Today, Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI), declared his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination. Walker is hardened like few other candidates, surviving two gubernatorial contests, a recall election, and bruising fights over public employee unions in his home state.* This record puts Walker in the top-tier regardless of other factors. Polling results in Iowa put him in the lead for the nation’s first presidential contest, while national tallies have him in the middle of the pack.**

This does not set the GOP field. We are still awaiting John Kasich’s (R-OH) entry, which seems imminent. If Kasich does the expected, we will have…17 Republican candidates. You need a program to keep the players straight. How many  of these people could walk down a public street and NOT be recognized? My money is on at least five, unless the street is in Washington, D.C. The roster includes:

• Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Jim Gilmore, Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, George Pataki, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Donald Trump, and Scott Walker

Out of this gaggle, I think we can discern a top-tier of candidates who combine fundraising, image, resumé, and appeal to significant chunks of the Republican party. Walker, Rubio, and Bush should have legs. Of the remaining candidates, my dark horse for entering the top-tier is Ted Cruz. He may be able to tap into the angry side of the party once Trump wanes–and he will.

The best question: why are so many Republicans running? This is a strong field that includes some accomplished people who are credible candidates–Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, and Rick Perry would have been clear front-runners in many fields, but they might struggle to make a mark in this contest. Even if they lose, this says little about their talents, but more about their context, which seems stacked against them.

There are still other candidates who have virtually zero chance of success. I am afraid that presidential politics has fully entered into its celebrity phase. Given the media exposure, and the “narrowcasting” that allows candidates to ingratiate themselves with slivers of the political culture, the benefits of running outweigh the costs of losing. The benefits include expanded career and economic opportunities which are not necessarily mitigated by defeat–even if it is a trouncing. Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, and Herman Cain leveraged electoral defeat into lucrative television and radio contracts. Most of the current candidates, through higher name recognition, will sell more books and demand higher speaker’s fees based on these campaigns. And, of course, they are also competing for more political opportunities–other offices, cabinet posts, or diplomatic appointments.

In short, losing carries only a small stigma, so why not run?

Some candidates are not only responding to “economic” incentives, but they are ideologically driven. Even if their chances are slim or non-existent, they care deeply about a set of issues and want to use the campaign to highlight them. The best case scenario is for these candidates to use their rhetoric to shift the arguments and nurture a new generation of activists. I would put Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and maybe Rick Santorum in this category. They are playing a long game and will likely pop up again in the future. (This is also true for Bernie Sanders in the Democrat primary, though it is unlikely he will run again in the future.)

Regardless, this is a big field. Given its size, it is also unpredictable in some ways. Expect some people to argue that the field’s size will make it harder for the eventual winner to unite the party and defeat the Democrat nominee. There is little evidence for this. Also, some will argue that the size of the field makes a brokered convention more likely. Though I would love to see it, don’t expect it to happen. Instead, this whole thing will be wrapped up by April or so.

*Walker just signed a budget into law that begins to roll back tenure protections in Wisconsin’s public institutions of higher learning. Essentially, the Wisconsin Board of Regents can write tenure guidelines apart from state law. Though it is not necessarily clear how the Board will approach tenure, the fear is it will give academic officers more latitude to remove people when educational demand shifts or the power to hammer faculty not living up to expectations. Unsurprisingly, Walker’s budget has drawn significant criticism from labor unions, professors, and some university presidents, including Rebecca M. Blank of Wisconsin-Madison.

**Polling at this point is a product of name recognition, especially at the national level. Since we are so far removed from the actual contests, the polls are speculative and not terribly reliable.