Which of these people is the most likely to gain a lot of support?

[Figueira]

If someone told you that one of those people was going to become a major force in this contest, which one would you expect it to be?

[Bigby]

Out of this list, Graham since he's closest to the mainstream establishment of the GOP. Pataki is in second for me.

[Kingpoleon]

Graham needs an upset in South Carolina.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Jindal

[ElectionsGuy]

lol at the votes for Graham, did you see his performance at the last debate? He's going nowhere. Perry's campaign is having a hard time surviving financially, Gilmore and Pataki or irrelevant, so that leaves Jindal and Santorum. Both of them have terrible fundraising and name recognition. Jindal is clearly going for that very conservative vote, currently occupied by Cruz and Paul, and Santorum is going after populist support that Trump clearly occupies. Trump's supporters won't move an inch, so I guess Jindal.

[Donerail]

Graham is not running for President (he's running to push his foreign policy views), Pataki's trying to play for a space already occupied by a number of quasi-moderate Republicans, Perry's dropping out soon, and who's Jim Gilmore? That leaves Santorum and Jindal. Santorum strikes me as someone who has more of a popular base among the Iowan grassroots, so I'll go with him.

[PPT Spiral]

Santorum's problem is that he has been forgotten even by many evangelicals, which is not a good sign for someone who won 11 states and 4 million votes just four years ago. Only Pataki and Gilmore beat him in the washed-up category. A lot of influential conservatives in Iowa and elsewhere who prioritize social issues often mention Jindal in their shortlist of candidates, though others like Cruz and Huckabee have received the most buzz from them. Jindal still gets mentioned frequently enough because of how hard he has been hitting the issue of religious liberty, which a lot of conservatives are drawn to. I have rarely if ever seen Santorum mentioned in that group of candidates. Part of it has been Santorum's own fault for changing his strategy and focusing on economic populism early on, which hasn't brought him great dividends. Because of this, Jindal has the greatest potential to surge later on in a state like Iowa if the right candidates accordingly drop in the polls. You never know what might happen in this race.

[Maxwell]

If Perry weren't running a zombie campaign, I'd say him. For now, I'll say Santorum - there's a small possibility that Trump, Carson, and Cruz all implode before Iowa.

[Blue3]

If Perry weren't running a zombie campaign, I'd say him. For now, I'll say Santorum

[eric82oslo]

You forgot Christie.
The others you mentioned don't stand a chance at all.

[pho]

Santorum, he can at least point to winning the Iowa caucus in 2012 as proof of his viability. The rest of that group is a complete abortion.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I believe Graham.... he is a sitting US SEnator and a prominent one at that....with McCain's endorsemenet he will pick up support in New Hampshire and he will gain support in South Carolina since he is from there....

[Mister Mets]

I'll go with Pataki, mainly because he's different from the Republicans currently running. There aren't many alternatives for voters who want a pro-choice Republican.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Seems pretty obviously Jindal to me. He was a superstar governor at one point and quite a good fit for Iowa. The GOP loves minorities in office saying the same things white folk like them do.

I wish it would be Graham though. (Or Perry for one debate of Trump tearing him apart)

Santorum was popular for a good month in 2012 after every other option was exhausted to stop Mitt. He is not actually well liked as presidential material.

[Del Tachi]

Graham could have some sort of top-secret South Carolina GOTV plan that propels him to a respectable finish in the Palmetto State.  Finishing in the top 3 would be seen by the media as some sort of miracle, and they'd probably through him around as a "potential nominee" or "rising star" for a week or two after that.  For that reason alone, I think Graham should top this list - all of the other candidates just don't have a viable path, Graham has a highly unlikely yet possible path. 

[Maxwell]

Graham could have some sort of top-secret South Carolina GOTV plan that propels him to a respectable finish in the Palmetto State.  Finishing in the top 3 would be seen by the media as some sort of miracle, and they'd probably through him around as a "potential nominee" or "rising star" for a week or two after that.  For that reason alone, I think Graham should top this list - all of the other candidates just don't have a viable path, Graham has a highly unlikely yet possible path. 

It wouldn't be a miracle because South Carolina is his home state.

[Del Tachi]

Graham could have some sort of top-secret South Carolina GOTV plan that propels him to a respectable finish in the Palmetto State.  Finishing in the top 3 would be seen by the media as some sort of miracle, and they'd probably through him around as a "potential nominee" or "rising star" for a week or two after that.  For that reason alone, I think Graham should top this list - all of the other candidates just don't have a viable path, Graham has a highly unlikely yet possible path. 

It wouldn't be a miracle because South Carolina is his home state.

A top 3 finish by Graham in South Carolina would be seen by the media as noteworthy.  It would generate some decent buzz for the Senator. 

[Maxwell]

Graham could have some sort of top-secret South Carolina GOTV plan that propels him to a respectable finish in the Palmetto State.  Finishing in the top 3 would be seen by the media as some sort of miracle, and they'd probably through him around as a "potential nominee" or "rising star" for a week or two after that.  For that reason alone, I think Graham should top this list - all of the other candidates just don't have a viable path, Graham has a highly unlikely yet possible path. 

It wouldn't be a miracle because South Carolina is his home state.

A top 3 finish by Graham in South Carolina would be seen by the media as noteworthy.  It would generate some decent buzz for the Senator. 

Well it shouldn't be. For all the talk of him being an established presence in the state, it should be embarrassing if he's not winning it. Tom Harkin had no chance at the nomination and won Iowa with a percentage in the 70s.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Gilmore's coming groundswell of support from women, the famed 'Gilmore girls', will push him over the top (normal).

[Mr. Reactionary]

None of them ... so I voted Jim Gilmore.

[/]

Gilmore FTW

[Leinad]

Ranked from most likely to least likely:

Jindal - if it wasn't for Ted Cruz, he might be the young grassroots conservative guy. A Cruztastrophe (unlikely) could lead to a surge in Jindal polling. I think lots of voters really like him, but those are the exact group of people who really, really like Cruz.

Santorum - he's won Iowa before, so it's hard to count him out. But he's losing social conservatives to Cruz, Huckabee, and Carson, and economic populists to Trump, so I think it will be hard. Then again, it was hard for him last year--but then again again, the people he had to beat out last year were Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Michelle Bachmann, now he's got Rick Perry, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Ben Carson, Scott Walker, and Donald Trump all in his way.

Graham - for no reason other than the fact he's from South Carolina. If he survives until then, he might have some homestate magic and surge into the top tier from that. But he'll probably be either out by then, or even more of a non-factor than he is now.

Perry - a record in Texas that conservatives like a lot, but he's...Rick...Perry. Hipster glasses won't save him, not even Ronald Raven can save him now.

George Pataki - 3-term governor in a Democrat-controlled state--nothing to sneeze at there. But he's too far to the left to get any non-moderates, and why would a moderate leave Jeb/Kasich/Christie for him? No reason.

Jim Gilmore - very little name ID, entered too late, only 1 term as governor, fairly old, nope.