Which Republican candidate has the best chance against Clinton and why?

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

.

[JonathanSwift]

I voted for Paul based on the opinion polling showing him doing the best against her.

[/]

Marko Rubeo

[Maxwell]

Rand Paul has the highest ceiling and the lowest floor. So I'll go with him. Marco Rubio, in spite of his heavy baggage, is probably second due to his youthful look, his generally pretty good (among Republicans) speaking ability, and his ability to meld Tea Party and Moderates together by not saying anything. And then I guess Scott Walker, who would at least walk into the general election with a strong Republican base of voters but not really much else.

The rest splice off too much Republican base or too much of everyone else to work.

[The Dowager Mod]

Walker, because people are just that stupid.

[Suburbia]

Kasich, Paul, Bush, Rubio, Walker

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

I voted for Paul based on the opinion polling showing him doing the best against her.

This. Given the right circumstances, Paul could build a formidable coalition. Walker and Kasich would perform well (read: better than Romney) but still lose by a substantial margin.

[RR1997]

Paul, I guess.

[Leinad]

Rand's the only one I'd vote for, but I tend to think Rubio has the best chance at winning vs. Hillary. He can probably get both the moderate and conservative factions of the base out to vote better than anyone else except maybe Walker (guys like Cruz would struggle with moderates, guys like Jeb would struggle with conservatives). Also Rubio has a better chance to win Florida from Hillary than the others, and that's a big deal. In the last 5 elections the winner of Florida has won the election. It's the largest swing state, and pretty evenly divided.

I think it's basically anyone but Jeb. He's too moderate to win the conservatives (and that's key--many "swing voters" are conservatives and liberals where not voting or going third party is the alternate option), and his last name is Bush. Does anyone want another Bush? That's even worse than another Clinton. His only redeeming feature is that he's, like Rubio, from Florida. Oh, and I guess being a governor helps, too. But I think only Trump would do worse than him.

[Blair]

I know I'm starting the awful argument... but how is Bush a moderate?

On that point the only candidate who can beat her is Kasich. Paul's playing a fine line with national security that's popular for us guys, but many American's may see it's as too dangerous. I mean I'd say 'yeah he's got a better view than hillary on NSA, but HC is right on taxes, health care, gay marriage, gun rights and climate change' Paul is able to get independents/democrats on his foreign policy but he's still an extremist on the level with Cruz.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I know I'm starting the awful argument... but how is Bush a moderate?

He refuses to call Obama a Kenyan-born terrorist-loving socialist baby-killer.

[Higgs]

Easily Rand Paul, polls the best against her.

I also think he's the best republican to broaden the coalition and reach out to other groups.

[RFayette]

Kasich.....he's a serious, competent administrator who presided over the '90s surpluses and can help close the GOP's empathy gap. 

I like him a lot and would love to see him as the next President.

[HAnnA MArin County]

None of the above.

[ElectionsGuy]

Rand Paul - appeals to independents, gets people who don't regularly vote (or haven't voted) on his side, and is dynamic but eccentric. And Republican voters, while ideologically driven, are stubborn. Odds are most of the neocons and establishment supporters begrudgingly vote for him.

[bballrox4717]

Marco Rubio. Bush is a disaster waiting to happen, Kasich and Walker are milquetoast, Christie has already destroyed himself, and the rest (including Paul) just alienate too many potential supporters or are simply too ridiculous to be taken seriously. 

Rubio is just the only one in the field who is charismatic enough, presents enough a contrast with Clinton, and doesn't alienate any potential supporters in his party. I also think voters have proved that they will overlook scandals if they like the candidate enough. As a Hillary supporter, Rubio's the only one that scares me when it comes to a match up against her.

[BaconBacon96]

Kasich and Paul.

[Ebsy]

I honestly think Paul is the most electable of these cooks. However, he has no chance of winning the primary.

[Leinad]

I know I'm starting the awful argument... but how is Bush a moderate?

On that point the only candidate who can beat her is Kasich. Paul's playing a fine line with national security that's popular for us guys, but many American's may see it's as too dangerous. I mean I'd say 'yeah he's got a better view than hillary on NSA, but HC is right on taxes, health care, gay marriage, gun rights and climate change' Paul is able to get independents/democrats on his foreign policy but he's still an extremist on the level with Cruz.

Jeb's more on the moderate side with regard to US politics. Take a look at Ted Cruz, and then look back at Jeb Bush, and you'll see that he's moderate. Compared to you maybe he's way right, compared to me he's as authoritarian as Stalin, and compared to a hard-line conservative he's caucusing with the Democrats, but it's best to compare to the national center, which he is only a bit right of.

Honestly, I think that Rand is "better" on taxes, health care, and gun rights, but I'm more libertarian than he is, so of course I agree with him on those issues. And gay marriage? Rand is against it personally, but is okay with it's legality. He and his dad both want to take the government out of marriage altogether so that anything goes, which I think is pretty spot-on.

He's not conservative on gay marriage, at least relative to the US center. I bet he'd take a more liberal stance if he wasn't trying to win the Republican primary, where being too pro-gay is like trying to win the Masters without a putter.

Kasich, I'll agree, is another good one as far as electability goes. Crucial swing state, like Rubio or Bush but unlike Paul, and he can play the governor card, which is the best in Jeb's hand as well, yet not in Hillary's. And I think it's an advantage not being named Bush or Clinton, but especially Bush. Nobody wants Bush 3. That would be a crap trilogy.

[Tender Branson]

Kasich, Rubio and Paul.

Kasich and Rubio because their home states are important swing-states and they are likely to get a home-state bump on election day and Paul because he can draw younger people to the polls.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

If Paul can con the young'ns in the way his Dad could, him. But I think Rubio and Walker are the most dangerous, and that's at the same time not having any idea why Rubio is running...

[NHI]

Kasich, Paul, Rubio.

Ironically, I don't think these three have much shot at winning the primary, Rubio is the most likely of the three, but I still think the nomination will go to Bush or Walker.

[Penelope]

John Kasich, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio, in that order.

Rand Paul has a history of really bizarre statements and generally out-of-mainstream views that forces him to clarify his positions and play damage control a lot. For example, when he questioned the constitutionality of Title II of the Civil Rights Act during his Senate campaign, or more recently when he made some wacky comments about vaccination.

He has has the potential to play well against Hillary, but he also has the potential to be the next Barry Goldwater, by saying something wacky at the wrong time and allowing Hillary define him as a loon.

[Samantha]

Theoretically, Paul. Realistically, Rubio.

[Fuzzy Bear]

John Kasich, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio, in that order.

Rand Paul has a history of really bizarre statements and generally out-of-mainstream views that forces him to clarify his positions and play damage control a lot. For example, when he questioned the constitutionality of Title II of the Civil Rights Act during his Senate campaign, or more recently when he made some wacky comments about vaccination.

He has has the potential to play well against Hillary, but he also has the potential to be the next Barry Goldwater, by saying something wacky at the wrong time and allowing Hillary define him as a loon.

If the issue is mere "electability", then Kasich is a no-brainer when one considers the totality of circumstances.  Part of that totality is the dislike of the Bushes thanks to Bush 43.