# 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:** 49
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/962 "2015-03-08T04:32:13Z")
Not only will his policies still be on the ballot in 2016, I’m sure he’ll helpfully say as much several times. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/963 "2015-03-08T05:52:13Z")
And this just in… **Awash in cash, Bush asks donors not to give more than $1 million – for now** [http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/awash-in-cash-bush-asks-donors-to-limit-gifts-to-1-million--for-now/2015/03/04/0b8d3fc6-c1c8-11e4-9271-610273846239\_story.html?postshare=2781425472080047](http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/awash-in-cash-bush-asks-donors-to-limit-gifts-to-1-million--for-now/2015/03/04/0b8d3fc6-c1c8-11e4-9271-610273846239_story.html?postshare=2781425472080047) > [@](#): > > An unusual request has gone out to wealthy donors writing large checks to support former Florida governor Jeb Bush: Please don’t give more than $1 million right away. > > The requested limit, confirmed by multiple people familiar with the amount, may mark the first time that a presidential hopeful has sought to hold off supporters from contributing too much money. > > The move reflects concerns among Bush advisers that accepting massive sums from a handful of uber-rich supporters could fuel a perception that the former governor is in their debt. The effort is also driven by a desire to build as broad a pool of donors as possible among wealthier contributors… Comment seems superfluous. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/964 "2015-03-08T14:26:39Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Not only will his policies still be on the ballot in 2016, I’m sure he’ll helpfully say as much several times. Oh, what the frothers hate is his _policies_, not his party affiliation or his race. Gotcha. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/965 "2015-03-08T15:57:12Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > BTW, I realize this is the Republican thread, but this definitely pertains to their chances of winning in 2016: The President’s approval has started to return to the low 40s. He’s currently standing at 43.8%. > > [RealClearPolitics - President Obama Job Approval](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html) > > So unless things turn around, Republicans will be going into 2016 with a major advantage. adaher, I’m giving you a warning for this. You may not continue to hijack threads with posts about Obama, the Clintons and so forth unless they actually pertain. I mentioned earlier that poster should stick to the topic, Tom mentioned it in post 547, and I’m reaffirming it here. I am not convinced that your ‘this pertains to Republican candidates’ bit is anything but handwaving. Don’t do it again. This thread is about candidates with R next to their names, nothing else. There’s a bit of leeway there, sure, but yours has run out. ---
**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:** [March 8, 2015, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/966 "2015-03-08T16:54:27Z")
[More proof that Jeb Bush has it locked up.](http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/nbc-news-poll-republicans-divided-over-jeb-bush-n319306) 49% of potential Republican primary voters could support him, vs 42% who could not. At +7%, he’s the only one above water. Christie is at -25%, Graham at -31%, Trump (Why bother listing him?) at -51% ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2015, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/967 "2015-03-08T22:44:57Z")
That’s _could_ support him? Not “do actually support him”? Doesn’t that number eventually need to get at least above 50%? I mean, granted that everyone else is even worse off, and one of them has to win, but this could be a very interesting primary. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/968 "2015-03-09T03:09:30Z")
Clearly, Jeb is the pick of Republican Party Inc. Used to be, that was pretty much the whole ball game. These days? We live in interesting times… ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/969 "2015-03-09T11:05:17Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > That’s _could_ support him? Not “do actually support him”? Doesn’t that number eventually need to get at least above 50%? I mean, granted that everyone else is even worse off, and one of them has to win, but this could be a very interesting primary. Well eventually, yes it has to go above 50%, but that’ll (presumably) happen as the lesser candidates drop out through the early states. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/970 "2015-03-09T12:42:39Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > That’s _could_ support him? Not “do actually support him”? Doesn’t that number eventually need to get at least above 50%? Not till the general election. You don’t need 50% of primary votes to get the nomination. Republican [rules](http://uspolitics.about.com/od/Election-2016/fl/2016-Republican-Primaries-How-Delegates-Will-be-Awarded.htm) for 2016 involve a winner take all system for delegates in states holding primaries after 14 March 2016. Earlier primaries involve proportional representation but some of the candidates that earn delegates then will drop and throw their support to one of the front runners. Both processes skew the delegate count away from simple vote percentages. Wins matter more. A three plus way race until late in the process could see the nominee with sub 40% of primary votes. Obviously the party members need to be able to vote for their nominee come general election. If they can’t it’s a recipe for being beat down like Walter Mondale. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/971 "2015-03-09T12:49:36Z")
