2016 Republican Nomination Poll - August 2014

[NickCT]

Kasich is a solid choice.  I don't think the establishment will allow Paul the nomination, nor Cruz.  Scott Walker was my choice until this mini scandal erupted.  Now, I think Bush may get it.  Kasich, though, is another strong guess.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Pence. He's the real deal. True conservative. If not him, watch out for Paul Ryan, Rand Paul or even Jeff Sessions. If the GOP wants a conservative Southerner so bad, Sessions.

The GOP, at least the people in charge of it, most certainly do not want a conservative Southerner.  A lot of Republicans might, but studies find that they're a plurality, not a majority.

Pence is from Indiana, which last I checked was not in the south.

I was clearly referring to his last sentance.

[Maistre]

People seem to think the GOP establishment has some sort of magical veto power on who gets nominated and who doesn't. We're not in the twenties anymore, that is not how it works. The only thing that the 'establishment' candidate has is better access to the donor class, but people like Cruz and Paul are going to be able to go head to head with people like Christie and Bush when it comes to fundraising even if the latter group has the mystical 'establishment' stamp of approval.

Remember, Romney didn't get nominated because he is the 'establishment choice' or whatever, he won because his competition sucked and he had a lot of money and they didn't.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Walker, although I could have easily voted for Paul.

[cbannon5]

People seem to think the GOP establishment has some sort of magical veto power on who gets nominated and who doesn't. We're not in the twenties anymore, that is not how it works. The only thing that the 'establishment' candidate has is better access to the donor class, but people like Cruz and Paul are going to be able to go head to head with people like Christie and Bush when it comes to fundraising even if the latter group has the mystical 'establishment' stamp of approval.

Remember, Romney didn't get nominated because he is the 'establishment choice' or whatever, he won because his competition sucked and he had a lot of money and they didn't.

Yes, but the GOP tends to nominate figures from the "establishment" wing of the party.  Romney, McCain, Bush, Dole, Bush, Ford, Nixon.  The only two possible exceptions I can think of in the last 50 years would be Goldwater (definitely not "establishment") and, arguably, Ronald Reagan. 

[Lief 🗽]

People seem to think the GOP establishment has some sort of magical veto power on who gets nominated and who doesn't. We're not in the twenties anymore, that is not how it works. The only thing that the 'establishment' candidate has is better access to the donor class, but people like Cruz and Paul are going to be able to go head to head with people like Christie and Bush when it comes to fundraising even if the latter group has the mystical 'establishment' stamp of approval.

Remember, Romney didn't get nominated because he is the 'establishment choice' or whatever, he won because his competition sucked and he had a lot of money and they didn't.

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/primaries/invisible-primary-effects-democratic-choice

[GaussLaw]

Rand Paul.

Unlike other anti-establishment candidates, he polls (relatively) well in GE matchups.  If that continues, the establishment will tolerate him.

[Suburbia]

Pence. He's the real deal. True conservative. If not him, watch out for Paul Ryan, Rand Paul or even Jeff Sessions. If the GOP wants a conservative Southerner so bad, Sessions.

The GOP, at least the people in charge of it, most certainly do not want a conservative Southerner.  A lot of Republicans might, but studies find that they're a plurality, not a majority.

Pence is from Indiana, which last I checked was not in the south.

What I meant is that Sessions is a Southern conservative, if the base found him presidentially acceptable, which some don't.

[Bull Moose Base]

Why did Bush collapse in this poll this month? Do I get the credit? What happened besides my post in the July thread arguing he had problems?

If so, let me train my sights on Rand Paul's chances this time.

Cruz is better positioned than Paul to end up the strongest insurgent candidate. The Ron Paul libertarians who will likely support Rand, despite Rand's departures from libertarianism, are an enthusiastic but small group of Republicans, smaller than the overlapping subset of the GOP: very conservative Republicans, who will likely find much more they dislike about Paul than Cruz.

It's true that the establishment would open a dam of money to stop Cruz but that's just as true of Paul. Whether it will work against either is an open question.

Regardless, both Cruz and Paul are among the likeliest Republicans to run and should both still rank ahead of people like Walker and Bush who are still solid maybes to run.

Also, why not remove these people from the poll?
Jon Huntsman   
Peter King   
Scott Brown       
Donald Trump       
Condi Rice       
Steve King       
Sarah Palin       
Brian Sandoval
Kelly Ayotte       
Mary Fallin       
Nikki Haley       
Sam Brownback   
Tim Pawlenty
Joe Scarborough       
Jeff Sessions       
Carly Fiorina

[MATTROSE94]

Probably Ted Cruz.

[eric82oslo]

1. Condi Rice
2. Rand Paul
3. Brian Sandoval
4. Jeb Bush (despite his hilarious opposition against medical marijuana )
5. Joe Scarborough
6. Jon Huntsman

These are all moderate Republicans. I don't consider Christie moderate due to his fierce opposition against gay rights and medical marijuana (he's militaristically opposed, something I think Jeb is not), as well as being a right wing bully (at times).

[Maxwell]

Christie. Even though they flirt with other sexier choices, the Republicans always wind up nominating the one whose "turn" it is.

That doesn't really apply, since it's really no one's turn. It's like in 1996 when Pat Buchanan was the runner up - It wasn't REALLY his time. Which is why Santorum is not going to win, and not sure why you have Christie as the next person up.

[Senator Cris]

I would say Walker, but I'm not sure that he will win the re-election.
If he will win re-election, IMHO, he will be the frontrunner and will win the nomination.
At moment, I say Rubio.

[NHLiberal]

1. Condi Rice
2. Rand Paul
3. Brian Sandoval
4. Jeb Bush (despite his hilarious opposition against medical marijuana )
5. Joe Scarborough
6. Jon Huntsman

These are all moderate Republicans. I don't consider Christie moderate due to his fierce opposition against gay rights and medical marijuana (he's militaristically opposed, something I think Jeb is not), as well as being a right wing bully (at times).

[Lief 🗽]

Looks like it's gonna be Rick Perry.

[New_Conservative]

Hopefully Jeb Bush or Scott Walker. I have no clue at this point who would get through.

[Suburbia]

Why did Bush collapse in this poll this month? Do I get the credit? What happened besides my post in the July thread arguing he had problems?

If so, let me train my sights on Rand Paul's chances this time.

Cruz is better positioned than Paul to end up the strongest insurgent candidate. The Ron Paul libertarians who will likely support Rand, despite Rand's departures from libertarianism, are an enthusiastic but small group of Republicans, smaller than the overlapping subset of the GOP: very conservative Republicans, who will likely find much more they dislike about Paul than Cruz.

It's true that the establishment would open a dam of money to stop Cruz but that's just as true of Paul. Whether it will work against either is an open question.

Regardless, both Cruz and Paul are among the likeliest Republicans to run and should both still rank ahead of people like Walker and Bush who are still solid maybes to run.

Also, why not remove these people from the poll?
Jon Huntsman   
Peter King   
Scott Brown       
Donald Trump       
Condi Rice       
Steve King       
Sarah Palin       
Brian Sandoval
Kelly Ayotte       
Mary Fallin       
Nikki Haley       
Sam Brownback   
Tim Pawlenty
Joe Scarborough       
Jeff Sessions       
Carly Fiorina

Any one of these potential candidates could run and win the nomination. It's a wide open GOP field.

[Bull Moose Base]

Why did Bush collapse in this poll this month? Do I get the credit? What happened besides my post in the July thread arguing he had problems?

If so, let me train my sights on Rand Paul's chances this time.

Cruz is better positioned than Paul to end up the strongest insurgent candidate. The Ron Paul libertarians who will likely support Rand, despite Rand's departures from libertarianism, are an enthusiastic but small group of Republicans, smaller than the overlapping subset of the GOP: very conservative Republicans, who will likely find much more they dislike about Paul than Cruz.

It's true that the establishment would open a dam of money to stop Cruz but that's just as true of Paul. Whether it will work against either is an open question.

Regardless, both Cruz and Paul are among the likeliest Republicans to run and should both still rank ahead of people like Walker and Bush who are still solid maybes to run.

Also, why not remove these people from the poll?
Jon Huntsman   
Peter King   
Scott Brown       
Donald Trump       
Condi Rice       
Steve King       
Sarah Palin       
Brian Sandoval
Kelly Ayotte       
Mary Fallin       
Nikki Haley       
Sam Brownback   
Tim Pawlenty
Joe Scarborough       
Jeff Sessions       
Carly Fiorina

Any one of these potential candidates could run and win the nomination. It's a wide open GOP field.

No, it's wide open because there are 10-15 people who might run and could win. But everyone on that list has done nothing to suggest they'd run and/or has no chance in a primary.

As for Rand Paul, you can win with a lot of the base or a lot of the establishment suspicious of you, but both seems very tough to pull off.

[Senator Cris]

Last day!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Portman

[Bull Moose Base]

Because I am trying hard to procrastinate and found it a tad suspicious that Paul's support should have jumped so much this month when nothing really changed, I went through the comments here and counted 30 people who made a specific prediction within. Only 5 of the 30 predict Paul, that's about 16%, a little less than the slice Paul got in last month's poll, even though his vote total is 28% or whatever.  In other words, not only are Paul's numbers inflated by people predicting him just because they like him, but it also looks to me undeniable that Paul folk are creating fake users to stuff the ballot. Perhaps this was all orchestrated by that Rand Paul/Mitch McConnell campaign manager who's about to go to jail for corruption? Anyway, this poll is even more meaningless than I thought before.

[Potus]

The performance of "establishment"-approved candidates in these polls is actually great. Atlas dramatically under samples somewhat conservative Republicans. We have a majority of "liberty" types who back Paul and the like. There are other very devoted very conservatives who back folks like Santorum and Cruz. Then, there is a small minority of self-hating moderates like Rockefeller GOP and Oldiesfreak. The mainstream Republican, the eventual nominee's inevitable base, is under represented.

[Maxwell]

If the Benton thing has legs, I think I may be switching my vote to Kasich or Portman.