At least 15 Republicans already eyeing 2016
Rubio and Ryan, both arguably better positioned than Jindal, are also competing for the mantle of the high-energy, forward-thinking conservative. POLITICO has learned both will unveil new policy plans at an awards dinner of the Jack Kemp Foundation in early December: Ryan will begin a new push on a more modern approach to alleviating poverty, focused on education; Rubio will lift the curtain on an economic empowerment message, heavy on college affordability and workforce training.
That upcoming duet is one of the clearest signs that this presidential race is beginning as early as any in history.
Not to be outdone, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), son of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and heir to his father’s libertarian following, is now on the record exploring a run that will focus heavily on returning power to the states. In a post-election interview with POLITICO, Paul said he wants to find common ground with liberal Democrats on softer marijuana laws and help create an eventual pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants…
POLITICO has also learned that Rick Santorum is telling friends he wants to run again. Texas Gov. Rick Perry has said publicly that he might, too, and has begun talking to donors and other top supporters like he means it. And Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor with strong credentials on education and winning back Hispanics, has told advisers he will sit back to see how things unfold over the next year before deciding whether to finally give it a go.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4
She has work to do, no question. But the GOP ruling class can be overcome and conservative women can be wooed.
alwaysfiredup on November 21, 2012 at 11:49 AM
I don’t think Sarah Palin would necessarily be the one to come out the worst for that. It’s a fight that’s going to come, like it or not.
ddrintn on November 21, 2012 at 11:49 AM
Palin 2016
idesign on November 21, 2012 at 11:50 AM
+1
+1
So, she should have run and downed him in the primaries. I wasn’t and am not a Palin or Romney adherent, though I loved her in 2008, and still do admire what she does and stands for.
The primaries were disgusting, and all the culprits know who they are. None were more disgusting than the Mittens. If their boy would have fought Obama, as he did all his opponents in the primaries, he’d be President elect now, alas. I said it often that silky gloves to not down thugs and charlatans, the Chicago gang.
This name-calling and blood-letting in leftist style, however, helps the leftists.
Schadenfreude on November 21, 2012 at 11:50 AM
You’re such a chicken.
Schadenfreude on November 21, 2012 at 11:51 AM
Exactly, that’s what I can’t figure out. Come on, Scadenfreude, be specific. How did Sarah Palin gain more by sitting out than she would have by getting into the race? Or is it just that “Palin’s a money-grabbing bimbo” is the standard general-purpose smear for all seaons?
ddrintn on November 21, 2012 at 11:52 AM
First, he didn’t let me down. The land is free and stupid, from the left to the right.
The other question is self-evident. Logic and math, if you apply your brain and not your emotions.
Schadenfreude on November 21, 2012 at 11:53 AM
No, come on, Schadenfreude. YOU’RE the chicken. Show me where I said charisma is a disqualifying factor. I said Ryan is the uncharismatic tail-end of a losing ticket and therefore damaged goods. Prove me wrong.
ddrintn on November 21, 2012 at 11:53 AM
ddrintn on November 21, 2012 at 11:52 AM
Logic101 – take it…oh, and take alwaysfiredup to class with you.
Schadenfreude on November 21, 2012 at 11:54 AM
Huh? Sarah Palin made more money by sitting out than she would have by getting in? And logic is YOUR strong suit? LOL
ddrintn on November 21, 2012 at 11:54 AM
Logic101
“I said Ryan is the uncharismatic tail-end of a losing ticket and therefore damaged goods”
Sarah Palin is very charismatic.
Both can not be winners, per ddrintin Logic rules.
Whom do you have in mind now?
Have you ever taken a class in logic?
Schadenfreude on November 21, 2012 at 11:56 AM
Chickens and Logic are both indignant.
Schadenfreude on November 21, 2012 at 11:57 AM
Some of you on the right, unfortunately, argue like sesquipedalian and lester.
Schadenfreude on November 21, 2012 at 11:58 AM
What????
ddrintn on November 21, 2012 at 11:58 AM
bluegill on November 21, 2012 at 10:56 AM
Say did you receive you invite to president-elect Mitt Romney’s inauguration yet?
HerneTheHunter on November 21, 2012 at 11:59 AM
So, enlighten us. Tell us how Sarah Palin stood to gain more by sitting out the race than by getting in.
I guaran-damn-tee you, if she had gotten in, it would’ve been only because she wanted the money and attention. Amirite?
ddrintn on November 21, 2012 at 12:00 PM
Paul Ryan is young, bright, likeable, articulate and extremely well-versed in the issue that is the single biggest threat our nation faces right now. I don’t think he’s “damaged goods” because he was at the bottom of a ticket that didn’t win. I doubt many voters rushed out to vote against Paul Ryan, and I doubt he was the reason any Republican voters stayed home.
