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.
I don't like either of those tickets either. I don't think Biden would be at all interested in the second spot at his age. If he did anything, it would be try to seal the nomination, which I think is very unlikely. As for Ryan/Bush, not in a million years: again, I don't think Bush would be interested in the 2nd spot, if he wants it period and he certainly wouldn't want to play number 2 to someone much younger than him. Christie is still a possibility I think but Powell, do you realize he is almost 77 years old now? He isn't going to run for anything and his wife doesn't like politics. Hillary and Guiliani? It would be quite something if a die hard Republican would be interested in running with Hillary? I didn't say he is a conservative, but he is a Republican from the word GO.
LOL I didn't realize Powell was that up in age. But Guiliani was always seen as a crossover Politician. Don't you think he would help bring over Republican votes? If, he chose to run on a Democratic ticket and I guess that means he would have to publicly change his affiliation.
Hillary might stay retired which makes this argument moot anyway.
A few years ago I predicted Hillary versus Jeb. At this point I am not sure about Jeb, but in the GOP it usually ends up being the guy that almost got it last time, so possibly Rick Santorum? Since the GOP is having a real identity crisis it's hard to call, but the next POTUS will be Hillary. Her VP won't be Biden. I see more like an Ed Rendell, Even Bayh or Cuomo form NY.
I see Castro from San Antonio.
Clinton/Castro ticket may=no GOP POTUS until 2024.
Clinton/Castro ticket may=no GOP POTUS until 2024.
Well this ticket certainly locks up a good majority of the Female and Hispanic vote. Question is whether Old Whitey America is ready to elect a native Spanish speaker to the highest office.
Bush changed the game forever. With his utter incompetence and the horrific 8 years he put this country through, and that of the entire world, the lunacy that is the Conservative ideology has been exposed as a fraud. Lousy Conservative instincts and judgment were on full display with the election of Dubya, the worst president in history. Demographics have chanced such that Republicans are not favored AT ALL. Bigots don't belong in political positions of power, like the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, and any positions of influence. Post-Bush, Republicans are imploding and dead in their current form.
Unless you Pubs can recreate yourselves to essentially be more like Democrats, all your ranting and raving about what chances you think you have, are no more credible than a library dedicated to Bush, the village idiot.
Dems take the White House, and ultimately control Congress and the Supreme Court. It will be at this time that this country flourishes at an unprecedented level, one that Republicans can only dream of creating.
you are aware that: 1-the race was close: 2-they had a crappy candidate and Obama, if nothing else is a great campaigner, 3-it is almost impossible to beat a sitting pres. 4-normally the Pres party also take over both houses, this did not happen: 5-how many governors are R and how many D and how many female gov. are R and how many D. Oh, and let's not forget, how many minorities governors are D and how many are R? Yes, the GOP lost a couple of senate seats they should have won, but 2 idiots had to open their fat traps. No one can deny that nor would they try. In fact in both cases the party backed off from supporting either one. Your reasoning really doesn't hold much water at this time. Who knows, come 2014 I might be one of those who has to eat my words, but right now it is way to early to kiss the party good-bye or have a funeral for them, like some would wish. Will they win in 2016? heck, at this stage no one really knows.
Was the race really that close? I mean popular vote yes, but not so much when you break it down by states. Even if Romney had won Ohio, Virginia and Florida he still would of lost the election. I could of seen a scenario were Romney could of had 50 percent of the vote or more and still not reached 270EV's.
Just a fun thread to discuss possibilities. Many Democrats are saying the Republican party is dead. They've been saying that for quite some time, actually. I guess they don't remember the 80's when the Democratic party was pronounced officially dead. As long as young leaders continue to advance and the bad ideas leave (Palin, Bachman), the party ideals will evolve and life goes on.
The purpose of this thread is to discuss potential 2016 presidential matchups, the winner, and why.
I'll start:
R: P.Ryan/J.Bush
D: H.Clinton/J.Biden
This is the liberal wet-dream matchup. Clinton will draw hordes of core liberals, and the anti-gun types (still smarting from the loss of the renewed AWB and Background checks in early 2013) will vote in droves. Core conservatives DESPISE Clinton, and pro-2A types will fight hard because both Dems are hard-core anti-gun. But Ryan is way too extreme, and another Bush??? For the third election in a row the moderates will swing to the Dems. Easy call on this one - Democrats win without trying.
R: C.Rice/M.Rubio
D: J.Biden/A.Cuomo
Ah, now this one is interesting. The presence of two minorities (a strong, successful, black woman; and a Latino) on the Republican ticket will force many racist/sexist core conservative voters to stay home and continue frantically preparing for oncoming apocalypse/revolution. But it will likely have the same effect on core liberals. B.Obama got 90% of the black vote in 2012 (liberals says this wasn't because of racism, but these same people say the whites who voted for Mittens all obviously want to return to the days of slavery), but many of those people would refuse to ever vote for a Repug. Plus there are just as many (probably more) sexist black males as there are sexist white males who would never vote for a woman. So with the core groups staying home, it'll come down to the moderates, which includes a very large percentage of Latinos. A couple of young(ish) moderate republicans vs. a pair of old-school anti-gun white boys? It'll be a fight, but this matchup is a winner for Republicans.
You forgot Christie in here, who IMO probably has much better chances of getting independents than the others you mentioned. I'm a democrat, and even I respect Christie (not all his ideas of course, but the man himself). IMO the biggest problem the republican party has is shaking the religious conservatives off their legs. Most Americans are socially liberal and actually believe in science, yet IMO some of the republicans want to go back 100 years on social issues and science. I don't think Christie would cater to the fringes as much as the others.
You forgot Christie in here, who IMO probably has much better chances of getting independents than the others you mentioned. I'm a democrat, and even I respect Christie (not all his ideas of course, but the man himself). IMO the biggest problem the republican party has is shaking the religious conservatives off their legs. Most Americans are socially liberal and actually believe in science, yet IMO some of the republicans want to go back 100 years on social issues and science. I don't think Christie would cater to the fringes as much as the others.
I agree Christie would be a very formidable candidate. The problem is it is doubtful he would make it through the primary. Jon Huntsman would also a formidable candidate , and we saw the lack of support he got.
I agree Christie would be a very formidable candidate. The problem is it is doubtful he would make it through the primary. Jon Huntsman would also a formidable candidate , and we saw the lack of support he got.
You're probably right, but maybe they've learned something from the last time around? Plus, he's going to be a lean, mean fighting machine by then, lol.
Was the race really that close? I mean popular vote yes, but not so much when you break it down by states. Even if Romney had won Ohio, Virginia and Florida he still would of lost the election. I could of seen a scenario were Romney could of had 50 percent of the vote or more and still not reached 270EV's.
It wasn't close at all. The nature of the electoral college skews perspective when looking solely at the popular vote. If Romney had gone a couple percent lower he'd have been in landslide territory.
Anyway, everything depends on two factors- what Clinton decides to do, and how much work Christie puts in getting the establishment on board. All those photos of him hugging and high fiving Obama won't mean squat if the people who call the shots and cut the checks are behind him, unless he absolutely tanks both Iowa and New Hampshire, which he needs at least one of. He could try the Guiliani Florida gambit, but we saw how well that went for Mr. 9/11 himself. Personally I think his best bet is show or place in Iowa, then focus heavy on NH to offset Paul's natural advantage and family cult following, and save his money for FL.
Supposedly the RNC is changing the rules to avoid a drawn-out crazy fest like last year by frontloading the process to get the establishment pick through quicker. A lot also depends on how well the Paul faction keeps hold on various state parties, and how hard the RNC fights to re-install establishment friendly picks.
I'd bet more on Biden running than Clinton at this point. Paul's definitely running, and Rubio/Cruz/maybe McDonnell will make up the 3rd string-reserving-their-spot-for-2020 group who'll drop out between Iowa and Florida.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl
You're probably right, but maybe they've learned something from the last time around? Plus, he's going to be a lean, mean fighting machine by then, lol.
Yeah the problem with lap band surgery is you still have to actually change your eating habits long-term, which is more a matter of willpower- the band is to aid that process more than it is a weight-loss device. By all accounts he hasn't fixed that part of his problem, but there's still time, albeit less and less every day. It'll take him at least a solid year of eating right and exercise to get to a point where the physical toll of campaigning won't actually be a danger to his health. He really needs to be in fighting shape by the end of next year when everyone starts announcing, much like Huckabee did back between 2004-06.
The GOPs biggest problem is themselves. The fact that Romney got less votes then McCain shows a party in real trouble. I have seen many posters on this forum say "I'm a conservative but I did not vote for Romney because he was too Liberal". This type of childish in-fighting within the GOP will only result in another election loss.
IMO, their best chance is Rubio.
Ryan lost votes for Romney over his Medicare views, cant see him winning the nomination.
Christie seems a nice guy but he is too fat...be honest it ain't going to happen.
Clinton is power hungry, she will run..
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.
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.
This is not the 80s - Pubs stink worse than ever
