Republicans - Which Candidate(s) Would You Choose In This Scenario?

[GLPman]

Here's the (very plausible) scenario:

It's a few months away from the primary season. Hillary Clinton has declared her intention of running, and she faces only one other candidate in the Democratic primaries. All polls show that she will quickly lock up the nomination without any trouble, and that she maintains a comfortable lead over every potential Republican challenger.

President Obama maintains an approval rating in the low 40s and the country's economic recovery is still anemic. The Republicans captured the Senate in 2014, holding 51 seats compared to the Democrats' 49 seats. Congress is still viewed extremely unfavorably and maintains poor approval ratings.

It is up to you to select the GOP candidate to face off against Hillary. Acknowledging this situation and the fact that Hillary will face little opposition until the GOP nominee is selected, which Republican candidates have the best chance of winning the election against Hillary? What's the best ticket?

The only caveat here is that you may only select candidates who, as of August 2014, have expressed interest in running OR there is speculation that they will run.

Here are my choices:

Chris Christie - Christie is one of the few potential candidates who has a personality just a grand as Hillary's personality - a trait that will certainly allow him to keep up with her in debates and on the campaign trail, whereas many other candidates would roll over for Hillary. Bridgegate could obviously be a problem, but Christie could certainly overcome it. As a Governor, he would be separated from the unpopular Congress, too. For a running mate, the best bet would probably be to select a qualified Female running mate. Ayotte or Martinez are both good choices. If Christie needs to please the GOP base, then Blackburn.

Jon Huntsman - An odd choice, I know, but he certainly has the ability to give Hillary a run for her money. Since she most recently served as SoS, Hillary will most certainly run on her record in that position. I suspect much of her campaign will be foreign policy focused, as well. While many other GOP candidates lack extensive foreign policy experience, Huntsman served as US Ambassador to China, and had previously served as US Ambassador to Singapore. Plus, he has a good record as Governor of Utah.

Rand Paul - In terms of ideology, Paul is certainly different from Christie and Huntsman. What Paul brings to the table, however, is that he does not represent that status quo. The Clintons are an established, well-known political dynasty, like the Bushes, which may turn away many voters. Paul represents something new, perhaps similar in a sense to the way Obama represented something new. Not sure who would be a good running mate for Paul.

[daveosupremo]

Paul easily.

[Pandaguineapig]

Paul, he's almost tied with Clinton after all

[Rockefeller GOP]

Christie.

[Maxwell]

Paul, with either Brian Sandoval or Scott Walker as his running mate.

[Potus]

I reject the premise of the question. Hillary doesn't at all have a "grand personality" or virtually any retail political skills. She's a candidate devoid of conviction and extremely unlikable when the public feels like they know her.

If she starts months before primary season and actively campaigns, her glaring weakness will be revealed and we'll have more people jump into the primary.

[Never]

Paul by a mile. Christie and Huntsman seem lackluster in comparison to him.

[Dixie Reborn]

Paul. Not sure who the VP would be.

[Never]

Huntsman.


The cited reasons are good, but his ambassadorship to Singapore and China is probably the most important trait of his career. China's rise cannot be ignored, and he already has experience dealing with them.

His record is spotless, both personally (nice family BTW) and had a great record as Governor. His "Country First" ad in 2012 was a truly remarkable rebuttal to accusations of being a RINO for serving under Obama, and really should've gotten more attention. His ideology isn't even as moderate as people say (he doesn't hate gay people and science, oh noez!!!11!!1!), and could really play well on the map by competing strongly in the West as well as Midwest. He could take back many affluent voters and suburban counties that have been turned off by the GOP since the 1990s by coming across as conservative but not threatening. He would have to work overtime to balance his image of being a moderate for the GE while being conservative enough to appeal to the conservative wing of the GOP base. His choice of VP would be best here to placate the base, but still should balance by not damaging the ticket (Paul? Ayotte? Rubio? Toomey?).

From an electoral standpoint, of these 3 it would be Huntsman that would be the Republican's best chance of defeating Hillary Clinton. Christie seems very un-Presidential and his scandal could really hurt him, while Paul would mark a big departure from the GOP of the last 80 years and could risk dividing the GOP's base between SoCons, CoC conservatives, and the libertarian wing.

I like Huntsman as a person, but he seems more suited to be Secretary of State or a running mate for a conservative presidential nominee.

On the other hand, Huntsman could be viable as a presidential candidate if he made it to the general election, and I suspect the plan of attack you formed for him would work. He might not impress the base on some issues, but it is not like people on the right will vote for Hillary Clinton, rather, turnout would be his most significant burden. Huntsman would need to quickly position himself as a strong candidate, and make sure that the more socially conservative Southern and Plains states don't abandon him on election night. It would be difficult, but doable.

[Vega]

Jon Huntsman. He'd make a great President, too.

[Alreet]

Paul by far.

Christie (sadly) is finished and Huntsman is an ass who has no place running a national campaign.

[Supersonic]

Christie, but I almost want Paul to win just to see the results.

[Roemerista]

Huntsman, as he is the only one qualified for the most important role of the president--dealing with the outside world. The ability to win is not as important as the ability to govern.

[Free Bird]

Paul. He may actually beat the Tenth Red Heffer

[CountryClassSF]

If only those 3, I'd go for Christie.

[TJ in Oregon]

Christie of those three. Whatever his flaws may be he's the only one of them I don't have any really serious issues with. If it's Hillary vs Paul or Hillary vs Huntsman, for the first time in my life I might sit out 2016.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Ted Cruz. Hillary is going to win either way, and I'd rather see a social conservative extremist go down in flames so we stop having to listen to BS about the nominee not being conservative enough.

EDIT: If we're only going with the three, I pick Christie. And in real life I would never throw my support away to someone like Cruz. But my point still stands.

[Simfan34]

Huntsman, obviously.

[TJ in Oregon]

Ted Cruz. Hillary is going to win either way, and I'd rather see a social conservative extremist go down in flames so we stop having to listen to BS about the nominee not being conservative enough.

EDIT: If we're only going with the three, I pick Christie. And in real life I would never throw my support away to someone like Cruz. But my point still stands.

Sure because clearly Ted Cruz would be a great national candidate if he'd just get with the times and support gay marriage Nope his problem isn't the scorched earth approach his taken on every budgetary issue or the government shutdown or even that he's a raving lunatic who doesn't play nice with anyone, it's clearly that he's a social conservative.

[ElectionsGuy]

Paul easily.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Paul easily.

The right pick 😄

[Rockefeller GOP]

Paul. I wouldn't even vote for Christie

Why not?

[Matty]

Paul; he is the only one that is talking about issues that appeal to minorities. Huntsman and Christie are Romney-esque in their philosophy.

[ElectionsGuy]

Paul. I wouldn't even vote for Christie

Why not?

Many things, but I think this is one of the biggest of them all. He would pretty much govern as Romney would have, with no principles and no reduction in size or role of government. I wouldn't vote for him either.