Who would be weakest against Clinton?

[Mehmentum]

Bush, Walker, and Rubio are the top 3 in the nationwide primary polling, and they're all serious candidates.  

I'm going with Walker.  Rubio and Bush could do well with Hispanics, but Walker is basically Republicans tripling down on the 'we don't need minorities' election strategy.  

I'm not convinced he would carry Wisconsin either, and even if he could Florida would be a much better state to have the home state effect in.

I think Rubio might be the strongest.  Bush's family name will weigh him down.

[Vega]

Rubio is an empty suit who would be exposed as such as soon as the first debate if not before that.

[ElectionsGuy]

Jeb Bush

[Famous Mortimer]

They'd all do about the same. Walker would probably do less well because he seems like the dumbest. Rubio might do a little bit better because of Hispanics. They're all basically the same though.

[TDAS04]

Of these three, probably Walker.

[Suburbia]

Of these three, probably Walker.

[JonathanSwift]

Rubio would definitely be the strongest. I voted that Bush would be the weakest, but I can certainly see why some would go with Walker.

[HillOfANight]

Anti-union Walker would lose Ohio, and put Pennsylvania and Michigan off the table.

RealClearPolitics has the matchups.
Clinton vs Walker, Clinton +6.2,
Clinton vs Bush, Clinton +5
Clinton vs Rubio, Clinton +4

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

It is looking like Walker could be the weakest of the three listed. He seems to be in trouble in WI right now with his approval ratings in the toilet. At first glance he should have a boost in the midwest, especially in key states like WI, IA, OH, and PA.

His hardcore anti worker and anti union stances though are turning off the huge union segments of these states. Organized Labour will mobilize against his plutocratic randian Koch inspired policies. Polls have him down against Hillary in the midwest. He also has no Hispanic appeal like Jeb or Rubio and no special appeal to Florida. With a Walker v Clinton matchup I would not be surprised to see Florida to the left of the nation in 2016 , putting the Republicans in a huge bind.

[eric82oslo]

Romney at least had some appeal to moderate voters. Walker has none.

[eric82oslo]

They'd all do about the same. Walker would probably do less well because he seems like the dumbest. Rubio might do a little bit better because of Hispanics. They're all basically the same though.

As far as I know, Rubio doesn't even speak Spanish. At least I've never heard him speak it. So obviously, Jeb would be a much more attrative choice for latino voters, no matter last name.

[bedstuy]

Rubio.  He's a studio gangsta.

[HillOfANight]

He does know Spanish, but it seems he downplays it because he doesn't want to seem to foreign or something to the GOP electorate. He should just embrace it like Jeb has.

[Donald Trump 2016 !]

Scott Walker. He's considerably more gaffe prone compared to Rubio and Bush.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Romney at least had some appeal to moderate voters. Walker has none.

Walker at least has a chance of winning his (blue) home state. Romney had none.

[Famous Mortimer]

Romney at least had some appeal to moderate voters. Walker has none.

Walker has as much appeal to moderates as any generic Republican. Also, any appeal that Romney had to moderates he had largely renounced by 2012.

[andrew_c]

Walker, because he's too polarizing. His opponents will flock to the polls en masse.

[Mr. Morden]

There is always the "Nixon to China" effect with these things.  Walker has built up more goodwill with the GOP base, therefore he can more easily afford to move more to center in the general election without constantly worrying about his right flank.

Not sure he's politically skilled enough to pull that off though.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Walker, because he's too polarizing. His opponents will flock to the polls en masse.

Obama was polarizing too. Polarizing is often a good thing when he comes across as quite sane and his opponents come across as paranoid. It's just a matter of him choosing the right words rather than these little 5 word sound bites he keeps throwing the media. That would be my only concern, but Bush is doing the same. They're more likely to use it against Walker though.

[/]

Rubio is an empty suit who would be exposed as such as soon as the first debate if not before that.

Good point. I voted Walker, but Rubio is actually a really weak candidate. People only assume he's good because he's young, attractive, and Hispanic but in reality he's a horrible speaker.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Bush.

Bush deprives the GOP of the "dynasty" issue and he's a Bush.  Lot's of people who could be persuaded to vote Republican believe that the Bushes ruined the country.

[Mister Mets]

My guess is Walker.

He seems a bit more gaffe-prone and is a weaker speaker.

[Publius]

Bush. I do think he's the strongest Republican candidate, but he really nullifies the GOP's biggest advantage against House Clinton.

Rubio can be Obama 2008-->handsome fresh face non white guy takes down Mrs. Clinton and her machine.

Walker, it seems, has already won a national election with the Democrats aligned against him when he defended his belt in the 2012 gubernatorial recall.

[rdrakes42]

Bush would be a disaster.

Rubio I think could steal it away from her if she chokes though.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Jeb is no prize; he takes all possibility of 'dynasty' or 'previous administration' criticism off the table. But I voted Walker, in the unlikely even he actually gets the nomination he will have shoved his foot so far into his mouth by then that he'll be chewing on his hip when he tries to talk.