Rank the potential GOP candidates by low, medium, high risk and reward

[Suburbia]

Which candidate would be a low-risk, low-reward choice for the GOP and which candidate would be the highest risk, but with the highest reward? Who would be medium?

[bballrox4717]

low risk, low reward: Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal
high risk, high reward: Rand Paul, Chris Christie

in between: Marco Rubio, Mike Pence, Mike Huckabee, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker

Candidates who need the Democratic Party to self destruct to have any chance: Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry

IMO if I were a Republican, I'd go for one of the high risk candidates as they are likely the only ones who might be able to expand the current coalition in any way.

[MurrayBannerman]

Low Risk, Low Reward: Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney

Low Risk, Medium Reward: Jeb Bush, John Kasich

Low Risk, High Reward: Susana Martinez

Medium Risk, Medium Reward: Mike Pence, Marco Rubio

Medium Risk, High Reward: Scott Walker

High Risk, Low Reward: Rick Santorum, Chris Christie

High Risk, Medium Reward: Rick Perry

High Risk, High Reward: Ted Cruz, Rand Paul

[Mister Mets]

Low Risk, Medium Reward: John Kasich, Rob Portman, Jon Huntsman, Rick Snyder

Medium Risk, Low Reward: Mike Pence (underperformed Romney in Indiana),

Medium Risk, Medium Reward: Jeb Bush, Susanna Martinez (still a small-state Governor)

Medium Risk, High Reward: Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Chris Christie (assuming he's in a position to run in 2016), Condoleeza Rice

High Risk, Low Reward: Sarah Palin, Allen West, Donald Trump

High Risk, Medium Reward: Rick Perry, Ted Cruz (depends on whether he's unnecessarily partisan or shameless), Bobby Jindal, Joe Scarborough, Nikki Haley, Rick Santorum (strong appeal to working class white voters in the rust belt)

High Risk, High Reward: Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee

[Potatoe]

Medium Risk, High Reward: Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Chris Christie (assuming he's in a position to run in 2016), Condoleeza Rice

No.

[henster]

What reward does the GOP get from Cruz or Paul besides defeat?

[MurrayBannerman]

What reward does the GOP get from Cruz or Paul besides defeat?

People rallying behind their ideas and thus victory.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Overrated risk, underrated reward: Chris Christie.

[Suburbia]

low risk, low reward: Jeb Bush, Bobby Jindal
high risk, high reward: Rand Paul, Chris Christie

in between: Marco Rubio, Mike Pence, Mike Huckabee, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker

Candidates who need the Democratic Party to self destruct to have any chance: Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry

IMO if I were a Republican, I'd go for one of the high risk candidates as they are likely the only ones who might be able to expand the current coalition in any way.

I would see Jindal as medium risk, medium reward.

[Mister Mets]

Medium Risk, High Reward: Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Chris Christie (assuming he's in a position to run in 2016), Condoleeza Rice

No.

She has a solid approval rating, and is known by both the public and the press.

It would be an impressive milestone, and since she served as Secretary of State for a term, it wouldn't be tokenism. An African American female academic would help rebrand a party of old white guys (Bob Dole, Dick Cheney, John McCain, Mitt Romney) and dum-dums (George W Bush, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin.)

There are some risks. She hasn't run a political campaign before (although it would require political talent to win a presidential primary). She's pro-choice, which may appeal to independent voters but may outrage social conservatives. She's also tied to an unpopular President, but his brother seems to be the frontrunner.

What reward does the GOP get from Cruz or Paul besides defeat?

Rand Paul offers policies that may appeal to Democrats and non-voters. That can expand the coalition.

Ted Cruz has many negatives, but he can help rebrand the party. He's younger, Hispanic, Harvard educated and born in Canada. The big question is whether he's shamelessly pandering to the lowest common denominator in the Republican party (in which case he could shamelessly shift to the center in a general) or whether he drank the cool aid.

[Never]

Low Risk, Low Reward: Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal
Low Risk, Medium Reward: Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush
Low Risk, High Reward: John Kasich

The low risk candidates could probably get to 270 electoral votes, though Romney would have the hardest time out of all of the Republican candidates in this category. It would be difficult for any of them to have a landslide the electoral college, in my opinion. I don't see any of these candidates easily breaking down the majority of the non-Atlas-Blue Firewall of states that have went Democratic since 1992, which would make their paths to victory difficult. The medium and high reward candidates in the low risk category might win in PA, MI, or WI, but at the end of the day would probably carry just one of these states.

