Who will be the 2016 GOP Presidential Nominee?

[dudeabides]

Who will be the 2016 GOP Presidential Nominee?

[MATTROSE94]

Gun to my head, I would proably go with Ted Cruz getting the Republican nomination.

[henster]

The party will coalesce around Walker.

[Mr. Morden]

Don't know if it'll be Walker, but he should obviously be included as a choice in this poll.

[Joshgreen]

Some loon.

[ElectionsGuy]

Out of these, Bush. *sigh*

[Suburbia]

The party will go with Bush or a John Thune, but Rand Paul could be the choice.

[ajackson]

It probably comes down to Paul and Perry, slight edge to Perry for broader base appeal.

I could live with it.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

As of now, I'm inclined to say Paul. It will be a disaster.

[Mordecai]

Since Walker isn't on the poll I went with Bush.

[daveosupremo]

I don't understand why everyone on this forum thinks Jeb Bush is so viable.

1. He probably won't run. He has said he will look at it, and his staffers have said he's thinking about it, but there are a lot more indications that he will not run then that he will run.
2. H is every bit as unpopular with the base as Romney was, without a lot of Romney's strengths.
3. He would be running against Chris Christie, which will split the establishment vote.
4. The non-establishment contenders are not Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain this time around.
5. Bush fatigue is still a very real thing.
6. He will have been out of elected office for almost a decade of the time 2016 rolls around.

I still think the GOP is likely to coalesce around Scott Walker as a sort of unity candidate with a record to run on. Considering Walker wasn't on this list, I went with Rand Paul, who I think is the second most likely nominee.

[Mordecai]

I don't understand why everyone on this forum thinks Jeb Bush is so viable.

1. He probably won't run. He has said he will look at it, and his staffers have said he's thinking about it, but there are a lot more indications that he will not run then that he will run.
2. H is every bit as unpopular with the base as Romney was, without a lot of Romney's strengths.
3. He would be running against Chris Christie, which will split the establishment vote.
4. The non-establishment contenders are not Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain this time around.
5. Bush fatigue is still a very real thing.
6. He will have been out of elected office for almost a decade of the time 2016 rolls around.

I still think the GOP is likely to coalesce around Scott Walker as a sort of unity candidate with a record to run on. Considering Walker wasn't on this list, I went with Rand Paul, who I think is the second most likely nominee.

Jeb has connections through his family that the other candidates don't have, donors would feel very comfortable with him as a safe investment (compared to the risks with Christie's blustering and Walker's mediocrity), and he hasn't had any recent scandals. He is also the most inoffensive/least-threatening Republican candidate (besides Rubio or Cruz) to Latinos because of his family. This is also probably his last chance to be President and I think he knows it.

I'm not really sure what strengths Romney had that you're referring to, to me he was one of the weakest presidential candidates in a generation.

[Mr. Morden]

Here's what the forum thought four years ago:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=113212.0

[Randy Bobandy]

Mmm, Bush or Paul.

[whanztastic]

Why Rick Perry of course.

[© tweed]

I'd still bet on Christie barring an indictment.

[Matty]

Scott Walker

[Maxwell]

I'm guessing Walker. Christie rises again, collapses, Paul hovers over the top of the polls, but GOP is concerned about running him. Paul and Cruz destroy eachother in Iowa, Walker swipes Iowa by 10, and wins the nod in a swish.

I can see that happening.

[Goldwater]

Why isn't Walker an option? Out of these options, most likely Bush.