Who is likely to be the Republican candidate in 2016

[Lord Falcon]

Washington (CNN) - What a difference two months makes.

In late November and early December, in the wake of Chris Christie's landslide re-election victory, the Republican governor from New Jersey was riding high in the polls.

Christie topped the other potential GOP 2016 White House hopefuls in surveys of Republicans' choice for their next presidential nominee, and he was knotted up with Hillary Clinton in hypothetical general election showdowns.

Now, after month of intense media scrutiny over a couple of controversies in his state, Christie's numbers have faded, according to a new CNN/ORC International survey.

In a possible 2016 matchup with Clinton, the poll indicates Christie trails the former secretary of state by 16 percentage points, with Clinton at 55% and the Governor at 39% among registered voters nationwide. That's a dramatic switch from December, when Christie held a 48%-46% edge over Clinton.

"Christie has also lost ground among independents, who were the key to his strong showing late last year," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Christie got 59% support among Independents in December. Now that has dropped to 39%."

Race for GOP nomination

The survey released Monday indicates that the hunt for the GOP nomination is back to where it was before Christie's rise in the polls late last year: a pack of potential White House contenders with no obvious frontrunner.

But according to the poll, there is a new name on top of the list in hunt for the GOP nomination: Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a 2008 Republican presidential candidate.

Fourteen percent of Republicans and independents who lean toward the GOP say they would likely support Huckabee for their party's nomination if he runs.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is next at 13% followed by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Christie tied at 10%.

Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the House Budget Committee chairman and 2012 GOP vice presidential nominee, and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida are tied at 9%.

One point behind are Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and longtime Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a 2012 GOP presidential candidate, stands at 4%.

That's a change from November, when Christie was 11 points ahead of the rest of the field. Huckabee was not tested in the November survey.

Christie is facing allegations that some of his aides closed access lanes to the George Washington Bridge in Fort Lee last September to punish that town's mayor for not endorsing his re-election.

Separately, Hoboken's Democratic mayor alleges that Superstorm Sandy recovery aid for her hard-hit city was dependent on support for a development project backed by the governor – an assertion denied by top Christie officials.

"Because Huckabee was not included in the November poll, any drop in Christie's support among Republicans may be partly due to Huckabee as well as recent news stories. So it's impossible to calculate exactly how much support Christie lost as a result of the bridge controversy. But it's a pretty safe bet that the drop in Christie's support against Clinton is due to the recent news stories about the bridge," added Holland.

For all his problems, Christie matches up better against Clinton in the CNN poll than any other possible GOP contender tested. Clinton has a 20-point, 57%-37%, lead over Bush, an 18-point, 57%-39%, advantage over Paul, a 17-point, 56%-39%, lead over Huckabee, and a 55%-40% advantage over Ryan.

Clinton in strong polling position

Clinton says she'll decide whether to make a second run for the White House by the end of the year. If she does launch a candidacy, just about every poll indicates she would start her campaign as the overwhelming front runner to win the Democratic nomination.

According to the CNN poll, seven of 10 Democrats and independents who lean toward the party say they'd be likely to support Clinton as their nominee, with 15% likely to support a more conservative Democrats and one in 10 more likely to back a more liberal candidate.

"The CNN poll did not name specific Democrats who might run against Clinton, in part to test whether Clinton's strong position is due to dislike or unfamiliarity with the standard roster of potential Democratic candidates," says Holland. "The fact that Clinton tests so well against generic rivals is is a strong indication that Democrats are not shopping around, hoping that another candidate will throw his or her hat into the ring."

While Christie deals with the bridge and Sandy funding controversies, Clinton continues to deal with the September 2012 killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans in an attack in Benghazi, Libya. The attacks came during her watch as secretary of state, and some Republicans have Clinton heavily over the attack and its aftermath.

But according to the poll, 62% approve of the job she did at the State Department, down 4 points from December 2012, a month before Clinton stepped down as American's top diplomat.

Nine in 10 Democrats and just over six in 10 independents said they approve of the job she did as secretary of state. That approval drops to 29% among Republicans.

The CNN poll was conducted by ORC International January 31-February 2, with 1,010 adults nationwide questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

I think what we're seeing is the political suicide of Chris Christie. Even if he does get the nomination in 2016, I don't see him winning. My mom personally thinks Rand Paul is going to get the nomination.

What do you think?

[Elheru Aran]

I think what we're seeing is the political suicide of Chris Christie. Even if he does get the nomination in 2016, I don't see him winning. My mom personally thinks Rand Paul is going to get the nomination.

What do you think?

Christie is probably out unless he can fight his way away from Bridgegate. Even if he does, that'll still be a big black mark on his record that'll probably be enough to make him politically unappealing anywhere but the pundit circuit.

Rand Paul is up there. So is Paul Ryan. They've both had plenty of exposure recently. I think the stink of Romney's loss is going to stick to Ryan for a while though. Paul, meanwhile, has the problem of his father's associations as well as the fact that he's one of the more hard-right Republicans out there, which will hurt him with the moderate base.

Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have potential, but I doubt they'd make it past the first few state primaries. Cruz got a lot of egg on his face for the government shutdown. Honestly I can't remember anything notable Rubio has done lately.

Dame Crazy, excuse me Bachmann, is probably out after her dismal performance in the last election as well. Santorum had a stronger performance, but I think he's a dim possibility-- more so than Bachmann though.

Assorted Tea Party types might give it a shot such as Steve Stockman (what a douchebag that one is) but they're too extreme even for the Republicans when it comes to a Presidential candidate. A debate or two and they'll shoot themselves in the feet with something racist or otherwise intolerant.

So I think it probably boils down to Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Santorum a vague possibility (he did come in second to Romney in the long run), and who knows, Cruz or Rubio might give it a shot on the off-chance they might pull an Obama.

[Flagg]

Bridgegate is a problem that may well end Christies governorship and political career. The far more serious Sandy aid... Irregularities... Could send his fat ass to prison. In any case if he still has presidential aspirations he's delusional.

If I had to take a guess, and really it's just an educated guess because 2016 is so far away and a lot can happen in 2 years, I'd say it's a tossup between Rand Paul and Paul Ryan. Both Ayn Rand worshippers who would get brutally savaged in the 2016 general election considering that barring health issues or some other unforeseen event, it's going to be Hillary as the democratic nominee.

[Tribble]

Isn't it two years before the next election? Why are people already talking about it now?
How long do election campaigns run for in the US? In Canada, an election campaign must last for at least 6 weeks, though it very rarely goes on longer than that. Mind you, we don't usually pay much attention to our politicians, crack scandals aside lol

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

I'm still hoping for Jon Huntsman.

Of course, that would require the Republican party to be smart, so, well...

Long odds.

[Raw Shark]

Isn't it two years before the next election? Why are people already talking about it now?
How long do election campaigns run for in the US?

It's kind of like x-mas decorations: nobody claims to think that it's tasteful, but the unofficial start date creeps back a little bit every year...

[TimothyC]

There are lots of strong governors in blue/purple states that are for the most part cruising to re-election either this year or next. I wouldn't be surprised if the serious Republican field is composed mostly of governors (like Jindal, Martinez, Haley, Walker, Kasish, & Snyder) with a few token legislators (such as Rand Paul and Paul Ryan) thrown in.

[LaCroix]

There still remains the problem of getting an electable candidate through the "Primary Games".

[Crossroads Inc.]

There still remains the problem of getting an electable candidate through the "Primary Games".

Exactly.
Until proven otherwise, I maintain that any candidate that wins the Primary for the GOP, will by default, have presented themselves as too Far Right to be able to win the General Election.

[TimothyC]

There still remains the problem of getting an electable candidate through the "Primary Games".

The Democrats don't have a strong field either:

• Secretary Hillary "I can't testify before congress for a month because of my health*" Clinton
• Vice President Joe "Gaffe Machine" Biden
• Gov. Andrew "I really do want to take your guns" Cuomo
• Senator Elizabeth "First Termer" Warren

*This is a valid excuse to not testify, but it cuts to the issue of her health and age.

Until proven otherwise, I maintain that any candidate that wins the Primary for the GOP, will by default, have presented themselves as too Far Right to be able to win the General Election.

Those are some fine ideological blinders you've got on. Must be nice.

[Pelranius]

I think the big donors and party elders who sort of rallied around Romney will probably go for Scott Walker, now that Christie keeps on sinking deeper into his little quagmires.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Blinders? I am just going off observations in demographic changes and observing the primary battles from the last 8 years.

Look at Bush. He was a "like able peoples man" who BARELY won against a man who had the personality of a damp rag. And that was over 14 years ago when the right was less extreme and America was more socially conservative.
He then once again BARELY Won re election against a candidate with even less personality than Al Gore.
AND that was during a war.

Move on to Obama vs McCain and , well we all know how that went down . And then on to Obama vs Romney. In both cases the candidate picked upset "the base" as the establishment went with what they thought was a"safe" more moderate candidate. That lead to much grueling during the election.

If the democrats run Hillary in 2016. I have no doubt she will be massivlly popular against whomever the GOP field. Does she have baggage? Of course. But for the most part the only people that care about it are people who already will never vote for her.

As far as who the GOP field. It might be Rubio as he is currently the "safest" choice. And if he does run, I also know it will seriously piss off the far right and the tea party as they already see Rubio as a "sell out".

So yeah, those are my "blinders"

[Napoleon the Clown]

Rand Paul is even crazier than his daddy, no way in hell will he get the nomination during primaries. And quite a few of Ron Paul's devotees consider Rand to be a Benedict Arnold, so not even they will support him.

Marcio Rubio will honestly have problems with the white nationalists. I mean "Border Security" crowd. Ted Cruz has that whole government shutdown thing around his neck. Christie might be able to get out of his current predicament, considering there's still plenty of time before primaries even begin. Some will forget, some just don't give a fuck even now. Anything to keep a wom- Democrat out of the White House. Honestly, Paul Ryan may have the best shot at it. And I doubt he can pull it off in the general election. Maybe they should field Ted Nugent. That'd be pretty fucking funny.

[Simon_Jester]

Hillary does legitimately have a weakness in her age; she'll be 68 when the election rolls around. The number of presidents who hit their 70th birthday in office can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

There are lots of strong governors in blue/purple states that are for the most part cruising to re-election either this year or next. I wouldn't be surprised if the serious Republican field is composed mostly of governors (like Jindal, Martinez, Haley, Walker, Kasish, & Snyder) with a few token legislators (such as Rand Paul and Paul Ryan) thrown in.

This is mainly because the only remotely electable Republicans are the ones who've learned how to get along with moderates and Democrats. Republican legislators mostly don't have the hang of this; some Republican governors do.

There still remains the problem of getting an electable candidate through the "Primary Games".

The Democrats don't have a strong field either:

-Secretary Hillary "I can't testify before congress for a month because of my health*" Clinton
-Vice President Joe "Gaffe Machine" Biden
-Gov. Andrew "I really do want to take your guns" Cuomo
-Senator Elizabeth "First Termer" Warren

*This is a valid excuse to not testify, but it cuts to the issue of her health and age.

There's always the possibility of a dark horse candidate; nobody would have predicted in January 2006 that Obama was going to secure the 2008 nomination. Obama's precedent also provides another thing for Senator Warren to consider- McCain had vast experience and war-hero credentials, but was unable to defeat a first term senator under the conditions of the 2008 election.

Among other things, McCain tried to answer charges of RINO-dom by taking Sarah Palin as a vice president... and she came across as a flake, a lightweight partisan of the Tea-Party-to-come. This did not help the Republicans' cause.

The curse of the flake persisted into 2012, with both true flake candidates (Herman Cain being the exemplar) and candidates with actual political experience who managed to come across as flakes (Rick Perry being the exemplar). Having to compete against such people for votes, among the 20-25% of the American people far enough to the right that they're likely to vote in Republican primaries, is difficult and tends to undermine a politician's case. Because you find yourself trying to convince them that your political legitimacy is stronger than theirs... and it's very hard to out-loony a lunatic.

As to Hillary- she's 66, 68 in November 2016. Not unprecedented for a president to be that old, though it is rare I agree.

Until proven otherwise, I maintain that any candidate that wins the Primary for the GOP, will by default, have presented themselves as too Far Right to be able to win the General Election.

Those are some fine ideological blinders you've got on. Must be nice.

Actually, I don't see the problem. There is a very serious ideological gap between the Republicans' right flank and the center of the American electorate; we saw that during the shutdown, and the repeated brawls over the debt ceiling. Ted Cruz may be willing to court a shutdown, various House Republicans may be willing to court a default or at least play chicken with the threat of one. But the majority of the American people are not, and the polls make this pretty explicit.

And yet someone is voting Cruz et al. into office. Who, and if they vote in the primaries, what are the consequences for politicians trying to bring in their votes?

I think the big donors and party elders who sort of rallied around Romney will probably go for Scott Walker, now that Christie keeps on sinking deeper into his little quagmires.

