Ridiculously Early Discussion of Republican Race for President

The conversation about the 2016 presidential election began the morning after Barack Obama was elected to his second term. Most cried foul, after a withering process that came to an end the night before. Of course, political junkies couldn't help but raise the discussion, tossing out names on both sides, because it will be one of the those special years when there is no incumbent.

The Democratic race could be very easy to call if Hillary Clinton is in. Insiders say she is, despite her demurring. If she runs, a host of people (a lot of them women) will sit it out. Perhaps Joe Biden will run, which would be kind of foolish of him, but that would be Biden all over. If she doesn't run, we'll revisit this, as it will be a wide open contest.

The Republican race is already wide open, and after the CPAC conference of last weekend we can do a little tea leaf reading. The old saw is that Republicans go to the next in line, and that's largely true, depending on what "next in line" means. Basically, it means that Republicans almost always nominate a candidate who has run for president before. Since 1964, the beginning of the end of moderate Republicans, only two nominees had never previously run for president: Gerald Ford, in 1976, when he was already president, and George W. Bush. All others were battle tested.

So who, under these circumstances, would be next in line? The mind reels. Of candidates who have run, most would seem to have the sense to lay low or get jobs with Fox News. Perhaps Rick Santorum will run again, but it's hard to imagine a world where he could get the nomination. I don't think Mike Huckabee will ever run again.

What about Paul Ryan? You'll notice that "next in line" does not mean failed vice-presidential candidates. Since 1964, the only veep candidates, win or lose, that were nominated on their own were George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole, but both had had their own presidential candidacies before that (both in 1980). Names like William E. Miller, Spiro Agnew, Dan Quayle, Jack Kemp, and Sarah Palin have slipped into irrelevance (Quayle actually ran for president in 2000, but quit well before the first primary took place). Palin, after dithering, didn't run in 2012, and is now pretty much an entertainer more than a serious political threat.


That doesn't bode well for Ryan. Perhaps Republicans don't like the stench of failure. This isn't unique to them: the last president elected who had been a loser as VP on a previous ticket was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was the VP nominee in 1920.

Ryan, though, will probably run and be a viable candidate, as he continues to be a prominent spokesperson for the right wing. His budget is still hard-line conservative, i.e., cruel to the poor and disadvantaged. He will have supporters.
 
But some Republicans are sounding the alarm that Americans see them as narrow-minded, anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-science, and anti-gay. They are well behind the curve on some issues, such as gay marriage, and some gun control issues: 91 percent of Americans believe in the expansion of background checks for gun purchases, but all eight of the Republicans on the judiciary committee voted against it. These numbers can not sustain.

The reform candidate, should he run, and he appears likely to, is Jeb Bush, who spoke at CPAC to these issues. Bush will probably be the party establishment choice, and the recent tweaks to the electoral calendar--pushing primaries up front, so that it favors famous names with lots of money, helps him. His only big downside is his name--is it too soon, and will Bush fatigue linger?

Other than Ryan, I see two other candidates that will do some damage but will most likely be playing for VP. One is Rand Paul, who appears set to pick up the mantle of his father. But this Paul is not a libertarian--he's pure Tea Party. His recent stand against drones made him something of a name, and though I agree with him in principle, I choose to cynically believe that he wouldn't have made a peep had the president been Republican. His father did buck the party, especially on Iraq, but like Ron, Rand is full of weird ideas, and has ties to ugly racist and anti-government organizations.

The other possible candidate is Marco Rubio, who will be seen by some as the answer to the party's Latino problems. Rubio is firmly conservative, and while unsure of the age of the Earth, hasn't made too many other bizarre statements, at least not yet. He could get significant percentages in states like Florida, Arizona, and Texas, but he's likely to be running for Vice President.

There will be other names. Chris Christie is out there, but it's hard to see how the party will forgive him for praising Obama after Hurricane Sandy. There's John Thune of South Dakota, Mike Pence of Indiana, and who knows else. We can only be thankful that nutty Ted Cruz of Texas can't run--he was born in Canada.

My guess, at this early date, is that it will be Jeb Bush. But he won't be able to choose Rubio as his number two, unless one of them switches their state of residence (no elector can cast votes for president and vice president who come from the same state). I'm sure Jeb Bush has many residences he can choose from, so perhaps there will be a Bush/Rubio ticket.