The next president's religion

[Mr. Morden]

Warner, Hillary, Huckabee, Huntsman, Romney or Pawlenty are all reasonably plausible 2016 nominees who aren't Catholic (anymore, at least).

You really think Romney is a reasonably plausible 2016 nominee?  I mean, other than the scenario in which he's elected in 2012, and is running for reelection in '16, that is?

If Romney wins the nomination in '12 but loses to Obama, then of course he's as finished politically as Dukakis after '88 or Kerry after '04.  Whereas if he fails to win the nomination a second time (after having started out as the frontrunner this time around), I similarly think he's done.  I mean, by 2016, he would have been out of elected office for 10 years, and lost the nomination twice in a row.  And it's not like there's any particularly significant faction of the GOP that sees him as their champion, a la Reagan 1980.  Won't the party be ready to move on by then?

[Mr. Morden]

Joe-

If Romney actually wins the popular vote but loses because of the electoral college, a la Gore, then yes, I agree that he'd still be viable in 2016 (though that's about a once-a-century type event these days).  But otherwise, I don't think the scenario would work.  You write that Dukakis "was considered to have been a poor candidate", but that in contrast, Romney might conceivably lose yet "acquit himself well", which could preserve his viability for 2016.  I just don't think it works like that.  Losing the general election pretty much automatically means that you'll retroactively be viewed as a "poor candidate".  (Again, with the exception of a Gore 2000 type situation where you actually win the popular vote, and thus were not really "rejected by the voters".)

Yes, yes, there is the Nixon 1968 example, but of course that was still in the pre-McGovern-Fraser reforms era, when nominee the wasn't chosen until the convention, and it was mostly determined by party bosses.  In the modern era of lengthy primary campaigns, I think it would be a lot harder for a previous general election loser to make it through the primaries.  And in fact, it would also be less likely for them to want to run again in the first place, seeing as how their previous experience of a 2 year campaign that culminated in being rejected by voters is likely to have left a sour taste in their mouth.

You also write that if Romney is nominated in 2012 and loses the GE, then it'll reinforce the "next in line" meme.  But how would Romney still be the "next in line" in 2016?  He would have been the guy who just had his turn, not the next in line.  The "next in line" would be whoever he beat for the nomination in 2012.

[Mr. Morden]

*bump*

I'd say....

Catholic = 43% probability
Mormon = 30% probability (this is mostly because of the remaining probability that Romney pulls it out next month)
Mainline Protestant = 20% probability (the biggest contributor here being Hillary Clinton)
Evangelical = 5% probability
something else = 2% probability

I feel like Evangelical should be higher, but I'm struggling to think of any Evangelical 2016 candidates who could plausibly win.  None of the likely Democratic candidates are Evangelicals, are they?  On the GOP side, the potential 2016ers who are Evangelical would be.....who?  Pence, Perry, Thune, Walker?  I think there's an outside chance of Cruz running, and he's an Evangelical, isn't he?  In any case, the collective probability of all of those guys being the next president isn't very great.

[Mr. Morden]

*bump*

I'd say....

Catholic = 43% probability
Mormon = 30% probability (this is mostly because of the remaining probability that Romney pulls it out next month)
Mainline Protestant = 20% probability (the biggest contributor here being Hillary Clinton)
Evangelical = 5% probability
something else = 2% probability

I feel like Evangelical should be higher, but I'm struggling to think of any Evangelical 2016 candidates who could plausibly win.  None of the likely Democratic candidates are Evangelicals, are they?  On the GOP side, the potential 2016ers who are Evangelical would be.....who?  Pence, Perry, Thune, Walker?  I think there's an outside chance of Cruz running, and he's an Evangelical, isn't he?  In any case, the collective probability of all of those guys being the next president isn't very great.

Isn't Rand Paul Evangelical?

Wikipedia says he's Presbyterian.

[Mr. Morden]

Obviously, Romney's loss makes Mormon fairly unlikely.  So Catholic is now far and away the most likely possibility.

[Mr. Morden]

*bump*

I'd say....

Catholic = 43% probability
Mormon = 30% probability (this is mostly because of the remaining probability that Romney pulls it out next month)
Mainline Protestant = 20% probability (the biggest contributor here being Hillary Clinton)
Evangelical = 5% probability
something else = 2% probability

I feel like Evangelical should be higher, but I'm struggling to think of any Evangelical 2016 candidates who could plausibly win.  None of the likely Democratic candidates are Evangelicals, are they?  On the GOP side, the potential 2016ers who are Evangelical would be.....who?  Pence, Perry, Thune, Walker?  I think there's an outside chance of Cruz running, and he's an Evangelical, isn't he?  In any case, the collective probability of all of those guys being the next president isn't very great.

*bump*

Well, Romney lost, and Hillary Clinton's public signals on whether she's going to run have changed quite a bit since October, so she definitely looks more likely to run now.  So it's largely between Mainline Protestant and Catholic, with Clinton being being the main Mainline Protestant and Catholic being most of the rest of the field.

Walker's the most likely Evangelical now.

Maybe:

Catholic = 53% probability
Mainline Protestant = 40% probability
Evangelical = 5% probability
something else = 2% probability