If the Republican establishment won't listen to the rank and file as regards the choice of candidate to run for the presidency perhaps they will listen to the voice of history.
As can be readily seen, where the Republican candidate was identified as having roots in the middle class, in a broad measure someone who could be identified as being able to identify with the great mass of Americans that candidate won significantly more times than a candidate identified as having an elite, wealthy background.
As the party turns its attention to 2016, and the obvious need to be seen by the emerging Hispanic community as being able to identify with their needs then a potential candidate like Sarah Palin, an example of middle class emergence par exellence, should be given every consideration If the Establishment wants to trot out e.g. a Bush,or retread Romney, then history is likely to judge them harshly.
When an Establishment/Next in line/multi-millionaire/scion of an elite multi-millionaire family runs on the GOP ticket these have been the results over the last century. Each one of the following candidates fits amongst the above categories.
2000 G.W. Bush-won
1992 G.W.H. Bush-lost
1988 G.W.H. Bush-won
1916 Hughes (Supreme Court Justice)-lost
1912-Taft (Yale Skull & Bones Club founded by his father)-lost
That's six losses and three wins-a 33% winning average.
When the GOP ran candidates who were from middle class backgrounds, from farm and country, who had worked their way up in the world to hold positions of authority this was the result: (I have not included the four Roosevelt campaigns as they were outside the norm being the result of a massive depression and a war. No candidate, no matter what their background, could have defeated Roosevelt under those circumstances)
That's nine winning campaigns and four lost campaigns-a 69% winning ratio