U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-10-2013, 06:38 AM
 
Location: United States
5,888 posts, read 4,477,702 times
Reputation: 1905

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
of course Obama did, he also had a lot going for him, like charisma and he was still a lot younger. Even, if, Carson was able to build a name for himself, he needs to run for public office right now to get started and he would still be over 70 when he ran for President. As I have said, he is too little too late, plus the topic of this thread is: who will run in 2016, you said Carson, not you are saying in 10 or more years? Which is it?
My first mention of Carson was him being picked as a RUNNING MATE not the top of the ticket.

There is no rule that says one must wait 20 years to be picked as a running mate.

I didn't bring up the issue of time needed in public office to be on a national ticket.

Please review the thread and who posted what to end your confusion on this matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-10-2013, 06:56 AM
 
Location: New-Dentist Colony
5,724 posts, read 8,611,018 times
Reputation: 3831
Quote:
Originally Posted by sade693 View Post
For Republicans, maybe Chris Christie/John Thune?

Christie appeals to the moderates and independents, and Thune appeals to the more conservative base.
If they pick a very conservative running mate to go with Christie, it will cost them the votes of a lot of moderates--including Dem voters like me--who might have been tempted to vote for Christie.

If it's Christie vs. Clinton, no way am I voting for Hillary--unless Christie has a social conservative on the ticket. I really like Christie, but the guy is obese and in his 50s, so the VP choice is especially relevant in his case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2013, 11:31 AM
 
994 posts, read 1,200,259 times
Reputation: 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlingtonian View Post
If they pick a very conservative running mate to go with Christie, it will cost them the votes of a lot of moderates--including Dem voters like me--who might have been tempted to vote for Christie.

If it's Christie vs. Clinton, no way am I voting for Hillary--unless Christie has a social conservative on the ticket.
I'm with you 100%, except that I'm registered as Independent rather than Democrat.

I don't actually think that Thune will be Christie's running mate. (Can you imagine how weird they'd look standing next to each other? Short and fat Christie vs 6'4 and lanky Thune?) But I do think that Republicans will put another moderate forth as their nominee and then a more conservative politician as the running mate. It wouldn't make sense for them to put two moderates on the ticket, as that wouldn't be very representative of the current party.

Thune's name was thrown out here and there in the 2012 race, so I imagine he'll be a consideration again in 2016. He's too conservative for me, but he (and Senator Tim Kaine) are the creators of the INFORM Act which isn't perfect but certainly promising.

2016 is definitely going to be interesting. I really want Christie to run because I love the guy and his callback to old school Republicanism that rejected ultraconservative ideology, but I'm pretty sure the Republican party is going to insist that he follow the (losing) footsteps of McCain and Romney by inexplicably leaning far right as a nominee.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2013, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
21,770 posts, read 10,615,816 times
Reputation: 3960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlingtonian View Post
If they pick a very conservative running mate to go with Christie, it will cost them the votes of a lot of moderates--including Dem voters like me--who might have been tempted to vote for Christie.

If it's Christie vs. Clinton, no way am I voting for Hillary--unless Christie has a social conservative on the ticket. I really like Christie, but the guy is obese and in his 50s, so the VP choice is especially relevant in his case.
Then you are not a Democrat.


Yes, i welcome a response to my post because i do not understand how you can claim to call yourself a Democrat and say you would vote for Christie over Clinton.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2013, 02:36 PM
 
313 posts, read 368,023 times
Reputation: 218
I would vote for Christie over Clinton. If he can get past the loony GOP primaries chances are he will be the next president of the US. Especially after Obamacare has taken full effect.

Last edited by Screen; 11-10-2013 at 03:32 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2013, 03:22 PM
 
994 posts, read 1,200,259 times
Reputation: 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
Then you are not a Democrat.


Yes, i welcome a response to my post because i do not understand how you can claim to call yourself a Democrat and say you would vote for Christie over Clinton.
Democrat doesn't mean "blindly vote for other Democrats" nor does Republican mean "blindly vote for other Republicans." What it means to belong to either party has changed DRASTICALLY over the last decade, but it's not surprising that someone who adhered to the Democratic party platform of years past would support a candidate like Christie over Clinton.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2013, 03:38 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
69,357 posts, read 79,541,504 times
Reputation: 38690
Quote:
Originally Posted by sade693 View Post
Democrat doesn't mean "blindly vote for other Democrats" nor does Republican mean "blindly vote for other Republicans." What it means to belong to either party has changed DRASTICALLY over the last decade, but it's not surprising that someone who adhered to the Democratic party platform of years past would support a candidate like Christie over Clinton.
You are so right, I think that was proven when Reagan ran and even Bush. People who use their heads and don't keep them in the sand will cross over from time to time and still be a strong supporter of their party. God knows I am a staunch Republican and I have voted for Democrats many times. I may very well vote for one for governor right here in AR next year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2013, 04:06 PM
 
Location: Pine Grove,AL
21,770 posts, read 10,615,816 times
Reputation: 3960
Quote:
Originally Posted by sade693 View Post
Democrat doesn't mean "blindly vote for other Democrats" nor does Republican mean "blindly vote for other Republicans." What it means to belong to either party has changed DRASTICALLY over the last decade, but it's not surprising that someone who adhered to the Democratic party platform of years past would support a candidate like Christie over Clinton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
You are so right, I think that was proven when Reagan ran and even Bush. People who use their heads and don't keep them in the sand will cross over from time to time and still be a strong supporter of their party. God knows I am a staunch Republican and I have voted for Democrats many times. I may very well vote for one for governor right here in AR next year.
I never said it did,but saying you dont blindly put your head in the sand does not answer my question. The 2 parties have distincly different philosophies on the way to govern this nation.

Chrisite in no way fits the philosophy of the democratic party so how is it you can call yourself a Democrat and then say you would vote for Christie instead of Hillary Clinton ?

This has nothing to do with "blindly" sticking your head anywhere, it is an honest question that neither one of you answered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2013, 04:11 PM
 
143 posts, read 99,542 times
Reputation: 112
My prediction is Hillary on Democrat side in 2016, unless her health starts failing (she is no spring chicken), then no clue. Christie on the Republican side if he can get through the Primaries. I have a feeling there going to be more brutal than the general election. Rand Paul or Ted Cruz are long shots, but they may cause a split up the libertarian/tea party votes which may allow for a Christie nomination win through moderates/neo-cons/corporate republicans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2013, 05:36 PM
 
994 posts, read 1,200,259 times
Reputation: 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
I never said it did,but saying you dont blindly put your head in the sand does not answer my question. The 2 parties have distincly different philosophies on the way to govern this nation.

Chrisite in no way fits the philosophy of the democratic party so how is it you can call yourself a Democrat and then say you would vote for Christie instead of Hillary Clinton ?

This has nothing to do with "blindly" sticking your head anywhere, it is an honest question that neither one of you answered.
Have you read the most recent Democratic Party platform?

The Democratic Party Platform | Democrats.org

We don't know where Christie lies on a lot of the big issues like foreign affairs, but how he's governed New Jersey isn't so radically different from the ideals of the Democratic platform that a Democrat could be strongly against him. Especially if that Democrat takes issue with one thing or another about Clinton.

Secondly, it's not all that common for people to officially change their party affiliation. That's why I mentioned Democrats "of years past." There are a lot of people who are registered as Democrat/Republican who registered when their parties' platforms were significantly different, and those people just haven't dropped their party label despite the changes. Maybe because there's something too radical about the opposing party to completely change over to it (e.g. I know Democrats who would probably vote Republican if Republicans dropped their socially conservative rhetoric).

Thirdly, there's a lot of variance in each party, but the candidate who gets the nomination from your party may not be as close to your personal ideals as the candidate from the other party. So, it's perfectly reasonable for a moderate Republican to vote for a moderate Democrat if they think the Republican nominee is too far right, and for a moderate Democrat to vote for a moderate Republican if they think the Democratic nominee is too far left. Hence what I meant by not blindly voting for the person of your party affiliation if they don't represent what you believe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top