Oooops what I remembered was vague and the first link I found was wrong. Should have checked the second. States holding primaries after 14 March can assign delegates any way they want… which can include winner take all. It still speaks to delegate totals being potentially different than vote percentages. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/972 "2015-03-09T14:09:44Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > [More proof that Jeb Bush has it locked up.](http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/nbc-news-poll-republicans-divided-over-jeb-bush-n319306) 49% of potential Republican primary voters could support him, vs 42% who could not. At +7%, he’s the only one above water. Christie is at -25%, Graham at -31%, Trump (Why bother listing him?) at -51% That has to be the weakest of weak-sauce poll teasers I’ve ever seen. (And it IS a teaser. From the link: “The numbers for other Republicans who ranked higher on this scale — as well as the numbers for Democrats — will be released on Monday night.”) 1. They only mention three candidates besides Jeb: the ones **BobLibDem** cited. Christie’s never been much of a favorite with the GOP base, and has been toast for months anyway. And neither Trump nor Huckleberry J. Butchmeup stands a snowball’s chance in hell. So by comparing Jeb to three of the weakest candidates in the field - no Scott Walker, no Rand Paul - it makes Jeb look like a winner, without its actually meaning anything. 1. The sample for this poll was a freakin’ **229** prospective GOP primary voters. Why even bother publishing results based on such a small sample? The MOE is 6.5%, which means the MOE for any comparisons between candidates is about 9.2%.\* \*One of my pet peeves: in any poll where the real question is, “who’s ahead?”, the relevant MOE is the MOE of the _difference_ between two numbers, not the MOE of a single number looked at in isolation. Do they ever include that? Nope. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/973 "2015-03-09T14:17:29Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Clearly, Jeb is the pick of Republican Party Inc. Used to be, that was pretty much the whole ball game. These days? We live in interesting times… Hell, even Republican Party, Inc. is divided here: I gather the Koch brothers support their hand puppet, Scott Walker. And [as noted in another thread in this forum](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=747440), they’re planning to dump gazillions of dollars into the 2016 elections. I’d bet against any candidate getting very far in the primaries without some major GOP money behind him. ---
**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:** [March 9, 2015, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/974 "2015-03-09T14:24:55Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > That has to be the weakest of weak-sauce poll teasers I’ve ever seen. (And it IS a teaser. From the link: “The numbers for other Republicans who ranked higher on this scale — as well as the numbers for Democrats — will be released on Monday night.”) > > 1. They only mention three candidates besides Jeb: the ones **BobLibDem** cited. Christie’s never been much of a favorite with the GOP base, and has been toast for months anyway. And neither Trump nor Huckleberry J. Butchmeup stands a snowball’s chance in hell. > > So by comparing Jeb to three of the weakest candidates in the field - no Scott Walker, no Rand Paul - it makes Jeb look like a winner, without its actually meaning anything. > > 1. The sample for this poll was a freakin’ **229** prospective GOP primary voters. Why even bother publishing results based on such a small sample? The MOE is 6.5%, which means the MOE for any comparisons between candidates is about 9.2%.\* > > \*One of my pet peeves: in any poll where the real question is, “who’s ahead?”, the relevant MOE is the MOE of the _difference_ between two numbers, not the MOE of a single number looked at in isolation. Do they ever include that? Nope. Yeah, it’s a teaser poll. You can tell we’re early in the season when they have to stretch out what meager data they have. It’s unfortunate that they only released Jeb and a few others. I’m guessing that Cruz, Paul, and Rubio will also underperform Bush at this point. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/975 "2015-03-09T15:14:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Zakalwe** : > > Well eventually, yes it has to go above 50%, but that’ll (presumably) happen as the lesser candidates drop out through the early states. I take that to be what the “could support” means. Like, if you don’t support him in the current field, but might eventually support him as the field narrows, that means you could support him. Though I suppose that not all of the respondents need take that same interpretation. Still, any way you slice it, less than 50% on a question like that is mighty weak. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/976 "2015-03-09T17:34:05Z")
Iowa agribusiness weighs in: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/iowa-agriculture-summit-splits-gop-2016-field-on-subsidies-immigration/2015/03/07/a5f12300-c4f4-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89\_story.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/iowa-agriculture-summit-splits-gop-2016-field-on-subsidies-immigration/2015/03/07/a5f12300-c4f4-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/977 "2015-03-09T17:47:27Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Hell, even Republican Party, Inc. is divided here AKA the schmuck-filled room? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/978 "2015-03-09T20:08:45Z")
[Walker signs “right to work” bill.](http://www.salon.com/2015/03/09/scott_walker_signs_right_to_work_legislation_he_once_called_a_distraction/) ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/979 "2015-03-09T22:09:53Z")
Walker is now officially a flip-flopper. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2015, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/980 "2015-03-09T22:11:58Z")
[Rand Paul is cosponsoring a bill to legalize medical marijuana.](http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/medical-marijuana-bill-paul-booker-gillibran/?dcz=) Of course, MM would remain illegal in all states that ban it, but at least the federal law would no longer be an obstacle. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2015, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/981 "2015-03-10T00:24:55Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Yeah, it’s a teaser poll. Well, your link was to a teaser _for_ the full poll results, so it’s a teaser for a teaser poll. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444.md?page=48) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444.md?page=50)