Recently, Hillary Clinton surprised absolutely nobody by declaring her campaign for president.  Although her method was unconventional (and perhaps trend-setting, we will see) her announcement took the political world by storm and cemented the conventional wisdom that she is the all-but-certain nominee for the Democrats next year. Overshadowed by her announcement was the subsequent announcement made by Florida Senator Marco Rubio that he, too, is joining the fray and will seek the Republican nomination for president. In Part IV of our indefinite-part series on the 2016 candidates, we will see if Rubio has what it takes to win the nomination and ultimately the White House. 

Strengths

Let's start with the man, himself. Marco Rubio is a young, good-looking, Hispanic Senator from one of the most crucial states in the Electoral College- Florida. Honestly, if he had a (D) after his name instead of an (R), the media would likely dub this a "new age of Camelot," as both he and his wife have movie-star caliber looks and are rather young, to boot (Rubio will be 44 next month). Rubio is generally considered to be a dynamic speaker with an inspirational life story who can connect with new voters in ways that few other candidates can. He is strongly conservative, but utilizes a much friendlier form of conservatism than many Republican candidates. Rubio, in short, is the kind of candidate and person one envisions when thinking about the President of the United States. 

Of all potential Republican candidates, Marco Rubio is one of the two candidates with the best shot of uniting the GOP by being acceptable to all factions. The other, of course, is Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin. Why is this? Well, first of all, he was elected as a Tea Party Republican. Yes, a Tea Party Republican. Five years ago, Rubio shocked the political world by defeating then-popular Governor Charlie Crist in the GOP primary (forcing Crist out of the primary before the actual vote), the candidate backed by the NRSC and the general "establishment" of the Florida Republican Party. Rubio then went on to win the general election, a three-way contest where Crist ran as an independent. At the time of his election, Rubio was considered to be the "crown prince of the Tea Party" for being the Tea Party's greatest victory in that election cycle. 

Now, Rubio is considered to be an "establishment" favorite, since he has gone to DC and not made a circus out of it, unlike Ted Cruz. In other words, Rubio has operated within the system and enjoyed some degree of success in the Senate (even if his attempts at immigration reform with the "Gang of Eight" failed). Rubio has, in short, managed to experience the "best of both worlds." He has been a pragmatic conservative and thus endeared himself to the Washington politicos who tried to derail his political career by supporting Crist in 2010. 

With his careful balancing act, Rubio sets himself up well for a general election race. Although his Cuban heritage is an obvious asset to him from the start, so is his willingness to attempt some kind of comprehensive immigration reform- an issue that the GOP better start endorsing lest they become a permanent political minority in the face of long-term demographic shifts.  Rubio's delicate balancing act distinguishes him from firebrands like Cruz, Paul, and Santorum, but also allows him to portray himself as a fresh face in a race that is currently highlighted by two of America's noble families- the Clintons and the Bushes. Rubio's voting record is very conservative, but his demeanor is likable and optimistic.  Rubio, in short, is a candidate tailor-made for a national general election. 

Weaknesses

First and foremost, even though Rubio is tailor-made for a general election, he will have a difficulty time separating himself from the pack during primary season. My guess is that he will be the second or third choice for most Republican primary voters, not their first. Sure, Rubio has some supporters, but he does not have the cult-like loyalty enjoyed by Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, nor does he have the insider financial backing of figures like Jeb Bush. It is easy to imagine Rubio performing respectably in a number of primaries, but not getting any delegates.  In Iowa, for instance, Rubio's gentler social conservatism will probably be overshadowed by Ted Cruz and by Scott Walker (who has the regional advantage in that contest).  Rubio might not even win his home state, as he will probably the second choice of Floridians after the popular ex-governor, Jeb Bush. 

There are several reasons why he would not be the first choice of primary voters. Although his support for immigration reform will be an asset in a general election, it will be a huge liability during primary season, as it will not sit well with the conservative base that actually votes in the primaries. And that's really the only policy knock on Rubio, but it is a huge one for the base. On just about any other issue, Rubio is as ideologically conservative as the likes of Ted Cruz, just not as fiery about it. This calm demeanor could also harm his attempts to win over the base; a base that would rather have someone throw them red meat than calmly articulate the same points. 

Should he win the primary contests, his main weaknesses would be his comparatively short resume against Hillary Clinton and the fact that his introduction to the American people fell rather flat (the infamous awkward drink of water episode). Unfortunately for Rubio, his political experience is only marginally more extensive than Obama's was in 2008, being a first term junior senator. This was a major talking point against Obama by Republicans in 2008, so it would seem hypocritical for the GOP to try to portray their 2016 candidate as somehow ready for the job when Obama was not. Clinton, on the other hand, has served more time in the Senate and has held the most important executive branch position under the president, Secretary of State. Rubio has some foreign policy credentials, but only the most blind partisan would somehow argue that Rubio has more foreign policy qualifications than Mrs. Clinton has. It will be an obstacle that he has to overcome. 

As for the water episode, hopefully it is water under the bridge (pun intended). Rubio, to his credit, responded to that incident in just about the best way imaginable- he laughed at himself and then turned it into a marketing ploy on behalf of his war chest. He proved in that episode that he has a great sense of humor and can laugh at himself (which is a trait that we do not really see in President Obama). 

Finally, like every other Republican who has a legitimate shot at the nomination, Rubio will be fighting an uphill battle against the Clinton machine and her unquestionable advantage of being potentially the first woman to occupy the White House. Rubio could take away some of that advantage by being the first Hispanic nominee, but somehow that just does not feel as monumental as having the first female president.  Running with Susana Martinez, however, could help him further. 

Conclusion


Personally, I think Rubio should have stayed put for the time being and he should have concentrated on defending his seat in the US Senate. The time just does not feel quite right for Senator Rubio- he has too many primary opponents and not enough dedicated support to stand out in such a crowded field. Furthermore, he likely will not win the primary of his home state, being the second choice of Floridians. Instead, he will have vacated his seat in the Senate for a presidential campaign that will likely be over after Jeb wins the Florida primaries. 

If he does fail to capture the White House next year, I do see two paths for him to return to prominence. In the first path, Rubio runs as the vice presidential nominee for the GOP either in 2016 or 2020.  I doubt that he will be the VP choice next year, however, since I think the GOP will try to balance Hillary's gender advantage by running a top-tier female candidate in the VP slot (most likely Kelly Ayotte, Susana Martinez, or maybe even Nikki Haley). There are too many variables right now to even begin contemplating the 2020 VP story, but Rubio's name would certainly be among them.  The other path to restoring his political career is the Florida route. Governor Rick Scott will be term-limited at the end of this term, so Rubio could run for Governor of Florida and remain a prominent politician within the Republican Party. Assuming Hillary wins the White House next year, and again in 2020, Rubio would be in the middle of his second term as Governor of Florida when 2024 comes around. By that point, Rubio would likely be the undisputed frontrunner when announcing his presidential campaign. 

For now, however, Rubio will have a daunting task in trying to win primaries and caucuses in a super-crowded field where he will likely flounder as the second or third place winner of every contest. 

Now that Hillary has declare her intentions to run for president, both parties have officially declared candidates who will make at least some noise. Since the GOP is the more interesting party at the moment, having no undisputed frontrunners, I took the time to make a table of top VP matches for each candidate who is remotely viable. It is still early, but right now the list is headed by Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and Governor Susana Martinez, both of whom are pragmatic conservative women who can check many boxes for the GOP. 

The inevitable has finally happened: Hillary Clinton has declared her candidacy for president. After being foretold by Saturday Night Live last night, Hillary announced her campaign over social media. So, just as I have done for Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, I will look at her strengths and weaknesses, and offer my thoughts on the viability of her campaign. Truth be told, there is hardly anything new I can offer to the discussion, but this will be fun, anyway. 

Strengths
Let's state the obvious, first: Hillary Clinton is the undisputed frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. Like 2008, she has the support of party leaders and the infrastructure of the political machine she and her husband have built over the last thirty years. Unlike 2008, she does not have to worry about an insurgency campaign from a rising star like Barack Obama, primarily because the Democrats have no rising stars. By all accounts, she has neutralized the threat of Elizabeth Warren, probably the only Democrat who could launch a lefty insurgency against her. Hillary has the support of nearly all branches of the party and should have no trouble securing the finances and organizational support necessary to win a number of primaries. 

Yes, Hillary Clinton has the potential to "make history" by becoming America's first female president. Is it sufficient to win the nomination and the White House? No, but it certainly does not hurt her. For all the rumblings about the glass ceiling and other structural barriers to a woman becoming president, I really do not believe there are too many people still out there who would not vote for a woman just because she is a woman. Even if some of these people do exist, they are surely neutralized and outnumbered by the number of feminists determined to ensure that a woman wins the presidency next year. All in all, the gender factor should be an overall advantage for Mrs. Clinton, especially if the GOP does not put a woman on the ticket. 

Another advantage Hillary has is her extensive resume. Although this would ideally be the first thing people discuss when considering any candidate, including Clinton, we all know that it is not. In any event, Secretary of State has been a strong launching point for future presidents at several points in American history (although James Buchanan was the last Secretary of State to become president). Hillary's tenure, while controversial at times, was more or less successful and has certainly given her the foreign policy chops to do well in primary debates and could be advantageous if she ends up facing an opponent with limited foreign policy experience (which pretty much describes all potential Republican candidates at this point). Her tenure in the Senate, while somewhat brief, would be helpful if she were to win the White House as she can take advantage of her legislative connections to get policies passed. Finally, her active (perhaps excessively so) time as First Lady can only be advantageous as she will know better than anyone else the intricacies and difficulties of life in the White House. Hillary has, in short, a resume as long as any of her potential rivals, especially in an otherwise-weak Democratic field. 

Weaknesses
As 2008 showed us, however, Hillary is not invincible. As much as she is expected to cruise to the nomination, it is still extremely early and she will be the hunted from now on. Being the "frontrunner" is a precarious position, as your whole life is laid bare and the media compete to break the story that ruins you. 

Hillary certainly is not without her faults. First, she could face a challenge from an economic liberal (Bernie Sanders come to mind) who could rally the Liz Warren wing against Hillary's reincarnation of Al From's New Democrats of the 90's. Martin O'Malley is actively trying to do this right now, and could force Hillary to move to the economic left in order to shore up the Democratic base at the expense of the economic middle (although the effect of this could be negligible if Jeb is forced to move right in order to convert conservatives to his camp). Second, her past vote for the Iraq War could still hurt her if Lincoln Chafee and/or Jim Webb officially decide to run. An oppositional campaign from Chafee would be especially interesting as he was a Republican at the time he cast that vote, which would give him even more credibility on the issue. Although Larry Sabato think the vote is "fading in importance," a strong campaign from Chafee or Webb would make this vote relevant, again (especially if they can tie that vote to some of her actions as Secretary of State). 

Recently, some scandals have emerged involving Mrs. Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State. Personally, I doubt they will make much of a difference in the primary season- Democrats will simply shrug off the email scandal as white noise and the Benghazi scandal as the paranoid ramblings of FOX News pundits. I do not know who is "right" in these cases, but I am very skeptical that Hillary will suffer many repercussions in the primary season from these scandals. As for the general election, it could make a difference if something actually comes of the emails that is tangible and transcends partisan politics. 

Hillary's biggest weakness, however, is the sense among Americans that Clinton feels entitled to the presidency and that next year's election could be a heavyweight fight re-match between two of America's royal families. It is not as though Hillary is offering any "new" ideas, especially now that her baby of socialized health care has been more or less implemented by her predecessor. Instead, the whole basis for Clinton's presidency seems to be that it is her turn to be president, especially since a meddling kid ruined it for her in 2008. I have yet to see anything indicating that Mrs. Clinton is offering a grand, optimistic new vision for the country, especially since President Obama has, at one point or another, championed every liberal cause imaginable. At best, she can claim to try to continue Obama's vision, while fixing his mistakes. At worst, she is the embodiment of Washington politics and the continuation of a detested status quo. On the whole, Clinton seems like the safe candidate for those who like the way Washington runs and are okay with power oscillating between a few royal families. 

Conclusion
At this point, it seems like a foregone conclusion that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party nominee for 2016. I have no reason, at this point, to disagree with this prediction. The Democratic field, at this point, is laughably weak beyond Hillary Clinton. Here is her potential "competition": Joe Biden- the gaffe machine bordering on creepy old man, Martin O'Malley- the ultra-liberal Governor of Maryland who enjoyed 40% approval ratings and whose hand-picked successor lost to a Republican, Lincoln Chafee- another member of American nobility who has run for offices under every banner and was deeply unpopular in his own state when he decided to not seek reelection, Jim Webb- a moderate from Virginia who has a strong distaste for conventional politics, and Bernie Sanders-a true Socialist from Vermont. Had Hillary not chosen to run, the Democratic primaries would be chaotic and unpredictable. So, for now, the party's strategy of going all-in on Clinton seems to have been the wisest course. 

The general election will be tougher to call, but Hillary would still be the clear favorite. Should the GOP nominate Jeb Bush, they will lose their one critical advantage over Clinton- the ability to bring in a fresh face and name into the contest. Ideologically, however, the GOP candidate cannot be more conservative than Scott Walker. For better or worse, Clinton is perceived as being closer to the center than just about any Republican candidate (save, perhaps, Jeb Bush) and will win over more independents as the Republican candidate moves farther to the right. 

Hillary Clinton is the "frontrunner" right now for both the primary season and the general election, BUT, 18.5 months is an eternity in politics and it will be a challenge for her to stay on top for so long. She is not invincible, but she will be tough for any opponent to defeat. 

Today, I will cover Part II of what could be a billion-part series on the officially declared 2016 candidates (at least the one's who have a puncher's chance) and focus on Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who officially declared his candidacy yesterday in Louisville. Paul is going to be an interesting candidate, to be sure, one who is not the cookie cutter neoconservative that has defined the GOP for the last 15 years. But, like Ted Cruz, we should examine his strengths and his weaknesses. 

Strengths 
Rand Paul's greatest strength is his potential ability to craft a new coalition out of the American electorate for the GOP.  His relatively dovish foreign policy stances can attract libertarians and even far-left peace activists, while his soft stance on marijuana and prison reform can also attract new faces to the Republican Party. Meanwhile, he still has the strong support of his dad's legion of devoted followers (a group that was better organized during the primary season than any other candidate, save Mitt Romney) and has made huge inroads among the base. Finally, he is not afraid to reach out to groups of voters the GOP tends to ignore (namely, black college students) and has had some success. Senator Paul has the potential to put together a winning coalition for the 2016 general election. 

But what about the primary season? This could prove to be a little more difficult for Paul than even the general election, but he does have some advantages over other competitors. First, as previously noted, he can probably score the votes of some people who have never voted Republican in their lifetime (if, indeed, they have ever voted at all). In primaries with a dozen or more candidates, even a few thousand unconventional votes could make the difference. Second, his dad's old network of followers still generally support him and they have built up the infrastructure in many states (ESPECIALLY the caucus states) to help him secure the delegates of these states. In 2012, no campaign was able to exploit the archaic caucus rules to the extent of the Ron Paul campaign, and I have no reason to doubt that Rand will do the same. Third, Rand has actively courted the favor of the "establishment" wing by supporting figures like Mitch McConnell and making overtures to groups like the Chamber of Commerce. Unlike Ted Cruz, Senator Paul is generally well-liked among all branches of the GOP (Pete King, notwithstanding). This factor could make the "establishment" less willing to unite behind someone like Jeb Bush for a little while. He may seem unconventional, but Rand Paul will have the infrastructure and support necessary to launch a sustained campaign. 

Weaknesses
Of course Senator Paul does have his weaknesses, as well. If he did not, then he would be the undisputed front-runner that the GOP currently lacks. Probably chief among Senator Paul's weaknesses is his tendency to say the wrong things for the right reasons.  For example, not supporting the federal government's right to force integrated lunch counters in the civil rights era (despite saying that he would boycott such a restaurant and encourage others not to patronize the joint) was a rather dumb thing to say, even if his logic was rather orthodox. To his credit, Paul has become a much more seasoned and careful politician since those early days, but a year and a half is a long campaign that will inevitably result in some serious gaffes on Paul's part. In an age where everything is recorded and instantly spread around the world, a candidate as prone to saying dumb things as Paul will make some mistakes that seriously hurt his chances. 

Next, Paul runs the risk of being squeezed out by the plethora of candidates who are running against Jeb Bush. Although popular with the base, the larger number of candidates makes it more likely that Paul will be many people's second or third choice because of one particular issue (be it gay marriage or foreign policy or immigration). Ted Cruz's presence in the race will make it tougher for Paul to win enough "liberty-oriented" Republicans to win the nomination. As with Scott Walker, the chances of non-establishment candidates diminish as more candidates enter the race and split the base. 

Finally, Paul's dovish foreign policy could be a liability. A common phrase heard during the 2012 cycle was "I like Ron Paul, but not his foreign policy." I have no doubt that similar sentiments will be expressed about Rand, but to a lesser degree.  Even if the number of Lindsey Grahams and Pete Kings in the GOP is diminishing, there will still probably be enough of these voices to stymie Paul's efforts. For all of Paul's efforts to moderate America's foreign policy, the militant foreign policy wing is still strong in the Republican Party. Rand is nowhere near as "non-interventionist" as his father, but I still expect to hear from the likes of Rick Santorum that Rand's foreign policy is "to the left of Barack Obama." That will make it difficult to win over pro-military (and perhaps, pro-Israel) Republicans, which will make his nomination more difficult. 

Conclusion
Rand Paul's success will depend on a couple of factors; chief among them is not losing conservative voters to Ted Cruz and the dozen other conservatives vying to be the anti-Jeb candidate. He has the infrastructure in several states (especially Iowa) to win delegates, as his father did, but he also has a much better shot of winning actual primaries than his father ever did. Rand has done an admirable job of reaching across the various factions of the GOP to unite base conservatives, the "establishment," and bring in new voters into the party. He should not have any difficulty raising money, especially if he is able to get his dad's supporters to donate money, and he can tap into the pocketbooks of numerous conservatives and Republicans who did not support his father but do like him. On the whole, Rand has shown that his political tactics are far superior to the likes of Ted Cruz and therefore, Rand will be a tough candidate, there is no doubt about that. 

Can he win the nomination? If enough conservatives either sit on the sidelines for this entire election season or drop out early, he could pose a serious threat to Jeb Bush. But if Cruz, Santorum, Huckabee, Carson, Rubio, Jindal, Walker, Kasich, and others not only run, but stay in the race for a while, he could have trouble winning enough primaries to force a convention fight or win the nomination, outright. Remember, as 2012 showed us, the political class' choice only has to win about 25% of the vote in a contest against numerous other opponents to win the primary (especially in states like Florida where the winner wins all of the state's delegates). So, to answer the question, if I was setting odds, Paul would probably be in 3rd or 4th place, behind Jeb, Walker, and maybe Christie. He has a fighter's chance, though, so it would be foolish to discount him at this point. 

What about the general election? If policy was the only consideration, Rand could well be the GOP's best shot against Hillary Clinton because of his unorthodox Republican positions that could win over even some in the far left. But, policy is NOT the only consideration. Paul would likely have to run with Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire to balance out the gender and foreign policy handicaps, but that choice could also cost him some of his anti-war voters. Paul's one term in the Senate would be a definite disadvantage against Clinton's experience as a senator and as Secretary of State (and possibly as First Lady, as well...). He would be a decided underdog in this fight (but then, so would just about any candidate) but he matches up about as well with Clinton as any other Republican, at this point. 

How long will Rand stand in the race? I doubt he wins the nomination, but he will win some delegates and run a strong campaign. If I was him, though, I would make sure to be on the ballot for Kentucky's Senate race next year.