Would Condoleezza Rice be a good Republican Candidate in 2016?

[Potatoe]

Given how some have talked about her, let's set the record straight.

For Me? No, full stop.

[NewYorkExpress]

She'd be a strong general election candidate, but Hell will need to freeze over fifteen-fold for her to win a GOP Presidential Primary.

[pbrower2a]

She has never won elective office.

She should have been a Democrat and of course avoided the mess of Dubya.   

[daveosupremo]

Definitely not top of the ticket. She'd be a good VP pic for any governor trying to run against Washington, as well as anyone weak on foreign policy trying to position themselves as hawkish leaning pragmatist. I suspect she'll be looked by Walker and Cruz, among others.

She definitely hurt herself among conservatives this week with her ridiculous ban bossy campaign though. I'd say her chances went down quite a lot, unfortunately.

[Supersonic]

She is the dream, but has never held elective office, so..

[Simfan34]

She is the dream, but has never held elective office, so..

Ideally, none would be elective, so points to her...

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

She'd be a strong general election candidate, but Hell will need to freeze over fifteen-fold for her to win a GOP Presidential Primary.

This.

[Potatoe]

She'd be a strong general election candidate, but Hell will need to freeze over fifteen-fold for her to win a GOP Presidential Primary.

Why would she? She hasn't been relevant in years, was Bush's Secretary of State, and is also Pro-Choice (Which is essentially a litmus test for GOP Nominees)

[NewYorkExpress]

She'd be a strong general election candidate, but Hell will need to freeze over fifteen-fold for her to win a GOP Presidential Primary.

Why would she? She hasn't been relevant in years, was Bush's Secretary of State, and is also Pro-Choice (Which is essentially a litmus test for GOP Nominees)

The first one and the last one are why she'd be a strong General Election candidate... However, that last one, (and the second) are the main reasons why she'd be a disaster in a GOP primary (probably worse than Giuliani)

[Potatoe]

She'd be a strong general election candidate, but Hell will need to freeze over fifteen-fold for her to win a GOP Presidential Primary.

Why would she? She hasn't been relevant in years, was Bush's Secretary of State, and is also Pro-Choice (Which is essentially a litmus test for GOP Nominees)

The first one and the last one are why she'd be a strong General Election candidate... However, that last one, (and the second) are the main reasons why she'd be a disaster in a GOP primary (probably worse than Giuliani)

Why would being Pro-Choice help her? Conservatives take that sort of thing very seriously, and they aren't going to take that lying down, and she certainly isn't going to woo over any Democrats, considering she was a major factor in Iraq.

[NewYorkExpress]

She'd be a strong general election candidate, but Hell will need to freeze over fifteen-fold for her to win a GOP Presidential Primary.

Why would she? She hasn't been relevant in years, was Bush's Secretary of State, and is also Pro-Choice (Which is essentially a litmus test for GOP Nominees)

The first one and the last one are why she'd be a strong General Election candidate... However, that last one, (and the second) are the main reasons why she'd be a disaster in a GOP primary (probably worse than Giuliani)

Why would being Pro-Choice help her? Conservatives take that sort of thing very seriously, and they aren't going to take that lying down, and she certainly isn't going to woo over any Democrats, considering she was a major factor in Iraq.

No, but may help more with whatever swing voters are left...

[Potatoe]

She'd be a strong general election candidate, but Hell will need to freeze over fifteen-fold for her to win a GOP Presidential Primary.

Why would she? She hasn't been relevant in years, was Bush's Secretary of State, and is also Pro-Choice (Which is essentially a litmus test for GOP Nominees)

The first one and the last one are why she'd be a strong General Election candidate... However, that last one, (and the second) are the main reasons why she'd be a disaster in a GOP primary (probably worse than Giuliani)

Why would being Pro-Choice help her? Conservatives take that sort of thing very seriously, and they aren't going to take that lying down, and she certainly isn't going to woo over any Democrats, considering she was a major factor in Iraq.

No, but may help more with whatever swing voters are left...

Whatever Swing Voters she'd win would not make up for the tons of Conservatives and Libertarians staying home or voting third party.

[Mister Mets]

I think she'd be a strong candidate. She hasn't won an election, but she would have to demonstrate significant political strength to win a primary.

She's a known quantity, fairly popular with voters. She would also have strong demographic appeal due to the milestone she would represent.

[Mordecai]

No, she's never won an election before and she doesn't seem like she would want to be a politician. Also, Republican voters would be turned off by her academic qualifications, her apparently pro-choice views, and the fact that she's not married and has no children. She also doesn't seem particularly ideological, which would be a weakness in a Republican primary.

[7,052,770]

Absolutely not.  She's damaged goods because of her key role in Bush's disastrous foreign policy.  She'd be a horrible motivator for the base too, especially with the Obama Boogeyman on the ballot in 2016.

[DS0816]

Given how some have talked about her, let's set the record straight.

Some people have no judgment when to not speak.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

She's a single black woman who called Bush her husband who is a massive liar and a warmonger. Not a chance.

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

Of course she'd be a good candidate.  She'd be the strongest candidate the GOP could field, although they don't seem to realize it.

Here's a question:  If 2016 were between Condoleeza Rice and Hillary Clinton, what would be the percentage of black female voters supporting Rice?

[Potatoe]

Of course she'd be a good candidate.  She'd be the strongest candidate the GOP could field, although they don't seem to realize it.

Why?

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

Of course she'd be a good candidate.  She'd be the strongest candidate the GOP could field, although they don't seem to realize it.

Why?

1.  Impeccable background credentials (education and experience) that are relevant to the job of being President.  Arguably, the most qualified candidate for the Presidency.

2.  Potential to increase GOP share of votes from women and minorities.  She would stem the leakage of Republican women to Hillary and add some minority women that would otherwise vote Democratic.  (By how much is the question.)  These gains would not come at the expense of a loss in other demographic groups.

3.  Not likely to have the kind of scandals stemming from day-to-day governing activities or prior activities in political fund-raising.

4.  Opportunity to shift the GOP to the center a bit on social issues, while shifting to the right herself to bring her in sync with the GOP social issue positions.

While Rice does not have a specific base state she could deliver, her status as the black female Presidential candidate who just happens to be the most qualified has the ability to move the map in many ways.  I think Rice is the only candidate who could beat Hillary Clinton in 2016.

[Joshgreen]

She's a washed out neo-con who has no interest in running and has the charisma of a pair of rubber boots. Not a chance in hell.

[Potatoe]

What about the fact that she's Pro Choice? Or that she was Bush's Secretary of State? (I'll get to those points in a bit)