Which of these Republicans could beat Hillary?

[Maxwell]

Only Daniels.

Daniels 2016

[Averroës Nix]

Anyone who doesn't answer "all of them" at this point is a total hack.

The national environment in 2016 will be much more important in developing the race than the quality of the candidates, and it is extremely premature to rule any 2016 candidate out of consideration.  In a 1932 or 2008-esque environment, Hillary could get stomped by any Republican.   

Some of the Repupbicans mentioned are so unqualified and/or cooky that this seems unrealistic. A majority for Palin or Carson wont happen in any scenario.

No you're wrong.

To say that a candidate like Palin or Cain has an absolute zero percent chance of winning in 2016 would be extremely cocky. 

You don't need to know that much about how primary elections to work to understand why neither is a plausible nominee.

[MadmanMotley]

Only Daniels.

Daniels 2016

[Roemerista]

Daniels, Rubio, and Jeb. The rest are pretty much joke candidates in regards to the national stage--or even statewide. And of those possible three, only in very narrow circumstances.


Daniels 2016.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Jeb and Huckabee.

I notice that a lot of valid candidates that would have more luck her are missing.

[politicus]

Jeb and Huckabee.

I notice that a lot of valid candidates that would have more luck her are missing.

Including Palin and Carson and excluding someone like Mike Pence is a bit weird.

Daniels, Bush, Rubio and Pence could do it in the right environment. Daniels would have the best odds IMO.

Huckabee is too SoCon and not Presidential enough.

I doubt Christie could survive the primary and I don't see him doing well enough with female voters in the general if he does.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think Huckabee has a certain appeal that a lot of "moderates" don't have. It's similar to how I thought Rick Santorum, deplorable though he may be, was the most (the only?) electable GOP candidate in 2012.

And yes, this poll seems to be missing about half those most speculated about as nominees (Paul, Walker, Kasich, Ryan and Pence spring to mind). A lot of these candidates would be kerbstomped in a neutral year.

[IceSpear]

I think Huckabee has a certain appeal that a lot of "moderates" don't have. It's similar to how I thought Rick Santorum, deplorable though he may be, was the most (the only?) electable GOP candidate in 2012.

And yes, this poll seems to be missing about half those most speculated about as nominees (Paul, Walker, Kasich, Ryan and Pence spring to mind). A lot of these candidates would be kerbstomped in a neutral year.

Electable people don't lose re-election in a purple/tint blue state by 18 points.

[politicus]

I think Huckabee has a certain appeal that a lot of "moderates" don't have. It's similar to how I thought Rick Santorum, deplorable though he may be, was the most (the only?) electable GOP candidate in 2012.

Besides the factors I mentioned Huckabee also has a reputation as a “big government conservative” during his time as governor, and was under constant attack from the right wing on economy and tax issues in 2008. The Club for Growth is already reminding people of that. He will not survive a Pub primary.

[Chilltown]

I don't know why Ted Cruz is not considered around here. Of the Republican contenders, he is quite easily the smartest, most talented candidate in the field. Facing him would be a lot tougher than taking on Rand Paul the gaffe machine or Rubio the moron.

[President Johnson]

I don't know why Ted Cruz is not considered around here. Of the Republican contenders, he is quite easily the smartest, most talented candidate in the field. Facing him would be a lot tougher than taking on Rand Paul the gaffe machine or Rubio the moron.

Cruz is too far right to beat Hillary. He would be smoked in the election. Christie has the best chances to win.

The strongest Republican ticket in my opinion would be NJ Governor Chris Cristie and New Mexico Governor Susanna Martinez. Martinez would, as vice presidential candidate, appeal to women and lations.

[Chilltown]

I don't know why Ted Cruz is not considered around here. Of the Republican contenders, he is quite easily the smartest, most talented candidate in the field. Facing him would be a lot tougher than taking on Rand Paul the gaffe machine or Rubio the moron.

Cruz is too far right to beat Hillary. He would be smoked in the election. Christie has the best chances to win.

You act as if every voter looks up where each candidate is on the ideological spectrum before they vote. They don't.

If a far-right candidate is smart enough, crushes the debates, and is an intelligent campaigner then he will do better in an election than a 'moderate' candidate who lacks all of those attributes. Now, I'm not saying Cruz will be able to crush Hillary in all those things, but it is foolish to write him off.

[IceSpear]

I don't know why Ted Cruz is not considered around here. Of the Republican contenders, he is quite easily the smartest, most talented candidate in the field. Facing him would be a lot tougher than taking on Rand Paul the gaffe machine or Rubio the moron.

Cruz is too far right to beat Hillary. He would be smoked in the election. Christie has the best chances to win.

You act as if every voter looks up where each candidate is on the ideological spectrum before they vote. They don't.

If a far-right candidate is smart enough, crushes the debates, and is an intelligent campaigner then he will do better in an election than a 'moderate' candidate who lacks all of those attributes. Now, I'm not saying Cruz will be able to crush Hillary in all those things, but it is foolish to write him off.

The government shutdown showed that Cruz's political acumen isn't exactly top notch. He's not going to be able to sweep that under the rug. In fact, that's what DEFINES him to most people.

[Mister Mets]

I don't know why Ted Cruz is not considered around here. Of the Republican contenders, he is quite easily the smartest, most talented candidate in the field. Facing him would be a lot tougher than taking on Rand Paul the gaffe machine or Rubio the moron.

Cruz could be strong. A Harvard educated Hispanic man 20+ years younger than Hillary Clinton isn't necessarily the opponent she wants to have in a change election.

One problem with Cruz is that it's not clear if he's shameless and pandering to the base, or a true believer. A true believer is much easier to run against due to their increased willingness to say unpopular things, and the stronger likelihood of blind spots. A shameless liar can pretend to be whatever 50+% of the voters want. He would still have the problem that he's pissed off some prominent Republicans, which could lead to painful endorsements for Hillary.

I do think Hillary's strengths are overrated on this board. My take is that she'll be a weaker candidate in 2016 than Obama in 2012, as she'll be running for a third term for Democrats (candidates running for a third term for their party have done worse than candidates running for a second term since FDR) and is less politically talented.

[Chilltown]

I think Cruz is a true believer in the way that he truly believes in himself as this country's 'savior'. Not that a healthy dose of narcissism isn't present in every politician of course. Cruz has certainly not been the ultimate outsider. He's clerked for Rehnquist, and was an adviser to Bush in 2000. I have no doubt that if you put him in a room with with the 'establishment' donors that may not have liked him during the shutdown, he can schmooze them.

I can't see Rand Paul pulling something like that off.

[King]

Hillary's only potential shortcoming is that she is sometimes abrasive. Christie is always abrasive. No to Christie.

Daniels is a total snooze fest. The kind of candidate only delusional politicos think could ever be President.

Bush vs. Clinton, Clinton wins 10 times out of 10.

Everyone else is a nutjob.

[MadmanMotley]

Mitch Daniels can win, he won in Indiana in 2008 with 57.8% of the vote. At the same time Republicans were being blamed for everything and Obama won Indiana in the presidential election. He's competent and not gaffe prone. Is he the most exciting? No, but Hillary isn't the most charismatic either. He knows how to campaign, govern, and not say something stupid. He's conservative enough for the base, and moderate enough for a general election. His time was obviously 2012, and he's not likely to run, but he'd be by far one of the best Presidential candidates.

Daniels/Paul 2016

[MATTROSE94]

I think Huckabee has a certain appeal that a lot of "moderates" don't have. It's similar to how I thought Rick Santorum, deplorable though he may be, was the most (the only?) electable GOP candidate in 2012.

And yes, this poll seems to be missing about half those most speculated about as nominees (Paul, Walker, Kasich, Ryan and Pence spring to mind). A lot of these candidates would be kerbstomped in a neutral year.

I sort of felt that way as well about Rick Santorum in 2012. Despite his ultra-conservative positions on social issues and foreign policy, Santorum seemed to have a lot of appeal to the so-called "blue collar conservatives" and even the remaining "Reagan Democrats" that Romney surely lacked. I guess Santorum's appeal stemmed from how he communicated his views to those types of voter groups and due to the fact that his background was more in line with the common man than Romney's was. Those characteristics could have helped him in states like Ohio, Iowa, Colorado and Florida. In the meantime, his more extreme positions on other issues might have ended up costing him at least North Carolina, Arizona, Georgia and maybe even Montana.

[King]

Mitch Daniels can win, he won in Indiana in 2008 with 57.8% of the vote. At the same time Republicans were being blamed for everything and Obama won Indiana in the presidential election. He's competent and not gaffe prone. Is he the most exciting? No, but Hillary isn't the most charismatic either. He knows how to campaign, govern, and not say something stupid. He's conservative enough for the base, and moderate enough for a general election. His time was obviously 2012, and he's not likely to run, but he'd be by far one of the best Presidential candidates.

Daniels/Paul 2016

Tim Pawlenty's ability to get elected in Minnesota is far more impressive.  Dullards are dullards. Nobody would pay attention to anything Daniels has to say.

[Suburbia]

It's probably Jeb Bush that can beat Hillary. He can raise the money.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Anyone who doesn't answer "all of them" at this point is a total hack.

The national environment in 2016 will be much more important in developing the race than the quality of the candidates, and it is extremely premature to rule any 2016 candidate out of consideration.  In a 1932 or 2008-esque environment, Hillary could get stomped by any Republican.   

Some of the Repupbicans mentioned are so unqualified and/or cooky that this seems unrealistic. A majority for Palin or Carson wont happen in any scenario.

No you're wrong.

To say that a candidate like Palin or Cain has an absolute zero percent chance of winning in 2016 would be extremely cocky. 

lol

[bobloblaw]

Why no Walker???

[Frodo]

The only one on this list who could beat her now is Jeb Bush -Chris Christie has pretty much written himself off...   

[PresidentTRUMP]

Rubio's the best chance for republicans to win for so many reason against hillary...

With that said it will probably be Jeb vs hillary in '16

[Mehmentum]

Any of them could, I think Hillary has anywhere between a slight advantage to a massive advantage against the various names on the list.