Republicans Looking For 2016 Contenders, Poll Suggests Clinton Would Beat GOP Rivals in Iowa

ReasonReasonTo many people the 2016 elections may seem too far away to start with polling and serious discussions about possible contenders.

Not so for some Republicans, who have already begun the search for a candidate that will not repeat Mitt Romney’s 2012 performance. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is one of the Republicans being widely discussed as a possible presidential nominee, as are Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas). Republican Governors Chris Christie of New Jersey, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, and Scott Walker of Wisconsin are also contenders.

From Reuters:

(Reuters) - Seeking to raise money for the New Hampshire Republican Party, state chairwoman Jennifer Horn recently called the party's national boss, Reince Priebus, with a question: Could he get Rand Paul to visit?

The request, and Paul's appearance here last Monday in a room packed with 500 Republicans, spoke volumes about the party as its followers - some energized by the scandals surrounding Democratic President Barack Obama's administration - are already looking to the 2016 elections.

With no clear presidential front-runner in their party, Republicans are in shopping mode.

Whoever gets the GOP presidential nomination in 2016 may end up facing Hillary Clinton who, recent polling suggests, would beat at least two of the GOP’s current 2016 favorites in Iowa.

From the Huffington Post:

Hillary Clinton would lead two potential GOP rivals in Iowa in the 2016 presidential election, according to a poll released Friday by Quinnipiac University, while Vice President Joe Biden would narrowly trail his potential GOP opponents.

The poll found Clinton ahead of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) by 48 percent to 37 percent. She led Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who recently traveled to Iowa, by a narrower 46 to 42 percent.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Clinton? Not only is that unlikely in the early-predictions-are-usually-totally-wrong variety, but I think the antipathy towards her has grown quite a bit after her turn as SoS. I suppose she could be our next attempt to right all social wrongs through some sort of electoral affirmative action, but I have a feeling the negatives of an out-of-control government are becoming a little too obvious, even for our rather dim electorate, and she's not the face of restraint.

  • Brandybuck||

    Benghazi is going to be an albatross around her neck. The stench started settling around Clinton just last week, so I am guessing the poll was conducted the week before.

    p.s. Or maybe the conspiracy nuts are right, maybe the IRS and AP scandals are just ways to deflect the public eye away from Clinton. How devious of them to have it all planned out in advance.

  • spyle||

    not her vote for the iraq war, one of the the sole selling points by which obama used to defeat clinton during the primaries?

    i would think if anything, the ongoing less and less popular atrocity in the middle east would be astronomically toll on clinton for her vote for iraq invasions more than anything else

  • sloopyinca||

    Hillary ahead of Rand Paul by a mere 4% is not a good sign for Team Blue. She's gonna be pilloried in the media (thank you, Citizens United) for her role in the Benghazi cover-up in the run-up to the election and she's gonna need a larger lead than 4 pts now if she's to sustain any kind of lead at all.

    Rand Paul needs only to nominate a smart woman...maybe Nikki Haley...to just demolish Hillary, assuming she's wearing as powersuit as opposed to a prison jumpsuit in another 3 years.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Agree. Mostly these polls are about Hillary vs. Republican. Rand Paul is becoming better known, but isn't the name in politics that Hillary Clinton is. For her to be doing this badly is not good for her.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I doubt she'll even get the nomination.

  • A Serious Man||

    I don't think she even wants the nomination. Why go through all that shit again, having to lug both Bill and Obama, two men she despises, around on the campaign trail when she can just publish her memoirs or move to a blue state and become a Senator again?

  • sloopyinca||

    I don't think she even wants the nomination.

    Oh, she doesn't...but she does want the Presidency.

    Even money says she starts throwing O under the bus in another 9 months or so, and may even testify against him at his impeachment trial-brought to you by Carl's Jr.

  • Pro Libertate||

    One big advantage for the GOP, aside from the obvious ones, is that I'll bet the Democrats think they can run it just like an Obama election, leaving out the novelty of a minority president. I don't think it'll work with Clinton, and the Democrats will likely be facing a very Republican Congress, too.

  • ||

    Hillary doesn't stand a chance.

    I bet they run the exact Obama playbook again and railroad Hillary again with a young, minority candidate who has a brief political history. In fact, I think they go with a Hispanic candidate. I'm putting my money on Julian Castro. He didn't get a sweet speaking slot at the DNC convention if they weren't thinking about it.

  • Brian D||

    Deval Patrick. He is Obama + Boston Bombing tragedy.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Osama bin Laden. Ends the War on Terror, shores up the minority position by putting an Arab in office, and can't hurt us none 'cause he's dead.

  • An0nB0t||

    I thought so as well, but Castro's speech was unctuous, his speaking voice is weird, and he lacks gravitas. He'd pull the Democrats' American Idol voters, but he'd get his ass handed to him in the primaries and presidential debates.

    Right now, I don't see that the Democrats have anyone other than Hillary who could stand up to Rand/Cruz in the debates, and Hillary is such a transparent sociopath that she'd also get steamrolled in a general election.

  • ||

    [ahem] 4 percentage points, or 9.5%.

  • sloopyinca||

    46-42=4.

  • ||

    Yeah. Percentage points.

  • sloopyinca||

    That's what I said.

    46% of the total polled
    -42% of the total polled
    =4% of the total.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Head-to-head polls are meaningless this far out. What was BO polling against potential Republican opponents in 2005.

    More important are Favorable/Unfavorable and name recognition polls, but even those are subject to change drastically in 3 years.

  • sarcasmic||

    Election is over. Time to start campaigning.

  • sloopyinca||

    One thing the Limeys get right. Isn't it illegal to campaign there until like 4 weeks before the election? I'd fully support that addendum to the 1A.

  • sarcasmic||

    I have no idea, and in principle I don't think I could support such an addendum. Though I would bar lawyers from public office if I were king.

  • ||

    Its hard to say. On the one hand, could you imagine the clusterfuck of a nominee the GOP would have had if that were the case? So many nominees burned bight and hot for a few weeks before Romney outlasted them.

    That would have really risked a Santorum presidency if it was only a 4 week campaign season.

    On the other hand, Ron might have had a better shot as well with his money bombs and active supporters going batshit crazy for 4 weeks.

  • ||

    Chris Christie is a Republican?!?!

  • ||

    Anyone who still considers him a GOP contender is certifiably crazy in my book.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Yesterday I looked through a copy of the Billings Gazette as I waited for my breakfast. There was a front page story about evil Rethuglitards trying to end price supports for sugar (eastern Montana is sugar beet country).

    There was a guy quoted in the article saying, "I don't wanna eat no furrin sugar. I don't don't want no Brazilian sugar, or Honduran sugar. I wants me some pure and godly Amurrikin sugar."

    I see no reason to pretend a President Hillary is an impossibility.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Anything is possible. Especially bad stuff. But I think her time has passed.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I thought her time had passed long ago. To be honest, I never really believed she *had* a time; I thought she was merely an appendage of that devious bastard from Arkansas. But then she got elected to the United States Senate. Then she was appointed secretary of State. what if she is just now hitting her stride?

  • Pro Libertate||

    We're either totally doomed or will change course to avoid it. We're really at a crossroads. People see the corruption and are going to really start feeling some economic pain (I thought we had enough of that for a regime change, but not enough, apparently). . .that either will result in liberalization or doubling-down on central control and tyranny.

  • An0nB0t||

    The economic pain hasn't even started yet. The damage has already been done; we're just waiting for the other shoe to drop.

    Those of us who aren't trying to time the housing market just right, anyway.

  • Wintermute||

    Hillary will beat any Republican without a vagina, such is the state of our electorate today. And who thinks the 19th Amendment was all positive? At least the British experience shows there was life after Thatcher; but I'll feel better if there turns out to be life after Merkel.

  • Robert||

    Should be fairly easy to find out who's got money, committees, or "friends of" committees that'd be likely sources of money. That's where I'd look 1st to see who's serious. Of course that doesn't preclude later entrants; Obama was nowhere at this time in the cycle before his 1st election as POTUS.

  • IceTrey||

    Rubio, Cruz and Jindal are not natural born citizens.

  • gagster||

    Marco Rubio was born in Miami Florida. Bobby Jindal was born in Baton Rouge Lousiana.

  • owen||

    Cheap Jerseys,Jerseys,Baseball Jerseys http://modernjerseys.org/
    Wholesale Jerseys,Throwback Football Jerseys
    http://mallsjersey.blogspot.com/

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement