Here are the odds for the 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination

[DemocratSinceBirth]

http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016RepNomination


Who do we want to run against?

[still_one]

1. Bachman, but it will be jeb bush

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. If you can find a house that will give you 300-1 odds and she won you would be rich./NT

[still_one]

11. Unfortunately jeb bush will be their boy, and I have no doubt the media will rewrite history

[yeoman6987]

21. I hope it is someone who cannot speak Spanish

I am not being racist at all. In fact, I would love the Democratic nominee to speak Spanish. I worry if Bush, Rubio, Cruz gets the nomination. I don't care how crazy we think they are. I saw Rubio in a big auditorium with 10s of thousands of Hispanics speaking to them in Spanish and they loved him. We need to be very careful on our hopes of who the Republican nominee is.

[onehandle]

2. Paul, but it will be Rubio.

Hillary will dispatch him, handily.

However many Latinos might go for Rubio, because he is 'Latino.'

Careful...

[Ink Man]

16. It could help, but.

Please don't lump all Spanish speaking people together. I live in So Cal and Mexicans don't like Cubans. The Mexicans think the Cubans look down on them.

[onehandle]

19. I just don't want the Party to take Latinos for granted.

Perception can make for bias.

[JustAnotherGen]

4. With some of the names on that list

I can't even take it seriously -

You are looking at Bush, Paul, Portman, - maybe Christie - and one that I think is not on there at all.

Really - Nikki Haley run for President and get anywhere near the nomination from her Party? Marco Rubio for that matter who is pretty much detested by his fellow elected Pubs but not the people who vote for him? Jindal - nope nope nope - he's too 'foreign' for them.

Now I could see Martinez or Rice as a running mate. . .

[BlueStater]

9. Jindal is an extremely unpopular governor with approval ratings in the 30s.

I don't even know why he's still considered at this point.

[Mass]

5. Bachman or Scott Brown, but it will not be them.

Both will have a contract on Fox.

[Sheepshank]

6. I think Jon Huntsman would be the real threat.

...but the baggers would never approve of him, so his nomination or lack thereof will be safe.

I have a strong suspicion that the Baggers are emboldened and think that this whole midterm was a referendum on their governing policies...and they will fight for a very wild eyed conservative. it will be their undoing.

[JustAnotherGen]

8. Not only that

The big money people in politics won't approve of him either.

He ripped the bandaid off of the Republican party - as late as last month. Unless . . .

[Sheepshank]

12. I've heard rumblings that he may move Independent

that should hurt more than help any Republican vying for office.

Let him screw with them. He has plenty of money, he really doens't need the job, but he dislikes their current tack.

[JustAnotherGen]

18. I've heard the same thing

I think he might take them off guard late next year - see what kind of 2K to 10K donors No Labels gets.

[merrily]

7. If it's Bush-Clinton in 2016, I just may leave the country.

[Nay]

15. I've been predicting this pairing for 2016 for a number of years. To me, it's

the end game in a sclerotic, last-gasp semi-democracy. Bush-Clinton? Really? That's all we have, out of 350 million people? It's the end, folks.

[merrily]

17. Many have predicted it, joked about it, etc. Even Barbara Bush said

it's time for the Presidency to stop being in the hands of a few families. Ya think?

I am not kidding. The Adams men were one thing. The population was a lot less then and people saw public service as a sacrifice, not as hitting the lottery. I would not have minded President Ted Kennedy instead of Reagan. The Bush-Bush thing was a mega mistake.

One more attempt at making the Oval Office a family business, though, and I will have to give emigrating very serious consideration, but most especially if it's Clinton Bush.

[Nay]

22. I can't leave the country because it would mean leaving my little grandson, even

though I do have Canadian citizenship as well. Frankly, I'd love to live in Canada and I rue the day, way back when, when we decided to stay in this godforsaken country.

[merrily]

23. Awww. I don't know that I could leave a grandchild, either.

Maybe your grandbaby will take your mind off politics.

You have to think ahead. When my son was an infant, he had some asthma. I practically bronzed the medical records of that, in case anyone ever tried to draft him. (Yes, I know it's abolished, but the same people who abolished it can reinstate it)

Now, he has only allergies, but that's living in places like Boston and L.A. Who knows what might happen if they plunked him into some rural area? So, I hang onto those records for dear life. O

[Nay]

25. It doesn't help that the boy is an absolute angel, and smart, too!! How can a

grandma leave that??? Well, she can't......he lives 3 blocks away and I see him often.

[merrily]

27. Give him a smooch for me!

[Runningdawg]

31. I wouldn't leave the country

if we end up with a Clinton/Bush ticket. But DAMN seeing those 2 names together will convince some of the people on the fence that elections are a sham and their vote doesn't matter. The same 2 OLD names on a ballot wont't motivate the new voters. For the first time I will truly feel my vote for a Dem is the lesser of 2 evils and not a vote of confidence.

[bigwillq]

10. If we go by these polls, it will be Bush v. Clinton

[wandy]

13. Any way you look at that table it'll make your skin crawll. nt

[NightWatcher]

14. Bush/Clinton? Be honest, I'm stoned and this is a bad trip?

Too bad Hunter Thompson had his remains shot into space, else we could reanimate him for some good commentary

[AlinPA]

20. Bush is not crazy enough for the GOP. Cruz is more like what the teabagger crazies want.

[merrily]

24. So far, Teabaggers have not had their way with the Republican POTUS nomination.

Romney was very much suspected, for his religion and for his record as Governor of Massachusetts. (For one thing, he actually appointed a Democrat to the bench.) Also, in 1994, he had run against Kennedy as pro-choice. (Or, as Kennedy said: "He was anti-choice, he was pro-choice, he was multiple choice.)

That's the thing with Republicans like Romney and Brown who try to have it every which way in a blue state. It doesn't win over Democrats, but it puts off Republicans.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

26. Mitt Romney's #3?

Really?

Textbook insanity if that's the case.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. You're not ready for Mitt 3.0/NT

[Proud Public Servant]

28. It's going to be Kasich (nt)

[Man from Pickens]

29. being realistic there's only a few names there that could put up a serious fight

Bush, Paul, Walker, Romney, Christie, and Cruz.

I specifically do not include Rubio because he is seriously junior-league and it shows.

Cruz would be the biggest gamble on their part. That's the all-in conservative-nationalist option. I have a feeling he's more inclined to go for Senate leadership than take the plunge, though.

The difficulty of Bush as an opponent will vary depending on our nominee. If our nominee is another Clinton, then we lose a major advantage in running against another Bush. I think the reverse is true as well, if we nominate Clinton, the GOP will get the benefit of the "sick of yesterday's politicians" theme. Either party that makes the mistake of recycling last decade's politicians will pay big for it if the other does not make that mistake. Bush vs. someone-besides-Clinton is probably one of our best potential matchups.

Walker is probably the most difficult opponent to face. Paul would be a wildcard and would likely shake up the existing political alignment the most and create the most difficult-to-predict outcome. Romney might be viewed as a relatively safe option, his campaign would be to Obama-buyer's remorse. Christie I think is similar to Walker but weaker.