Medium Risk, Low Reward: Paul Ryan
Medium Risk, Medium Reward: Marco Rubio, Mike Pence, Condoleeza Rice
Medium Risk, High Reward: Susana Martinez

While all of the medium risk candidates could probably pull off convincing victories (with the exception of Paul Ryan, who would probably win on the skin of his teeth), they all carry the risk that they could implode on the campaign trail, (Rice), get caricatured by the Democrats due to a lack of national recognition or unpopular aspects of their record (Ryan, but mainly Pence, or to a lesser extent, Martinez), or suffer depressed support from the base (Rubio, if he doesn't curry favor with the Tea Party).

High Risk, Low Reward: Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Allen West
High Risk, Medium Reward: Ben Carson, Ted Cruz
High Risk, High Reward: Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee

The high risk, low reward candidates should not even be under consideration for the presidency. If you see any of these candidates being discussed by the mainstream as a likely nominee during the primaries, that means the bench is very weak on the Republican side and that the Republicans are likely to have difficulty winning the general election. These are the kinds of candidates that would give Democrats Johnson 1964 or Reagan 1980/84 sized victories. I said Ben Carson could be a high-risk, medium reward candidate, because despite his association with some fringe elements of the right, he might very well be able to articulate his position to the public. He might be able to earn double-digit support from the black community if he has a positive message, and he could be just what the doctor ordered in terms of outreach to minorities, though this seems highly unlikely, based on what I have seen from Carson in the past. Ted Cruz seems like a bit of an unknown regarding how his presidential campaign would be, and while he would probably lose badly, he does have the potential to surprise America with a win if he demonstrates political acumen.

The high-risk, high-reward candidates are probably where we see the potential for great presidents. While they might all end up very unpopular candidates, they could also end up winning by landslides, through a combination of messaging and strong records. If any of these candidates became President, they would be able to get many things done while in office, making sweeping policy changes and providing strong leadership at home and abroad.

[Marnetmar]

Why not go with Low Risk, High Reward? Rick Santorum 2016!

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Medium Risk, High Reward: Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Chris Christie (assuming he's in a position to run in 2016), Condoleeza Rice

No.

She has a solid approval rating, and is known by both the public and the press.

It would be an impressive milestone, and since she served as Secretary of State for a term, it wouldn't be tokenism. An African American female academic would help rebrand a party of old white guys (Bob Dole, Dick Cheney, John McCain, Mitt Romney) and dum-dums (George W Bush, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin.)

There are some risks. She hasn't run a political campaign before (although it would require political talent to win a presidential primary). She's pro-choice, which may appeal to independent voters but may outrage social conservatives. She's also tied to an unpopular President, but his brother seems to be the frontrunner.

The crypto-racists and other social conservatives, including a lot of the Tea Party, will revolt and turn the whole election into a flaming meltdown if Rice is the nominee. (Which would, on balance, be a good thing for the country and the party. But I really don't think it has any chance of happening.)

[Never]

Medium Risk, High Reward: Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Chris Christie (assuming he's in a position to run in 2016), Condoleeza Rice

No.

She has a solid approval rating, and is known by both the public and the press.

It would be an impressive milestone, and since she served as Secretary of State for a term, it wouldn't be tokenism. An African American female academic would help rebrand a party of old white guys (Bob Dole, Dick Cheney, John McCain, Mitt Romney) and dum-dums (George W Bush, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin.)

There are some risks. She hasn't run a political campaign before (although it would require political talent to win a presidential primary). She's pro-choice, which may appeal to independent voters but may outrage social conservatives. She's also tied to an unpopular President, but his brother seems to be the frontrunner.

The crypto-racists and other social conservatives, including a lot of the Tea Party, will revolt and turn the whole election into a flaming meltdown if Rice is the nominee. (Which would, on balance, be a good thing for the country and the party. But I really don't think it has any chance of happening.)

I seriously doubt that Rice would cause a racial meltdown if she is nominated. At worst, she will suffer from reduced turnout in the Deep Southern states of MS and AL. People seem to forget that Dixie, arguably the most racist region in America, has elected two Asian Indian governors, in Louisiana and South Carolina (SC also has a black senator who the retiring Tea Party senator specifically requested as his replacement). Furthermore, it is not like any insignificant racist Republican voters in the South are going to jump ship and vote for Democrats all of a sudden just because - gasp, a black woman!- has been nominated for the presidency by the Republicans. I think Rice could win because people will rightly recognize her merit and not care about her ancestry.

Rice's lack of social conservatism could be more of an issue, but she could easily counteract it by choosing a non-toxic pro-life individual as her running mate. Mike Huckabee comes to mind, but other options could be Marco Rubio or Kelly Ayotte. If pro-life Republicans saw that Rice was willing to pick a socially conservative individual to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, she would probably win them over.

I ranked Rice as a medium risk, medium reward option because she is untested as a campaigner. I don't think that the color of her skin should have any affect on her viability as a candidate, and I would hope that any reasonable person would feel this way as well.

[TJ in Oregon]

I don't think a pro-choice GOP candidate has much shot of being elected president no matter whom they choose as a running mate. Rice may be an exception if she can win enough crossover to make up for 20% of the GOP (probably including myself) defecting. Rice would get an insurgent candidate on the right, but it wouldn't be because she's black.

[Never]

I don't think a pro-choice GOP candidate has much shot of being elected president no matter whom they choose as a running mate. Rice may be an exception if she can win enough crossover to make up for 20% of the GOP (probably including myself) defecting. Rice would get an insurgent candidate on the right, but it wouldn't be because she's black.

I take it you wouldn't vote for a pro-choice nominee? I respect that (I am pro-life, and I don't think I could vote for her, despite her qualifications, but I just wanted to analyze her chances), and I wonder whether pro-life Republicans would defect to a third party, or refuse to vote.

Here are my thoughts:

If the defectors go to an insurgent third party, it gets very tricky to determine how several states will vote. The election might end up being a closer version of 1992, in which the winners of many states failed to reach 50, or even 40 percent of the vote. Rice would have the rug pulled from underneath her in most Southern and Plains states if she lost 20% of the Republican vote, but she could still manage to pick up states with moderate electorates. Rice would probably lose NC, GA, MO, AR, and LA, but she might be able to make up for it in MI, PA, CO, VA, and OH. This is highly unlikely.

A more likely scenario with a third-party scenario is that she loses every state where the Republicans won less than 60% of the vote in 2012, and that she fails to win a single state in the South. At the end of election night, this would mean she would only be left with ID and WY. The third-party insurgent would probably win AL, MS, SC, LA, AR, and TN with pluralities. Given the Mormon bloc in UT, I think a pro-life candidate could win there, and NE's 3rd Congressional District is probably conservative enough for the insurgent. Every other state would probably go to the Democrat, due to the split in the vote of the Republicans.

If there is simply a lack of pro-life turnout, Condi might lose, but her chances would be better than with a third-party candidate. She would have to shore up AZ, MO, GA, NC, and IN, then actively attempt to win the female and black vote. If she could fight to a draw with women as a whole, she would win the election, since the Republican-leaning male voters who still turned out to vote would tip the election in her favor. Similarly, she could attempt to reach 20% of the black vote, a realistic goal that might make up for her lack of pro-life support in FL, NC, VA, and OH.

[MurrayBannerman]

If she gets 60% of the white vote, 20% of the black vote and 40% of the Hispanic vote, it could be pretty awesome.

[Mister Mets]

I don't think a pro-choice GOP candidate has much shot of being elected president no matter whom they choose as a running mate. Rice may be an exception if she can win enough crossover to make up for 20% of the GOP (probably including myself) defecting. Rice would get an insurgent candidate on the right, but it wouldn't be because she's black.

I take it you wouldn't vote for a pro-choice nominee? I respect that (I am pro-life, and I don't think I could vote for her, despite her qualifications, but I just wanted to analyze her chances), and I wonder whether pro-life Republicans would defect to a third party, or refuse to vote.

Here are my thoughts:

If the defectors go to an insurgent third party, it gets very tricky to determine how several states will vote. The election might end up being a closer version of 1992, in which the winners of many states failed to reach 50, or even 40 percent of the vote. Rice would have the rug pulled from underneath her in most Southern and Plains states if she lost 20% of the Republican vote, but she could still manage to pick up states with moderate electorates. Rice would probably lose NC, GA, MO, AR, and LA, but she might be able to make up for it in MI, PA, CO, VA, and OH. This is highly unlikely.

