The "Who is running?" tea leaves thread

[Bull Moose Base]

Warren isn't at all comparable to mayors Booker or Castro. Her resume would be similar to Obama's in 2008, as would grassroots enthusiasm for her. She's very doubtful to run if Clinton runs, the most likely nominee if Clinton does not.

Santorum and Paul remain the only Republicans better than 50/50 to run. Cruz seems close to 50/50.

[Bull Moose Base]

Am I the only person here who thinks Christie is more likely to pass on 2016 than run?

[Bull Moose Base]

I think Kasich should be considered one of the more likely candidates (though still less than 50/50 to run) because (a) he's already run, from a weaker stepping stone (b) he's older than the rest. Speaking of likelihood of running, I want some credit for resisting the idea that McDonnell was guaranteed to run. (But I never posted it so you have to trust me!) I think I limited the better than 50/50 to run list to Santorum and Paul though I have to include Cruz as well. I've also resisted including Jindal. If McDonnell is the Sanford of 2016, Jindal is poised to be the Barbour (who ran but never officially). I can easily see Jindal getting no polling, no money and giving up before he starts. Funny that Kasich mentions Christie texting him. It's almost like saying. Hey, the cool kid called me. Please count me in the top tier. I think Kasich would hit even more resistance from the gun lobby than Christie would. Christie, like Pence, has called Scott Walker his role model by the way.

[Bull Moose Base]

Janet Napolitano is stepping down as Secretary of Homeland Security to become the president of the University of California system:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-uc-president-20130712,0,83979.story

A few months ago, Napolitano didn't rule out a future run for president:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/napolitano-doesnt-rule-out-2016-run-for-president/article/2525407

but as a sitting Cabinet secretary, was fairly restrained from openly campaigning for the job in the way that O'Malley and Santorum are today.

O'Malley's getting some buzz to replace Napolitano actually. Not sure if that's anything but I assume he'd take it if offered.

[Bull Moose Base]

Karl said on This Week that he thinks Ryan will run.

Rove has no credibility. And he's only saying this to increase speculation for Ryan, hoping it pressures him to run.

I assume he means Jonathan Karl, not Karl Rove.

Even less credibility.

Cruz's is the most insincere sounding denial we've heard in a long time.

[Bull Moose Base]

Ryan has competition for Ways & Means, but he can probably have it if he wants it. IIRC read something last year about him deciding by the end of this year on that.

The Ways & Means chairmanship is said to be his dream job.  If he gets that chairmanship, I have a hard time seeing him turn around a few months later to announce that he's running for president.

I think it's a safe bet that Ryan would rather be president than chairman of Ways and Means. If he takes that, it's probably because he doubts he can beat Hillary Clinton a la Pence, Huckabee, Christie vis-a-vis Obama in 2012.

[Bull Moose Base]

More on Scott Brown's headline-grabbing in IA. A better way would be running for guv, Senator.

Why shouldn't we think he's for real?

[Bull Moose Base]

For the same reason we discounted his musings about running against Shaheen?

unless this is the reason he passed on that race.

[Bull Moose Base]

Warren isn't at all comparable to mayors Booker or Castro. Her resume would be similar to Obama's in 2008, as would grassroots enthusiasm for her. She's very doubtful to run if Clinton runs, the most likely nominee if Clinton does not.

Santorum and Paul remain the only Republicans better than 50/50 to run. Cruz seems close to 50/50.

I'm not one to miss an opportunity to pat myself on the back for a good prediction. There's no definitive proof I was right, and I'm guessing we'll never even find out, but I think it's pretty obvious Warren is the most likely nominee if Clinton passes.

[Bull Moose Base]

Schweitzer on Romney 2016:

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/brian-schweitzer-bet-100-mitt-romney-wont-run-2016-2014-6

You must be logged in to read this quote.

4 to 1? I would give 40 to 1. Maybe Romney himself is more interested than he's let on. Either that or between Schweitzer and me, one of us is terrible at gauging risk and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the White House.

[Bull Moose Base]

Portman may set up an exploratory committee after the midterms.

I guess Kasich is not running.

Kasich was never going to run, as much as he wanted too.  If he did, he'd get demolished.  On the other hand, Portman may well run and if he is the nominee, I could definitely see him beating Hillary Clinton, O'Malley, etc.  He's not unbeatable or anything and isn't even unbeatable in Ohio, but a Portman candidacy would scare me infinitely more than Jeb, Christie, Rand, grumpy SoCon candidate #83, Rubio, etc.  He'd be an extremely electable candidate and comes across as a pretty reasonable guy despite being quite right-wing (particularly on economic issues).  Plus the gay marriage thing will give him tons of Moderate Hero cred.  Thankfully, I doubt he can make it through the primaries (although far from impossible given that the big business wing always beats the SoCon wing when the two have their quad-annual clash during the GOP Presidential primaries), but if he does, he's got at least 50-50 odds against any of the Democrats being talked about.

Someone who supports gay marriage will never be able to win a GOP primary in 2016, no matter how much establishment support they have. 2020 or 2024, perhaps.

Name me one time where the big business wing has not been able to get any of its candidates that cycle the Republican Presidential nomination because of SoCon opposition.  Santorum, Bachmann, Robertson, Buchanan, Huckabee, etc, etc all had their moments, but ultimately lost.  Even George W. Bush was closer to the big business wing than the SoCon wing when you really think about it.

They preferred Giuliani and Romney to McCain. It's true Romney won next cycle despite his Mormonism but there were other factors and no reason to think Portman would do as well in 16. Also no reason to think Kasich will stay out if Portman wants to run.

[Bull Moose Base]

Long Politico article on all Pub candidates. Rand's 95% in, will probably announce in April. Perry and Cruz are in, though doubts they'll get far. Rubio will announce after his book tour in January. Ryan's all but out, figuring he's young enough to wait.

It actually says Cruz has a good chance in the primaries but not the general.

Also, I now see it's not really a ranking.

[Bull Moose Base]

Long Politico article on all Pub candidates. Rand's 95% in, will probably announce in April. Perry and Cruz are in, though doubts they'll get far. Rubio will announce after his book tour in January. Ryan's all but out, figuring he's young enough to wait.

It actually says Cruz has agood chance in the primaries but not the general.

Also, I now see it's not really a ranking.

He really doesn't though. He will probably see a lot of success early on, but I don't see him being more than flavor of the month. I agree with the article, he'll find success in Iowa but "will burn fast".

But it's rare to win Iowa and not have a good chance of being nominated. It's true the last two Iowa winners weren't nominated, but Huckabee might have been if he hadn't narrowly lost South Carolina. I think Cruz is probably a better candidate than Huckabee and Santorum and likely to be better funded.