They'll have to pull someone off the bottom of a list.

You may get a lot of celebratory snarky replies to this, and I salute them. But it's a question worth taking seriously because over-confidence always ends up biting us in the ass.

First, we can look at the map and be more specific about what "win" means. Obama won with 62 electoral votes to spare, so the GOP has to pick up 64 electoral votes to reverse that. Where are they? Well to start, there's

FL - 29
OH - 18
VA - 13

Those are the big three swing states, the battlegrounds of the last few elections. What's striking about them is that they don't add up to 64. The GOP can pick them all up and still be four votes shy, which will leave them needing to pick up a second-tier battleground as well: CO, IA, NV, or NH.

So that means they need a candidate who can appeal to the retirees and/or Latinos in FL, the "Reagan Democrat" vote in OH, the public worker vote in VA, and either the farm vote in IA or the libertarian vote in NV, NH, of CO (or the Hispanic vote in NV).

That would take a candidate of broad-based appeal and/or extraordinary charisma. Moreover, given the current loathing of Congress, such a candidate would need to come from outside the Beltway (so ideally a governor). Do they have such a candidate? I don't really think so, with one possible exception.

Huckabee. Seriously.

I know we all, rightly, regard Huckabee as a clown. But that folksy charm bullshit goes a long way with the general public; on top of that, he's got enough right-wing cred to bring the GOP radicals on board without scaring the establishment. A Clinton-Huckabee match-up would be a race between a very smart candidate who is not particularly likable and a very likable candidate who is not particularly smart; if your wondering how those races tend to go, I'd refer you to 2000, 1980, and even 1960.

I don't think they'll nominate Huckabee. But on paper, I'd actually be more worried about him than anyone else riding in the clown car.

possibly because I lived there...but it seems to me, it's Democrats' to lose. NoVA dominates the state, it's not a majority but it's a large enough chunk to decisively slant the state. The GOP can't take NoVA away from us, we have to lose it.

So, that's nice.

It's also a double-edged sword...it means until we flip another big state or lock-down a similarly-electoral state that is currently a battleground (like OH or NC), Obama's about the winnable high-water mark of opposition to the MIC, foreign wars and the surveillance state...because those are the things that will lose Democrats VA. (That's NoVA's economy. They're filled chock to the brim with defense and security contractors. They love those things...I'm hawkish and even I cringe at some of the "rah rah bomb the fuck out of them" positions common from rank-and-file Democrats in Northern VA. They're McCain-level interventionists because war pays the bills.)

And that's how VA looks to me, too -- although I do think it's more accurate to see the slim Dem advantage as a Fed worker-black-Hispanic coalition, which also leaves us vulnerable if the GOP can ever figure out how to capture the Latino vote; luckily, they're unlikely to any time soon.

I also think we're in a slightly batter place with battlegrounds, not just because of how they voted last time but because of how they're trending overall. Leaving aside FL, which looks like a true toss-up for some time to come, VA and OH are getting bluer, as are all the battlegrounds we won in 2012 and even some we lost (NC for example). Meanwhile, GA and TX are getting less red, though they're a long way from purple. By contrast, is there a single blue or purple state going in the other direction? I can't think of one (unless you count WV). We haven't got things locked down, but they're certainly moving in our direction (at least as far as the White House; Congress is a different matter altogether).

I agree with the contrast between the two. Huckabee has the folksy charm that he could say things that are complete lies (and that's not unheard of for him) and many people would believe him. He's also a racist, which would appeal to the Republican base (which would not fair well for him with minorities).

Huckabee only won 8 states in 2008, came in second in 15, and came in 3rd in 14. Not that strong of a showing. He only amassed more delegates than Romney because he chose to stay in the race almost another month. I think Huckabee would have gotten less had Romney stayed in. It shows how weak of a candidate he was.

Again, I think you are right, it probably won't happen.

Your analysis on what states the GOP would have to win, and who they'd have to appeal to is interesting.

But I think your off in thinking Huckabee could either win the GOP nomination, or a general election. Huckabee has a few big things against him in a GOP primary that will prevent him from ever getting to a general election.

1) He raised taxes, the GOP hates that.

2) He's pardoned multiple people as governor who went on to rape or murder. The party that prides itself on law and order doesn't like that either.

3) Look at the polls in the past where Huckabee ran (and before he announced he wouldn't run in 2012). Huckabee has strong support from evangelicals, but among pretty much every other group of GOP voters he gets numbers similar to Ron Paul, as in quite horrible numbers that are often barely higher than the margin of error.

I do believe TPTB want power to go back and forth between the R's and D's as much as possible (in Congress and the WH).

This will ensure that Team Red can blame Team Blue and vice versa.

And, I do believe they will steal elections where needed to allow this to happen. I don't know if they need the White House to flip to the R's during the 2016 election or not, but it will flip back R at a time that will cause complete shock and the gnashing of teeth of many D's.

for how close the race seems and nation divided, the GOP is on the verge of structural defeat in national politics...the TPTB may want whatever the hell they want, it really doesn't matter. The Presidency is lost to the GOP, though they hold a short-term advantage in both chambers of Congress.

The only reason to not declare them down for the count is Democrats, frankly, completely suck at local elections...so until we learn that every race is sacred, every race important--we can't deliver the coup d' grace to this flavor of modern (Reaganist) conservatism by sweeping it from the land, out of every school board, zoning board and minor elected office.

are possibilities. Either of them could win a national election.

Try again..

we just can't rule out the ability of this country to gleefully vote for republican assholery ...

Jeb could IMHO present a credible challenge if he decides to run and the public doesn't immediately disqualify him for having the last name, "Bush".

Jeb might get a nomination but I don't see him winning. He looks like an embezzler and a lot of people don't want anything to do with the Bushes.

The irony is that a moderate candidate (and when I say moderate I mean someone slightly to the left of Ted Cruz or Rand Paul) would be the least likely to win their nomination because the primary electorate will be made up almost entirely of kooks.

I believe Paul will be their nominee. He fits the suit perfectly: Christian, white, male, anti hispanic, anti women, anti gay, pro guns, and with a nice helping of white anger and entitlement on the side. If you're a garden variety xenophobe who hates everything he's your knight in shining armor.

However I bet during their primaries it's going to be pointed out loudly that the GOP ran "moderate" candidates the last 2 elections and that they need a true conservative to win the election.

I disagree that it will be Paul though. He's too much a niche liking ever for Republicans. Many republicans think he's soft on foreign policy, and disagree that drugs should be legalized. Even on gay marriage he's more to the left than most republicans.

If I had to spit out a name it would be Rick Perry, since repubs seem to like their Texas governers and Perry can point to Texas's job growth. I also don't think he was too damaged last election cycle and may have even learned a thing or two about presidential campaigning.


Anyways it should be fun to watch the train wreck.

I do think Paul will be square in the thick of things ...

However, what happened with McCain and Romney is likely to happen again, a half dozen or so wingnuts who steal each others' votes are likely to run, spreading out the wingnut vote and leaving the "moderate" to skirt out as the nominee.

He's a bumbler, gaffe prone and simply not presidential. I saw him as someone who was a real threat for their nomination last time but he did or said nothing to indicate he has what it takes to win a long primary fight. I think you're selling short the epic disaster that was his 2012 run. It was a shit show.

And I think we see Paul differently. He is not a niche politician. If you'll notice he's speaking for the party on a number of issues. If that party has a face right now it's as much rand Paul as anyone else.

Hopefully it's the end of the GOP. If so, this would give Rince Penis a heart attack.

Paul Ryan probably has the best chance. Plus, he's the heir apparent. Him or Rick Santorum, and Ryan is fresher.

He has a tendency to look mean. Now, of course, to be a repub. you have to be mean at your very core but Reagan and Dubya didn't look it. They were smilers. Ryan can't help himself. He scowls. He looks cold. He isn't very nice looking. And I think up against a smart, smiling HRC or an intently people person Warren, Ryan will look very nasty indeed. And hopefully, a woman opponent will bring out the rank misogyny in the guy...2016 might look pretty nice...

The country doesn't always get what's best for it, or, as in the latter case, even what they voted for.

They don't need to win the election, just the aftermath.

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." --J. Stalin.

The Republicans could nominate a totally manipulable moron and, with proper dirty tactics, install him in the Oval Office.

It wouldn't be the first time.

To my last recall: He was in there for 8 years, not too long ago.

What was his name again? (scratching head) Damn, I forgot.

we don't want them to win

I know that the "Bush" name should be utterly toxic right now (and it might well be), but I'm worried people could still rationalize some way to bring themselves to vote for another Bush because, after all, he's not "THAT Bush". I don't know what his Florida record was but he's been out of the limelight for a few years for the most part, seems to be relatively unscathed by scandal, and might be able to package himself as attractive to the Tea Party as well as the general electorate.....maybe.

I feel Ryan is way too radical. A big loudmouth, with nothing to say positive for the middle class. Say ba bye to your social security and the ACA.

Bush? Where to start? Nope, I don't think he has a prayer in hell.

It irks me to say this, because while he would kill Social Security and the rest of the New deal, he could appeal to the Anti-war folks who know the Hillary will not be likely to liosten to them. It is like straving people eating garbage because there is nothing else.

Portman's corporate owners are carefully choreographing his every move.

Ohio's GOP governor, John Kasich, thinks he will be the GOP nominee, but due to his completely corrupt term as governor, he does not stand a chance. The GOP may try to steal the governor's election this fall to keep Kasich in place, but he has so much baggage that the corporate masters have pivoted to Portman, as so little is known about him. They are prepared to sacrifice Kasich and Walker to prepare the way for the chosen one.

The GOP will not nominate one of the nuts, they will choose a safe unknown that will do their bidding. Portman is morally bankrupt and will do anything the fascists want him to do.

enough dark money is in play, and they can suppress enough votes. That is their plan.

Even if by some miracle jeb did win I'm wonderring if he could hold the republicans together long enough to govern.