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 Next »
People with extreme positions on abortion are unelectable. Some clown from IL who voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act went down in flames a few years back.
Kataklysmic on November 21, 2012 at 11:21 AM
Linda McMahon/Tommy Thompson 2016
Electable moderates baby!!!!!! Wooooooooo!!!!!!!
topdawg on November 21, 2012 at 11:21 AM
Very good point..
Dire Straits on November 21, 2012 at 11:21 AM
Mine doesn’t either. Here in the People’s Republic of New Jersey, our primaries are so late that most people have forgotten who made up the primary field in the first place.
Right Mover on November 21, 2012 at 11:22 AM
I wish Palin had run in ’12, but she didn’t. I think she may try for ’16, but that’s a loong way off yet.
I can see her exclusion from this list, as she hasn’t been making any Iowa trips recently, haven’t heard anything about new policy speeches being scheduled, etc.
However, I would like to offer my perspective on 2012. I think she decided to support Perry or another conservative, and he flopped & the other options got steamrolled by the Romney machine. His camp also shut her out of the Tampa convention, etc. She offered public comments supporting Romney over Obama, and we all know how that story ends…
She may choose to sit out public office, could run for another position (try to take out Begich in 2014? something else?) or fire Sarahpac back up for the 2014 midterms as a way to stay in the mix. (It is interesting that Sarahpac kind of went dark for the last half of ’12 in some ways, but still has significant infrastructure/support available as far as I know…)
I guess time will tell.
cs89 on November 21, 2012 at 11:23 AM
Yeah yeah, and Jar Jar Binks wants to beat her up and tell her to get some dignity, for Chrissakes. Right.
And you claimed recently that you’d actually vote for her if she were to become the GOP nominee someday. Right.
Aitch748 on November 21, 2012 at 11:23 AM
So point me out some of Romney’s totally in-depth, uncliched and entirely specific discussions of the issues, preferably with someone other than Fox News.
ddrintn on November 21, 2012 at 11:24 AM
All the romneycare suckups (bluegill, etc.), who over the last 4 years who told us Palin was unelectable but a liberal was, you HAVE NO CREDIBILITY.
Palin is the only fighter the GOP has. If it wasn’t for the GOP establishment my bet she would have taken Satan out.
Now as to 2016. We have no clue what will happen. I prefer to see who is the most conservative and go from their. I hope Palin runs so she can shut her critics up. I DON’T WANT SOMEBODY THE ROMNEYCARE FOOLS LIKE OR THE LIBERAL MEDIA PROPS UP!!!
Danielvito on November 21, 2012 at 11:24 AM
Ummm.. Jeb Bush’s name is Jeb Bush. His brother was President.. Remember him? His brother was not very popular in his second term. Hence Jeb Bush is going to be stuck with his brother’s legacy. Not to mention we don’t have a royal family.
Illinidiva on November 21, 2012 at 11:25 AM
She bombed in several major interviews during the 2008 campaign, and she continues to be unable to discuss issues in a way that isn’t totally shallow and clichéd.
bluegill on November 21, 2012 at 11:19 AM
Look, you’ll keep positing your anti Palin views on this
website until further notice, and I’ll keep defending
her on here until further notice….
…the ONLY thing that will change that venue is
FOR HER TO RUN.
ToddPA on November 21, 2012 at 11:26 AM
Counting the libtard trolls out = fine.
Counting out the majority of the right and indies who KNOW she’s an unelectable ditz who would be completely destroyed = you’re an idiot.
MelonCollie on November 21, 2012 at 11:28 AM
Yeah, I do…he won nationally, twice. And Jeb himself was elected in statewide elections…twice. When has conservative mega-intellectual Paul Ryan ever won even a statewide race? If electability’s the thing, then Ryan’s gotta go.
ddrintn on November 21, 2012 at 11:28 AM
1) No one who ran for prez in 2012.
2) No one named Bush.
That is all.
alwaysfiredup on November 21, 2012 at 11:29 AM
Heh.
Romney went to Sea World, saw the ORCA Whale and started to cry & sob uncontrollably.
portlandon on November 21, 2012 at 11:29 AM
I think you might be missing the point. Just because somebody selects the candidate they believe is the most electable and the candidate who represents his/her values, it doesn’t mean that the candidate is guaranteed to win. We pick the most electable candidate, relative to the rest of the field. Look, Romney didn’t win, but Newt and Santorum may very well have done even worse. So, your argument is not very strong.
There you go with your “true conservative” talk. Good luck finding someone to pass your purity litmus test. Well, maybe you think that a so-called “true conservative” would be the most electable. That’s fine. I am so tired of some of you saying that you don’t want to be told how to vote. Nobody is going to physically require you to vote a certain way.
