Your Republican Contender Power Rankings/Probabilities

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

We did Probabilities awhile back so how have yours evolved since Romney declined and the first third of candidates have declared? Threw in tiers this time to define candidate groups.

Rubio way up for me, taking the Romney role. Huckabee and Carson have said too many stupid things to be allowed the nomination so their chance has been consolidated into the real competitors plus dark horse SoCons who might actually have a small chance if they get any momentum.

Tier 1: The Frontrunners
1. Scott Walker 25%
2. Marco Rubio 20%
3. John Ellis Bush 15%
4. Rand Paul 15%

Tier 2: The Dark Horses
5. Chris Christie 10%
6. John Kasich 5%
7. Ted Cruz 5%
8. Bobby Jindal 2%

Tier 3: They Can Compete But Can't Win the Nomination
9. Mike Huckabee 1.5%
10. Ben Carson 0.5%

Tier 4: Likely Can't Compete Unless Someone Falters
11. Rick Santorum 0.3%
12. Donald Trump 0.3%
13. Rick Perry 0.2%

Tier 4: The Debaters
14. Lindsey Graham 0.1%
15. Carly Fiorina 0.1%

Tier 5: The Semi-Joke Candidates
16. Jim Gilmore
17. Bob Ehrlich
18. George Pataki
19. John Bolton
20. Peter King
21. Mark Everson

[ElectionsGuy]

Scott Walker - 20%
Jeb Bush - 20%
Marco Rubio - 15%
Rand Paul - 10%
Ted Cruz - 10%
Mike Huckabee - 5%
Ben Carson - 5%
John Kasich - 5%
Everyone else - <2%

[SWE]

Scott Walker- 40%
Jeb Bush- 35%
Rand Paul- 10%
Ted Cruz- 5%
John Kasich- 5%
Mike Huckabee- 1%
Everyone else combined: 4%

[IceSpear]

Walker 35%
Bush 25%
Rubio 15%
Paul 10%
Cruz 5%
Kasich 5%
Everyone else combined 5%

[The Other Castro]

Walker 39%
Rubio 28%
Bush 16%
Paul 7%
Cruz 5%
Kasich 3%
Other 2%

[Maxwell]

25% Bush
20% Walker
15% Paul
10% Rubio
10% Huckabee
10% Cruz
5% Carson
3% Perry
2% Field

I'd say Bush and Walker look okay, but it's mostly anyone's game.

[Samantha]

Bush 25%
Walker 25%
Rubio 20%
Rand 10%
Cruz 10%
Huckabee 5%
All others combined 5%

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Scott Walker and John Bush are the only ones with a realistic shot at attaining a majority of delegates.

[Mr. Morden]

Reality check on the huge margin for error with these things….this thread was made just two weeks before the 2008 Iowa caucuses:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=66629.0

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Reality check on the huge margin for error with these things….this thread was made just two weeks before the 2008 Iowa caucuses:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=66629.0

True, true, wild swings will always happen with indecisive voters and gaffes, but that thread was still giving McCain a 15% chance for the most part. I think 25 might've been more reasonable. If Thompson dropped out or Romney holds Iowa, we might ve been talking about a different result. Huck+Romney at 85 was really only slightly too high.

[Samantha]

Reality check on the huge margin for error with these things….this thread was made just two weeks before the 2008 Iowa caucuses:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=66629.0

That's an interesting read, though McCain's comeback in that primary may be one of the best in history—props to anyone who called it right at that point in time.

[Fuzzy Bear]

1.  Jeb Bush 20%
2.  Mike Huckabee 20%
3.  John Kasich 15%
4.  Rand Paul 10%
5.  Marco Rubio 8%
5.  Scott Walker 7%
6.  Ted Cruz 5%
7.  Marco Rubio 5%
8.  Chris Christie 5%
9.  Field 5%

I see the 2016 election as the final battle between the Establishment and Anti-Establishment Republicans as we know it, much as 1976 was.  The GOP cannot keep this battle up and expect to win the Presidency, and I think they know that a resolution is coming.

I believe that, in the end, the race will be between Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee.  Bush is the Establishment's choice (FWIW) and Huckabee is the CLEAR choice of religious conservatives, whose intraparty influence is understated.  There are other constituencies within the GOP who will have to fall in, but I see Jeb Bush as kind of a Gerald Ford and I see Mike Huckabee as kind of a Ronald Reagan (circa 1976, of course).  Ford pulled out all of the stops to win the 1976 nomination, but the GOP of 2016 is a much different party and Jeb isn't an incumbent President.  

