Republican Presidential Candidates

[Madea]

Several of my "liberal" friends have posted that they will hold their nose and punch for Hillary. Their situation isn't much better.

 

[J-man]

I'm not caving this time around, I've felt like I've had to eat what was being forced fed to me for the last several cycles. Not this time around, I'm ordering what I want off the menu and it better come with dessert.

 

[mrnn]

Y'all enjoy that high road while Hillary becomes president. If you think Obama is bad (and I REALLY do), just wait until you get the Hildabeast.

That's the problem, though, I think historians 50 years from now will judge Obama as one of the greatest Presidents of all-time. I already feel that way given the things he's done while in office. With that said, of course Hillary would be a step down. But who am I going to vote for, Bernie Sanders?!? I like a lot of what Bernie has to say but I can't, in good conscience, make fun of the GOtP nominating ideologues with no chance in a general and then do the same as a progressive. Hell, I'd consider voting Republican if there were actually a sane candidate on the ballot.

Jon Huntsman is who you guys should've nominated in 2012 or encouraged to run this year. He's a true pragmatist with executive experience. What's funny is that he was called a RINO in 2012 by the Tea Partiers but his record as governor was waaayyy more conservative than any of his opponents. Apparently stating that Republicans are being dumb for dismissing science blew all those accomplishments off the board in most voters' eyes. That was/is a guy who would beat many dems in a general.

ETA, re: Huntsman -- Obama campaign leaders came out after the election and stated, on the record, that Huntsman was the one republican they didn't want to get the GOP nomination....he worried them, greatly.


mrnn

 

[mei lan]

I understand what many of you are feeling about the GOP; I am also pretty put out with them.

But the fact still remains that there is currently no 3rd part candidate who has a snowball's chance of winning the presidency. And the Electoral College system makes it nearly impossible for a 3rd party candidate to win, even if they are a good one. I don't like that one bit, but it's fact.

So what do we do? The real effect of voting 3rd party in the next election will be to help elect the Democrat.

It sucks, it really does. But we need to be pragmatic about things.

I'm sorry, but I'm with J-man on this. I have held my nose and voted for crap just so Democrats wouldn't be elected. And lo and behold the Republicans have just rubber-stamped the entire Democrat agenda. Well, no more...I am voting my conscience NO MATTER WHAT.

 

[J-man]

I understand what many of you are feeling about the GOP; I am also pretty put out with them.

But the fact still remains that there is currently no 3rd part candidate who has a snowball's chance of winning the presidency. And the Electoral College system makes it nearly impossible for a 3rd party candidate to win, even if they are a good one. I don't like that one bit, but it's fact.

So what do we do? The real effect of voting 3rd party in the next election will be to help elect the Democrat.

It sucks, it really does. But we need to be pragmatic about things.

I'm sorry, but I'm with J-man on this. I have held my nose and voted for crap just so Democrats wouldn't be elected. And lo and behold the Republicans have just rubber-stamped the entire Democrat agenda. Well, no more...I am voting my conscience NO MATTER WHAT.

We can always "write-in" LTD. :whistle

 

[Guard Dad]

I think historians 50 years from now will judge Obama as one of the greatest Presidents of all-time.




mrnn

:laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

Good one!

 

[honeybunny]

Y'all enjoy that high road while Hillary becomes president. If you think Obama is bad (and I REALLY do), just wait until you get the Hildabeast.

That's the problem, though, I think historians 50 years from now will judge Obama as one of the greatest Presidents of all-time. I already feel that way given the things he's done while in office. With that said, of course Hillary would be a step down. But who am I going to vote for, Bernie Sanders?!? I like a lot of what Bernie has to say but I can't, in good conscience, make fun of the GOtP nominating ideologues with no chance in a general and then do the same as a progressive. Hell, I'd consider voting Republican if there were actually a sane candidate on the ballot.

Jon Huntsman is who you guys should've nominated in 2012 or encouraged to run this year. He's a true pragmatist with executive experience. What's funny is that he was called a RINO in 2012 by the Tea Partiers but his record as governor was waaayyy more conservative than any of his opponents. Apparently stating that Republicans are being dumb for dismissing science blew all those accomplishments off the board in most voters' eyes. That was/is a guy who would beat many dems in a general.

ETA, re: Huntsman -- Obama campaign leaders came out after the election and stated, on the record, that Huntsman was the one republican they didn't want to get the GOP nomination....he worried them, greatly.


mrnn

Hillary is trailing the top 3 Republicans in key swing states...

 

[J-man]

There's a long way to go, there will be many surprises (and disappointments) yet to come. opcorn

 

[lotstodo]

I understand what many of you are feeling about the GOP; I am also pretty put out with them.

But the fact still remains that there is currently no 3rd part candidate who has a snowball's chance of winning the presidency. And the Electoral College system makes it nearly impossible for a 3rd party candidate to win, even if they are a good one. I don't like that one bit, but it's fact.

So what do we do? The real effect of voting 3rd party in the next election will be to help elect the Democrat.

It sucks, it really does. But we need to be pragmatic about things.

I'm sorry, but I'm with J-man on this. I have held my nose and voted for crap just so Democrats wouldn't be elected. And lo and behold the Republicans have just rubber-stamped the entire Democrat agenda. Well, no more...I am voting my conscience NO MATTER WHAT.

We can always "write-in" LTD. :whistle

:laugh Let me know how that works out for ya.

mrnn has a point about Ideologues like Sanders and handful of the Republicans. What they spew may sound good, but it has no basis in reality. We all know (or should know) that Socialism doesn't work, and neither does Theism.

Hillary is pure scum, but she is far more practical than Trump et.al. She knows how to play the game to her advantage. She may be indicted immediately after election, but she is a political animal. Jim Webb is probably the best guy they have, but he won't get any of the big money. he will have to win in the debates.

Bush, Cruz, Paul, Rubio, and Walker are the only serious Republicans. The rest are background noise, but that noise will hurt the brand as long as they hang on and feed the press sound bites. Five serious contenders are still a lot, and if they can differentiate themselves from the pack without resorting to ad homenem attacks, they represent a wide spectrum of the party.

Bush will get the big money, but I don't think he will get the nomination. If he does, Hillary or Sanders will be the next President.

Ted Cruz embodies the Republican talking points both socially and fiscally, but he will cave economically once elected. He has lost the minority interest he had a few months ago.

Paul is the "Libertarian Lite" candidate, strong fiscally and still socially conservative himself, but his ties to libertarianism no matter how tenuous will hurt him in the primary. He would be strong in the general election and leads Hillary in many swing states right now. His economic plan is the most developed, even if it suffers from some of the same problems as the Fair Tax from a PR standpoint. His foreign Relations stance will be a plus both in the Primary and General if he can get people to listen to him instead of what others say about him. So far he has failed at that.

Rubio and Walker are the most "Teflon" Republicans in contention. There really isn't much negative truth to be said about either, even by the Democrats who have tried to shoot down Walker with whatever they think might stick for six years with no luck. I believe that if you asked Debbie Wasserman Schultz who she feared most, it would be one of these two. Both can win the nomination by doing well in the debates and rallying some grass roots money. 2014 showed that non-traditional candidates can win state races, but can they win a national campaign against the National Committee.

Rubio will do better with minorities better than any other candidate except Paul, Making him a strong choice in the General. He has perhaps the best middle class message of all of the Republicans.

Walker has defeated Democrats in a Democratic and heavily unionized state. The Unions don't have quite the power they had several years back, but they still spend nearly as much money as the biggest Republican donors. He may be the silver bullet that the Republicans are looking for, even if he isn't the most "conservative" candidate running.

 

[honeybunny]

A Walker / Rubio ticket sounds like a winner... as I predicted several months back.

Thanks for finally agreeing with me... ) ) )

 

[mrnn]

I understand what many of you are feeling about the GOP; I am also pretty put out with them.

But the fact still remains that there is currently no 3rd part candidate who has a snowball's chance of winning the presidency. And the Electoral College system makes it nearly impossible for a 3rd party candidate to win, even if they are a good one. I don't like that one bit, but it's fact.

So what do we do? The real effect of voting 3rd party in the next election will be to help elect the Democrat.

It sucks, it really does. But we need to be pragmatic about things.

I'm sorry, but I'm with J-man on this. I have held my nose and voted for crap just so Democrats wouldn't be elected. And lo and behold the Republicans have just rubber-stamped the entire Democrat agenda. Well, no more...I am voting my conscience NO MATTER WHAT.

We can always "write-in" LTD. :whistle

:laugh Let me know how that works out for ya.

mrnn has a point about Ideologues like Sanders and handful of the Republicans. What they spew may sound good, but it has no basis in reality. We all know (or should know) that Socialism doesn't work, and neither does Theism.

Hillary is pure scum, but she is far more practical than Trump et.al. She knows how to play the game to her advantage. She may be indicted immediately after election, but she is a political animal. Jim Webb is probably the best guy they have, but he won't get any of the big money. he will have to win in the debates.

Bush, Cruz, Paul, Rubio, and Walker are the only serious Republicans. The rest are background noise, but that noise will hurt the brand as long as they hang on and feed the press sound bites. Five serious contenders are still a lot, and if they can differentiate themselves from the pack without resorting to ad homenem attacks, they represent a wide spectrum of the party.

Bush will get the big money, but I don't think he will get the nomination. If he does, Hillary or Sanders will be the next President.

Ted Cruz embodies the Republican talking points both socially and fiscally, but he will cave economically once elected. He has lost the minority interest he had a few months ago.

Paul is the "Libertarian Lite" candidate, strong fiscally and still socially conservative himself, but his ties to libertarianism no matter how tenuous will hurt him in the primary. He would be strong in the general election and leads Hillary in many swing states right now. His economic plan is the most developed, even if it suffers from some of the same problems as the Fair Tax from a PR standpoint. His foreign Relations stance will be a plus both in the Primary and General if he can get people to listen to him instead of what others say about him. So far he has failed at that.

Rubio and Walker are the most "Teflon" Republicans in contention. There really isn't much negative truth to be said about either, even by the Democrats who have tried to shoot down Walker with whatever they think might stick for six years with no luck. I believe that if you asked Debbie Wasserman Schultz who she feared most, it would be one of these two. Both can win the nomination by doing well in the debates and rallying some grass roots money. 2014 showed that non-traditional candidates can win state races, but can they win a national campaign against the National Committee.

Rubio will do better with minorities better than any other candidate except Paul, Making him a strong choice in the General. He has perhaps the best middle class message of all of the Republicans.

Walker has defeated Democrats in a Democratic and heavily unionized state. The Unions don't have quite the power they had several years back, but they still spend nearly as much money as the biggest Republican donors. He may be the silver bullet that the Republicans are looking for, even if he isn't the most "conservative" candidate running.

I'd drop Cruz from the list of serious candidates.....the press has already caricatured him, much as they have Chris Christie.

Bush will get the nomination, imo. He's "next in line" as far as the GOP cycle goes. He'll appeal to the Latinos, will carry establishment republicans, and, as you mentioned, will carry the support of Wall St.

Walker is a trainwreck waiting to happen. So far his answer has been "I don't know" on both evolution and whether homosexuality is a choice. Eventually he's going to have to take true positions on issues that he may not be comfortable taking and/or defending. The college thing will be thrown in his face and I question how well he'll do in the debates....a candidate can get away with empty answers to the media during campaign events but once we get to the debates and one-on-one serious interviews, he won't be able to get away with saying nothing (though Romney did pretty well at it lol). With all that said, this is the Koch brothers' guy so funding, an elite team of advisers, and a ton of effective prep could pull him through to the nomination.

Rubio is an intriguing candidate....I'm not a fan but he's handsome, smart, well-spoken, and a minority....a pretty good combo for today's political climate. I don't think he can be ruled out.

Paul is the guy who really worries me as a progressive....he can speak "populist" about as well as anyone on either side and does so in a convincing manner. He's sharp and will not lose debates (except to maybe the master-debater, Cruz). It's a matter of money and not letting his mouth runoff (which he's been known to do).

mrnn

 

[Guard Dad]

I understand what many of you are feeling about the GOP; I am also pretty put out with them.

But the fact still remains that there is currently no 3rd part candidate who has a snowball's chance of winning the presidency. And the Electoral College system makes it nearly impossible for a 3rd party candidate to win, even if they are a good one. I don't like that one bit, but it's fact.

So what do we do? The real effect of voting 3rd party in the next election will be to help elect the Democrat.

It sucks, it really does. But we need to be pragmatic about things.

I'm sorry, but I'm with J-man on this. I have held my nose and voted for crap just so Democrats wouldn't be elected. And lo and behold the Republicans have just rubber-stamped the entire Democrat agenda. Well, no more...I am voting my conscience NO MATTER WHAT.

We can always "write-in" LTD. :whistle

:laugh Let me know how that works out for ya.

mrnn has a point about Ideologues like Sanders and handful of the Republicans. What they spew may sound good, but it has no basis in reality. We all know (or should know) that Socialism doesn't work, and neither does Theism.

Hillary is pure scum, but she is far more practical than Trump et.al. She knows how to play the game to her advantage. She may be indicted immediately after election, but she is a political animal. Jim Webb is probably the best guy they have, but he won't get any of the big money. he will have to win in the debates.

Bush, Cruz, Paul, Rubio, and Walker are the only serious Republicans. The rest are background noise, but that noise will hurt the brand as long as they hang on and feed the press sound bites. Five serious contenders are still a lot, and if they can differentiate themselves from the pack without resorting to ad homenem attacks, they represent a wide spectrum of the party.

Bush will get the big money, but I don't think he will get the nomination. If he does, Hillary or Sanders will be the next President.

Ted Cruz embodies the Republican talking points both socially and fiscally, but he will cave economically once elected. He has lost the minority interest he had a few months ago.

Paul is the "Libertarian Lite" candidate, strong fiscally and still socially conservative himself, but his ties to libertarianism no matter how tenuous will hurt him in the primary. He would be strong in the general election and leads Hillary in many swing states right now. His economic plan is the most developed, even if it suffers from some of the same problems as the Fair Tax from a PR standpoint. His foreign Relations stance will be a plus both in the Primary and General if he can get people to listen to him instead of what others say about him. So far he has failed at that.

Rubio and Walker are the most "Teflon" Republicans in contention. There really isn't much negative truth to be said about either, even by the Democrats who have tried to shoot down Walker with whatever they think might stick for six years with no luck. I believe that if you asked Debbie Wasserman Schultz who she feared most, it would be one of these two. Both can win the nomination by doing well in the debates and rallying some grass roots money. 2014 showed that non-traditional candidates can win state races, but can they win a national campaign against the National Committee.

Rubio will do better with minorities better than any other candidate except Paul, Making him a strong choice in the General. He has perhaps the best middle class message of all of the Republicans.

Walker has defeated Democrats in a Democratic and heavily unionized state. The Unions don't have quite the power they had several years back, but they still spend nearly as much money as the biggest Republican donors. He may be the silver bullet that the Republicans are looking for, even if he isn't the most "conservative" candidate running.

I'd drop Cruz from the list of serious candidates.....the press has already caricatured him, much as they have Chris Christie.

Bush will get the nomination, imo. He's "next in line" as far as the GOP cycle goes. He'll appeal to the Latinos, will carry establishment republicans, and, as you mentioned, will carry the support of Wall St.

Walker is a trainwreck waiting to happen. So far his answer has been "I don't know" on both evolution and whether homosexuality is a choice. Eventually he's going to have to take true positions on issues that he may not be comfortable taking and/or defending. The college thing will be thrown in his face and I question how well he'll do in the debates....a candidate can get away with empty answers to the media during campaign events but once we get to the debates and one-on-one serious interviews, he won't be able to get away with saying nothing (though Romney did pretty well at it lol). With all that said, this is the Koch brothers' guy so funding, an elite team of advisers, and a ton of effective prep could pull him through to the nomination.

Rubio is an intriguing candidate....I'm not a fan but he's handsome, smart, well-spoken, and a minority....a pretty good combo for today's political climate. I don't think he can be ruled out.

Paul is the guy who really worries me as a progressive....he can speak "populist" about as well as anyone on either side and does so in a convincing manner. He's sharp and will not lose debates (except to maybe the master-debater, Cruz). It's a matter of money and not letting his mouth runoff (which he's been known to do).

mrnn

But you're looking at this through a liberal's eyes. And that's what might make your side lose.

Most would-be Republican voters don't give a rat's butt about evolution. And for good reason...the topic affects regular people about as much as what brand of toilet paper Hillary wipes her fat butt with does. Only the rank-and-file Democrats give a real rip about evo, and that's because they use it as a political tool.

Most people who don't have a D tattooed on their butts also don't care whether homosexuality is a choice or not. It's also just a political tool for the Democrats.

Both of these are really social issues that have little place in this debate. People want to hear how our leaders are going to reign in spending, lower taxes, take the handcuffs off the economy and allow jobs (real jobs, not government jobs) to be created. People want to know how our leaders will deal with the terror thread that Obama has mainly ignored, and keep our nation safe. These are the topics that will captivate the voters and turn them out on election day.

 

[mrnn]

I understand what many of you are feeling about the GOP; I am also pretty put out with them.

But the fact still remains that there is currently no 3rd part candidate who has a snowball's chance of winning the presidency. And the Electoral College system makes it nearly impossible for a 3rd party candidate to win, even if they are a good one. I don't like that one bit, but it's fact.

So what do we do? The real effect of voting 3rd party in the next election will be to help elect the Democrat.

It sucks, it really does. But we need to be pragmatic about things.

I'm sorry, but I'm with J-man on this. I have held my nose and voted for crap just so Democrats wouldn't be elected. And lo and behold the Republicans have just rubber-stamped the entire Democrat agenda. Well, no more...I am voting my conscience NO MATTER WHAT.

We can always "write-in" LTD. :whistle

:laugh Let me know how that works out for ya.

mrnn has a point about Ideologues like Sanders and handful of the Republicans. What they spew may sound good, but it has no basis in reality. We all know (or should know) that Socialism doesn't work, and neither does Theism.

Hillary is pure scum, but she is far more practical than Trump et.al. She knows how to play the game to her advantage. She may be indicted immediately after election, but she is a political animal. Jim Webb is probably the best guy they have, but he won't get any of the big money. he will have to win in the debates.

Bush, Cruz, Paul, Rubio, and Walker are the only serious Republicans. The rest are background noise, but that noise will hurt the brand as long as they hang on and feed the press sound bites. Five serious contenders are still a lot, and if they can differentiate themselves from the pack without resorting to ad homenem attacks, they represent a wide spectrum of the party.

Bush will get the big money, but I don't think he will get the nomination. If he does, Hillary or Sanders will be the next President.

Ted Cruz embodies the Republican talking points both socially and fiscally, but he will cave economically once elected. He has lost the minority interest he had a few months ago.

Paul is the "Libertarian Lite" candidate, strong fiscally and still socially conservative himself, but his ties to libertarianism no matter how tenuous will hurt him in the primary. He would be strong in the general election and leads Hillary in many swing states right now. His economic plan is the most developed, even if it suffers from some of the same problems as the Fair Tax from a PR standpoint. His foreign Relations stance will be a plus both in the Primary and General if he can get people to listen to him instead of what others say about him. So far he has failed at that.

Rubio and Walker are the most "Teflon" Republicans in contention. There really isn't much negative truth to be said about either, even by the Democrats who have tried to shoot down Walker with whatever they think might stick for six years with no luck. I believe that if you asked Debbie Wasserman Schultz who she feared most, it would be one of these two. Both can win the nomination by doing well in the debates and rallying some grass roots money. 2014 showed that non-traditional candidates can win state races, but can they win a national campaign against the National Committee.

Rubio will do better with minorities better than any other candidate except Paul, Making him a strong choice in the General. He has perhaps the best middle class message of all of the Republicans.

Walker has defeated Democrats in a Democratic and heavily unionized state. The Unions don't have quite the power they had several years back, but they still spend nearly as much money as the biggest Republican donors. He may be the silver bullet that the Republicans are looking for, even if he isn't the most "conservative" candidate running.

I'd drop Cruz from the list of serious candidates.....the press has already caricatured him, much as they have Chris Christie.

Bush will get the nomination, imo. He's "next in line" as far as the GOP cycle goes. He'll appeal to the Latinos, will carry establishment republicans, and, as you mentioned, will carry the support of Wall St.

Walker is a trainwreck waiting to happen. So far his answer has been "I don't know" on both evolution and whether homosexuality is a choice. Eventually he's going to have to take true positions on issues that he may not be comfortable taking and/or defending. The college thing will be thrown in his face and I question how well he'll do in the debates....a candidate can get away with empty answers to the media during campaign events but once we get to the debates and one-on-one serious interviews, he won't be able to get away with saying nothing (though Romney did pretty well at it lol). With all that said, this is the Koch brothers' guy so funding, an elite team of advisers, and a ton of effective prep could pull him through to the nomination.

Rubio is an intriguing candidate....I'm not a fan but he's handsome, smart, well-spoken, and a minority....a pretty good combo for today's political climate. I don't think he can be ruled out.

Paul is the guy who really worries me as a progressive....he can speak "populist" about as well as anyone on either side and does so in a convincing manner. He's sharp and will not lose debates (except to maybe the master-debater, Cruz). It's a matter of money and not letting his mouth runoff (which he's been known to do).

mrnn

But you're looking at this through a liberal's eyes. And that's what might make your side lose.

Most would-be Republican voters don't give a rat's butt about evolution. And for good reason...the topic affects regular people about as much as what brand of toilet paper Hillary wipes her fat butt with does. Only the rank-and-file Democrats give a real rip about evo, and that's because they use it as a political tool.

Most people who don't have a D tattooed on their butts also don't care whether homosexuality is a choice or not. It's also just a political tool for the Democrats.

Both of these are really social issues that have little place in this debate. People want to hear how our leaders are going to reign in spending, lower taxes, take the handcuffs off the economy and allow jobs (real jobs, not government jobs) to be created. People want to know how our leaders will deal with the terror thread that Obama has mainly ignored, and keep our nation safe. These are the topics that will captivate the voters and turn them out on election day.

How'd that work out for you the last 2 election cycles?

The problem is that the GOP's idea of reigning in spending and lowering taxes is to kill safety nets, attack healthcare, and lower taxes for only the wealthiest Americans. Other than older white males, the wealthy, and brainwashed right wing lemmings, who, exactly, do you think they will convince to vote for them? They've been consistently getting their asses handed to them in 5 of the last 6 generals, losing the popular vote, and the demographics of this nation are not trending in their favor.

We'll agree to disagree as far as social issues not having an impact....Republicans have been killed by female voters the last couple of election cycles. Gay rights is a settled issue (for the most part) both legally and in the eyes of the general public...but many of your candidates are still hanging onto it and talking about it. Not going to work well in a general. The denial of evolution means denial of science...if you REALLY think that Americans will vote an open creationist into office, well, I've got news for you, bud. And now you guys have got this whole Planned Parenthood attack going on which, if you watch the unedited video, is nothing but a hack job by an anti-abortion group. Brilliant idea...make abortion a front and center issue just in time for election season. :

mrnn

 

[stradial]

I understand what many of you are feeling about the GOP; I am also pretty put out with them.

But the fact still remains that there is currently no 3rd part candidate who has a snowball's chance of winning the presidency. And the Electoral College system makes it nearly impossible for a 3rd party candidate to win, even if they are a good one. I don't like that one bit, but it's fact.

So what do we do? The real effect of voting 3rd party in the next election will be to help elect the Democrat.

It sucks, it really does. But we need to be pragmatic about things.

I'm sorry, but I'm with J-man on this. I have held my nose and voted for crap just so Democrats wouldn't be elected. And lo and behold the Republicans have just rubber-stamped the entire Democrat agenda. Well, no more...I am voting my conscience NO MATTER WHAT.

We can always "write-in" LTD. :whistle

:laugh Let me know how that works out for ya.

mrnn has a point about Ideologues like Sanders and handful of the Republicans. What they spew may sound good, but it has no basis in reality. We all know (or should know) that Socialism doesn't work, and neither does Theism.

Hillary is pure scum, but she is far more practical than Trump et.al. She knows how to play the game to her advantage. She may be indicted immediately after election, but she is a political animal. Jim Webb is probably the best guy they have, but he won't get any of the big money. he will have to win in the debates.

Bush, Cruz, Paul, Rubio, and Walker are the only serious Republicans. The rest are background noise, but that noise will hurt the brand as long as they hang on and feed the press sound bites. Five serious contenders are still a lot, and if they can differentiate themselves from the pack without resorting to ad homenem attacks, they represent a wide spectrum of the party.

Bush will get the big money, but I don't think he will get the nomination. If he does, Hillary or Sanders will be the next President.

Ted Cruz embodies the Republican talking points both socially and fiscally, but he will cave economically once elected. He has lost the minority interest he had a few months ago.

Paul is the "Libertarian Lite" candidate, strong fiscally and still socially conservative himself, but his ties to libertarianism no matter how tenuous will hurt him in the primary. He would be strong in the general election and leads Hillary in many swing states right now. His economic plan is the most developed, even if it suffers from some of the same problems as the Fair Tax from a PR standpoint. His foreign Relations stance will be a plus both in the Primary and General if he can get people to listen to him instead of what others say about him. So far he has failed at that.

Rubio and Walker are the most "Teflon" Republicans in contention. There really isn't much negative truth to be said about either, even by the Democrats who have tried to shoot down Walker with whatever they think might stick for six years with no luck. I believe that if you asked Debbie Wasserman Schultz who she feared most, it would be one of these two. Both can win the nomination by doing well in the debates and rallying some grass roots money. 2014 showed that non-traditional candidates can win state races, but can they win a national campaign against the National Committee.

Rubio will do better with minorities better than any other candidate except Paul, Making him a strong choice in the General. He has perhaps the best middle class message of all of the Republicans.

Walker has defeated Democrats in a Democratic and heavily unionized state. The Unions don't have quite the power they had several years back, but they still spend nearly as much money as the biggest Republican donors. He may be the silver bullet that the Republicans are looking for, even if he isn't the most "conservative" candidate running.

I'd drop Cruz from the list of serious candidates.....the press has already caricatured him, much as they have Chris Christie.

Bush will get the nomination, imo. He's "next in line" as far as the GOP cycle goes. He'll appeal to the Latinos, will carry establishment republicans, and, as you mentioned, will carry the support of Wall St.

Walker is a trainwreck waiting to happen. So far his answer has been "I don't know" on both evolution and whether homosexuality is a choice. Eventually he's going to have to take true positions on issues that he may not be comfortable taking and/or defending. The college thing will be thrown in his face and I question how well he'll do in the debates....a candidate can get away with empty answers to the media during campaign events but once we get to the debates and one-on-one serious interviews, he won't be able to get away with saying nothing (though Romney did pretty well at it lol). With all that said, this is the Koch brothers' guy so funding, an elite team of advisers, and a ton of effective prep could pull him through to the nomination.

Rubio is an intriguing candidate....I'm not a fan but he's handsome, smart, well-spoken, and a minority....a pretty good combo for today's political climate. I don't think he can be ruled out.

Paul is the guy who really worries me as a progressive....he can speak "populist" about as well as anyone on either side and does so in a convincing manner. He's sharp and will not lose debates (except to maybe the master-debater, Cruz). It's a matter of money and not letting his mouth runoff (which he's been known to do).

mrnn

But you're looking at this through a liberal's eyes. And that's what might make your side lose.

Most would-be Republican voters don't give a rat's butt about evolution. And for good reason...the topic affects regular people about as much as what brand of toilet paper Hillary wipes her fat butt with does. Only the rank-and-file Democrats give a real rip about evo, and that's because they use it as a political tool.

Most people who don't have a D tattooed on their butts also don't care whether homosexuality is a choice or not. It's also just a political tool for the Democrats.

Both of these are really social issues that have little place in this debate. People want to hear how our leaders are going to reign in spending, lower taxes, take the handcuffs off the economy and allow jobs (real jobs, not government jobs) to be created. People want to know how our leaders will deal with the terror thread that Obama has mainly ignored, and keep our nation safe. These are the topics that will captivate the voters and turn them out on election day.

How'd that work out for you the last 2 election cycles?

The problem is that the GOP's idea of reigning in spending and lowering taxes is to kill safety nets, attack healthcare, and lower taxes for only the wealthiest Americans. Other than older white males, the wealthy, and brainwashed right wing lemmings, who, exactly, do you think they will convince to vote for them? They've been consistently getting their asses handed to them in 5 of the last 6 generals, losing the popular vote, and the demographics of this nation are not trending in their favor.

We'll agree to disagree as far as social issues not having an impact....Republicans have been killed by female voters the last couple of election cycles. Gay rights is a settled issue (for the most part) both legally and in the eyes of the general public...but many of your candidates are still hanging onto it and talking about it. Not going to work well in a general. The denial of evolution means denial of science...if you REALLY think that Americans will vote an open creationist into office, well, I've got news for you, bud. And now you guys have got this whole Planned Parenthood attack going on which, if you watch the unedited video, is nothing but a hack job by an anti-abortion group. Brilliant idea...make abortion a front and center issue just in time for election season. :

mrnn

Women should have never been allowed to vote.
99% of them vote purely on emotion.
Trust me, I know from what I speak.

Ohhhhh, same thing for liberals.

 

[mrnn]

I understand what many of you are feeling about the GOP; I am also pretty put out with them.

But the fact still remains that there is currently no 3rd part candidate who has a snowball's chance of winning the presidency. And the Electoral College system makes it nearly impossible for a 3rd party candidate to win, even if they are a good one. I don't like that one bit, but it's fact.

So what do we do? The real effect of voting 3rd party in the next election will be to help elect the Democrat.

It sucks, it really does. But we need to be pragmatic about things.

I'm sorry, but I'm with J-man on this. I have held my nose and voted for crap just so Democrats wouldn't be elected. And lo and behold the Republicans have just rubber-stamped the entire Democrat agenda. Well, no more...I am voting my conscience NO MATTER WHAT.

We can always "write-in" LTD. :whistle

:laugh Let me know how that works out for ya.

mrnn has a point about Ideologues like Sanders and handful of the Republicans. What they spew may sound good, but it has no basis in reality. We all know (or should know) that Socialism doesn't work, and neither does Theism.

Hillary is pure scum, but she is far more practical than Trump et.al. She knows how to play the game to her advantage. She may be indicted immediately after election, but she is a political animal. Jim Webb is probably the best guy they have, but he won't get any of the big money. he will have to win in the debates.

Bush, Cruz, Paul, Rubio, and Walker are the only serious Republicans. The rest are background noise, but that noise will hurt the brand as long as they hang on and feed the press sound bites. Five serious contenders are still a lot, and if they can differentiate themselves from the pack without resorting to ad homenem attacks, they represent a wide spectrum of the party.

Bush will get the big money, but I don't think he will get the nomination. If he does, Hillary or Sanders will be the next President.

Ted Cruz embodies the Republican talking points both socially and fiscally, but he will cave economically once elected. He has lost the minority interest he had a few months ago.

Paul is the "Libertarian Lite" candidate, strong fiscally and still socially conservative himself, but his ties to libertarianism no matter how tenuous will hurt him in the primary. He would be strong in the general election and leads Hillary in many swing states right now. His economic plan is the most developed, even if it suffers from some of the same problems as the Fair Tax from a PR standpoint. His foreign Relations stance will be a plus both in the Primary and General if he can get people to listen to him instead of what others say about him. So far he has failed at that.

Rubio and Walker are the most "Teflon" Republicans in contention. There really isn't much negative truth to be said about either, even by the Democrats who have tried to shoot down Walker with whatever they think might stick for six years with no luck. I believe that if you asked Debbie Wasserman Schultz who she feared most, it would be one of these two. Both can win the nomination by doing well in the debates and rallying some grass roots money. 2014 showed that non-traditional candidates can win state races, but can they win a national campaign against the National Committee.

Rubio will do better with minorities better than any other candidate except Paul, Making him a strong choice in the General. He has perhaps the best middle class message of all of the Republicans.

Walker has defeated Democrats in a Democratic and heavily unionized state. The Unions don't have quite the power they had several years back, but they still spend nearly as much money as the biggest Republican donors. He may be the silver bullet that the Republicans are looking for, even if he isn't the most "conservative" candidate running.

I'd drop Cruz from the list of serious candidates.....the press has already caricatured him, much as they have Chris Christie.

Bush will get the nomination, imo. He's "next in line" as far as the GOP cycle goes. He'll appeal to the Latinos, will carry establishment republicans, and, as you mentioned, will carry the support of Wall St.

Walker is a trainwreck waiting to happen. So far his answer has been "I don't know" on both evolution and whether homosexuality is a choice. Eventually he's going to have to take true positions on issues that he may not be comfortable taking and/or defending. The college thing will be thrown in his face and I question how well he'll do in the debates....a candidate can get away with empty answers to the media during campaign events but once we get to the debates and one-on-one serious interviews, he won't be able to get away with saying nothing (though Romney did pretty well at it lol). With all that said, this is the Koch brothers' guy so funding, an elite team of advisers, and a ton of effective prep could pull him through to the nomination.

Rubio is an intriguing candidate....I'm not a fan but he's handsome, smart, well-spoken, and a minority....a pretty good combo for today's political climate. I don't think he can be ruled out.

Paul is the guy who really worries me as a progressive....he can speak "populist" about as well as anyone on either side and does so in a convincing manner. He's sharp and will not lose debates (except to maybe the master-debater, Cruz). It's a matter of money and not letting his mouth runoff (which he's been known to do).

mrnn

But you're looking at this through a liberal's eyes. And that's what might make your side lose.

Most would-be Republican voters don't give a rat's butt about evolution. And for good reason...the topic affects regular people about as much as what brand of toilet paper Hillary wipes her fat butt with does. Only the rank-and-file Democrats give a real rip about evo, and that's because they use it as a political tool.

Most people who don't have a D tattooed on their butts also don't care whether homosexuality is a choice or not. It's also just a political tool for the Democrats.

Both of these are really social issues that have little place in this debate. People want to hear how our leaders are going to reign in spending, lower taxes, take the handcuffs off the economy and allow jobs (real jobs, not government jobs) to be created. People want to know how our leaders will deal with the terror thread that Obama has mainly ignored, and keep our nation safe. These are the topics that will captivate the voters and turn them out on election day.

How'd that work out for you the last 2 election cycles?

The problem is that the GOP's idea of reigning in spending and lowering taxes is to kill safety nets, attack healthcare, and lower taxes for only the wealthiest Americans. Other than older white males, the wealthy, and brainwashed right wing lemmings, who, exactly, do you think they will convince to vote for them? They've been consistently getting their asses handed to them in 5 of the last 6 generals, losing the popular vote, and the demographics of this nation are not trending in their favor.

We'll agree to disagree as far as social issues not having an impact....Republicans have been killed by female voters the last couple of election cycles. Gay rights is a settled issue (for the most part) both legally and in the eyes of the general public...but many of your candidates are still hanging onto it and talking about it. Not going to work well in a general. The denial of evolution means denial of science...if you REALLY think that Americans will vote an open creationist into office, well, I've got news for you, bud. And now you guys have got this whole Planned Parenthood attack going on which, if you watch the unedited video, is nothing but a hack job by an anti-abortion group. Brilliant idea...make abortion a front and center issue just in time for election season. :

mrnn

Women should have never been allowed to vote.
99% of them vote purely on emotion.
Trust me, I know from what I speak.

Ohhhhh, same thing for liberals.

Ann Coulter once said the same thing....I shit you not.

mrnn

 

[stradial]

I understand what many of you are feeling about the GOP; I am also pretty put out with them.

But the fact still remains that there is currently no 3rd part candidate who has a snowball's chance of winning the presidency. And the Electoral College system makes it nearly impossible for a 3rd party candidate to win, even if they are a good one. I don't like that one bit, but it's fact.

So what do we do? The real effect of voting 3rd party in the next election will be to help elect the Democrat.

It sucks, it really does. But we need to be pragmatic about things.

I'm sorry, but I'm with J-man on this. I have held my nose and voted for crap just so Democrats wouldn't be elected. And lo and behold the Republicans have just rubber-stamped the entire Democrat agenda. Well, no more...I am voting my conscience NO MATTER WHAT.

We can always "write-in" LTD. :whistle

:laugh Let me know how that works out for ya.

mrnn has a point about Ideologues like Sanders and handful of the Republicans. What they spew may sound good, but it has no basis in reality. We all know (or should know) that Socialism doesn't work, and neither does Theism.

Hillary is pure scum, but she is far more practical than Trump et.al. She knows how to play the game to her advantage. She may be indicted immediately after election, but she is a political animal. Jim Webb is probably the best guy they have, but he won't get any of the big money. he will have to win in the debates.

Bush, Cruz, Paul, Rubio, and Walker are the only serious Republicans. The rest are background noise, but that noise will hurt the brand as long as they hang on and feed the press sound bites. Five serious contenders are still a lot, and if they can differentiate themselves from the pack without resorting to ad homenem attacks, they represent a wide spectrum of the party.

Bush will get the big money, but I don't think he will get the nomination. If he does, Hillary or Sanders will be the next President.

Ted Cruz embodies the Republican talking points both socially and fiscally, but he will cave economically once elected. He has lost the minority interest he had a few months ago.

Paul is the "Libertarian Lite" candidate, strong fiscally and still socially conservative himself, but his ties to libertarianism no matter how tenuous will hurt him in the primary. He would be strong in the general election and leads Hillary in many swing states right now. His economic plan is the most developed, even if it suffers from some of the same problems as the Fair Tax from a PR standpoint. His foreign Relations stance will be a plus both in the Primary and General if he can get people to listen to him instead of what others say about him. So far he has failed at that.

Rubio and Walker are the most "Teflon" Republicans in contention. There really isn't much negative truth to be said about either, even by the Democrats who have tried to shoot down Walker with whatever they think might stick for six years with no luck. I believe that if you asked Debbie Wasserman Schultz who she feared most, it would be one of these two. Both can win the nomination by doing well in the debates and rallying some grass roots money. 2014 showed that non-traditional candidates can win state races, but can they win a national campaign against the National Committee.

Rubio will do better with minorities better than any other candidate except Paul, Making him a strong choice in the General. He has perhaps the best middle class message of all of the Republicans.

Walker has defeated Democrats in a Democratic and heavily unionized state. The Unions don't have quite the power they had several years back, but they still spend nearly as much money as the biggest Republican donors. He may be the silver bullet that the Republicans are looking for, even if he isn't the most "conservative" candidate running.

I'd drop Cruz from the list of serious candidates.....the press has already caricatured him, much as they have Chris Christie.

Bush will get the nomination, imo. He's "next in line" as far as the GOP cycle goes. He'll appeal to the Latinos, will carry establishment republicans, and, as you mentioned, will carry the support of Wall St.

Walker is a trainwreck waiting to happen. So far his answer has been "I don't know" on both evolution and whether homosexuality is a choice. Eventually he's going to have to take true positions on issues that he may not be comfortable taking and/or defending. The college thing will be thrown in his face and I question how well he'll do in the debates....a candidate can get away with empty answers to the media during campaign events but once we get to the debates and one-on-one serious interviews, he won't be able to get away with saying nothing (though Romney did pretty well at it lol). With all that said, this is the Koch brothers' guy so funding, an elite team of advisers, and a ton of effective prep could pull him through to the nomination.

Rubio is an intriguing candidate....I'm not a fan but he's handsome, smart, well-spoken, and a minority....a pretty good combo for today's political climate. I don't think he can be ruled out.

Paul is the guy who really worries me as a progressive....he can speak "populist" about as well as anyone on either side and does so in a convincing manner. He's sharp and will not lose debates (except to maybe the master-debater, Cruz). It's a matter of money and not letting his mouth runoff (which he's been known to do).

mrnn

But you're looking at this through a liberal's eyes. And that's what might make your side lose.

Most would-be Republican voters don't give a rat's butt about evolution. And for good reason...the topic affects regular people about as much as what brand of toilet paper Hillary wipes her fat butt with does. Only the rank-and-file Democrats give a real rip about evo, and that's because they use it as a political tool.

Most people who don't have a D tattooed on their butts also don't care whether homosexuality is a choice or not. It's also just a political tool for the Democrats.

Both of these are really social issues that have little place in this debate. People want to hear how our leaders are going to reign in spending, lower taxes, take the handcuffs off the economy and allow jobs (real jobs, not government jobs) to be created. People want to know how our leaders will deal with the terror thread that Obama has mainly ignored, and keep our nation safe. These are the topics that will captivate the voters and turn them out on election day.

How'd that work out for you the last 2 election cycles?

The problem is that the GOP's idea of reigning in spending and lowering taxes is to kill safety nets, attack healthcare, and lower taxes for only the wealthiest Americans. Other than older white males, the wealthy, and brainwashed right wing lemmings, who, exactly, do you think they will convince to vote for them? They've been consistently getting their asses handed to them in 5 of the last 6 generals, losing the popular vote, and the demographics of this nation are not trending in their favor.

We'll agree to disagree as far as social issues not having an impact....Republicans have been killed by female voters the last couple of election cycles. Gay rights is a settled issue (for the most part) both legally and in the eyes of the general public...but many of your candidates are still hanging onto it and talking about it. Not going to work well in a general. The denial of evolution means denial of science...if you REALLY think that Americans will vote an open creationist into office, well, I've got news for you, bud. And now you guys have got this whole Planned Parenthood attack going on which, if you watch the unedited video, is nothing but a hack job by an anti-abortion group. Brilliant idea...make abortion a front and center issue just in time for election season. :

mrnn

Women should have never been allowed to vote.
99% of them vote purely on emotion.
Trust me, I know from what I speak.

Ohhhhh, same thing for liberals.

Ann Coulter once said the same thing....I shit you not.

mrnn

Why wouldn't I believe you, it makes sense to me.

Women are one topic voters.

Disclaimer: The above opinions do not apply to any of the ladies that post on the hwy, with the possible exception of my wife.

 

[J-man]

Like I said earlier, there's a long way to go and the sands will shift many times. One thing you're neglecting to admit is that many voters (of all races and party affiliation) voted for our current embarrassment because of his race and their misguided trust in his hot-air promises, not once but twice. I think it's fair to say many will not be as ignorant this time around as many have had enough of the nonsense and will think more clearly. I also think it's fair to say that there will be much less motivation for certain people groups to even participate. Funny thing about people, they rarely forget when they've been shockingly disappointed.

It will be interesting to watch it all unfold.

 

[mrnn]

Like I said earlier, there's a long way to go and the sands will shift many times. One thing you're neglecting to admit is that many voters (of all races and party affiliation) voted for our current embarrassment because of his race and their misguided trust in his hot-air promises, not once but twice. I think it's fair to say many will not be as ignorant this time around as many have had enough of the nonsense and will think more clearly. I also think it's fair to say that there will be much less motivation for certain people groups to even participate. Funny thing about people, they rarely forget when they've been shockingly disappointed.

It will be interesting to watch it all unfold.

If it's nearly as fun to watch unfold as watching Karl Rove coming to the realization that Mitt Romney lost in 2012 live on Fox News, yeah, we're in for an entertaining election night.


mrnn

 

[J-man]

Like I said earlier, there's a long way to go and the sands will shift many times. One thing you're neglecting to admit is that many voters (of all races and party affiliation) voted for our current embarrassment because of his race and their misguided trust in his hot-air promises, not once but twice. I think it's fair to say many will not be as ignorant this time around as many have had enough of the nonsense and will think more clearly. I also think it's fair to say that there will be much less motivation for certain people groups to even participate. Funny thing about people, they rarely forget when they've been shockingly disappointed.

It will be interesting to watch it all unfold.

If it's nearly as fun to watch unfold as watching Karl Rove coming to the realization that Mitt Romney lost in 2012 live on Fox News, yeah, we're in for an entertaining election night.


mrnn

WALLA....we do actually agree on something. The best thing the GOP can do to help their cause is to distance themselves from that loser.

 

[ShoeDiva]

Why wouldn't I believe you, it makes sense to me.

Women are one topic voters.

Disclaimer: The above opinions do not apply to any of the ladies that post on the hwy, with the possible exception of my wife.

Good save... :tapfoot2 )

Unless one of them is promising me shoes, things that glitter, and unlimited vodka, I am not voting by emotion. :drunkdiva