up and down that he wouldn’t run for President. He was being interviewed by the big names and asked if he would run because he was a big name. You act as if he was basically Heidi Heitkamp until he won Iowa. Nonsense. When Obama announced his campaign for President, nearly 50% of Americans had [little or no idea](https://probonostats.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/obamas-name-recognition-history/) who he was. The primary campaign made him a “big name” – he wasn’t a big name before it by any means (except perhaps to political junkies). ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/359 "2015-01-26T12:59:50Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This opportunity exists for any Democratic candidate who campaigns skillfully. > > This is a made up problem. It’s not a real problem – this is what primaries are for. > > A skillful campaigner will become a “big name” and a “celebrity”, just like Obama did. The idea that he was a “celebrity” before the 2008 primary is just ludicrous… his name recognition was really, really low, and he didn’t even have the support of black voters. The winner of a nomination is not always one who skillfully campaigned. As often as not, it’s just someone who was the most plausible candidate left standing. Democrats end up with that type of candidate more often than not. Again, that’s not to say that the “not Hillary” field is weak. It’s a very good field. I just wonder if any of them are charismatic enough to draw out the kind of people that Obama was able to draw but other Democrats have failed to draw. Republicans aren’t likely to have that problem, no matter who they nominate. The base will turn out for the most boring candidate. The good news, at least as far as base politics goes, is that they aren’t likely to have that problem. The nominee will probably have greater name recognition than the Democrat if the Democrat isn’t Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2015, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/360 "2015-01-26T13:05:01Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The winner of a nomination is not always one who skillfully campaigned. When was it not (beyond scandals like Gary Hart, which can probably be placed in the “bad campaign move” category anyway)? Kerry, as weak a candidate as he was (and he almost won the election!) still campaigned better than Edwards, Clark, and the rest. > [@](#): > > As often as not, it’s just someone who was the most plausible candidate left standing. Democrats end up with that type of candidate more often than not. If so, that “most plausible candidate” ran the most skillful campaign. Al Gore ran a better campaign than Bradley (perhaps largely because Bradley wasn’t trying very hard). Dukakis ran a better campaign than his opponents (unfortunately!). I don’t know about Mondale – that goes back too far for me. > [@](#): > > Again, that’s not to say that the “not Hillary” field is weak. It’s a very good field. I just wonder if any of them are charismatic enough to draw out the kind of people that Obama was able to draw but other Democrats have failed to draw. That’s what primaries are for. We shall see. > [@](#): > > Republicans aren’t likely to have that problem, no matter who they nominate. The base will turn out for the most boring candidate. The good news, at least as far as base politics goes, is that they aren’t likely to have that problem. The nominee will probably have greater name recognition than the Democrat if the Democrat isn’t Clinton. Name recognition before the election doesn’t matter (see Obama). If there’s a big name-recognition gap on election day, then that’s obviously a problem, but that’s what the primary and general election campaigns are for. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444.md?page=19)