I think he’s got a great future and the stuff needed to lead this country, if, you know, we still have free elections and a country to lead in another few years.
Right Mover on November 21, 2012 at 12:02 PM
bluegill on November 21, 2012 at 11:04 AM
Nah sweetheart, you’re best known for future that President Romney promises. Oh, that’s right, last seen at Disneyland. How you think your opinion is worth a lick, I’ll never know.
HerneTheHunter on November 21, 2012 at 12:03 PM
-F, as Del would write.
Palin-friends and Mitt-bots are fun to watch.
Good luck to all of you, and the land too.
Here’s one pledge I’ll make to you, the Palin-friends – if she runs, I’ll vote for her. If she doesn’t, may she always flourish. She’s a good lady and she thinks better than most of you.
Schadenfreude on November 21, 2012 at 12:03 PM
Difference between DNC & RNC
My view, in 2008, Hillary Clinton was the democratic favored nominee, when Obamasatan decided to run they didn’t close him out (money, moving primaries up, etc.) because he had the black grassroots support. They didn’t want to piss off their base. In 2012, the RNC’s choice was romneycare, Palin had the grassroots support. Unlike what the DNC did in 2008, the RNC moved up primaries, held back poll results (iowa), funneled all whale donor monies to romneycare etc..Romneycare, raised $100 million because of this, no other candidate or Palin had a chance.
Then to appease the democratic establishment after the 2008 election Satan made Hillary S of S. Palin, who the grassroots has witnessed being blackballed for years; fox, GOP pundits, no speaking at RNC convention (the fmr VP nominee- still trying overcome that insult), etc. is still taking crap.
So this has made every Palin supporter like me pissed. See the difference between the DNC/RNC.
the only way the RNC can reverse this fracture in the party is it they make a very public olive branch to her. It has to be meaningful or else her supporters will NOT vote GOP anymore. We’ll vote third party or not vote!!!
I’m sick of the treatment by the GOP of Palin!!!
Danielvito on November 21, 2012 at 12:05 PM
This w/b a good start.
Schadenfreude on November 21, 2012 at 12:05 PM
I’m going to vote and advocate for whoever is NOT the democrat running in 2016 — if it’s Palin, Jindal, Bush (ugh!!), Pawlenty, or anyone else.
The kind of infighting in the comments here is why Democrats win elections and get policies passed and Republicans don’t. There is the occasional Democrat infighting (Obama and Clinton) but at the end of the day you know they will pull the lever for their guy regardless.
Republicans on the other hand sit out elections, pout about electibility and get steamrolled. We provide the artillery for the media to attack our candidates with during the primaries and are worse critics of our candidates than the Democrats ever are about theirs. Why do they win and we lose? Not because of competence or electibility (is Obama competent?). No, they win because they are ruthless and disciplined and don’t eat their own.
theblackcommenter on November 21, 2012 at 12:06 PM
Dongemaharu on November 21, 2012 at 11:09 AM
Is it Subway club? Otherwise it’s not electable.
HerneTheHunter on November 21, 2012 at 12:06 PM
QFT. And yes I agree that Palin would be sabotaged by people in her own party if she were ever to run and become the GOP nominee.
Aitch748 on November 21, 2012 at 12:10 PM
I hear you..
Dire Straits on November 21, 2012 at 12:11 PM
Hadn’t we better see if there is going to be a presidential election in 2016?
totherightofthem on November 21, 2012 at 12:11 PM
…because Buy Danish could really attest that I was “a Mitt-lover”, heh.
Primaries are consequential. I fought like hell to keep him out. Your camp fought like hell to get her in. None happened.
Schadenfreude on November 21, 2012 at 12:14 PM
Well, “true conservative” should also be qualified with “who doesn’t stick their foot in their mouth and say something monumentally stupid,” of course.
But I’ve also never been on these boards saying “true conservative or nothing” before. I voted for Mitt Romney this go around. I didn’t vote for Gary Johnson or write in Ron Paul or sit home and pout because my favorite person was not on the ticket. And I don’t have a “purity test.” I’m not going to refuse to support someone because I disagree with them on, say, immigration policy when the other 99% of their views are conservative.
But I’ll tell you this… Romney did not lose because he was not moderate enough. History has shown us that the GOP wins when it nominates conservatives and it loses when it nominates moderates. Are there exceptions to the rule? Sure. But generally speaking, the rule holds. If the GOP wants a candidate who is electable, they need to look at the party’s history of electoral victories, and nominate a conservative.
Shump on November 21, 2012 at 12:16 PM
Well summed up, Mr. Walker.
Decency and eating one’s own loses.
Thuggery and charlatanry wins, every time.
It’s politics – winning is the only objective. One can’t punch the other out when one is not in the arena.
You Sir are a blessing.
Schadenfreude on November 21, 2012 at 12:19 PM
Man, it would be nice to have a candidate I can actually vote *for* for a change.
alchemist19 on November 21, 2012 at 12:26 PM
This is a good example of the Republicans eating their own. and for no good cause too
theblackcommenter on November 21, 2012 at 12:28 PM
No, it could not have happened without the rest of the alternative supposedly conservative outlets lending a hand in destroying every person in the primary, with the exception being Romney. I think Hot Air and all those outlets were bought off in some fashion by Mr Electable.
astonerii on November 21, 2012 at 12:30 PM
You are on a roll..Good comment..
Dire Straits on November 21, 2012 at 12:32 PM
Jeb Bush’s name is Jeb Bush and he can be tied to his brother. That makes him infinitely less electable in a Presidential election than Paul Ryan. That doesn’t mean Ryan wins or even decides to run for President. His best bet is no budget deal and Medicare near insolvency in 2015. But even if he doesn’t win, thw fact that he and Rubio are going to have dueling speeches with different policy visions which is something that Rubio didn’t want to have to deal with.
As charisma.. I don’t get the whole Ryan doesn’t have charisma thing. This really confuses me especially since I liked his convention speech better than Rubio’s.
Illinidiva on November 21, 2012 at 12:34 PM
Dave’s not here, man…
JohnGalt23 on November 21, 2012 at 12:36 PM
BISHOP 2016!!!!!!!
ToddPA on November 21, 2012 at 12:49 PM
Ryan has charisma. Maybe not as much as Palin, but the lady is in something of a class of her own in that department. Rubio has charisma. I have yet to hear Rubio elucidate a conservative idea, but he’s still new and has time. 2016 is a really long way off. Rand Paul seems to get it too. The goal will be to show off a new, improved party that doesn’t get bogged down in some of the past mistakes. This has to be demonstrated by congressional Republicans long before the 2016 contest gets started. Ryan, Rubio and Paul have a chance to show a lot of leadership in congress, and Palin can show whether she makes a good foil for Obama in the culture arena. (We do have to compete in the cultural arena.)
alwaysfiredup on November 21, 2012 at 12:57 PM
Then she should have said so when first asked the question.
Face it… she was a rookie, and she made a rookie mistake. Not that I think it disqualifies her. I’m absolutely willing to give her a look.
But the first thing she and her followers need to do in order to stop being a rookie is recognize the mistakes she did make as mistakes, and do what is necessary to not repeat them.
I can believe she is at that point. Some of her followers… yeah. Not so sure.
JohnGalt23 on November 21, 2012 at 1:11 PM
When I look at all these possible candidates Jindal is the one who stands out. He may very well be the best governor in the country. He has gotten tremendous results down there in Louisiana and his political instincts are top notch. He won reelection with 65% of the vote. I read his book about a year ago and I highly reccomend it. The guy is very sharp. That said if Rubio wants it and does not implode like Rick Perry did he is going to be very hard to stop. Fine with me. 2016 may very well be the year the Dems will be running the old white person and the GOP will be running the exciting young minority candidate. The difference will be that our candidate will actually be qualified for the job.
As for Palin no way and no how. She would be Christine O’Donnell on a national scale. Forget it. She blew it when she ran away from her job after only serving half her term. Also over 60% of the public does not think she is close to being qualified for the job. Nominating her is suicide and anyone who does not see that is nothing but a blind member of her personality cult.
kurtd on November 21, 2012 at 1:46 PM
Sadly this is true and it makes me ashamed of my fellow “conservative” women. Many of them here are Mittbots, BTW.
Speaking only for myself, however, I would run to the polls to vote for Palin. I can think of no other potential candidate whose views align as closely with mine. And I love that she regularly beats Obama like a rented mule.
NoLeftTurn on November 22, 2012 at 3:52 AM
Sorry, but anyone with eyes, ears and a brain knows that Sarah Palin is an unelectable ditz. I would love to see a Republican woman president, but I know Sarah Palin would have no chance of getting elected. I think we can do a lot better than the inarticulate, unprepared quitter Sarah Palin.
bluegill on November 22, 2012 at 7:33 AM
Very well said. Good luck trying to get some of these Palin worshipers to see the glaringly obvious truth.
bluegill on November 22, 2012 at 7:35 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4