Who is the Best Republican for the Job?

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)

This past Monday we saw the entrance of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) into the presidential race.  With his entrance, the GOP now has three major candidates officially announced (in addition to Rubio, there's also Sens. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul), with Gov. Jeb Bush a near certainty, and Govs. John Kasich, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker, and Chris Christie all looking very likely, along with probably 1-2 more names.  The question that has arisen for me, since we also know now that Hillary Clinton is running and has a near certain shot at the Democratic nomination, is which of these men is actually the one who has the best shot at beating Sec. Clinton in the general election?

It's not a particularly easy question to answer for a variety of reasons.  For starters, we're not sure where the election will land and whom the election will be a referendum will be upon.  Generally in these sorts of situations it's a referendum on the outgoing administration: President Ronald Reagan was relatively popular, so the Republicans stayed in office, whereas as President George W. Bush was unpopular so the Republicans lost.  However, we're in a new situation with Hillary Clinton.  Perhaps even more than George H.W. Bush, Al Gore, and John McCain, all titans of their era politically before their initial presidential elections, she has achieved a stature rivaled by almost no one.  There's a reason that she's occasionally referred to as the Democrats' Ronald Reagan-she's arguably the most influential living American politician to not have sat in the Oval Office.

So with this looseness in mind, I thought it was still worth investigating which Republican candidate has the best chance of beating Hillary Clinton in the general as of today.  I'm going to investigate the Top 5 most likely, skipping some of the candidates that don't feel like they are truly threats at this point.

Also-Rans: I think that Sen. Ted Cruz is too conservative to beat Hillary in any set of circumstances, and that Gov. Bobby Jindal is too boring.  Mike Huckabee and Rick Perry are too much "damaged goods."  Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson are both gadfly candidates trying to gain headlines, whereas Gov. Chris Christie, whom I'd put in sixth place right now, has fallen too much this cycle and is starting to become my dark horse candidate to not even run.

Gov. John Kasich (R-OH)

5. Gov. John Kasich (R-OH)

Pros: He's governor of the quintessential swing state, and has wanted to be president for decades.  He ran quixotically for president in 2000, not making much of an indention after a long career in the House (and if you run once, you are more than likely to run again).  Since then he had success in the business sector followed by two gubernatorial wins, the last of which was by an astounding 31-points in a state that frequently is decided by decimals.  He's a governor in a party that's eager for them.
Cons: He's probably too moderate to make it out of the primary, and even then he's not what you'd call a firebrand or a rising star.  One of the biggest narratives against Hillary is that she's a candidate of the past, but Kasich will be 64 next year and will have been in politics for over 30 years-he's unlikely to beat that argument.  He's more likely to be a running mate to a Marco Rubio or a Scott Walker, but he has enough potential that I think he should stay on the list.

4. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)

Pros: He's a breath of fresh air for a general public that wants to view the GOP differently.  His stances, particularly on foreign policy, are definitely out-of-tune with the GOP and he's someone that could appeal to a new sector of the voting populace.  Many people associate Liberarianism with Progressivism, and some Democrats disillusioned with Hillary Clinton might want to look elsewhere.  More than anyone else on this list, Rand Paul shakes up the status quo of the Republican nomination fight and where loyalties will lie.
Cons: With that change, we also get several traditionally Republican factions that I think might be scared off by Paul, and who might be comfortable enough voting for Hillary Clinton, who is hardly Elizabeth Warren on these subjects.  Wall Street/Chamber of Commerce-style voters, foreign policy hawks, and the Silent Generation all might find Paul's brand of thinking too extreme and would find solace in Mrs. Clinton's brand of moderate populism.

Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI)

3. Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI)

Pros: Gov. Walker has proven something that no other man on this list has-that he can win in blue territory, and thanks to the ineptitude of Wisconsin Democrats, he's done it twice and not three times.  Considering the electoral advantage that Hillary Clinton has if she carries all of the Gore/Kerry states (which seems likely), the Republicans either need to run-the-table in swing states or start picking off ones that have gone blue since '92.  Walker could almost certainly take the Badger State, and may play well in the Midwest as the son of a minister.  Republicans are absolutely wild about him-no worries about apathy from the base, which is usually a larger worry than converting independents.
Cons: Walker's views are probably the most right-leaning on this list (give or take Number 1), and he frequently finds himself with foot-in-mouth syndrome (though in the age of Twitter, what politicians don't?).  Either way, he's not a candidate that I'd suspect would play well in swing areas like Virginia and Nevada outside of a primary, and he'd need some help from the economy or Hillary Clinton running a poor campaign to win this.  Still, I'd argue all of the Top 3 could win against Mrs. Clinton, though I think she's probably the favorite for now.

2. Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL)

Pros: I have had Jeb in first place most of this cycle, and probably will return again, but I'm going to try something out here.  Jeb Bush deserves the top spot for a variety of reasons: he's the wildly popular governor of a major swing state, can raise unfathomable sums of money, has the best talent in the GOP running his campaign, and seems focused entirely on the general election.  If he manages to win the primary, I suspect the Clintons will be nervous that the Bushs will finally be able to avenge 1992.
Cons: So many of the arguments against Hillary Clinton (she's yesterday's news, she's part of a dynasty, she's elite) get washed away when you pick the son/brother of a president.  Jeb Bush also hasn't run a campaign in over a decade and may be out-of-practice, and doesn't go for the jugular in the same way as the Clintons or his brother.  Plus, it's hard to see how he survives the primary in his current role and with the GOP so angered by President Obama (Jeb Bush is never going to call the POTUS anti-American or throw him under-the-bus internationally, which the GOP may want from their nominee).

1. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Pros: Here me out here, as this seems a bit flavor-of-the-moment, but as a Democrat, Marco Rubio is the candidate that frightens me the most as a potential foe.  He's young, grew up from modest means, has a lot of energy, is handsome, Latino, and is experienced enough not to make big mistakes while new enough to not feel stale.  He's essentially the Republican answer to Barack Obama.  He's basically the only Republican candidate running for POTUS that can counter every single one of Hillary Clinton's deficits as a candidate.  Throw in the fact that he knows how to win Florida and you've got a truly excellent on-paper candidate.
Cons: It's still on-paper.  Rubio's election in 2010 was impressive, but he faced a splintered left (both Charlie Crist and Kendrick Meek were gaining Democratic votes).  It's still not clear whether identity politics will help him significantly (it will help him some) with Latino voters, and whether he's ready for prime time (after all, he underwhelmed as the Keynote in 2012 and we all remember the water bottle moment).  If he's unprepared for the top tier, though, it'll show pretty quickly (lest we forget Rick Perry), but for now I think he's the one the Clintons need to be researching fastest.