His BIGGEST PROBLEM will be overcoming the 'hysterical females' problem where policy, past record, or pedigree DO NOT MATTER. This is a HUGE problem for the Republican candidate to overcome.. HUGE:
Posted on 03/06/2015 11:24:54 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
A question I often am asked is: "Who would you bet on to win the presidency?" Personally, I don't bet on politics, but here's my current take on the 2016 presidential race—with, of course, the caveat that we don't know which campaigns will turn out the best in terms of organization, strategy, tactics, or execution, much less which candidates will step on land mines along the way.
The Democratic nomination appears fairly straightforward. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now the prohibitive favorite. If her early stumbles during her book tour, or remarks like the one she made about being "dead broke" after leaving the White House, or impulses such as her inexplicable need to tell an audience of car dealers how many years it had been since she was behind the wheel, were to continue, that could change. (The question is whether she is merely rusty or whether she has truly lost her fastball.) For now, though, let's say there's a 90 percent chance that she'll win the Democratic nomination, and a 10 percent chance that the nod will go to someone else—currently in the mix or not.
Next comes the harder part: the Republican race. With a dozen prospects actively preparing bids and almost a half-dozen more at least contemplating running, it seems useful to try to organize the field. One way to approach the task is to treat it like the NCAA basketball tournament, with Final Four slots atop elimination brackets. There would be an Establishment bracket; a Tea Party/Populist Conservative bracket; a Social, Cultural, and Evangelical Conservative bracket; and, finally, a Secular/Conventional Conservative bracket for candidates who are considerably further to the right than those in the Establishment category but who fit snugly into neither of the other two.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is the clear favorite in the Establishment bracket, with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina also competing for this slot in the Final Four.
The next category, Tea Party/Populist Conservatives, is currently composed of Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky, along with retired pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson. Plausible cases can be made for either Cruz or Paul capturing this bracket; at this point, Paul seems to have the edge.
The Social, Cultural, and Evangelical Conservative bracket includes former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. Huckabee won the 2008 Iowa caucuses, but Santorum prevailed there in 2012. Early polling in key states gives Huckabee an edge here, but there is a real question about whether the winner of this bracket will have either the fundraising potential or the voter support to compete effectively with the other Final Four competitors.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is the early front-runner in the Secular/Conventional Conservative bracket; former Texas Gov. Rick Perry is the only other contender right now. Other possible entrants in this category include Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, and former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton.
Acknowledging that much will inevitably change, at this point Bush and Walker each seem to have about a 1-in-3 chance of winning the nomination—call it 35 percent for each. There's maybe a 1-in-5, or 20 percent, chance that the nod will go to any tea-party candidate, so let's give Cruz and Paul each a 10 percent chance. The rest of the field gets the remaining 10 percent; right now, that's what I estimate is the likelihood that someone other than one of the aforementioned four will win the nomination.
It isn't yet clear whether the dominant theme of the general election will be "Time for a Change" or "Changing American Demographics." The strong pattern of throwing the "in party" out after two terms suggests it will be the former and that the GOP will prevail. If the second theme overshadows the first, however, it will be advantage Democrats: They won the popular vote in five of the past six presidential elections, and the electoral vote in four out of six. Under the "Time for a Change" scenario, Republicans would have upward of a 60 percent chance of winning the White House; if the nation goes for "Changing American Demographics," however, the Democrats could see a similar advantage. If we split the difference, that gives each party a 50-50 chance of winning the presidency.
If Clinton has a 90 percent chance of winning the Democratic nomination, and Democrats have a 50-50 chance of winning the White House, Clinton arguably has roughly a 45 percent chance of being the next president. If Bush and Walker each have a 35 percent shot at the GOP nod, that suggests each has a 1-in-6, or 17.5 percent, chance at the White House. Cruz, Paul, and the rest of the field collectively each have a 10 percent chance of winning the GOP nomination, which in turn gives them each a 5 percent chance of becoming president.
Of course, there is no science here, and this is not a prediction—it is just a framework that can be used to start a conversation. Most die-hard Democrats will likely argue that their side has a better-than 50-50 shot, while rock-ribbed Republicans no doubt feel their side has a strong advantage. But at this early stage, anybody placing a bet would be taking a major gamble.
Cruz to victory......
His BIGGEST PROBLEM will be overcoming the 'hysterical females' problem where policy, past record, or pedigree DO NOT MATTER. This is a HUGE problem for the Republican candidate to overcome.. HUGE:
Would be nice but Scott Walker has beat expectations with his momentum.
Early betting on the 2016 Presidential campaign.
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
LOL, Charlie doesn't even mention the private email system that subverted the national security system and can be used as direct evidence of treason on an absolutely unprecedented scale, literally offering up every classified document in the US government going though the office of the Secretary of State to foreign countries, multinationals and hackers.
But to Democrats - it's beneath notice.
Let's see if their stonewalling works this time.
Charlie’s got lots of columns to write before anything he says has any basis in anything
Those redheads are the shizzle.
....I do believe Ted Cruz is the smartest of the lot....still months from deciding....however, don’t let the MSM make up your mind for you...can’t believe much of what they print or the pundits say. All candidates need to talk about the United States Constitution....so far crickets.
There are odds in Vegas casinos where people must put up real money. Where are those numbers?
Not to mention the political website that does the same.
A large proportion of them will swoon over ANYONE that the TV and their friends approve of. Hillary isn't cute, telegenic, polite, or talented. Her ONLY connection to the Swooners is the worship by the TV because she is a woman. That will bring out more of the feminzis than the Swooners.
Here are numbers from Paddy Power, a real on-line bookie operating in Ireland, where book making is legal. (They don’t take American bets)
Jeb Bush 6/4
Marco Rubio 9/2
Scott Walker 5/1
Rand Paul 6/1
Chris Christie 6/1
Paul Ryan 12/1
Ted Cruz 16/1
Bobby Jindal 25/1
Rick Perry 25/1
There are many more with worse odds.
Gov. Arnold is 80/1 - and of course is Constitutionally ineligible. Maybe some European Freepers can make some money on this.
I don’t think Walker will win the nomination. I think Bush will. That’s just the way Republican nominations work or at least how they’ve worked since Reagan finished. As much as I’d like to see Ted Cruz, or Walker, get the nomination I don’t think it’s going to happen
I love that picture. Always reminds me of a Bill Clinton rally.
Agreed. The Cheap Labor Express has already paid the RNC for an amnesty candidate.
I hope I’m wrong, but nobody thought McCain would be nominated in 2007 after pushing amnesty TWICE.
Or the author of Romneycare in 2012, essentially undermining the top issue.
The RNC/GOP are going to deliver another amnesty candidate as they have for the past 4 elections.
We will not be allowed to elect a President who will stop the invasion.
Those women in the picture remind me of some big mouth bass that I caught, but he big mouth bass were not wearing knee pads.
What odds on not making it to the elections at all?
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.