This seems likely, but Scott "Ramrod" Walker is going to be vulnerable to charges of being, well, let's see... anti-teacher*, anti-Medicaid, and grossly divisive.

Oh, and the false-Koch call will probably get a lot of air time. A LOT.

(Lord knows I'd donate against him, he hates my guts by association, or might as well)

[Simon_Jester]

Hillary does legitimately have a weakness in her age; she'll be 68 when the election rolls around. The number of presidents who hit their 70th birthday in office can be counted on the fingers of one hand. By my count, only four presidential elections were ever won by a man who would be a septuagenarian before the end of that term.

William Henry Harrison was the first, and he dropped dead within a month of his inauguration. Dwight Eisenhower was the second, and he had a heart attack and a stroke in office (thankfully neither too serious).

Ronald Reagan was the other two- and there are worrying hints that the Alzheimer's was starting to kick in by the time he wrapped up his second term at the age of 77.

[TimothyC]

I think the big donors and party elders who sort of rallied around Romney will probably go for Scott Walker, now that Christie keeps on sinking deeper into his little quagmires.

Christie was somewhat popular, but a lot of that came from the media attention. Walker is likely to be a strong contender if he runs, as are many of the other Governors.

What people need to remember is that the circumstances of 2016 are not going to be those of 2008 or 2012. It's going to be very hard to pull the youth vote out the same way that Obama was able to. The Black vote turnout is likely to be lower & the youth vote is likely to return to historic norms (slight democrat, but not overwhelmingly so).

This is mainly because the only remotely electable Republicans are the ones who've learned how to get along with moderates and Democrats. Republican legislators mostly don't have the hang of this; some Republican governors do.

The governors in question are also getting stuff done - and have generally high approval ratings (showing that the people that elected them have faith in what they are doing).

There's always the possibility of a dark horse candidate; nobody would have predicted in January 2006 that Obama was going to secure the 2008 nomination. Obama's precedent also provides another thing for Senator Warren to consider- McCain had vast experience and war-hero credentials, but was unable to defeat a first term senator under the conditions of the 2008 election.

Obama had the advantage that he was running against the incumbent party when the economy had crashed, and after the Republicans had held the White House for two terms. Neither of those conditions are likely to be repeated. She is also a first term senator, and she won't have the experience campaigning (although, like 2008, the media can be counted on to cover for her).

This seems likely, but Scott "Ramrod" Walker is going to be vulnerable to charges of being, well, let's see... anti-teacher*, anti-Medicaid, and grossly divisive.

The point that should scare Democrats is that He's Winning. He's up nearly 10 points right now, and short of an implosion, he's going to win in November. In a state that went for Obama. Twice.

Hillary does legitimately have a weakness in her age; she'll be 68 when the election rolls around. The number of presidents who hit their 70th birthday in office can be counted on the fingers of one hand. By my count, only four presidential elections were ever won by a man who would be a septuagenarian before the end of that term.

Clinton's health will be a factor if she's serious - either in the Primary or the general. She spent an entire month dodging congressional hearings on Benghazi claiming health issues.

[Simon_Jester]

I think the big donors and party elders who sort of rallied around Romney will probably go for Scott Walker, now that Christie keeps on sinking deeper into his little quagmires.

Christie was somewhat popular, but a lot of that came from the media attention. Walker is likely to be a strong contender if he runs, as are many of the other Governors.

Have you listened to that prank Koch conversation? I would NOT want to run for president with that on my record. Jesus.

[shudders to think of it]

What people need to remember is that the circumstances of 2016 are not going to be those of 2008 or 2012. It's going to be very hard to pull the youth vote out the same way that Obama was able to. The Black vote turnout is likely to be lower & the youth vote is likely to return to historic norms (slight democrat, but not overwhelmingly so).

Militating against that is going to be the perception that the old white establishment stands for young people not getting a job; I'm not sure that will have an effect but it could. If things don't turn around very sharply in the next few years, just getting people into the workforce meaningfully may be a major campaign issue that year.

This is mainly because the only remotely electable Republicans are the ones who've learned how to get along with moderates and Democrats. Republican legislators mostly don't have the hang of this; some Republican governors do.

The governors in question are also getting stuff done - and have generally high approval ratings (showing that the people that elected them have faith in what they are doing).

Yes, because they know how to get along with moderates and Democrats. Which is exactly what holds them in office and makes them contenders.

There's always the possibility of a dark horse candidate; nobody would have predicted in January 2006 that Obama was going to secure the 2008 nomination.

Obama's precedent also provides another thing for Senator Warren to consider- McCain had vast experience and war-hero credentials, but was unable to defeat a first term senator under the conditions of the 2008 election.

Obama had the advantage that he was running against the incumbent party when the economy had crashed, and after the Republicans had held the White House for two terms. Neither of those conditions are likely to be repeated. She is also a first term senator, and she won't have the experience campaigning (although, like 2008, the media can be counted on to cover for her).

Obama had advantages she wouldn't- but he also won with a considerable margin of superiority, and demographics may well be trending in the Democrats' favor.

This seems likely, but Scott "Ramrod" Walker is going to be vulnerable to charges of being, well, let's see... anti-teacher*, anti-Medicaid, and grossly divisive.

The point that should scare Democrats is that He's Winning. He's up nearly 10 points right now, and short of an implosion, he's going to win in November. In a state that went for Obama. Twice.

That's funny, he was only up seven points in his own recall election year before last.

In all seriousness, I am not so sure he'd be a good candidate. Christie can be accused of graft and bullying, but Walker can more or less be accused of... let's see, trying to get legislators' pay stopped for opposing him, threatening to lay off state employees as a political tactic in a crisis, possibly fantasizing about hitting political opponents with a baseball bat, openly seeing himself as "first domino," soliciting funds to help restore legislators' popularity after voting for a potentially unpopular measure, disturbing hints of messiah complex, and at least implicitly accepting a bribe, or call it more like a payment for services rendered.

From one phone call.

I don't think he's as likely a candidate as several of the other governors you mentioned.

Of course, what I really think we'll see is a repeat of 2012. A couple of governor-candidates will run, no more; we won't see half a dozen governors cluttering things, because the third or fourth "strong moderate state governor" candidate will look at a field that contains two or three people just like him and go "nuh-uh!" Meanwhile, a considerable number of flakes will try for the nomination- at least one fundie, one libertarian, one or two hardcore Tea-partisans. Maybe more.

Like 2012, one of the governors will probably win. But it's going to be deeply problematic avoiding the problem the Republicans had in 2012, with their primary becoming an embarrassment. The main reason the Republicans might want to run Walker is that he's going to be an unambiguous hit with the Republican base... but I think in the process of reconnecting with them he may lose that ability to win in states that Obama could grab reliably.

[Flagg]

I think the big donors and party elders who sort of rallied around Romney will probably go for Scott Walker, now that Christie keeps on sinking deeper into his little quagmires.

Christie was somewhat popular, but a lot of that came from the media attention. Walker is likely to be a strong contender if he runs, as are many of the other Governors.

What people need to remember is that the circumstances of 2016 are not going to be those of 2008 or 2012. It's going to be very hard to pull the youth vote out the same way that Obama was able to. The Black vote turnout is likely to be lower & the youth vote is likely to return to historic norms (slight democrat, but not overwhelmingly so).

This is mainly because the only remotely electable Republicans are the ones who've learned how to get along with moderates and Democrats. Republican legislators mostly don't have the hang of this; some Republican governors do.

The governors in question are also getting stuff done - and have generally high approval ratings (showing that the people that elected them have faith in what they are doing).

There's always the possibility of a dark horse candidate; nobody would have predicted in January 2006 that Obama was going to secure the 2008 nomination. Obama's precedent also provides another thing for Senator Warren to consider- McCain had vast experience and war-hero credentials, but was unable to defeat a first term senator under the conditions of the 2008 election.

Obama had the advantage that he was running against the incumbent party when the economy had crashed, and after the Republicans had held the White House for two terms. Neither of those conditions are likely to be repeated. She is also a first term senator, and she won't have the experience campaigning (although, like 2008, the media can be counted on to cover for her).

This seems likely, but Scott "Ramrod" Walker is going to be vulnerable to charges of being, well, let's see... anti-teacher*, anti-Medicaid, and grossly divisive.

The point that should scare Democrats is that He's Winning. He's up nearly 10 points right now, and short of an implosion, he's going to win in November. In a state that went for Obama. Twice.

Hillary does legitimately have a weakness in her age; she'll be 68 when the election rolls around. The number of presidents who hit their 70th birthday in office can be counted on the fingers of one hand. By my count, only four presidential elections were ever won by a man who would be a septuagenarian before the end of that term.

Clinton's health will be a factor if she's serious - either in the Primary or the general. She spent an entire month dodging congressional hearings on Benghazi claiming health issues.

You're a lying piece of shit. She wasn't "dodging" shit. She had a fucking blood clot in her brain that caused her to pass out and hit her head IIRC. But it was idiotic fuckwits like you who chug the soft serve shit that comes out of FOX News joking about "Benghazi flu".

[ThatOneCatC]

I can tell you that at least one "purple state" governor has no hope in hell. John Kasich of Ohio will not be electable this year ( if ever). The hilarious thing is he has no chance because he actually did what he said he was going to do. His primary supporters voted him in on a slim margin because he would trim the budgetary fat. They ran the assumption that it would be from the evil, godless, socialist cities. What they found was that the cities had been cut to the bone already so the savings came from the removal of public services in deeply rural areas. My own family gripes about how they now have no ambulance service in their county. Well (I says) that's fucked up Buthelezi did run on those exact platforms. Between that and the fact he did not oppose The ACA, means he is done in the hills. And the hills are what elected him.

I figure the republican ticket will be Christie and West.

[Losonti Tokash]

I think it's premature to count Christie out. We were all pretty sure that Mark Sanford was done after he was caught using taxpayer funds to visit his mistress in South America, but they voted him into Congress anyway.

Jindal, Rubio, Cruz, etc.

lol

[TimothyC]

One point I missed earlier Simon was that by this time in the 2008 cycle (so early 2006) Obama was seen as a possible Hillary competitor, but just about everyone saw 2008 as Hillary's to loose - which she managed to.

Have you listened to that prank Koch conversation? I would NOT want to run for president with that on my record. Jesus.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

Militating against that is going to be the perception that the old white establishment stands for young people not getting a job; I'm not sure that will have an effect but it could. If things don't turn around very sharply in the next few years, just getting people into the workforce meaningfully may be a major campaign issue that year.

The obvious counter to that is one of "Democrats had 8 years. Their only major achievement made you buy something while cutting full time employment*. Why should they get more time in office?"
*Seriously, the latest CBO numbers are a bitch.

Obama had advantages she wouldn't- but he also won with a considerable margin of superiority, and demographics may well be trending in the Democrats' favor.

Be careful of an attitude like this - it reeks of the "Permanent Republican Majority" talk from a decade ago.

I can tell you that at least one "purple state" governor has no hope in hell. John Kasich of Ohio will not be electable this year ( if ever). The hilarious thing is he has no chance because he actually did what he said he was going to do. His primary supporters voted him in on a slim margin because he would trim the budgetary fat. They ran the assumption that it would be from the evil, godless, socialist cities. What they found was that the cities had been cut to the bone already so the savings came from the removal of public services in deeply rural areas. My own family gripes about how they now have no ambulance service in their county. Well (I says) that's fucked up Buthelezi did run on those exact platforms. Between that and the fact he did not oppose The ACA, means he is done in the hills. And the hills are what elected him.

I honestly think that Kasich is going to win because the people in the Tea Party machinery are smart enough to not lock themselves out for a decade.

I figure the republican ticket will be Christie and West.

I honestly have no clue who it's going to be.

That's funny, he was only up seven points in his own recall election year before last.

I've rechecked, and I appologize - he's only up by about 7 points - even after everything organized labor has thrown at him.

In all seriousness, I am not so sure he'd be a good candidate. Christie can be accused of graft and bullying, but Walker can more or less be accused of... let's see, trying to get legislators' pay stopped for opposing him, threatening to lay off state employees as a political tactic in a crisis, possibly fantasizing about hitting political opponents with a baseball bat, openly seeing himself as "first domino," soliciting funds to help restore legislators' popularity after voting for a potentially unpopular measure, disturbing hints of messiah complex, and at least implicitly accepting a bribe, or call it more like a payment for services rendered.

From one phone call.

I don't think he's as likely a candidate as several of the other governors you mentioned.

Ok, you've obviously heard/seen something I haven't.

Of course, what I really think we'll see is a repeat of 2012. A couple of governor-candidates will run, no more; we won't see half a dozen governors cluttering things, because the third or fourth "strong moderate state governor" candidate will look at a field that contains two or three people just like him and go "nuh-uh!" Meanwhile, a considerable number of flakes will try for the nomination- at least one fundie, one libertarian, one or two hardcore Tea-partisans. Maybe more.

The GOP field does tend to be wider than the Dem field, but a chunk of the time that's actually helpful (discounting 2008 where the GOP was outspend 3-1) when both parties have to nominate someone.

Like 2012, one of the governors will probably win. But it's going to be deeply problematic avoiding the problem the Republicans had in 2012, with their primary becoming an embarrassment. The main reason the Republicans might want to run Walker is that he's going to be an unambiguous hit with the Republican base... but I think in the process of reconnecting with them he may lose that ability to win in states that Obama could grab reliably.

The RNC has already taken the first steps to try and mitigate some of the processes that caused some of the 2012 damage (one of which was an inability to have the funds on hand to counter DNC attack adds over the summer). Here we have a major difference of opinion. You see the Problem the GOP has as structural, I see them as cosmetic - and I don't think that either one is going to be able to convince the other.

You're a lying piece of shit. She wasn't "dodging" shit. She had a fucking blood clot in her brain that caused her to pass out and hit her head IIRC. But it was idiotic fuckwits like you who chug the soft serve shit that comes out of FOX News joking about "Benghazi flu".

Presuming that she wasn't dodging questioning, then it's an indictment of her health. There is not good way out of that situation for her or her campaign.

[Mr Bean]

Ted Cruz can't be taken seriously as a contender until the Supreme Court rules he can run. He's Canadian and spent four years in country after birth and held Canadian citizenship to boot. There are good legal arugments to say he can run but those must be put before the Supreme Court and until they are his opponents in the primary games had simply point t that and say "we can't vote for this Canadian because he will lose the election by bases of not being able to be legally run for President"

[Simon_Jester]

Interesting point about Ted Cruz.

You're a lying piece of shit. She wasn't "dodging" shit. She had a fucking blood clot in her brain that caused her to pass out and hit her head IIRC. But it was idiotic fuckwits like you who chug the soft serve shit that comes out of FOX News joking about "Benghazi flu".

Idiocy about Benghazi aside, Hillary does face the reality that if she got into office in 2017 she'd be about the third-oldest president on record, and one of the other two dropped dead.

Hillary's almost sure to run, but this is going to be a problem for her.

Of course, the Republicans are going to try to Swift-boat her with Benghazi or something similarly pointless, which I suspect will backfire because the American people will care more about the outcome of the election in 2016 than they did in 2004.

[Consciously decides to cut short political ramble there]

I think it's premature to count Christie out. We were all pretty sure that Mark Sanford was done after he was caught using taxpayer funds to visit his mistress in South America, but they voted him into Congress anyway.

Congress is an easier target than the presidency, especially in a state that supports your party by default- because all you really have to do is win the primary, made easier for Sanford because of name recognition.

To win the presidency you have to convince more people, and name recognition helps less because about the only people with that level of fame are sitting presidents.

One point I missed earlier Simon was that by this time in the 2008 cycle (so early 2006) Obama was seen as a possible Hillary competitor, but just about everyone saw 2008 as Hillary's to loose - which she managed to.

...Yes? And?

Have you listened to that prank Koch conversation? I would NOT want to run for president with that on my record. Jesus.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

A rather sneaky reporter for a left-wing newspaper was able to impersonate David Koch convincingly enough to get a 'candid camera' phone conversation with Scott Walker during the whole union-busting Senate-fleeing thing. Scott's comments are... revealing.

Militating against that is going to be the perception that the old white establishment stands for young people not getting a job; I'm not sure that will have an effect but it could. If things don't turn around very sharply in the next few years, just getting people into the workforce meaningfully may be a major campaign issue that year.

The obvious counter to that is one of "Democrats had 8 years. Their only major achievement made you buy something while cutting full time employment*. Why should they get more time in office?"
*Seriously, the latest CBO numbers are a bitch.

The Republicans have to deal with the massive millstone around their neck of how immature and destructive their congressional wing is perceived- seriously, Congress's approval ratings are going to stay at least as far in the toilet's as the president's as long as the Republicans keep up their current policies.

The thing about divided government is, it's harder to pitch one party as the incumbents. This is why the Republicans had such a hard-fought battle in 2000 and nearly lost, even though Clinton was just as much an incumbent then as Obama will be in 2016. The Republicans could not convincingly pin blame for everything that was wrong with Clinton.

[To be fair, fewer things were wrong then]

Obama had advantages she wouldn't- but he also won with a considerable margin of superiority, and demographics may well be trending in the Democrats' favor.

Be careful of an attitude like this - it reeks of the "Permanent Republican Majority" talk from a decade ago.