I think it is important to look at the whole picture when selecting a candidate. Maybe you agreed with Christine O’Donnell and Todd Akin nearly 100% of the time, but how did they turn out as candidates?
bluegill on November 21, 2012 at 11:30 AM
LOL, I get the feeling that the Klown Kar is revving up again. There may be 50 or more candidates by next year.
ddrintn on November 21, 2012 at 11:31 AM
You simply don’t know how she would run a 2 year presidential campaign, because she’s never run one before. Her Alaska camapigns were very well done. She wasn’t in charge in 2008.
alwaysfiredup on November 21, 2012 at 11:31 AM
That’s B.S. She “bombed” in interviews that were conducted over six-hour periods and then hacked up into small segments to make her look bad.
You know, just the same way the left-wing media colluded to disrupt your boy Mitt’s comment about Benghazi and terrorism in debate No. 2 by having Candy Crowley just happen to be holding the “transcript” in her hands.
And “bombing” in interviews has absolutely nothing to do with competence on the job. Barack Obama speaks in deep, mellifluous tones that have deceived many voters into believing he is actually competent, rather than the incompetent, lazy sociopath he really is.
I’m not saying Sarah Palin should be the nominee, but I am saying it’s time we started thinking outside the box, because the conventional, next-in-line method the GOP consultant class has of anointing nominees is not working, and has not given us an actual conservative nominee in 28 years now.
Right Mover on November 21, 2012 at 11:31 AM
WHAT????? Romney was a guaranteed lead-pipe cinch.
ddrintn on November 21, 2012 at 11:32 AM
On the list, about the only one I would support at this time is Perry. Most of the rest I would pretty much pan.
Ryan is a big government permanent deficit lover.
Rubio thinks socialism is a legitimate choice.
Rand Paul is a Nut that did not fall far enough from the Lunatic Tree.
Rick Santorum, while preferable to Romney is not much so.
Bush I destroyed conservatism post Reagan, Newt brought it back to life, only to have Bush II do an even better job of destroying it, so I would have to just say NO to Bush III period.
Palin… I would vote for her, most certainly.
astonerii on November 21, 2012 at 11:34 AM
Your words – “Ryan is uncharismatic damaged goods”.
By your wisdom, above/bolded, so is Sarah Palin. She sure is a charismatic woman.
So, whom do you have in mind now?
Schadenfreude on November 21, 2012 at 11:34 AM
Wonderful. Another 4 years of delusional praise for Palin. I wish she would just come out and tell her followers it ain’t going to happen. Less pain for all of us.
sherry on November 21, 2012 at 11:34 AM
But lots more gain for her. I love Capitalism.
Schadenfreude on November 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM
MelonCollie on November 21, 2012 at 11:28 AM
Maybe your tag should be melonhead. Palin was the lead voice accross the nation in the 2010 midterm elections. She led a landslide win. She appeared with almost all nominated senate candidates and backed many house winners. The freakin RNC asked her to keynote two fundraisers a week before the election in Ca, & florida to raise much needed money.
All this time Romneycare, your boy, was invisible. What thanks did she get helping elect a new majority in the house. She was blackballed by the establishment because it was preordained Romneycare was the nominee.
Palin, is the only GOP candidate that can reach middle america. You Melonhead are a moron!!!
Danielvito on November 21, 2012 at 11:36 AM
LoLz..Do you have to ask??..
Dire Straits on November 21, 2012 at 11:36 AM
NO more Bushs, Clintons, Obamas, none, ever!!!
Schadenfreude on November 21, 2012 at 11:37 AM
It’s a logical question, based on ddrintn’s own logic.
Schadenfreude on November 21, 2012 at 11:37 AM
Not really helpful.
alwaysfiredup on November 21, 2012 at 11:37 AM
Can’t guarantee that..
Dire Straits on November 21, 2012 at 11:38 AM
How does she gain? I was always puzzled by that anti-Palin bit of doggerel: she was somehow getting rich by not entering the primaries. Then she didn’t get in because she could make more money by not getting in, even though she was making money hand over fist by not getting in.
ddrintn on November 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM
I like Ryan, I like Rubio (I think), I like Rand Paul, I like Palin. If these are the four options on the stage in 2016, we should count ourselves very, very lucky.
Chris Christie needs to STFU.
That is all.
alwaysfiredup on November 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM
What does this make you?
Schadenfreude on November 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM
^ And if she had gotten in, it would’ve only been because she loved the money and attention.
ddrintn on November 21, 2012 at 11:40 AM
Amen. A charade waiting to happen if he steps in.
sherry on November 21, 2012 at 11:41 AM
ddrintn on November 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM
Answer my other question. If charisma is a downer, and she’s plenty charismatic, whom do you have in mind now?
The question of gains is self-evident. She played you last time.
I don’t hate her and have nothing against her, if she runs, or doesn’t. You must be more observant.
Schadenfreude on November 21, 2012 at 11:41 AM
You can’t win when you’re not in. She should have run the last time. She let you down. Have it out with her.
Schadenfreude on November 21, 2012 at 11:42 AM
Right. He was the uncharismatic tail-end of a ticket that lost embarrassingly. So why isn’t he being dismissed out of hand as unelectable?
ddrintn on November 21, 2012 at 11:42 AM
Schadenfreude on November 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM
It makes me pissed that Romneycare was our nominee and Satan got reelected for 4 more figgen years.
All the romneycare lovers at this sight made this happen. Not Palin!!!
Danielvito on November 21, 2012 at 11:42 AM
True. And I absolutely give her credit for effectively working it for herself and her family.
sherry on November 21, 2012 at 11:43 AM
Same here. It’s still a relatively free land, though a very stupid one.
Schadenfreude on November 21, 2012 at 11:44 AM
We deserve our “I told you so”s as much as the next person. I cannot tell you how many times we were told that America doesn’t want exciting, they want boring competence. Elections are not about competence. They are popularity contests. The level of depth required on any given topic is millimeters thick. Sound bites, pat answers, and awareness of when to attack and when to defend are what is needed, along with a few new program ideas. That’s it. Romney couldn’t win a popularity contest. Ryan probably could. Palin probably could. Rand Paul might be able to, although dissing the Civil Rights Act was not a good choice and will follow him around.
alwaysfiredup on November 21, 2012 at 11:44 AM
I didn’t think she was going to run anyway. You can check: I was predicting a Romney nomination and a Romney loss since 2009. He let you down. I’m just wondering how it could still be said that Sarah Palin is making more money by not getting into the race than by staying out. Care to elucidate?
ddrintn on November 21, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Shouldn’t we be focusing on how to try to stop boehner and company from neutering the conservatives in the House right now? Supposedly he has stacked the steering committee with his allies and they control the committee assignments, office budgets and even campaign funding. He wants to destroy the tea party members in the house since they stand in his way of caving into Obama’s demands. This is the story not being reported right now.
karenhasfreedom on November 21, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Answer my question. He’s out, because he’s uncharismatic. SP is very charismatic, therefore, by your logic, she’s out too.
So, by your logic, who’s next?
Schadenfreude on November 21, 2012 at 11:45 AM
+ a gazillion
ddrintn on November 21, 2012 at 11:46 AM
This is just more proof that Palin is running.
/obligatory
Good Lt on November 21, 2012 at 11:46 AM
Folks, we are seeing here why Sarah Palin, despite being the only person on the right with enough courage to rip the mask off the fraud that is Obama, can never be our nominee.
Because women can’t stand her. Liberal women, of course, hate her because she doesn’t believe in killing babies. But “conservative” women also hate her. Her most vocal critics on the right are the Ann Coulters, Nicole Wallaces, Jennifer Rubins and Kathleen Parkers of the world (as if any of them are actually “conservative”), whether that’s because of catty jealousy or some arcane reasoning that no male could ever decipher.
I think she’d be a great President because she actually loves this country, she takes no crap and she is not beholden to any special interest.
But she’d be a bad nominee because she would be destroyed from the inside—by the GOP ruling class and right-leaning women who’d rather lose than vote for her—before the left even got to her.
Right Mover on November 21, 2012 at 11:46 AM
I believe Obamacare was easy to beat;
*Obamacare
*8% unemployment
*16 trillion debt
*Bengazi
etc… etc…
However, what do the idiots in the RNC do, they back the father of Obamacare, Romneycare- TOOK THE ISSUE OFF THE TABLE, THE SAME ISSUE THAT WON THE MIDTERMS.
Then they nominate a rich blueblood, that played into obama’s class warfare meme.
Finally, they gave us a guy that had no grassroots support. His only votes were anti obama votes.
Now these same people are telling us how to proceed, you can’t make this sh*t up!!!
Danielvito on November 21, 2012 at 11:47 AM
When did I say charisma is a disqualifying factor? That would be you geniuses who were trying to turn Mitt’s fatal blandness into some sort of goofy asset.
ddrintn on November 21, 2012 at 11:47 AM
The question of gains is really not self-evident. She would have made more money by running, because it would have raised her profile. She’s not getting the publicity she used to, and that directly translates into income when you’re working in media.
alwaysfiredup on November 21, 2012 at 11:47 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »