Which establishment GOP candidate will be 2016's Rudy Giuliani/Jon Hunstman?

[ShadowRocket]

2008 and 2012 both saw establishment-friendly candidates in Rudy Giuliani and Jon Huntsman who looked good on paper, one was the frontrunner at one point in his respective cycle, but both wound being a flops as candidates who doesn't win any primaries. It looks pretty probable that both Jeb and Christie will run and compete for establishment support. So which one is more likely is more likely to wind up in the Giuliani/Hunstman role?

FWIW, I didn't include Romney and Ryan because they likely wont run if Jeb does. Also wasn't sure if guys like Walker and Pence qualify as "establishment."

[NewYorkExpress]

Giuliani wasn't exactly establishment, given that he was pro-choice and and pro-civil union, which many in the GOP Establishment weren't in 2008 (Especially the pro-choice part).

[Rockefeller GOP]

Rudy would have won if he hadn't campaigned like a moron.  I don't think Jeb will run, and I don't think Christie will be a flop ... So, I voted Jeb, but neither?

[Likely Voter]

Jeb has not been in politics for a long time really and isn't ready for today's GOP. His recent flop in NC only shows how he is out of step with the party.

[Maistre]

Christie will pander, Bush will not. I'd be surprised if Bush goes very far, if at all.

Of course Christie has other problems to worry about.

[eric82oslo]

Jeb Bush, because he's way too polite, civil and decent.
Christie is a bully, which is exactly what the tea party crowds adore more than anything else. Remember Gingrich? His rants against the media and basically anyone. Disgusting to the border of vomitable for the vast majority of normal people, yet one particular crowd can't get enough of such mental hospital behaviour, and they're loud and cheerful about it. Christie isn't nearly as bullyish as Gingrich, yet he can still be extremely bullyish, to put it mildly, compared to almost anyone else.

[New_Conservative]

Christie

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Christie, partially because Bush won't run. Iowa will not be friendly to him and NH will prefer Paul (or possibly Ryan if he decides to run and wins Iowa) despite its geography. His unfavorability ratings will be too high if the vote consolidates against him which is quite likely after Iowa. Carson, Rubio, and Walker could strongly contend against him for 2nd/3rd there. I reckon Cruz could as well, but I'm hopeful he gets beat in Iowa.

If Ryan doesn't run and Paul yields to Cruz, then Christie might be able to do well. Christie's only shot would be for a Jindal miracle in Iowa though the other three I listed (Carson, Rubio, Walker) may not be able to translate that into a NH win either.

(I say Jindal because he is the most likely dark horse to gain steam outside of Carson IMO, but feel free to insert Daniels/Kasich/Pence/Perry/Santorum/Portman. I don't see any of those doing better than Christie in NH if he panders and campaigns to them. Perry and maybe Daniels who won't run could come close, but I doubt it.)

I love Christie, but it just seems like his campaign is destined to fail. He doesn't have national appeal and has high unfavorability within his own party with so many more viable options.

*Romney, Bush, and Huckabee are not running.

[IceSpear]

Neither, but if I had to pick one, Christie.

I doubt there will be a token moderate like Giuliani/Huntsman in the mix this time.

[Bull Moose Base]

Giuliani and Huntsman were different candidacies. Christie is pretty similar to Giuliani and has a decent chance of a following a similar trajectory. If Bush runs and loses the nomination, it'll probably resemble Hillary 2008 more than Giuliani 2008 in a lot of ways.

[Suburbia]

I would say Christie.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Jon Huntsman hardly had a chance to begin with. Christie is the answer, however. It's funny how much he reminds me of Rudy.