Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The 2016 Republican Field: They Don’t All Suck
Red State ^ | 12/10/2014 | Eric Erickson

Posted on 12/10/2014 7:39:24 AM PST by SeekAndFind

On January 27, 2007, I wrote what remains one of the most read posts in RedState history. The title summed it up. “They All Suck”. In it, I noted that the field of Republican candidates then taking shape headed into the 2008 election were just terrible. Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Tom Tancredo, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) Heritage ActionScorecard Rep. Duncan HunterHouse Republican Average See Full Scorecard 68%, and Sam Brownback were a lightweight crew of candidates. as I noted:

They all suck. Let’s just admit it. Every one of the thus far announced Republican candidates for President sucks. From the lecherous adulterer to the egomaniacal nut job to the flip-flopping opportunist with the perfect hair to the guy who hates brown people to the guy we’ve never heard of to the guy who has a better chance of getting hit by a meteor while being consumed by a blue whale being struck by lightening.
They all suck. (Well, okay, Brownback doesn’t suck at all, but I perceive no viability for his candidacy.)

That post galvanized the following year of Presidential politics among conservatives. We saw other entrants into the field, but by and large the candidates were unaccomplished, only looking accomplished in light of the Democrats’ own nominee — a half-term Senator who spent more time voting present than doing anything.

Fast forward now to the field that is shaping up in 2016. We may very well have a race that includes Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, Mike Pence, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)Heritage ActionScorecardSen. Rand PaulSenate Republican AverageSee Full Scorecard 92%, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)Heritage ActionScorecardSen. Ted CruzSenate Republican AverageSee Full Scorecard94%, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)Heritage ActionScorecardSen. Marco RubioSenate Republican AverageSee Full Scorecard 81%. Others may join the race too. In fact, with the exception of Jeb Bush whose career in elected politics was ending as RedState was starting, it is worth noting that at some point RedState has raised money for and supported every single person on this list. It is a testament to our success as a site.

As it stands now, this will be one of the deepest, most experienced benches of Republican candidates since 1980 when the GOP fielded three governors, two congressmen, two senators, and the former CIA head/RNC chief. We will have six governors looking, five of whom will have served or be in their second term. There will be three senators who’ve been able to galvanize various parts of the right. And there still may be others. More so, of the governors, all will have been economically successful within their states during rocky national economics. They’ll stand in sharp contrast to any field of Democrats.

Frankly, this goes to why national parties see-saw. With Barack Obama, the Democrats’ bench became very shallow through a series of major defeats in 2010 and 2014. They were not able to make up ground in 2012. Meanwhile, the Republican bench has been growing and deepening for some time.

Conservatives may view each of the candidates differently. Some will be more liked by the base than others. But every one of them would be well qualified to be President and to stand up to any Democrat, be it Hillary Clinton or someone else.

I am excited about the 2016 field in a way I have not been excited about either the 2008 or 2012 fields. The media will not be able, this year, to talk about a weak Republican field, though they may try. This is also a reason the major Republican donors might want to rethinking trying to consolidate the field quickly. The candidate who will do best in the general will be the candidate who can win the small dollar donors, not the large dollar donors.

With so many gubernatorial picks, the mega-donors of the GOP might want to see which of them can break through and connect to the small dollar donors on their own terms. The odds are always, in a Republican primary, with Governors. Letting them go at it alone, relying on their own bases of funding and messaging, will have a way of shaking up the race and thinning the herd in a way productive to both the interests of the conservative base and the less conservative mega-donors.


TOPICS: Campaign News; Issues
KEYWORDS: 2016; gop; president; republicans
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 next last
To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free
The fix is in

You're too pessimistic. You may recall how the elite wanted Nelson Rockefeller in 1964 and 1968 and George Bush or John Connally in 1980--but they came up short.

21 posted on 12/10/2014 8:19:42 AM PST by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: taildragger

No lawyers, no Ivy Leaguers.
I like your list!


22 posted on 12/10/2014 8:22:18 AM PST by nascarnation (Impeach, Convict, Deport)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
loudracket.com

23 posted on 12/10/2014 8:23:36 AM PST by Jeff Chandler (Doctrine doesn't change. The trick is to find a way around it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I've never thought this slogan was all that great. But the Repubs have owned it for some time....
Vote Republican - We Suck Less!

24 posted on 12/10/2014 8:25:47 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
I want to wrap it up so that we don't end up with "massholes" going up to NH and voting for a McCain type again, and sticking us with that pile of mush again. I wish the RNC would pull a cranal-rectal-otomy and hold their own debates with guys like Rush, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager asking real questions Not little George Steffy, please. I want a chance to vote for a "Reaganite" just once again before I take a dirt-nap.

And oh yah, the E-GOP thinks that 12' was bad with 4 million staying home. Bawwahh LOL! they have no idea how many will stay home if they stick us with Bobby Bacala ( christie ) or Jeb or any of the other lightweights that need to hang it up and give it up trying to be a wannabee.

Yes I am a condescending and nasty about some of our supposed candidates, but I am so over my country being turned into something to the left of Stalinist Russia, and I am so over these supposed candidates egos.

