A large part of the Republican presidential field got a test run during this weekend’s Iowa Freedom Summit. In other words, the GOP presidential primary has begun. And a large field of candidates will face a skeptical primary voting base.

It should be abundantly clear after the last four years of GOP leadership in Congress that politicians will “refine” their message to mobilize a specific audience for a specific window of time. Saying that which tickles the ears and soothes the anger – yet with no results – has been the playbook for the DC GOP. It has now sown a thread of distrust throughout the tapestry of the Party of Reagan.

Analysis of voting records, previous electoral performance and conservative rankings all seem important in a GOP primary, but this early in the game the key factors are structural and strategic. Much has been written about the internal race for the “Establishment” among Governors Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie. The Establishment brings money and a national network of consultants and strategists who tap into the aristocracy of the center-right.

The remainder of the field will divide the “Not-Establishment” vote. In years past, that has meant divide and conquer fall.

The Not-Establishment GOP voter will look to candidates such as Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Scott Walker. There are others, but for now let’s take a quick peak at these three gents.

Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, in his first term in the upper chamber, is articulate, passionate, youthful and experienced. A son of Cuban immigrants who fled Fidel Castro’s brutal regime and became naturalized American citizens, Rubio has lived the ideals of the Republican base regarding the headlining immigration issue. Raised by God-fearing parents who obeyed the law, Rubio was educated in public school, conferred his degrees in state universities and paid his school loans off in 2012.

His very presence in the public arena is an existential threat to those who argue the legal immigration process is impossible. Perhaps that guided his participation with the Senate’s “Gang of Eight” in trying to cobble together “comprehensive immigration reform,” even though “comprehensive” is virtually never the way to go. Rubio’s public service, reaching back to his time as a commissioner in West Miami, has no sniff of family dynasty or anything shy of personal grit, political savvy and an eye for opportunity.

However, Rubio isn’t the Grand Old Party’s only Latino senator looking toward the White House. Texas Senator Ted Cruz, also in his first term, has found an intense base of support – the most passionate element of the Tea Party. Cruz has successfully positioned himself as the Tea Party rebel who enjoys the game of chicken in government shutdowns, drawing attention through filibuster speeches, and becoming the Right’s tireless campaigner.

But Cruz’s electoral history is thin. While having a record of public service, it had been through appointed positions until he ran for Kay Bailey Hutchison’s open Senate seat in 2012, which he won in a run-off with Texas Lt. Governor David Dewhurst. And that’s the extent of his campaign history – something that may hurt him in the free-for-all presidential primary.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has done what neither Rubio nor Cruz can claim – balanced budgets, defeated public unions, cut taxes, reduced spending and excelled in a state that has not voted for a GOP presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan’s 1984 landslide. It was his standoff with public unions that brought him to national prominence.

He’s also the quintessential DC-outsider. And he has a successful electoral history, though he has spent the majority of his time as governor defending his seat. Walker has won political campaigns on the local and state levels since 1993. As the son of a Baptist minister, his Christian conservative credibility is solid.

Rubio, Cruz and Walker would likely share much in the basis of policy. But their approach to governance would quickly separate the three based on their histories and their current roles.

Critical questions remain: Can any or all of these men raise the $50-plus million anticipated to keep their viability? Will any of these men have the ground game and network necessary to emerge as a winner? Will any of these men convince a jaded Republican base that the empty promises of the last two election cycles won’t be repeated? And can conservatives rally around a champion to avoid another Establishment candidate?