On this site, we often discuss the Electoral Map, expanding it, contracting it, etc., but we do this in the context of a few battleground states and assume little change from election to election.  And we ARE in a far more inelastically partisan mode then we were in 1976-1980.  But many people (at the time) viewed the 1976 election as a return to a New Deal normalcy and not an aberration caused by a Democratic nominee from the Deep South who took amorphous positions at times.  Few folks thought REAGAN would sweep the South in 1980 (except for GA), and few folks thought Reagan would sweep the Northeast (except for MD and RI).

I consider Huckabee as the candidate who could perform the difficult feat of sweeping VA, FL, and OH, all states with significant constituencies of Religious Conservatives AND pull off carrying IA, which also has some religious conservatives.  Huckabee is the most Reaganesque candidate in the sense that he offers simple solutions to issues that come off as credible because people know what he believes in; this contrasts with Jeb Bush, whose father and brother have reinvented themselves to obtain public office.  I think that there are enough power brokers who would be expected to fall in with Jeb that will not because they think he can't win, and think that Huckabee might.  A lot of folks thought Ronald Reagan couldn't win, either, even after being nominated.  People don't forget that, either.

[Mr. Morden]

Reality check on the huge margin for error with these things….this thread was made just two weeks before the 2008 Iowa caucuses:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=66629.0

That's an interesting read, though McCain's comeback in that primary may be one of the best in history—props to anyone who called it right at that point in time.

Kerry also had an amazing comeback in December 2003 / January 2004.  (Not as amazing as McCain's, but still pretty darn impressive.)  Amazing comebacks can easily happen in the modern presidential primary system.

[Senator Cris]

Bush 24%
Walker 24%
Rubio 19%
Paul 13%
Cruz 4%
Huckabee 4%
Kasich 4%
Christie 4%
Perry 2%
Santorum 1%
Field 1%

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

1.  Jeb Bush 20%
2.  Mike Huckabee 20%
3.  John Kasich 15%
4.  Rand Paul 10%
5.  Marco Rubio 8%
5.  Scott Walker 7%
6.  Ted Cruz 5%
7.  Marco Rubio 5%
8.  Chris Christie 5%
9.  Field 5%

I see the 2016 election as the final battle between the Establishment and Anti-Establishment Republicans as we know it, much as 1976 was.  The GOP cannot keep this battle up and expect to win the Presidency, and I think they know that a resolution is coming.

I believe that, in the end, the race will be between Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee.  Bush is the Establishment's choice (FWIW) and Huckabee is the CLEAR choice of religious conservatives, whose intraparty influence is understated.  There are other constituencies within the GOP who will have to fall in, but I see Jeb Bush as kind of a Gerald Ford and I see Mike Huckabee as kind of a Ronald Reagan (circa 1976, of course).  Ford pulled out all of the stops to win the 1976 nomination, but the GOP of 2016 is a much different party and Jeb isn't an incumbent President.  

On this site, we often discuss the Electoral Map, expanding it, contracting it, etc., but we do this in the context of a few battleground states and assume little change from election to election.  And we ARE in a far more inelastically partisan mode then we were in 1976-1980.  But many people (at the time) viewed the 1976 election as a return to a New Deal normalcy and not an aberration caused by a Democratic nominee from the Deep South who took amorphous positions at times.  Few folks thought REAGAN would sweep the South in 1980 (except for GA), and few folks thought Reagan would sweep the Northeast (except for MD and RI).

I consider Huckabee as the candidate who could perform the difficult feat of sweeping VA, FL, and OH, all states with significant constituencies of Religious Conservatives AND pull off carrying IA, which also has some religious conservatives.  Huckabee is the most Reaganesque candidate in the sense that he offers simple solutions to issues that come off as credible because people know what he believes in; this contrasts with Jeb Bush, whose father and brother have reinvented themselves to obtain public office.  I think that there are enough power brokers who would be expected to fall in with Jeb that will not because they think he can't win, and think that Huckabee might.  A lot of folks thought Ronald Reagan couldn't win, either, even after being nominated.  People don't forget that, either.

Huckabee is part of the establishment wing of the GOP. He'll fall behind Jeb when the time comes. The leader of the conservatives is between Paul, Cruz, and Walker. As for a resolution between the factions, that's not happening anytime soon.