We have leaders (Pence, Walker) we don't need Rove-K-Street-E-GOP-Chamber of Commerce Toadies to muck it up.

25 posted on 12/10/2014 8:25:52 AM PST by taildragger (Not my Circus, Not my Monkey ( Boy does that apply to DC...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: taildragger

Why Scott Walker?

His surrendering to the Black Robed Thugs on queer marriages in his state is a deal-breaker.


26 posted on 12/10/2014 8:29:18 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: taildragger
We need Senate Majority leader Ted Cruz, but that is just my 2 cents...

That would be a.) a waste of talent and b.) unlikely -- most of the GOP Senators hate his guts.

27 posted on 12/10/2014 8:34:03 AM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: taildragger
I have no problem with either Pence or Walker but neither is a particularly barn burner type of speaker....Ted Cruz is and won't miss opportunities to rebuke his adversaries like the moderates seem to always do. He is much in the tradition of Newt without the baggage!!
28 posted on 12/10/2014 8:57:36 AM PST by ontap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
If a candidate supports abortion . . . amnesty . . . gun control . . . socialized medicine . . . bigger federal government, the candidate is liberal. I won't be voting for a liberal.

Good list. I'm not a fan of murdering babies. Amnesty will destroy the country, guaranteeing a flood of voters who have not assimilated or accepted American values. Gun control removes our freedom to defend our families from criminals and to disagree with an overbearing government that violates the Constitution. Socialized medicine will bankrupt the country while giving FedGov far too much power over our lives. And big government is a general term that includes all of the above and similar problems. There is enough evil in the world without generating extra liberalism in Washington DC.

29 posted on 12/10/2014 9:01:35 AM PST by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ontap
So you think the media won't crucify the others.....I don't give a rats ass what the liberal media does.....he is the best of the lot hands down.

Right on.

30 posted on 12/10/2014 9:29:40 AM PST by TangoLimaSierra (To win the country back, we need to be as mean as the libs say we are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: taildragger

While Hewitt and Prager are better than the typical liberals, they are closer to RINOs than conservatives. Hewitt is a Romeny shill in case you were wondering. Medved from that same Salem Radio Network sounds more like a libertarian. I’d like to see Michelle Malkin, Trey Gowdy and Louis Gohlmert moderating. That would shake things up.


31 posted on 12/10/2014 9:39:13 AM PST by Blue Highway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free
Anybody who expects the GOP Elite to nominate a conservative for 2016 needs to have their head examined.

Does my new obamacare cover head examinations?

I expect to vote for Ted Cruz, but maybe he's too moderate for your tastes.

32 posted on 12/10/2014 9:50:26 AM PST by USS Alaska (Exterminate the terrorist savages, everywhere.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Blue Highway

Yes I pretty much agree. Yes Hewitt is a Romneybot, but compared to a Thomas Friedman types? Imagine Doc Savage, Howie Carr, or P.J. O’Rourke on the Dias, LOL! Now that would shake things up!!!


33 posted on 12/10/2014 11:46:43 AM PST by taildragger (Not my Circus, Not my Monkey ( Boy does that apply to DC...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

No governors.


34 posted on 12/11/2014 4:54:47 AM PST by Lisbon1940
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: taildragger
I love Ted but the media will crucify him.

Our fear of the media is overblown - not in regards to their influence, but to the level that it matters who we pick. To wit: the media portrayed Romney as being further to the right than Cruz actually is.

35 posted on 12/11/2014 4:59:13 AM PST by kevkrom (I'm not an unreasonable man... well, actually, I am. But hear me out anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lisbon1940
No governors.

Um... I'll bite. Why not? Isn't executive experience a good thing to want in a potential President?

36 posted on 12/11/2014 5:00:20 AM PST by kevkrom (I'm not an unreasonable man... well, actually, I am. But hear me out anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free
Abandon Hope because Jeb Bush or some other socialist light pansy is going to be the next US president. NOT a Conservative.

I agree. The only addition I'd make is Romney. He's making "I'm running again" noises. We'll be stuck with Romney or Bush

I'd love to see Walker or Cruz. but have no confidence that those will be in our final choices. We voted a resounding "NO!" on Obama's policies a month ago and we already have the GOPe ignoring it.

Our voices mean nothing.....

37 posted on 12/11/2014 5:04:32 AM PST by CAluvdubya (<------- has now left CA for NV, where God and guns have not been outlawed! Molon Labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

By definition they favor government.


38 posted on 12/11/2014 5:29:45 AM PST by Lisbon1940
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Lisbon1940
By definition they favor government.

Technically, no, it doesn't. It means that they have governed. You can make the argument that this means that they tend to favor government, but it is not actually part of the definition.

The same logic would say that anyone who's ever held elective office is ineligible because they "favor government", which would mean handing the most powerful political office in the world to someone with absolutely no political experience or track record to judge him/her on.

I can't say that I think that's a good idea, on the whole.

39 posted on 12/11/2014 5:36:29 AM PST by kevkrom (I'm not an unreasonable man... well, actually, I am. But hear me out anyway.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

Senators and Congessmen don’t govern.


40 posted on 12/11/2014 5:42:42 AM PST by Lisbon1940
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson