Which of these Republicans could beat Hillary?

[Blue3]

Which of these Republicans could beat Hillary?

(I realize it's not a complete list, I just want to get these out of the way first, especially since there hasn't been a lot of talk about these potentials recently)

[Vega]

Jeb and Christie maybe.

[Flake]

Jeb and Christie maybe.

Other than that, I don't think anybody could win, and even if one of them win it's in a 2008 esque scenario where she has very poor ground game, and she already has the strongest one and she hasn't announced yet. Pretty confident she'll win in 2016.

[SWE]

Jeb, Christie, Daniels

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Jeb, Christie, Daniels

^^^Voted same. But I also throw John Kasich out there as well. I can see him doing very well in the GE, even if things suddenly go very well for the Dem nominee in the run-up to 2016.

[Never]

Christie, Jeb, Daniels, and just maybe Rubio. While Rubio's chances aren't nearly as good as the former three, there's still a chance of him defeating Hillary that I didn't see with any of the other nine options from the poll that I don't think have any real opportunity to beat Clinton.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Write in: Hillary

[Mister Mets]

Just as Hillary, Kerry, Biden, Warner, Feingold, Bayh, or Gore could have beaten McCain in the 2008 environment, plenty of Republicans could beat Hillary. The race is more likely to depend on the fundamentals than on candidate quality, as long as the candidate meets a basic quality threshold.

Palin, Santorum, Cain, Carson, Bolton and Bachmann don't, but they won't be the nominee.

[IceSpear]

"Could" is a fairly broad term. Most if not all of these people "could" beat Hillary. Realistically? Only Christie, Jeb, and Daniels.

[KCDem]

None, they will all get curb-stomped.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Jeb, Christie, Daniels

[solarstorm]

Sorry, if I may sound dumb, but who is Bolton?

[politicus]

Sorry, if I may sound dumb, but who is Bolton?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton

[solarstorm]

Sorry, if I may sound dumb, but who is Bolton?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton

Thanks. That's why I couldn't found him on the Wikipedia Bolton-surname-disambiguation page. There's a second-degree disambiguation page...

[solarstorm]

Christie and Bush.
Maybe Rubio who could take many valuable Hispanic votes while appealing to the Tea Party.

[Averroës Nix]

If a candidate is a plausible nominee within either major party, then he or she is a plausible winner in the general election, regardless of who they are up against.

Rubio, Christie, and Bush are plausible nominees. So is Daniels, but he isn't a plausible primary candidate.

Perry and Jindal are borderline cases. They have the right background, but what we've seen of them on the national stage suggests that they probably lack the right kind of political talent to win the nomination.

The rest of the names here are business plan candidates. They might run to build name recognition, sell books, and raise their speaking fees, but they lack the conventional credentials that are necessary to build support for their candidacies within the party, whether they're discredited (Palin, Bolton, or Bachmann) or amateurs (Carson or Cain).  Santorum and Huckabee have more credibility, but they're still outsiders to a much greater degree than any recent major party nominee.

[Paul Kemp]

Mitch Daniels is one of those classic Atlas candidates who would be an absolute dud if they actually ran.

[Lief 🗽]

Rubio, Bush, Perry.

[Vega]

Mitch Daniels is one of those classic Atlas candidates who would be an absolute dud if they actually ran.

Indeed, he's just so dull.

[spacecoyote]

Only Christie. Jeb would have a shot if his last name wasn't Bush.

[Suburbia]

Rubio, Christie, Jeb, Daniels could.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio

[Del Tachi]

Anyone who doesn't answer "all of them" at this point is a total hack.

The national environment in 2016 will be much more important in developing the race than the quality of the candidates, and it is extremely premature to rule any 2016 candidate out of consideration.  In a 1932 or 2008-esque environment, Hillary could get stomped by any Republican.   

[politicus]

Anyone who doesn't answer "all of them" at this point is a total hack.

The national environment in 2016 will be much more important in developing the race than the quality of the candidates, and it is extremely premature to rule any 2016 candidate out of consideration.  In a 1932 or 2008-esque environment, Hillary could get stomped by any Republican.   

Some of the Repupbicans mentioned are so unqualified and/or cooky that this seems unrealistic. A majority for Palin or Carson wont happen in any scenario.

[Del Tachi]

Anyone who doesn't answer "all of them" at this point is a total hack.

The national environment in 2016 will be much more important in developing the race than the quality of the candidates, and it is extremely premature to rule any 2016 candidate out of consideration.  In a 1932 or 2008-esque environment, Hillary could get stomped by any Republican.   

Some of the Repupbicans mentioned are so unqualified and/or cooky that this seems unrealistic. A majority for Palin or Carson wont happen in any scenario.

No you're wrong.

To say that a candidate like Palin or Cain has an absolute zero percent chance of winning in 2016 would be extremely cocky.