[bballrox4717]

Tier 1: Front Runner

Jeb Bush: 40 %

Tier 2: Plausible Alternatives to the Front Runner

Marco Rubio: 20 %
Scott Walker: 20 %
Chris Christie: 5 %
John Kasich: 5 %

Tier 3: Tea Party Types That Could Win Despite Lack of Support From Establishment

Ted Cruz: 5%
Rand Paul: 5%

Nobody else running is even going to come close to winning a state, much less the nomination, and honestly I'm probably being generous to Christie, Kasich, Cruz, and Paul. Christie essentially needs to win New Hampshire outright before anyone takes him seriously. Kasich can't compete with Bush the way Walker or Rubio can, and only becomes serious if something titanic takes Bush out of the race before Iowa. Cruz and Paul might win states, but if they're a threat to actually take the nomination the establishment/donors will likely coalesce behind one candidate to prevent this.

It's realistically a three way race between Bush, Rubio, and Walker, and even then, Rubio and Walker are going to need to win Iowa and/or New Hampshire before they truly can become the Bush alternative. If the opposition is still fractured against Bush by the first Super Tuesday, the race is essentially over, because even though the early states are going to frustrate Bush, the primary calendar becomes enormously Bush friendly by March. It also needs to be taken into account that Paul and Cruz are very, very unlikely to drop out if they don't win early states, which can only help Bush.

[Fuzzy Bear]

1.  Jeb Bush 20%
2.  Mike Huckabee 20%
3.  John Kasich 15%
4.  Rand Paul 10%
5.  Marco Rubio 8%
5.  Scott Walker 7%
6.  Ted Cruz 5%
7.  Marco Rubio 5%
8.  Chris Christie 5%
9.  Field 5%

I see the 2016 election as the final battle between the Establishment and Anti-Establishment Republicans as we know it, much as 1976 was.  The GOP cannot keep this battle up and expect to win the Presidency, and I think they know that a resolution is coming.

I believe that, in the end, the race will be between Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee.  Bush is the Establishment's choice (FWIW) and Huckabee is the CLEAR choice of religious conservatives, whose intraparty influence is understated.  There are other constituencies within the GOP who will have to fall in, but I see Jeb Bush as kind of a Gerald Ford and I see Mike Huckabee as kind of a Ronald Reagan (circa 1976, of course).  Ford pulled out all of the stops to win the 1976 nomination, but the GOP of 2016 is a much different party and Jeb isn't an incumbent President.  

On this site, we often discuss the Electoral Map, expanding it, contracting it, etc., but we do this in the context of a few battleground states and assume little change from election to election.  And we ARE in a far more inelastically partisan mode then we were in 1976-1980.  But many people (at the time) viewed the 1976 election as a return to a New Deal normalcy and not an aberration caused by a Democratic nominee from the Deep South who took amorphous positions at times.  Few folks thought REAGAN would sweep the South in 1980 (except for GA), and few folks thought Reagan would sweep the Northeast (except for MD and RI).

I consider Huckabee as the candidate who could perform the difficult feat of sweeping VA, FL, and OH, all states with significant constituencies of Religious Conservatives AND pull off carrying IA, which also has some religious conservatives.  Huckabee is the most Reaganesque candidate in the sense that he offers simple solutions to issues that come off as credible because people know what he believes in; this contrasts with Jeb Bush, whose father and brother have reinvented themselves to obtain public office.  I think that there are enough power brokers who would be expected to fall in with Jeb that will not because they think he can't win, and think that Huckabee might.  A lot of folks thought Ronald Reagan couldn't win, either, even after being nominated.  People don't forget that, either.

Huckabee is part of the establishment wing of the GOP. He'll fall behind Jeb when the time comes. The leader of the conservatives is between Paul, Cruz, and Walker. As for a resolution between the factions, that's not happening anytime soon.

An interesting take.  I have never considered Huckabee an "establishment" Republican, but he's not the economic conservative Walker and Paul are, and he's not the bomb-thrower Cruz is.  He's not the favorite of the establishment (if you want to place him there), but he has a following in the anti-establishment wing of the GOP that includes most religious conservatives.

That's a big plus for Huckabee; he's a Holy Roller that the establishment can trust!  If Huckabee is part of the establishment, that's a plus for him, because Jeb Bush is a guy with nomenclature issues.  He's got a following and he's got a resume, but Jeb Bush is perceived as a general election loser, and not wrongly so. 

If we take "The Map", where will Bush expand it?  FL, and that's a big one, but where else?  I doubt VA, and I doubt OH; Obama Fatigue hasn't caused the voters in these states to say, "Yessiree, ol' G. W. was sure right about that war and those banks!"; they still blame Bush 43 for the debacle.

[bballrox4717]

1.  Jeb Bush 20%
2.  Mike Huckabee 20%
3.  John Kasich 15%
4.  Rand Paul 10%
5.  Marco Rubio 8%
5.  Scott Walker 7%
6.  Ted Cruz 5%
7.  Marco Rubio 5%
8.  Chris Christie 5%
9.  Field 5%

I see the 2016 election as the final battle between the Establishment and Anti-Establishment Republicans as we know it, much as 1976 was.  The GOP cannot keep this battle up and expect to win the Presidency, and I think they know that a resolution is coming.

I believe that, in the end, the race will be between Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee.  Bush is the Establishment's choice (FWIW) and Huckabee is the CLEAR choice of religious conservatives, whose intraparty influence is understated.  There are other constituencies within the GOP who will have to fall in, but I see Jeb Bush as kind of a Gerald Ford and I see Mike Huckabee as kind of a Ronald Reagan (circa 1976, of course).  Ford pulled out all of the stops to win the 1976 nomination, but the GOP of 2016 is a much different party and Jeb isn't an incumbent President.  

On this site, we often discuss the Electoral Map, expanding it, contracting it, etc., but we do this in the context of a few battleground states and assume little change from election to election.  And we ARE in a far more inelastically partisan mode then we were in 1976-1980.  But many people (at the time) viewed the 1976 election as a return to a New Deal normalcy and not an aberration caused by a Democratic nominee from the Deep South who took amorphous positions at times.  Few folks thought REAGAN would sweep the South in 1980 (except for GA), and few folks thought Reagan would sweep the Northeast (except for MD and RI).

I consider Huckabee as the candidate who could perform the difficult feat of sweeping VA, FL, and OH, all states with significant constituencies of Religious Conservatives AND pull off carrying IA, which also has some religious conservatives.  Huckabee is the most Reaganesque candidate in the sense that he offers simple solutions to issues that come off as credible because people know what he believes in; this contrasts with Jeb Bush, whose father and brother have reinvented themselves to obtain public office.  I think that there are enough power brokers who would be expected to fall in with Jeb that will not because they think he can't win, and think that Huckabee might.  A lot of folks thought Ronald Reagan couldn't win, either, even after being nominated.  People don't forget that, either.

Huckabee is part of the establishment wing of the GOP. He'll fall behind Jeb when the time comes. The leader of the conservatives is between Paul, Cruz, and Walker. As for a resolution between the factions, that's not happening anytime soon.

An interesting take.  I have never considered Huckabee an "establishment" Republican, but he's not the economic conservative Walker and Paul are, and he's not the bomb-thrower Cruz is.  He's not the favorite of the establishment (if you want to place him there), but he has a following in the anti-establishment wing of the GOP that includes most religious conservatives.

That's a big plus for Huckabee; he's a Holy Roller that the establishment can trust!  If Huckabee is part of the establishment, that's a plus for him, because Jeb Bush is a guy with nomenclature issues.  He's got a following and he's got a resume, but Jeb Bush is perceived as a general election loser, and not wrongly so. 

If we take "The Map", where will Bush expand it?  FL, and that's a big one, but where else?  I doubt VA, and I doubt OH; Obama Fatigue hasn't caused the voters in these states to say, "Yessiree, ol' G. W. was sure right about that war and those banks!"; they still blame Bush 43 for the debacle.

I think you're off on several points.

As much as I disagree with their assessment, nearly every serious political operative (including the ones running Hillary's campaign) perceive Bush to be the strongest in the general election, and that's not going to change unless Bush starts losing to other Republicans. If voters don't care that he's another Bush (which I think they will), then yeah, Bush could certainly win Obama states and expand the map.

I strongly disagree with both of your assessments of Huckabee. He's not going to raise anything close to the main contenders, which is what sunk him in 2008. Voters are looking for a fresh face, which he isn't. The grassroots? Ted Cruz is a far more eloquent speaker, a much better fundraiser, and much more in tune on economic issues with the base than Huckabee. The odds are stacked too high against him, and if Huckabee is so talented at bridging SoCons with the establishment that none of this matters, then why didn't he win the nomination 2008, when he actually had a shot at winning?

Lastly, 2016 isn't even close to being like 1976. I can't think of a primary race (besides maybe 2000) that's more unlike 2016 than 1976. There was just so much more to it than it simply being establishment/moderate vs anti establishment/conservative. It's just not even in the same universe.

[Fuzzy Bear]

1.  Jeb Bush 20%
2.  Mike Huckabee 20%
3.  John Kasich 15%
4.  Rand Paul 10%
5.  Marco Rubio 8%
5.  Scott Walker 7%
6.  Ted Cruz 5%
7.  Marco Rubio 5%
8.  Chris Christie 5%
9.  Field 5%

I see the 2016 election as the final battle between the Establishment and Anti-Establishment Republicans as we know it, much as 1976 was.  The GOP cannot keep this battle up and expect to win the Presidency, and I think they know that a resolution is coming.

I believe that, in the end, the race will be between Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee.  Bush is the Establishment's choice (FWIW) and Huckabee is the CLEAR choice of religious conservatives, whose intraparty influence is understated.  There are other constituencies within the GOP who will have to fall in, but I see Jeb Bush as kind of a Gerald Ford and I see Mike Huckabee as kind of a Ronald Reagan (circa 1976, of course).  Ford pulled out all of the stops to win the 1976 nomination, but the GOP of 2016 is a much different party and Jeb isn't an incumbent President.  

On this site, we often discuss the Electoral Map, expanding it, contracting it, etc., but we do this in the context of a few battleground states and assume little change from election to election.  And we ARE in a far more inelastically partisan mode then we were in 1976-1980.  But many people (at the time) viewed the 1976 election as a return to a New Deal normalcy and not an aberration caused by a Democratic nominee from the Deep South who took amorphous positions at times.  Few folks thought REAGAN would sweep the South in 1980 (except for GA), and few folks thought Reagan would sweep the Northeast (except for MD and RI).

I consider Huckabee as the candidate who could perform the difficult feat of sweeping VA, FL, and OH, all states with significant constituencies of Religious Conservatives AND pull off carrying IA, which also has some religious conservatives.  Huckabee is the most Reaganesque candidate in the sense that he offers simple solutions to issues that come off as credible because people know what he believes in; this contrasts with Jeb Bush, whose father and brother have reinvented themselves to obtain public office.  I think that there are enough power brokers who would be expected to fall in with Jeb that will not because they think he can't win, and think that Huckabee might.  A lot of folks thought Ronald Reagan couldn't win, either, even after being nominated.  People don't forget that, either.

Huckabee is part of the establishment wing of the GOP. He'll fall behind Jeb when the time comes. The leader of the conservatives is between Paul, Cruz, and Walker. As for a resolution between the factions, that's not happening anytime soon.

An interesting take.  I have never considered Huckabee an "establishment" Republican, but he's not the economic conservative Walker and Paul are, and he's not the bomb-thrower Cruz is.  He's not the favorite of the establishment (if you want to place him there), but he has a following in the anti-establishment wing of the GOP that includes most religious conservatives.

That's a big plus for Huckabee; he's a Holy Roller that the establishment can trust!  If Huckabee is part of the establishment, that's a plus for him, because Jeb Bush is a guy with nomenclature issues.  He's got a following and he's got a resume, but Jeb Bush is perceived as a general election loser, and not wrongly so. 

If we take "The Map", where will Bush expand it?  FL, and that's a big one, but where else?  I doubt VA, and I doubt OH; Obama Fatigue hasn't caused the voters in these states to say, "Yessiree, ol' G. W. was sure right about that war and those banks!"; they still blame Bush 43 for the debacle.

I think you're off on several points.

As much as I disagree with their assessment, nearly every serious political operative (including the ones running Hillary's campaign) perceive Bush to be the strongest in the general election, and that's not going to change unless Bush starts losing to other Republicans. If voters don't care that he's another Bush (which I think they will), then yeah, Bush could certainly win Obama states and expand the map.

I strongly disagree with both of your assessments of Huckabee. He's not going to raise anything close to the main contenders, which is what sunk him in 2008. Voters are looking for a fresh face, which he isn't. The grassroots? Ted Cruz is a far more eloquent speaker, a much better fundraiser, and much more in tune on economic issues with the base than Huckabee. The odds are stacked too high against him, and if Huckabee is so talented at bridging SoCons with the establishment that none of this matters, then why didn't he win the nomination 2008, when he actually had a shot at winning?

Lastly, 2016 isn't even close to being like 1976. I can't think of a primary race (besides maybe 2000) that's more unlike 2016 than 1976. There was just so much more to it than it simply being establishment/moderate vs anti establishment/conservative. It's just not even in the same universe.

Well, I certainly agree that 2016 is different than 1976.  The US, the World, and the parties are all very different.  We have a much more ideological party system now.

That being said, Huckabee is the Republican with the most juice amongst Religious Conservatives who have been given short shrift (despite their party loyalty) and who are owed one.  The issues they find important are at the fore of events right now, and they feel shorted by both Bushes.  The Religious Conservatives won't vote Democratic, but they may well stay home or vote for a 3rd party in enough matters to make a difference in, say, NC or even GA. 

I've given him a 20% ranking.  That's hardly where Hillary Clinton is at right now for the Dems, and Huckabee may not get above this level, but he's positioned better than any other candidate to win the whole thing.  He won't have tons of money, but he'll have enough, and he'll have boots on the ground.  Name recognition isn't a problem.  I think he's a log stronger contender than a whole lot of guys who are more highly thought of, and I think that too much of the GOP will not tolerate a third Bush, given how the first two worked out.

[Slander and/or Libel]

50% Bush
24% Walker
24% Rubio
2% Everyone else

The Koch brothers' remarks about how Walker should be the candidate were likely just a signal to Jeb Bush about what positions he has to espouse on the organized labor issue in order to earn their $upport.

I didn't bother breaking everyone else up into individuals, because if it comes to the point where one of them becomes ascendant, it's not going to be predictable exactly why or which one it's going to be.

[Torie]

I just go KISS on this, based on my gut instincts and evaluations of the candidates. I really don't give a damn about the polls at this point.

I watched Rubio give a speech on CSPAN last night before the conservative group in SC (it seemed that almost all of them were over 50 over weight white people), and he put in a very poor performance. I really don't think he has the maturity or substance to run the distance. Neither does  Walker. He just doesn't have the depth of knowledge, and his lack of education is going to catch up with him. Now he is flip flopping in a pandering way on immigration. The press is going to eat him alive on that, as it should.

So that leaves Jeb. Jeb has his problems, and so far seems rather dispassionate about it all, and his last name really hurts. So in my view, if Jeb falters, the Pub establishment will go to Kasich, who I think has more depth than Rubio and Walker, and more passion and is a better speaker than Jeb, and has the right package to both win the nomination and be competitive in the general election. So the nominee will be either Bush or Kasich in all probability.

Candidates I have not named, all 15+ of them, I don't take seriously at all.  Yes, Cruz is a very articulate and charismatic and cynical demagogue, and does it all so much better than Newt ever did. So what? The Pub establishment knows he is political poison, and could take down all kinds of Pub congress critters if he got the nomination. He won't get it.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

1.  Jeb Bush 20%
2.  Mike Huckabee 20%
3.  John Kasich 15%
4.  Rand Paul 10%
5.  Marco Rubio 8%
5.  Scott Walker 7%
6.  Ted Cruz 5%
7.  Marco Rubio 5%
8.  Chris Christie 5%
9.  Field 5%

I see the 2016 election as the final battle between the Establishment and Anti-Establishment Republicans as we know it, much as 1976 was.  The GOP cannot keep this battle up and expect to win the Presidency, and I think they know that a resolution is coming.

I believe that, in the end, the race will be between Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee.  Bush is the Establishment's choice (FWIW) and Huckabee is the CLEAR choice of religious conservatives, whose intraparty influence is understated.  There are other constituencies within the GOP who will have to fall in, but I see Jeb Bush as kind of a Gerald Ford and I see Mike Huckabee as kind of a Ronald Reagan (circa 1976, of course).  Ford pulled out all of the stops to win the 1976 nomination, but the GOP of 2016 is a much different party and Jeb isn't an incumbent President.  

On this site, we often discuss the Electoral Map, expanding it, contracting it, etc., but we do this in the context of a few battleground states and assume little change from election to election.  And we ARE in a far more inelastically partisan mode then we were in 1976-1980.  But many people (at the time) viewed the 1976 election as a return to a New Deal normalcy and not an aberration caused by a Democratic nominee from the Deep South who took amorphous positions at times.  Few folks thought REAGAN would sweep the South in 1980 (except for GA), and few folks thought Reagan would sweep the Northeast (except for MD and RI).

I consider Huckabee as the candidate who could perform the difficult feat of sweeping VA, FL, and OH, all states with significant constituencies of Religious Conservatives AND pull off carrying IA, which also has some religious conservatives.  Huckabee is the most Reaganesque candidate in the sense that he offers simple solutions to issues that come off as credible because people know what he believes in; this contrasts with Jeb Bush, whose father and brother have reinvented themselves to obtain public office.  I think that there are enough power brokers who would be expected to fall in with Jeb that will not because they think he can't win, and think that Huckabee might.  A lot of folks thought Ronald Reagan couldn't win, either, even after being nominated.  People don't forget that, either.

Huckabee is part of the establishment wing of the GOP. He'll fall behind Jeb when the time comes. The leader of the conservatives is between Paul, Cruz, and Walker. As for a resolution between the factions, that's not happening anytime soon.

An interesting take.  I have never considered Huckabee an "establishment" Republican, but he's not the economic conservative Walker and Paul are, and he's not the bomb-thrower Cruz is.  He's not the favorite of the establishment (if you want to place him there), but he has a following in the anti-establishment wing of the GOP that includes most religious conservatives.

That's a big plus for Huckabee; he's a Holy Roller that the establishment can trust!  If Huckabee is part of the establishment, that's a plus for him, because Jeb Bush is a guy with nomenclature issues.  He's got a following and he's got a resume, but Jeb Bush is perceived as a general election loser, and not wrongly so. 

If we take "The Map", where will Bush expand it?  FL, and that's a big one, but where else?  I doubt VA, and I doubt OH; Obama Fatigue hasn't caused the voters in these states to say, "Yessiree, ol' G. W. was sure right about that war and those banks!"; they still blame Bush 43 for the debacle.

I think you're off on several points.

As much as I disagree with their assessment, nearly every serious political operative (including the ones running Hillary's campaign) perceive Bush to be the strongest in the general election, and that's not going to change unless Bush starts losing to other Republicans. If voters don't care that he's another Bush (which I think they will), then yeah, Bush could certainly win Obama states and expand the map.

I strongly disagree with both of your assessments of Huckabee. He's not going to raise anything close to the main contenders, which is what sunk him in 2008. Voters are looking for a fresh face, which he isn't. The grassroots? Ted Cruz is a far more eloquent speaker, a much better fundraiser, and much more in tune on economic issues with the base than Huckabee. The odds are stacked too high against him, and if Huckabee is so talented at bridging SoCons with the establishment that none of this matters, then why didn't he win the nomination 2008, when he actually had a shot at winning?

Lastly, 2016 isn't even close to being like 1976. I can't think of a primary race (besides maybe 2000) that's more unlike 2016 than 1976. There was just so much more to it than it simply being establishment/moderate vs anti establishment/conservative. It's just not even in the same universe.

Well, I certainly agree that 2016 is different than 1976.  The US, the World, and the parties are all very different.  We have a much more ideological party system now.

That being said, Huckabee is the Republican with the most juice amongst Religious Conservatives who have been given short shrift (despite their party loyalty) and who are owed one.  The issues they find important are at the fore of events right now, and they feel shorted by both Bushes.  The Religious Conservatives won't vote Democratic, but they may well stay home or vote for a 3rd party in enough matters to make a difference in, say, NC or even GA. 

I've given him a 20% ranking.  That's hardly where Hillary Clinton is at right now for the Dems, and Huckabee may not get above this level, but he's positioned better than any other candidate to win the whole thing.  He won't have tons of money, but he'll have enough, and he'll have boots on the ground.  Name recognition isn't a problem.  I think he's a log stronger contender than a whole lot of guys who are more highly thought of, and I think that too much of the GOP will not tolerate a third Bush, given how the first two worked out.

In 2012, SoCons were split between the Tea Party and Establishment GOP wings. Ron Paul even got quite a few. What I'm seeing this time is that SoCons (speaking as one with SoCon views on many issues disputed my libertarian leaning) are split so far between Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Dr. Carson ,Walker and Huckabee. That hurts Huckabee because he and Jeb support Common Core (yes SoCons care about education issues) while the rest are adamantly opposed. Most of the SoCons and evangelicals that I know are likely supporting Ted Cruz though the really like Walker and Rubio too. I float between Cruz and Paul right now (most likely supporting Paul though)