March Madness, Presidential Election Version
Over at the Washington Post's "The Fix" blog, Chris Cillizza -- assuming President Obama's reelection for the sake of a symmetrical analysis -- has created the "Sweet 2016," a bracket for the eight leading contenders for each party's 2016 presidential nomination should they both be open contests.
Here are his seeds for the Republican side of the race, along with my thoughts:
1. Marco Rubio --Exactly right for the one seed. It's the rare politician who awakens within even casual observers near-universal recognition that he's cut from presidential timber. Rubio -- young, articulate, whip smart, politically creative, dignified, handsome, boasting a compelling biography, combining Tea Party principles with enough political prudence to know which fights to embrace and which to ignore -- is one of those talented few. The consultant class will salivate over the prospect of having a Hispanic-American candidate at the top of the ticket, but Rubio's raw abilities would propel him to the top of the field regardless of the color of his skin.
2. Chris Christie-- By 2016, Christie may well be able to run a "reformer with results" campaign based on turning around New Jersey. He has a strong crossover appeal, attracting conservatives with his pugilistic rhetorical style but remaining enough of a blue state moderate to appeal to many people in the middle (if Mitt Romney had that kind of reach, his prospects for the fall would be much better). However, Christie has a handful of apostasies – support for gun control, belief in global warming, a soft position on illegal immigration, and his refusal to join the legal challenge to Obamacare among them – that could cost him in a contest where there is someone viable on his right flank.
3. Bob McDonnell– I have a very hard time seeing this one. McDonnell is the sort of politician who always ends up populating these sorts of speculative lists – a fairly successful governor of a swing state who has little distinctive to offer besides his resume. It’s difficult to see why any coherent bloc of voters would mobilize around him. Far more likely, I think, that he ends up in a cabinet position or as someone’s running mate.
4. Jeb Bush– By 2016, we’ll have spent nearly 10 years being told that Jeb Bush just has to wait for the right time to launch his presidential bid. Alas, I suspect his window of opportunity may be permanently closed. Bush was a terrific governor of Florida and could plausibly be said to offer conservatives more tangible value than either his father or his brother. But I suspect that the passage of time only works against him, as his accomplishments in the Sunshine State will seem increasingly distant (he’ll have been out of office for nearly a decade by the time the 2016 election rolls around) and the dyspepsia surrounding yet another Bush nomination will still be too much to handle for conservatives looking to turn over a new leaf.
5. Bobby Jindal –There’s no doubt that Jindal deserves consideration on the merits. He’s been a fine governor of Louisiana and possesses a first-rate mind. His main struggles have been stylistic, but that’s not an inconsequential factor in a presidential election. I’ll grant you that his 2009 response to President Obama’s address to Congress was a low-water mark, unrepresentative of his usual abilities. Still, anyone whose public speeches elicit comparisons to Kenneth the Page from “30 Rock” is going to have a hard time passing the implicit commander-in-chief test in most voters’ minds.
6. Rob Portman –Now a U.S. Senator from the key state of Ohio, Portman has previously been a Congressman, OMB Director, and U.S. Trade Representative. He is smart, disciplined, and extraordinarily talented. And he’s far too dry to ever work as a national candidate – a fact I suspect he has enough self-awareness to recognize. I don’t expect to see Portman pursue the presidency; I do expect to see him on the top of any sensible Republican’s vice presidential short list.
7. Susana Martinez– The pistol-packing Hispanic governor of the swing state of New Mexico has a unique demographic appeal and an eminently accessible personality. What’s unclear, however, is whether she has any national ambitions. Still, she’s a lot more compelling than most garden-variety politicians, which means that there will be some interest in her from Washington, even if the feeling isn’t mutual.
8. Rand Paul– There’s no doubt that Senator Paul is a better vessel for the libertarian message than his father, both because he more effectively distances himself from the fringe elements of the movement and because he seems to have a genuine interest in seeing how he can move the ball downfield in Congress (whereas Paul pere seems perfectly content to be a legislative gadfly). But if Rand wants to establish a reputation as a serious defender of principle, emulating his father’s quixotic presidential candidacies may not be the ideal way to go about it. Better instead, I think, to position himself as the successor to Jim DeMint, who will retire in 2016 (he’s essentially imposing term limits on himself), as the Tea Party’s de facto leader in the upper chamber.
What do you think of the choices? And the omissions (Paul Ryan is one conspicuous absence)? Let us know in the comments.
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: March Madness, Presidential Election Version
If Mr Obama remains for a second term, then by 2016 the country will have been fundamentally transformed, so the choice of Republican nominee will be moot.
Mr Ryan will have proposed his 6th budget, which will join the others in Mr Obama's waste basket. By then, Mr Ryan will realize his folly in not running for President in 2012.
Edited on March 20, 2012 at 7:28pmNov '10
Re: March Madness, Presidential Election Version
If Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin survives the recall election (as I now believe that he might) and continues his pursuit of fiscally responsible government, I think that he will and ought to considered in the first rank.
Jun '10
Re: March Madness, Presidential Election Version
Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio. But they both need executive experience first. I would like to see them run a state for a while first.
Jul '11
Re: March Madness, Presidential Election Version
Here is my list of important items for 2016 with the presumptive return of Obama.
1) Weapons, all varieties
2) Ammo
3) Food
4) Water
5) Medicines and health supplies
6) Solid prepared neighbors and friends
7) Energy sources, Radios
8) A Bible, Atlas Shrugged, and some poetry.
Your list Troy, solid as it may be, is the captain and head crew of the Titanic post ice berg.
Jul '10
Re: March Madness, Presidential Election Version
Presuming back-to-back losses by a McCain and a Romney and following four more years from the pinko in chief?
I know who I will wager on early to get great odds. She's hardly certain to run, but if Sarah enters in 2016, there is no Romney to split the headlines with, no one in that group (or Paul Ryan for that matter) has anything approaching the level of support in the GOP she does. I'd make Ryan the six seed, Sarah the seven, and I'd boot Portman and Paul.
I don't think she'll run, but the calls for her to would be much louder in that 2016 American dystopia Cillizza posits.
Edited on March 20, 2012 at 7:59pmFeb '11
Re: March Madness, Presidential Election Version
Chris Christie is off my list for anything except Governor of New Jersey. Once you move beyond state budgets, he has a host of major issue problems, and his in-your-face demeanor may be amusing but will not play well with large portions of the electorate.
As for Bush, I really don't care where he stands on anything because his national prospects are nil in a country suffering from a severe case of Bush fatigue.
Most of the rest need a lot more time to prove themselves. In a best case scenario, a Republican win in 2012 will push their windows of opportunity out to 2020. Eight years should thin the field considerably. If Obama manages reelection and the country somehow avoids DocJay's doom scenario, we will have to make do with whomever hasn't shot himself in the foot multiple times by 2016.
There is also plenty of room for other contenders, hopefully with more to their resumes than their first fifteen minutes of fame.
Edited on March 20, 2012 at 8:14pmMay '10
Re: March Madness, Presidential Election Version
If SCOTUS upholds ObamaCare, then which country will they be running for the presidency of?
Aug '10
Re: March Madness, Presidential Election Version
Paul Ryan should obviously be near the top of the list, probably right after Rubio.
I think I'd elevate Rand Paul a little higher. If he's heir to his father's devoted following, but moderates his message and delivers it better (he has a very good public persona and gives good speeches), then he could be a real force in four years.
Other than that, I think whoever gets picked for VP candidate this time around would have to be on the list next time unless he or she is a total dud.
My guess, though, is that after four more years of Obama the next candidate will come out of the woodwork from the business community. The country will be looking for someone who understands how to actually produce things and run an organization.
Aug '10
Re: March Madness, Presidential Election Version
Zoinks! That is uncanny.
Jun '10
Re: March Madness, Presidential Election Version
I can't see Rand Paul on any list that Paul Ryan isn't on. I know it's hard to run from the House, but Ryan is the exception that proves the rule.
I'm a Pat Toomey fan. What are his downsides?
Edited on March 20, 2012 at 8:51pmNov '10
Re: March Madness, Presidential Election Version
I love Christie in 90% of issues but he's off my wishlist for one reason, an apostacy you don't mention: He's not only soft on Islamist incursions into America, he's downright antagonistic to anyone who talks about the stealth jihad. I would say he's naive on the issue but I fear he knows quite well but has made a cynical calculation that there is political capital to be lost on that issue, he cannot afford to alienate the crossover Democrats any further than he has already on the union business, and he realises that one with a reputation for scrapping cannot sit on the fence -- he has to be all-in or all-out and the earlier he stakes out his position the better. Sorry, this is a serious issue and a serious threat -- it will not go away and will become more dire. The earlier a white house occupant commits to dealing with it realistically the easier it will be to counter.
But I think your slate is missing some important players
Bachmann
Palin
Walker
Perry (maybe)
Jul '11
Re: March Madness, Presidential Election Version
The why's and how's of full economic collapse are usually easy to see, even in foresight. The when is much more difficult. My top 8 list would include the highest ranking of the military as I predict a coup following our currency becoming nearly worthless. This is likely a few decades off but I'll pull for the upset candidate who won't need a single vote to be placed in power, Gen Petraeus.
Oct '10
Re: March Madness, Presidential Election Version
Any thoughts on Issa, Pence, or West?
Issa has been nothing short of pugilistic on the House Oversight Committee, taking the fight to the administration.
If Pence wins the Governorship in Indiana and follows in Daniels' footsteps, he would be able to make the case for successful conservative governance and shrinking government when the federal inclination was to the opposite. However, it may be bad form to leave office after two years. His speech at Hillsdale on the presidency is worth a watch.
And there is little to be said about West that has not been said by James Delingpole. So long as he is able to find a district to represent.
These examples might not be the top talent but I think speaks to the depth of the bench on are side. Question is how much time is left in the game?
Apr '11
Re: March Madness, Presidential Election Version
R. Craigen:
But I think your slate is missing some important players
Walker
Perry (maybe) · 4 hours
I agree with these two, and every word of Tabula Rasa's comment.
Portman, my personal hope for VP too, had the choice of running for Senator or Governor. He chose Senator, suggesting that he's not aiming for the top of the ticket (without a VP interlude). One of the things he gets attacked for, though, is Bush cooties from his time in OMB; it's my guess that in 2016, that'll be less unfortunate.
When I raise Gov. Martinez as my second choice for VP, though, I've been repeatedly told by people who've followed her that she's not high powered enough. I still like her, her performance and policies seem to have been good, and her identity politics are perfect (in particular, she's not Palin-good looking, which I think we probably need to avoid to attract the female vote), so I'd be keen to hear disagreement.
New Mexico is a small and poor state, though, and she's new, so if she was going to go for it, she'd have to start soon.
May '10
Re: March Madness, Presidential Election Version
Too depressing. I refuse to play.
May '11
Re: March Madness, Presidential Election Version
I sort of disagree with your assessment of Bob McDonnell. I actually happen to think he, more than anyone else on the list with the exception of Rubio, would make the best dark horse candidate if there's a contested convention in August. I outlined my thoughts on this in an earlier comment.
Jun '11
Re: March Madness, Presidential Election Version
There is little doubt in my mind that WHOMSOEVER is nominated for Numero Uno.. his choice for VP will undoubtedly be Marco Rubio