Actually, I think that what's going to happen is that the White House will remain a Democratic monopoly for a while until the Republicans figure out a less pointlessly stupid and destructive strategy for their congressional wing, and until they figure out how to reliably appeal to voters other than confused AARP-age whites.

It's not that they can't win, it's that they need to change their methods to fit a changing era. So far, they haven't, but they will eventually. This isn't the first time that's happened to either party; it just happens that (I think) the Democrats are better positioned to deal with the way American society is changing from 2000-2015. When the Republicans adapt the pendulum will shift back.

I honestly think that Kasich is going to win because the people in the Tea Party machinery are smart enough to not lock themselves out for a decade.

I'll believe it when I see it.

That's funny, he was only up seven points in his own recall election year before last.

I've rechecked, and I appologize - he's only up by about 7 points - even after everything organized labor has thrown at him.

Basically, he's in a highly polarized state where only a small fraction of the population are swing voters, not least because Walker is a really really polarizing candidate in several ways. He's done very well at winning swing voters in Wisconsin, but it's questionable whether he'd win them at the national level. Many of his policies might be considerably less popular if expanded to the national level- if he were proposing to downsize all federal welfare the way he went after Wisconsin's specific Medicaid for example.

Also, his reputation is going to galvanize voters on the left and increase their turnout, because again, polarizing figure.

Ok, you've obviously heard/seen something I haven't.

Ayup. I've read the transcript of what he said when he thought he was talking to David Koch.

The GOP field does tend to be wider than the Dem field, but a chunk of the time that's actually helpful (discounting 2008 where the GOP was outspend 3-1) when both parties have to nominate someone.

In the past, yes. This time around I'm not so sure, because many of the people widening the field are, well... flakes. Basically, I foresee the Republicans getting saddled with three or four Howard Deans an election cycle, and I don't think that does them any favors.

The RNC has already taken the first steps to try and mitigate some of the processes that caused some of the 2012 damage (one of which was an inability to have the funds on hand to counter DNC attack adds over the summer). Here we have a major difference of opinion. You see the Problem the GOP has as structural, I see them as cosmetic - and I don't think that either one is going to be able to convince the other.

The reason I think it's structural is that the Republican Party as we know it is literally based entirely on the idea of allying together several major ideological movements that aren't individually popular enough to play well in post-Great Recession America. There's the libertarians, the fundamentalists, the 'all-business' Wall Street crew who are only vaguely related to the libertarians, possibly more but those are the big ones.

At the local level this works reasonably well because they can let whichever movement is most popular in a given area take the lead. Walker can run a Wall Street-ist campaign in Wisconsin on "Wisconsin is open for business," appealing to the idea that what a Rust Belt state really needs is a bigger, better CEO. Perry can run a cowboy-hat agrarian libertarianism campaign in Texas, appealing to the collective mythos of the Texan people. Fundamentalists can run if-and-when; they work better with either of the previous two than the two work together.

The problem is that when they try to merge the ideologies together they get unpopular Tea candidates (who pass muster with the Republican base but tend to lose in places that base isn't concentrated). When they run them separately, they get unproductive competition between the Ron Paul types, the Huckabee types, and the Romney types.

This is a totally fixable problem- but it's going to require the Republicans to rethink their message and how to make it appeal to people who dislike the establishment (and the Wall Street wing) for screwing them over in 2008-10, and who aren't particularly interested in the libertarian wing, and who aren't religious fundamentalists.

[Irbis]

Hillary does legitimately have a weakness in her age; she'll be 68 when the election rolls around. The number of presidents who hit their 70th birthday in office can be counted on the fingers of one hand. By my count, only four presidential elections were ever won by a man who would be a septuagenarian before the end of that term.

That was when the life expectancy was much lower, though, and women usually tend to live longer and in better health than men, too.

The governors in question are also getting stuff done - and have generally high approval ratings (showing that the people that elected them have faith in what they are doing).

You mean, like certain Mitt Romney, and then Romneycare and abortion stance came back to bite him in the ass in elections?

[Gaidin]

The obvious counter to that is one of "Democrats had 8 years. Their only major achievement made you buy something while cutting full time employment*. Why should they get more time in office?"
*Seriously, the latest CBO numbers are a bitch.

Mind if I ask which CBO report you read? I thought the report(if we're thinking of the same CBO report, mind) said people were quitting jobs they didn't want because they didn't have to keep them now for insurance reasons. Didn't mean the jobs weren't still on the market. Did I miss something?