Who do you think is going to be the 2016 Republican Nominee and why?

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

I'm hoping for Rand Paul but expecting Jeb Bush to the be the nominee (as much as I hate to think that)

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I've been saying Rand for the longest time, but I think I'm going to be switching to Walker when the February poll comes out. Starting at a pretty high base and won't turn anybody off. We'll see if he's interesting enough against a ton of personalities though. That's the one negative.

[henster]

Walker came off very well in Iowa.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I am hoping anbody but Jeb gets nominated. And the election would problably be a loss for the G O P. Because if anybody can compete with the hispanic vote, it is Jeb.

Make no mistake about it, it will be a hard fought campaign, and every last vote count, but that is the realization. So, I am rooting for Walker to be nominee.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

No Kasich??

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I'm still thinking that Rand Paul would have a legitimate shot.

[Bull Moose Base]

Oops. You forgot someone who is definitely running.

[The Other Castro]

I like to think about this not in terms of who I see having the best shot at winning but who I see having the best shot at not being killed in the primary. That is, eliminating all the people with no chance like Santorum, Jindal, Carson, and Huckabee, then taking out people like Christie, Rubio, and Cruz, and then making a guess between Romney, Walker, Bush, and Paul. My guess would be Walker.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Might as well guess this way again: Christie, whose "damage" over Bridgegate will largely fade, is conservative enough and will lock up the establishment money.

[SPC]

Romney or Bush, with a slight edge toward the former (although the pessimist in me says the latter). The closest any insurgent has gotten to the Republican nomination post 1964 was Reagan in 1976, and that was a unique set of circumstances. 2008 and 2012 featured a similar early revulsion to the establishment choice, only to have conservatives eventually swallow them after their opponents fizzled. Past nominees are underrated as contenders: Humphrey came close to winning the nomination in 1972, Ford would have won had Reagan not been a strong candidate, Gore could have easily gotten a rematch in 2004, and Gore and Kerry faced the same problem with Clinton as Ford did with Reagan. On the other hand, Romney seems out of vogue with the establishment at the moment, at least compared to the "fresh face" of another Bush.

[AelroseB]

Ted Cruz's moderate populism is nothing but a catch-all message which can appeal to even the staunchest of liberals - he is, without doubt, a shoo-in.

[Mr. Smith]

Walker or Paul

[Del Tachi]

Romney will not run, and Jeb will thus be able to gain the lion's share of establishment support.  It comes down to a Bush/Paul race, and Bush will win an extended primary battle (similar to the Democrats' debacle in 2008). 

[Xing]

My guess is Romney or Bush (the latter being more likely), since they'll likely have the most financial support from the Republican establishment. While Walker might be able to unify the Tea Party and the establishment, he might not be able to garner enough support from both early on to place better than third or fourth. I think Paul's chances of winning the nomination are a bit overrated, mainly because the establishment will likely see him as too far removed from the mainstream. He'd need a powerful grassroots movement to stand a chance.

[Blair]

Walker-can't see Bush being popular due to common core/immigration. Walker is tea party, union busting governor from a democrat state. He seems in an ideal position.

Would love Paul though

[IceSpear]

Might as well guess this way again: Christie, whose "damage" over Bridgegate will largely fade, is conservative enough and will lock up the establishment money.

The establishment seems to want Bush and/or Romney over Christie.

[Bull Moose Base]

I remember some thread a year and a half ago asserting the nominee would almost definitely be Rubio or Christie. As of this post, 1 in 15 people think either one will win.

[ShadowRocket]

I'm still going to say Christie. The reason being that I don't think Romney will run again ultimately and I think Jeb will turn out to be an underwhelming candidate once the campaign gets underway. Assuming that none of his scandals catch up with him, that leaves Christie as the remaing establishment candidate.

Barring that, either Walker is able to emerge as a compromise candidate or I'm currently underestimating Jeb Bush.

[Jerseyrules]

Might as well guess this way again: Christie, whose "damage" over Bridgegate will largely fade, is conservative enough and will lock up the establishment money.

But I feel like a lot of big donors are going to back Jeb and Romney.  A few months ago I came across a poll in the Wall Street Journal (though I regrettably can't find it again), something like 70+% of CEO's stated Jeb as their preferred candidate

[Bull Moose Base]

It's been a week and I think it's safe to say the consensus here is Romney will be the nominee.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Walker hits all the points the base is looking for, while having surprisingly few negatives. He's weathered more controversy and opposition than any of them, making him a far tougher campaigner and giving him a bigger national profile.

He'll likely face a small SoCon rebellion, but if they tolerated McCain and Romney, they'll tolerate Walker.