HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Which Republican would be...

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 01:43 PM

 

Which Republican would be the toughest opponent in 2016?

This is putting aside the question of who has the best chance to win the nomination, and certainly putting aside any question of who might govern the country slightly less badly than the others. I ask only about his chances in the general election, assuming he gets the nomination.

The DU software can't accommodate the full range of the Republican clown car. I winnowed by using
Chris Cilizza's list in the Washington Post of the ten candidates with the best chance of being the Republican candidate in 2016, except that I had to drop his #10 (Mike Pence) to make room for the "someone else" option.

As a side note, not even making Cilizza's top ten are the retread candidacies of Rick Perry and Rick Santorum, the novelty candidacy of Ben Carson, or the "I hear a call that no one else knows is there" candidacies of Carly Fiorina, Lindsay Graham, and Peter King.

Cilizza put the candidates in order of likelihood of being the nominee but I've alphabetized them.

So, who's their best shot at getting to 270?
22 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Jeb Bush
8 (36%)
Chris Christie
0 (0%)
Ted Cruz
3 (14%)
Mike Huckabee
2 (9%)
Bobby Jindal
0 (0%)
John Kasich
1 (5%)
Rand Paul
2 (9%)
Marco Rubio
0 (0%)
Scott Walker
4 (18%)
someone else (who might actually be the nominee)
2 (9%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

46 replies, 3675 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 46 replies Author Time Post
Reply Which Republican would be the toughest opponent in 2016? (Original post)
Jim Lane Feb 2015 OP
napi21 Feb 2015 #1
John Poet Feb 2015 #16
merrily Feb 2015 #2
Jim Lane Feb 2015 #3
OregonBlue Feb 2015 #4
Jim Lane Feb 2015 #5
tracks29 Feb 2015 #6
CTyankee Feb 2015 #11
tracks29 Feb 2015 #12
CTyankee Feb 2015 #14
Arwinnick Feb 2015 #7
yellowcanine Feb 2015 #8
napi21 Feb 2015 #19
yellowcanine Feb 2015 #23
HappyMe Feb 2015 #9
Sheepshank Feb 2015 #10
Thinkingabout Feb 2015 #28
HappyMe Feb 2015 #29
Thinkingabout Feb 2015 #32
napi21 Feb 2015 #37
cascadiance Feb 2015 #31
Thinkingabout Feb 2015 #33
Logical Feb 2015 #41
beerandjesus Feb 2015 #13
CTyankee Feb 2015 #15
napi21 Feb 2015 #35
oldandhappy Feb 2015 #17
DFW Feb 2015 #18
Jim Lane Feb 2015 #20
Proud Liberal Dem Feb 2015 #22
Proud Liberal Dem Feb 2015 #21
Thinkingabout Feb 2015 #30
Cosmocat Feb 2015 #24
Jim Lane Feb 2015 #25
Hoyt Feb 2015 #27
valerief Feb 2015 #26
davidpdx Feb 2015 #34
TeamPooka Feb 2015 #36
Rosa Luxemburg Feb 2015 #45
craigmatic Feb 2015 #38
Jim Lane Feb 2015 #39
Dawson Leery Feb 2015 #40
Jim Lane Feb 2015 #43
workinclasszero Feb 2015 #42
Evan Yessirreebob Feb 2015 #44
Joe Magarac Feb 2015 #46

Response to Jim Lane (Original post)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 01:57 PM

1. Jebbers, because he's experienced in stealing elections!

You remember, Florida for his brother, and throwing al those voters off the roles. Do you really think he wouldn't do that AGAIN?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to napi21 (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 09:58 PM

16. Absolutely, even with his negatives,

 

Jeb Bush.

The Bushes have proved that they are willing to do absolutely anything for the sake of power.

Lie, cheat, steal, or kill, there is NOTHING of which they are not capable...

... or perhaps even, experienced in.


The dirt does seem to pile up, however...
Dirty Jeb

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Original post)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 02:00 PM

2. Sorry, I just can't take anyone of them seriously.

(I tried to click on Pass, but it didn't work for me.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Original post)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 02:21 PM

3. Kasich has fewer negatives than the others.

 

What gets a Republican to 270 next year? They have no obvious killer issue. The economy will be so-so but not the disaster of 2008. Their railing against Obamacare will have softened because millions of swing voters know that it won't be repealed and shouldn't be -- the Republicans will be reduced to urging tweaks. I'll hopefully assume no foreign policy disasters (including no major military quagmires, just an ongoing minor quagmire in Afghanistan).

Their best chance for a win is a simple "time for a change" pitch. The five wins for FDR-Truman and three for Reagan-Bush41 were the only times since the Depression that the same party has won the White House three times in a row (noting an asterisk for 2000).

Not that I want to incite yet another pro- or anti-Hillary thread, but if she's the nominee, it probably helps the Republicans make the argument against yet another Democratic term. For similar reasons, it's harder for them to say "time for a change" if they're running another Bush.

Kasich is still relatively unknown nationally, so would come across as a fresh face, and isn't as vulnerable to attack as the others. He was just handily re-elected in a key swing state.

I console myself that he's unlikely to get the nomination. If he does, though, I'll be worried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 02:23 PM

4. Walker because he will have the Oligarchs behind him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OregonBlue (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 02:28 PM

5. Whichever of these people wins will have the oligarchs behind him (or her, if Fiorina).

 

The ideological differences among this bunch aren't huge. Any of them will be a tool of the 1%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Original post)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 02:35 PM

6. None of the above

I just don't see anyone having a chance with the way things stand. Walker will be exposed. Christie has no chance. I've said all along Jebby is way overrated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tracks29 (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 04:55 PM

11. I agree with you. Jebby was pretty underwhelming out of the start gate...

Walker is on very weak political legs right now. Christie self destroyed already. Kasich doesn't have much snap to him.

I remember all the chatter about Mitt and how his wife was his "secret weapon" and yadda, yadda. It was all a bunch of BS. And I haven't forgotten the revelation of the 47% speech being secretly taped by just a bartender...that was all it took...the guy was finished...

I foresee this kind of scenario all over again. The GOP has a problem. Their likely candidates are either bat shit out of the mainstream, corrupt, or elitist "fakers" like Mitt (I remember "cheesy grits" and chuckle). Or boring and uninspiring. I sure wouldn't want to be a Republican operative right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #11)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 05:00 PM

12. At least Mitt was a Presidential candidate

In the end, they had a Mitt in 2012. They don't have that this time around. Not sure what they are going to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tracks29 (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 05:42 PM

14. Sucks to be them! Aww, too bad...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Original post)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 02:48 PM

7. Switched

At first I voted Walker,then I switched to Jeb after another poster on another thread mentioned the Latino vote.Being married to a mexican-american did make him very popular with Latino voters.My mexican-american DIL said her whole family in Texas liked Jeb but hated his brother.She also said the older folks in her family adored George P Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Original post)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 03:16 PM

8. Jeb, but only because he stands a better chance of carrying Florida than the others.

And a Republican pretty much cannot win without Florida, though they can easily lose even with Florida.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 05:58 AM

19. You think? Even with the ghost of Terry Shiavo?

I think there are a lot of Floridians who haven't forgotten that deal with that poor sick woman and her husband. Plus there are thousands if not millions of people in Fla. who remember being kicked off the voter rolls by Jebbers & his Sec. of State.

I don't think he stands much of a shot at the nomination, not only for the reasons listed above, but he's pro immigration, and we know how he Pubbies feel about that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to napi21 (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 04:09 PM

23. Yep even. I have little confidence in the memories of voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Original post)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 03:32 PM

9. He isn't running, but I think Jon Huntsman

would be a very tough opponent.

Since elections are all about the money - Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 04:25 PM

10. agreed. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 06:23 PM

28. Jon Huntsman would be the better candidate, his problem, he is sane and does

Not say the crazy lines as Todd Akin, Christie, Jindal, etc. They threw him aside before because he worked for Obama and God Forbid they could run someone who personally knew Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #28)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 06:25 PM

29. We should thank our lucky stars he isn't running.

I don't think that Jeb should be taken lightly at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #29)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:45 PM

32. And happy he did not get through the primary last time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #28)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 03:22 AM

37. The people who feel optomistic about Huntsman are Dems!

Huntsman is a very moderate Pub who has no chance of ever winning a Pub primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 07:13 PM

31. I think the corporate PTB don't want someone like Huntsman running for the Republicans...

 

A more extreme Republican makes Hillary look more popular as the Democratic choice and help the corporate world feel that they have the field of choices all be working for them. If they get someone like Huntsman running, then it will give Hillary a lot less crossover support in the polls, and amp up the voices to get someone like Elizabeth Warren to run who will offer a real choice against the Republicans for all Americans and not just someone for the corporate powers. More independents I think would be inclined to support someone for real banking reform versus either Hillary or Huntsman, and be wooed over to our side then, if they don't stay with Republicans than they would go over to the Democrats with a candidate like Hillary Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #31)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 10:49 PM

33. They are all in with corporations though some try to say differently, they have

Obligations to corporations, they take money and listen to their lobbyists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #9)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 05:42 PM

41. Here is where you are wrong, he never makes it through the primaries. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Original post)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 05:23 PM

13. Santorum, if it's him versus Hillary.

And if he sticks to economic issues, and keeps his mouth shut about his crazy-ass views on sexuality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beerandjesus (Reply #13)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 05:51 PM

15. Oh, but he won't. These guys can't help it.

And that's fine with me...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beerandjesus (Reply #13)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 03:17 AM

35. We should be so lucky to have Santorum as the chosen nominee!

If HE were to make it through the entire Pub primaries, I'd be shocked, but he wouldn't stand a snowballs chance o winning!


The Pubbies do think he's a saint who walks on water, He stands NO chance of winning in the general

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Original post)

Thu Feb 19, 2015, 10:26 PM

17. I think Jon Huntsman is the only one who could have actually had a chance.

It will be an awful election, but the t-folk still manage to damage the repub chances. Not that I mind! I want a Dem to win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldandhappy (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 03:12 AM

18. He was my choice, too

Luckily for us, as formidable a candidate and opponent he would be if nominated, he has no chance of being nominated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldandhappy (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:40 AM

20. I'm glad Huntsman is out but I wouldn't dismiss the others so confidently.

 

Fortunately, Huntsman announced a few months ago that he wouldn't run: "Jon Huntsman says no thanks to 2016 run" (an interview in Politico).

Nevertheless, I'm nervous when Democrats say that the Republicans have no chance. I remember being glad when the Republicans nominated Reagan in 1980. Obviously we could beat a has-been movie actor with extreme right-wing views. Any of the people in the poll would have at least some shot at winning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #20)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:44 AM

22. I agree

Free of having to pander to the far-right lunatic fringe, he would probably be one of the (extremely) rare Republicans I wouldn't feel suicidal living under (though I would always prefer to have a sane and intelligent Democrat in office)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:40 AM

21. Jeb, probably

He probably would have the easiest time *appearing* to be "moderate" in a general election, though whether or not he would be able to overcome his brother's "legacy" remains to be seen. At least in terms of foreign policy, he's not exactly distancing himself very well from his brother's foreign policy extremism given that he's surrounded himself with the most notorious of the architects of his brother's signature foreign policy disaster. Also, his advocacy in the Schiavo matter, which most Americans rejected, also demonstrates that he is quite extremist when it comes to "right-to-life" concerns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #21)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 06:35 PM

30. I guess we should remember Saddam threatened Jeb's Daddy also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 05:07 PM

24. Let's be clear about one thing

They are ALL serious candidates, in that whoever the republican's put forward, they will mostly unite behind AND the media will do their bidding in both finding some mind bendingly bizarre positive frame for them AND will find some mind bendingly bizarre way to negatively frame the democratic candidate.

This time in the 99 cycle, W was as big a joke as any of them. When the dust settled a smart,capable and decent Al Gore was framed as an arrogant geek and nitwit son of privilege a guy you'd like to have a beer with.

John Kerry actually served in battle, was wounded and received medals for it. When that election was over, he was a weak coward and the jackass who ducked vietnam and hid in a mountain during 9-11 was hailed as resolute and having had kept us safe.

McCain was a half senile, cartoonish say anything to get elected politician who picked the most truly abhorent VP candidate in our lives and still got nearly 47% of the vote.

Barrack Obama was an incumbant who was doing a good job and Romney was a cartoonish, gaf machine and he got 47% of the vote.

It does not matter one big how bad we see these morons to be, or even in fact who incompetent or stupid they are.

Once it is a two horse horse race, they have at worst a punchers chance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmocat (Reply #24)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 06:14 PM

25. I completely agree.

 

I would be optimistic to the point of possible complacency if they nominate Sarah Palin, but that won't happen. Any of the nine in my OP could conceivably win the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cosmocat (Reply #24)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 06:22 PM

27. +1. You never know what might happen in the months/weekd leading up to an election

that causes a few percentage points to say, "maybe we need a change, let's see what the other side can do."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 06:22 PM

26. Whichever asshole the electronic voting machines/SCOTUS vote for will be bad.

It doesn't matter which asshole it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Original post)

Fri Feb 20, 2015, 11:46 PM

34. I think it would be Jeb Bush with Walker a close second

They are both slimebags and both subscribe to the "I'll do anything to get elected" mantra. That is dangerous.

I think Perry, Santorum (I mean man on dog), and Carson will run as well. It's a shame DU limits a poll to 10 when this is one time when ten is not enough....CLOWNS! HARHARHAR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Original post)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 03:22 AM

36. Walker will be rolling in Koch money. he's their boy. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamPooka (Reply #36)

Sun Feb 22, 2015, 03:49 PM

45. Probably

because Bush is though of as old stale dead meat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Original post)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 09:36 AM

38. Pataki probably could win it all but can't get the nod. When it come right down to it they have alot

 

of winning combinations this time. Put christie, walker, Pataki or some other blue state dem with bush and it gets harder for us. But then again elections are also about issues. If Hillary wants to win she'll have to be genuine and not come off as too coached.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to craigmatic (Reply #38)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 12:53 PM

39. I should've included Pataki with Fiorina, Graham, and King as the self-delusional possibilities.

 

Like those three, Pataki has given indications of interest in running. I agree with you that his chance for the nomination is virtually zero.

If he were the nominee, he'd have some of the advantages I cited for Kasich ("fresh face" on the national scene (not a retread), no major negatives, success in a non-red state). He's not a dynamic campaigner, though.

Against a Bush-Pataki ticket, I don't think that New York would even be in play. Pataki would boost the Republican vote but not enough to give them a chance of carrying the state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Original post)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 04:44 PM

40. Walker and Kacich are unknown nationally and can be made over

to appear acceptable to the general audience.

Don't count out Susan Martinez (New Mexico Governor). She too can be made over for the general election and could pull some latino votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dawson Leery (Reply #40)

Sun Feb 22, 2015, 02:30 AM

43. Susana Martinez said before her re-election last year that she wouldn't run for President in 2016.

 

I expect she'll adhere to that, if only because she has virtually no national profile now and would have a hard time getting the nomination starting from where she is.

She will, however, be short-listed for VP (unless the nominee is Cruz or Rubio). You're right that she could bring in Latino votes, and also some women. She would also fit in with the "time for a change" theme that I consider the Republicans' best hope next year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Original post)

Sat Feb 21, 2015, 11:08 PM

42. Jebby because like his daddy

 

He is a kinder, gentler machine-gun hand.

Walker is a nazi and acts like one, he would lose the general easy.

But Jebby Bush can appear like your soft spoken nice uncle who wouldn't hurt a fly.

Till he gets elected and gives the bagger religious fascists free rein to destroy as much of America as they can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Original post)

Sun Feb 22, 2015, 01:10 PM

44. Abe Lincoln

 

Hands down!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Original post)

Sun Feb 22, 2015, 04:22 PM

46. Of the ones mentioned, Walker.

 

Not Jeb.

Too many Republicans are sick of the Bushes.

As for the "stealing elections" question -- not in the primary.
Whoever is the nominee will get the benefit of shared knowledge and resources in November.

But I clicked other, because it's too soon to tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread