Republican Presidential Candidates

[ShoeDiva]

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

Sadly I agree with much in this statement. I wish none of them were allowed to utter a word about that stuff, but they will and that will have an impact. :sigh:

 

[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.

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

The last couple of elections were anomalies to some degree. There was the historic race issue, and all the stuff Obama promised people. The race issue will not be a factor this time, so a lot of the black voters and some of the young people will stay home next time. And a lot of people have wised up to the realities of all the free stuff Obama promised. The seriousness of our massive debt has sunk it, and a lot of people are getting very tired of bigger government and a still troubled economy.

People are getting increasingly concerned with national security again, and that hits hard with women. The Democrats will be on the losing end of that issue.

By your own statement...the gay issue is settled. So the effect of that on the election will be limited. If anything, there could be some backlash toward the Democrats over Obama's involvement in it.

I have said all along that Hillary will crash and burn. People just don't like Hillary, she's just a horrible person. Polls are supporting my theory. Sanders has a real chance because he's likable and a straight shooter. But, he is a Socialist, and that fact will ring from the mountain tops if he starts looking like the leader on the D side.

Just as with 6 years ago, the climate is ripe for change. The next election will be the Republican's to lose. And if they don't get their crap together, they just might do that. But if a couple of strong candidates emerge soon, the GOP could walk away with it.

Contrary to what some of you think; I don't think Jeb will make a good showing. People don't want him, and the electorate is sick of Bushs for now. The GOP pack will thin quickly once we get a little further in. Once that happens, I think we'll see a small group composed of Rand, Walker, Rubio, Possibly Trump, Possible the HP lady (can't think of her name), and Kasich if he makes a good showing. That will be when the real race starts.

Back to the Bush clan...I think the next Bush to be a serious contender could be George P. If he wants to, he could really turn the electorate on.

 

[Boss 302]

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.

If I were a presidential candidate, I would respond to any questions regarding evolution with, "What does evolution have to do with the issues Americans are facing today? The issues like economy, national defense, health care? Why don't you ask me real questions that voters are more interested in hearing answers to?"

My response to whether or not I believe homosexuality is a choice or not; "What difference does it make now that the SCOTUS has ruled homosexuality a constitutional right? The SCOTUS has made this question irrelevant and you're only asking to either divert from the real issues the American people want to discuss or you're attempting to create more division between the people in this country; perhaps both."

 

[Guard Dad]

And again...this whole business about denial of evo being a denial of science is mostly bull. This is just another Democratic tactic. The vast majority of people don't give a tinker's damn about evo. We have a few people here with good scientific minds and most of us don't give a crap about evo or who believes what.

 

[stradial]

I would say that homosexuals feel they have always had a "right" to be homosexual.
It may have been against the law at times, but then again, so have many of the sex acts that heterosexual people have enjoyed.
(or not enjoyed, depending on the person)

Just a thought. (or two)

 

[Boss 302]

And again...this whole business about denial of evo being a denial of science is mostly bull. This is just another Democratic tactic. The vast majority of people don't give a tinker's damn about evo. We have a few people here with good scientific minds and most of us don't give a crap about evo or who believes what.

It really has no bearing nor should it even be an issue for the presidential race. The Democrats will use it though to deflect from the real issues.

 

[Guard Dad]

And again...this whole business about denial of evo being a denial of science is mostly bull. This is just another Democratic tactic. The vast majority of people don't give a tinker's damn about evo. We have a few people here with good scientific minds and most of us don't give a crap about evo or who believes what.

It really has no bearing nor should it even be an issue for the presidential race. The Democrats will use it though to deflect from the real issues.

Without the emotional vote, the Dems wouldn't have a chance.

 

[Boss 302]

And again...this whole business about denial of evo being a denial of science is mostly bull. This is just another Democratic tactic. The vast majority of people don't give a tinker's damn about evo. We have a few people here with good scientific minds and most of us don't give a crap about evo or who believes what.

It really has no bearing nor should it even be an issue for the presidential race. The Democrats will use it though to deflect from the real issues.

Without the emotional vote, the Dems wouldn't have a chance.

True and that's why Republicans have got to keep the focus on jobs, the economy, national defense...

 

[Guard Dad]

And again...this whole business about denial of evo being a denial of science is mostly bull. This is just another Democratic tactic. The vast majority of people don't give a tinker's damn about evo. We have a few people here with good scientific minds and most of us don't give a crap about evo or who believes what.

It really has no bearing nor should it even be an issue for the presidential race. The Democrats will use it though to deflect from the real issues.

Without the emotional vote, the Dems wouldn't have a chance.

True and that's why Republicans have got to keep the focus on jobs, the economy, national defense...

Wish someone would get that through their thick heads.

 

[J-man]

The trick question which should be posed to all candidates (of all parties) is their stance on the potential for alien life throughout the universe, and whether or not they believe in alien life forms (from bacteria to advanced intelligent life).

 

[mrnn]

I just...I just can't. Some of us live in two completely different worlds.....we may have things that bind us....golf, stereos, humor, etc...but talking politics is pretty much an exercise in futility. I won't abandon trying to get my viewpoints out there for the casual reader/voter, but it's truly funny how stark the contrast is between some of my views and some of y'all's views are...to the point that we're discussing apples and oranges. Luckily I know you guys are good people, with good hearts, good intentions, and enjoy good debate. Just saying that if I come across as a complete asshole from time to time when discussing politics, please understand that I do not understand your worldview in the least. IMO, it's way too black/white, way too religious, and way too sheltered. There are 7 billion people in this world, 300 million Americans, thousands of different religions, hundreds of different economic theories, countless cultures, millennia of history, etc...to try to simplify the recipe for success into a small collection of buzzwords is both antithetical and preposterous to me.

mrnn

 

[J-man]

We forgive you and will continue to pray that you eventually see the light and join us in our attempt to salvage this country. :jk

 

[Guard Dad]

We forgive you and will continue to pray that you eventually see the light and join us in our attempt to salvage this country. :jk

He hath drinketh the Kool Aid. ;D

 

[stradial]

I just...I just can't. Some of us live in two completely different worlds.....we may have things that bind us....golf, stereos, humor, etc...but talking politics is pretty much an exercise in futility. I won't abandon trying to get my viewpoints out there for the casual reader/voter, but it's truly funny how stark the contrast is between some of my views and some of y'all's views are...to the point that we're discussing apples and oranges. Luckily I know you guys are good people, with good hearts, good intentions, and enjoy good debate. Just saying that if I come across as a complete asshole from time to time when discussing politics, please understand that I do not understand your worldview in the least. IMO, it's way too black/white, way too religious, and way too sheltered. There are 7 billion people in this world, 300 million Americans, thousands of different religions, hundreds of different economic theories, countless cultures, millennia of history, etc...to try to simplify the recipe for success into a small collection of buzzwords is both antithetical and preposterous to me.

mrnn

And all these people need to do is just check with me and I will tell them if they are right or not.
It ain't rocket science,

Ohhh, and you ain't going to win a discussion by just making up fancy sounding words.

 

[Madea]

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

Please forgive me, but in all honesty, everything past "greatest president" was just skimmed over. I couldn't get past that and someone's ability to really believe that. :cantbelievemyeyes

 

[lotstodo]

The MSM will ccontinue to ask the "trick" social questions of Republicans because they know that they can't answer them completely honestly. If, during the primary they say they are pro choice, Darwinists who think that the biggest problem facing the world today is global warming, they will lose the religious right and quite possibly the nomination. But the press is not alone. Republicans on the far social right demand answers that will quite possibly come back to bite the nominee in the ass come November. The only way for a Republican to win both is to hedge, and that is a fact, like it or not. The best things Republican's can do to win the general election is to STFU on social issues, period. If you want to know where a candidate stands, look how they voted or spent their own money. The "staunch" social conservatives are pretty easy to pick out of this crowd, and I don't see a November winner among them. The average social conservatives will realize that their views are not to be foisted on the American people as law, and while protecting traditional values, they won't shout their allegiance to the far right from a mountaintop. Those are the candidates who have a chance in November, and winning on July 22 doesn't mean anything when it comes down to setting policy for the next 4 years.

Corrected spelling

 

[Madea]

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

I don't give a rat's a$$ about the media. So far, I like Cruz and Walker, but there's a long way to go.

And I haven't put a lot into opinions on social issues at this stage. I think an "I don't know" is acceptable.

 

[Guard Dad]

 

[honeybunny]

I really think that people underestimate Marco Rubio... :whistle


He has the sweet charisma of a young Bill Clinton without the unsavory baggage,
he also has a compelling backstory... I hope he has good advisors, we shall see.


I concede he may be a bit young for this cycle... :dunno

 

[lotstodo]

I really think that people underestimate Marco Rubio... :whistle


He has the sweet charisma of a young Bill Clinton without the unsavory baggage,
he also has a compelling backstory... I hope he has good advisors, we shall see.


I concede he may be a bit young for this cycle... :dunno

I agree, I think he is a sleeper candidate. He can probably take a good portion of the Hispanic vote, and the media crop dusting has so far backfired. The hit pieces on his lifestyle were completely laughable, even to the likes of John Stewart.