My GOP 2016 quickie candidate analysis:

Christie: at times impresses with his comm skills and ability to break through the MSM filter with a conservative message; more often, he depresses with his loose-cannon-ness and triangulation against other conservatives

Ryan: solid communicator who proved himself a deft campaigner with skills better than his ticket-mate. Will struggle to keep himself in the news over the next few years. Needs to articulate a conservative vision beyond fiscal issues.

Rubio: at his best, he’s the best communicator in the GOP. Is adept at showing vision, but needs to do more to demonstrate his nitty-gritty policy bonafides. Also, he needs to show more toughness and leadership to offset concerns about inexperience.

Jindal: Is probably literally the smartest guy the GOP could nominate in 2016. He’s got a great governance record in Louisiana. Very quick on his feet and able to argue for conservatism both from fundamental principles as well as in policy details. Suffers from a weak TV image – needs to work on projecting a “commander-in-chief” mien. Also, needs to find a way to stay visible and to raise money to compete with those with stronger national profiles.

Walker: Probably not too early to label him the great potential dark horse of 2016. Could be a grassroots darling. Has a great personal story as well as governance story of taking the unions best shot and defeating them. Has a key biography flaw: never graduated from college. Tricky to see how that plays with an electorate steeeped in culture celebrating educational attainment. Could work to his advantage if he’s aggressive in defining himself before the MSM gets to work on him. Will face challenges raising campaign $$.

Perry: Increasingly looks like he will run again. Lost in his ’12 performance is the fact that the guy is a tremendous retail campaigner and is a full-spectrum conservative. Will have to go above-and-beyond in allaying doubts about his intellect for ’16.

Gingotts on January 4, 2013 at 10:10 PM

Walker: I think Walker could be the only convincing candidate for 2016, though he would leave office in the midst of his 2nd term.

Jindal: I have no idea what people see in Jindal. Yes I think he is a good Governor from all I hear, but everytime I see him give a speech Im extremely underwhelmed. I think he is the Southern Pawlenty: a reasonably good Governor, but a candidate that only looks good on paper.

Christie: If he runs he will be the Biff Huntsman of 2016

DeMint: I think he is done with electoral politics and Im not so sure that he ever had presidential ambitions.

Daniels: Too moderate on social issues. No fight.

Santorum: 2 time loser. Huckabee would have better chances to lead the socons in 2016.

Pawlenty: Good on paper, thats it.

Ryan: I dont see a congressman winning the nomination. Ryan probably knows that. He might have had a chance last year to be the nominee but we wont be as desperate in 2016. The field wont be good, but the candidates will look more credible than last year.

the Republican impeachment disaster ultimately helped elect George W. Bush. It did so in two ways. First, although Americans blamed Republicans more for the debacle, it made everyone in Washington look awful.

Who are these “Americans” of which he speaks?

Bush won because the Republicans who usually stay home appreciated the Republicans’ moxie in impeaching the dirt bag Clinton.

Internally split? Don’t tell me you’re falling for the media spin. This party is lockstep.

Dante on January 4, 2013 at 10:00 PM

If the Republican party was in lockstep, Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle would both be sitting Senators right now. Likewise, Mitt Romney would be president. The base has started walking away from the party.

Good luck purging the crazies.

Pablo Honey on January 4, 2013 at 10:01 PM

That’s just what the Republicans need right now with the social conservatives virtually expelled from the party and the fiscal conservatives now being labelled as lunatics and gradually pushed out – MORE party purges. You guys really would rather lose elections to keep pleasing the liberals, don’t you?

Uhuuh and who is this outsider that will win in 2016 by running against Dems and Reps in DC? The more I think about our chances in 2016 the more desperate it actually looks. Like last year there wont be a clear conservative choice. So conservative dwarfs will once again fight it out amongst each other and another lonely moderate will win by default.

Valkyriepundit on January 4, 2013 at 10:00 PM

Any of our GOP Govs are positioned for that. Walker and Jindal in particular (and Christie but no way for him). DeMint could do it. Daniels, Santorum, and Pawlenty are still around too I guess. Although I’m not necessarily buying into this premise that Paul Ryan is purposely strengthening his primary challengers.

Otherwise, candidates running for President will try to position themselves as outsiders using a message of Washington being broken. You know… like happens every four years.

Good luck purging the crazies.

Pablo Honey on January 4, 2013 at 10:01 PM

The Democrats embrace theirs.