Traditionally a VP is naturally considered the front runner for the party nomination for the next open Presidential campaign: e.g., Nixon in 1960, Humphrey in 1968, Mondale in 1984, Bush in 1988, and Gore in 2000. (There are some obvious exceptions like Cheney, whom had known health issues.) Failed VP nominees have notably seen their campaigns fizzle (e.g., Quayle and Lieberman) or implode (Muskie). What about Paul Ryan in 2016: will he choose to opt out like Ms. Palin did in 2012?
I have to say I found Romney's selection of Ryan in 2012 perplexing. For one thing, Paul had been a high profile target in the Dems' 2011 toss-grandma-over-the-cliff ad over Medicare reform. Why would Romney want to complicate or distract from his campaign with an issue Dems hoped to use to motivate the powerful senior vote, e.g., in swing state Florida? Second, I thought that Romney, by selecting a key insider in Congress, was compromising his ability to run an outsider campaign against a higher unpopular, polarized Congress. Third, whereas many Presidents had once served in the House (e.g., from JFK through Ford and Bush 41), few were sitting Congressmen (Garfield). Fourth, I thought that he might pick someone whom would complement the team in terms of the military/foreign policy perspective (say, for instance, Condi Rice or David Petraeus); after all, Romney and Ryan were both strong on domestic policy. But obviously there were pluses on the Ryan side: (1) he was well-vetted, no Sarah Palin-type surprises; (2) the ticket was balanced geographically; (3) he is highly articulate and was more than able to take the fight to Joe Biden and his JFK-style looks and relative youth contrasted well against an aging Biden.
What about 2016? We all know the likely field. Christie was once, including in this blog, the red-hot prospect from solid-blue New Jersey, the blunt-spoken executive willing and able to stand up to the free-spending Dems, the self-serving teacher unions, and the mainstream media; there is no doubt that a centrist like Christie stands to gain from the considerable strength of the moderate wing of the party while multiple conservatives split their support of the other major faction. However, many Republicans still resent his self-serving photo opps with Obama (re: Hurricane Sandy), which didn't help Romney down the stretch; BridgeGate decimated his popularity, although it seems that the worst is behind him; still, he is running behind Hillary in his own home state, and the traditional rationale of moderate candidates is that they can bring the purple states along with the red states. What the conservatives will argue is: been there, done that. McCain and Romney failed, and Christie's star has faded and he is unlikely to do better. I remain open but very skeptical. I think unless he brings something new to the table, he's not going to get nominated. I'm not sure what it is, but I'll know it when I see it. Familiar readers know I've sharply criticized Romney for not throwing Clinton/Bush/Obama under the bus; it could be Christie takes that on, saying we have to get serious about getting the nation's finances in order and confront unfunded liabilities head on and everything, including a bloated DoD, is on the table; we need to get out of the nation building business; unlike Bush, he's got a veto pen and will veto excess spending even if the Congress is GOP-controlled. I also think if he takes on some pro-liberty positions, he could broaden his appeal; for example, he could take on crony capitalism.
Jeb Bush with any other surname would be a major contender. But I don't think the public wants a Clinton-Bush rematch; he does bring the upside of being more acceptable to Latino voters (although the anti-immigrants won't be impressed), and I think his support of Common Core is probably out of touch with the base. I don't see it happening, but if you recall the volatility of the early 2012 race: Romney (reemerging at multiple points), Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum...Even Trump, very briefly. Almost anything can happen, like Perry's memory lapse moment, Cain's "9-9-9" caught fire, etc. I'm still impressed by Bush's political street smarts; he was able to sense Crist's weakness in the Senate polls, read the emerging Tea Party, and backed Rubio, whom suddenly came out of nowhere to trounce Crist. However, I think he really has a problem with people identifying him with his unpopular big brother, and I don't see Jeb throwing George W. under the bus.
There have been rumors that Romney might consider running again, which he has denied, but he's in high demand on this fall's election trail. I don't think this happens unless the field implodes leaving no clear leader. I've given my criticisms before: you cannot fashion a 59-point economic plan--there's a reason why 9-9-9 caught fire. He's still subject to the car-elevator, job-exporting multi-millionaire caricature--but I'm sure he's seen recent polls showing him beating Obama (but losing to Hillary). Most of what I've heard from him lately is doubling down on neocon positions, and Hillary has carefully crafted a hawkish image that co-opts a neocon position; if Romney tries to position himself to the right of Hillary like he did to Obama in 2012, he can come across as trigger-happy and reckless, another George W. nation building in the making, which works to Hillary's advantage. I don't see how he swerves his position here, because there are too many neocon clips for him to explain away. Could happen, but I don't see the GOP renominating a failed candidate (when did that happen? Well, obviously Nixon in 1968 and the Dems renominated Adlai in 1956.) But in fact the Dems didn't renominate Carter and the GOP didn't renominate Bush after their respective losses.)
What about the rest of the field; RCP notes Huckabee, Cruz, Jindal, Perry, Santorum, Walker and Rubio. Let's just say that social conservatives like Huckabee and Santorum are probably on the downtrend going into 2016. I see Cruz as too polarizing to get nominated, Rubio lost his momentum over the Senate immigration bill, and I see Jindal and Walker as prospective ticket-balancing Veeps. I really like Jindal, but like Romney, he comes across as more wonkish than inspirational. I think Perry will renew his "let me do for the US what I did in TX" pitch, maybe leverage some of the anti-immigrant sentiment, but I have to say I like the idea of him staring down Hillary and reminding people "I used to be a Democrat, and let me tell you why I no longer am one...."
One of the front runners is a personal favorite, Rand Paul. I don't think any candidate rates as high as 15% yet. I think that he will build on his dad's 15-25% base; he is carefully building on unique neocon-critical foreign policy and privacy protections which have appeal beyond the GOP; he is also looking to establish his cred across the aisle, including initiatives on prison reform and privacy. I think the people will want fresh ideas in 2016, and I think Rand Paul is doing exactly that. Expect the neocons to come after him as they did his dad, but I think Rand's more hesitant tone on foreign adventures works to his advantage. A lot depends on how the early primaries play out and whether his dad's base will turn out for Rand; I do expect a top 3 of a moderate, conservative and Rand, with a likely "stop Rand" coalition. I think Rand will do well in the western states. I think for him the key is grabbing some momentum with an early victory. Another big point is whether he is seen as a credible threat to Hillary or whomever the likely Dem nominee will win. For example, if Rand is seen as a more competitive candidate against Hillary than the others, he will win his fair share of primaries. There are too many variables here: will Hillary run? How will Rand position his candidacy? I'm not quite ready to call the race for Rand, but I like his chances in a change election year. I think he's a better politician (not necessarily better ideologue) than his father.
But what about Paul Ryan? I could see the race as coming down to a choice between Ryan and Paul, and it's an interesting scenario. One of the things about Ryan I like is that he's very good at the big picture. He doesn't simply rehash memorized talking points or simply trash various programs; he has a comprehensive plan. In this case, he's talking anti-poverty (shades of Jack Kemp!) I'm not going to review the plan in detail, but it is available here, and John Goodman has a favorable review here. The gist of major points: reform some of the morally hazardous policies (e.g., you're worse off from a federal benefits perspective if you earn more), expand federal matches for lower pay (earned income tax credit), devolve significant federal spending (e.g., in education and welfare) to the state level, even privatization, reduce regulatory and occupational barriers to entry (e.g., licensing reforms), prison sentencing reform, etc. It falls short of the more radical free market reforms I would prefer, but it provides policy substance we haven't seen lately from the GOP. I will also point out that I've been critical of Ryan's entitlement reforms because the savings occur too little, too late in 10-20 year plans. We already face budgetary constraints now.
Now of course Paul Ryan's alleged affinity for novelist and free market philosopher Ayn Rand made for an interesting talking point during the 2012 campaign, and we can clearly clearly see some parallels between Ryan and Paul in terms of outreach to the black urban community on sentencing reform. I don't think a fusion libertarian-conservative like myself will be satisfied with Ryan's neocon sympathies and still far too big government budgets and policies (e.g., privacy) to confuse him with Rand Paul, even if Ryan likes a few Ayn Rand novels. But just as his anti-poverty initiative reflects a shift in his policy preferences, he could similarly migrate his other policy views in a pro-liberty fashion while retaining his mainstream appeal to the party base. If I'm Rand Paul, I need to worry about Paul Ryan trying to co-opt my base and flesh out my own big policy alternatives.