A more likely scenario with a third-party scenario is that she loses every state where the Republicans won less than 60% of the vote in 2012, and that she fails to win a single state in the South. At the end of election night, this would mean she would only be left with ID and WY. The third-party insurgent would probably win AL, MS, SC, LA, AR, and TN with pluralities. Given the Mormon bloc in UT, I think a pro-life candidate could win there, and NE's 3rd Congressional District is probably conservative enough for the insurgent. Every other state would probably go to the Democrat, due to the split in the vote of the Republicans.

If there is simply a lack of pro-life turnout, Condi might lose, but her chances would be better than with a third-party candidate. She would have to shore up AZ, MO, GA, NC, and IN, then actively attempt to win the female and black vote. If she could fight to a draw with women as a whole, she would win the election, since the Republican-leaning male voters who still turned out to vote would tip the election in her favor. Similarly, she could attempt to reach 20% of the black vote, a realistic goal that might make up for her lack of pro-life support in FL, NC, VA, and OH.

I don't see a third party candidate doing well enough to win major states.

One problem would be the difficulty getting credible nominees for a third party social conservative ticket. It would require people willing to incinerate bridges with the Republican party, and to say that it is more important for Condoleeza Rice to lose than it is for Hillary Clinton to lose.

[Never]

Mister Mets, some people, including myself, are very strong supporters of the pro-life movement, and there might be a few individuals who could take advantage of that sentiment. I immediately thought of Pat Buchanan as someone who could readily put himself up as a candidate, and there are probably some Republicans in the Deep South that would ditch the GOP if they strongly felt that it was not acceptable to vote for a pro-choice candidate in any circumstance. Karen Handel or Phil Gingrey from Georgia would probably be suitable running mates for this kind of ticket, considering that they might not have much of an opportunity for advancement if neither of them are nominated for the open Senate seat in their state.

Even if a viable party was not created specifically in response to Rice, one of the obscure third-parties already in existence could take advantage of the situation by positioning themselves as the only pro-life, or "true conservative" option. The Constitution Party is already on the ballot in most states, and could take away a great deal of the vote in some Southern states should a Republican who abandons some key conservative principles win the presidential nomination.

It should also be remembered that many Southern states are more rural than the nation before determining that a third-party candidate couldn't win them. Granted, while LA and TN might be tough for a third-party due to the large cities of New Orleans/Baton Rouge in the former and Nashville in the latter, some states like MS, AL, AR, and SC don't really have an area that can serve as a counterweight to the potential third-party voters. I'm not sure if you consider these aforementioned states major or not, but none of them are particularly small in population, like WY, VT, or the Dakotas. The smallest states in the Deep South by population are MS and AR, ranking 31st and 32nd in population. Anyhow, the Deep Southern states are also states where the majority of residents are regular churchgoers, so they would probably be opposed to a candidate who is publicly supportive of abortion unless she tries really hard to make overtures to social conservatism. That probably isn't Rice's strong suit. Based on that, it would probably be difficult for Rice to win many states in the South.

To make a long story short, a Condoleeza Rice candidacy for president could carry some risks. Since this is clear, she seems to serve the GOP best as a supporting running mate for a presidential nominee who completely lacks foreign policy experience.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Medium Risk, High Reward: Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Chris Christie (assuming he's in a position to run in 2016), Condoleeza Rice

No.

She has a solid approval rating, and is known by both the public and the press.

It would be an impressive milestone, and since she served as Secretary of State for a term, it wouldn't be tokenism. An African American female academic would help rebrand a party of old white guys (Bob Dole, Dick Cheney, John McCain, Mitt Romney) and dum-dums (George W Bush, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin.)

There are some risks. She hasn't run a political campaign before (although it would require political talent to win a presidential primary). She's pro-choice, which may appeal to independent voters but may outrage social conservatives. She's also tied to an unpopular President, but his brother seems to be the frontrunner.

What reward does the GOP get from Cruz or Paul besides defeat?

Rand Paul offers policies that may appeal to Democrats and non-voters. That can expand the coalition.

Ted Cruz has many negatives, but he can help rebrand the party. He's younger, Hispanic, Harvard educated and born in Canada. The big question is whether he's shamelessly pandering to the lowest common denominator in the Republican party (in which case he could shamelessly shift to the center in a general) or whether he drank the cool aid.

LOL, a single black woman who once called Bush her husband, is pro-choice, and a total lying warmonger. Enough said.

[Potatoe]

The woman called George W. Bush her husband, was his Secretary of State, was key in the Iraq Invasion, and is Pro Choice. Plus she's never been elected and has jack squat in the name of relevance. Being a minority doesn't equal appealing to minorities.

[Never]

The woman called George W. Bush her husband, was his Secretary of State, was key in the Iraq Invasion, and is Pro Choice. Plus she's never been elected and has jack squat in the name of relevance. Being a minority doesn't equal appealing to minorities.

Hillary Clinton voted for the War in Iraq. In a Rice vs. Clinton election, every time that Hillary attacks Rice's record on Iraq in the debates, Rice could just respond "it is just a shame that you voted for a war you now criticize so much, Hillary."

Basically Hillary's reaction:

[Mister Mets]

The woman called George W. Bush her husband, was his Secretary of State, was key in the Iraq Invasion, and is Pro Choice. Plus she's never been elected and has jack squat in the name of relevance. Being a minority doesn't equal appealing to minorities.

Rice remained popular with the public at the end of the Bush administration.

http://www.people-press.org/2008/04/04/most-americans-unfamiliar-with-petraeus-rice-remains-popular/

She also polled very well among Republicans (which should alleviate concerns of a party split.)

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/04/18/rel4g.pdf

Mister Mets, some people, including myself, are very strong supporters of the pro-life movement, and there might be a few individuals who could take advantage of that sentiment. I immediately thought of Pat Buchanan as someone who could readily put himself up as a candidate, and there are probably some Republicans in the Deep South that would ditch the GOP if they strongly felt that it was not acceptable to vote for a pro-choice candidate in any circumstance. Karen Handel or Phil Gingrey from Georgia would probably be suitable running mates for this kind of ticket, considering that they might not have much of an opportunity for advancement if neither of them are nominated for the open Senate seat in their state.

Even if a viable party was not created specifically in response to Rice, one of the obscure third-parties already in existence could take advantage of the situation by positioning themselves as the only pro-life, or "true conservative" option. The Constitution Party is already on the ballot in most states, and could take away a great deal of the vote in some Southern states should a Republican who abandons some key conservative principles win the presidential nomination.

It should also be remembered that many Southern states are more rural than the nation before determining that a third-party candidate couldn't win them. Granted, while LA and TN might be tough for a third-party due to the large cities of New Orleans/Baton Rouge in the former and Nashville in the latter, some states like MS, AL, AR, and SC don't really have an area that can serve as a counterweight to the potential third-party voters. I'm not sure if you consider these aforementioned states major or not, but none of them are particularly small in population, like WY, VT, or the Dakotas. The smallest states in the Deep South by population are MS and AR, ranking 31st and 32nd in population. Anyhow, the Deep Southern states are also states where the majority of residents are regular churchgoers, so they would probably be opposed to a candidate who is publicly supportive of abortion unless she tries really hard to make overtures to social conservatism. That probably isn't Rice's strong suit. Based on that, it would probably be difficult for Rice to win many states in the South.

To make a long story short, a Condoleeza Rice candidacy for president could carry some risks. Since this is clear, she seems to serve the GOP best as a supporting running mate for a presidential nominee who completely lacks foreign policy experience.

Pat Buchanan has been a senior citizen for a decade. As a candidate for the reform party in 2000, he got 0.4% of the vote. His best showing was 2.53% in North Dakota.

He's not going to be a credible third party candidate.

There also isn't much indication that the constitution party is much of a threat. They got less than one in a thousand votes in 2012 with a Mormon on the Republican ticket.

The expectation that a third party candidate will win any states, pulling off something we haven't seen in generations, sets a high bar.

There are few Republicans with the credibility to run for President and get a non-trivial percentage of the vote, and a willingness to make a lot of enemies and devote time and resources to a doomed campaign.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

People just don't care about Condoleeza Rice. Sure, they'll give her an ok rating on some poll but nobody is passionate about her, outside of people who passionately hate anybody in the Bush administration (this might include some righties). The idea that she would get 20% of the black vote - uh, no.

[Mordecai]

Low risk, low reward: Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan
Low risk, medium reward: Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Rob Portman, Scott Walker
Low risk, high reward: Susana Martinez, Brian Sandoval

Medium risk, low reward: Mike Huckabee
Medium risk, medium reward: Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Mike Pence, Marco Rubio
Medium risk, high reward: none

High risk, low reward: Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum
High risk, medium reward: none
High risk, high reward: Rand Paul