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.
Shame, I can think of a few Democrats and Liberals who fit that definition. The only DNC Candidate emerging is Clinton. "it does not matter Clinton". That is dumb!
We need candidates ,Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Palin and many more, who under stand and has actually read the US. Const. Further candidates who understand a balanced budget and the evils of a over powering Federal Gov.
We as a country can not afford the current DNC Platform and policies. Its time we get real jobs here and reform our tax code to make people want to build businesses on a globally!
Who are the Republicans offering for Pres for 2016?
Check back in July 2016 to see who the Republicans end up offering for President, and you'll even get to see who they'll be offering for Vice President. Seriously, expecting a party to have their candidate pre-picked almost three years in advance of the election is just stupid.
I won't comment on the candidates, except I will say don't expect Ted Cruz to flame out like Perry. For one thing, Cruz is great in a debate - it is inconceivable that he would ever have a Perry-like meltdown at one of them. Also do not underestimate the vindication factor when it comes to defunding Obamacare - the Republican candidates in 2016 that were right on Obamacare will be in much the same spot as Democratic candidates in 2008 that were right on Iraq. Keep in mind that Obama himself was considered too far left at one point, but people wanted a left-winger so they went for him (not that he is a left-winger in office, just that we thought he was when we elected him).
Also, I don't see how Rand Paul, Ron Paul, or any of the wacko bird flock () are "kooks" or "conspiracy theorists". Ron Paul in particular* has been correct in his predictions when everyone laughed at him, and now on many major issues a lot of politicians are emulating Paul, so who's laughing now? "Kook" and "conspiracy theorist" are vague phrases, usually used in conjunction with someone who strays from the status quo of thought among the DC elite, but I have yet to see any of these supposed kooks profess belief in any "conspiracy theory" that is not based in fact or a sound understanding of history**.
*Especially compared to the weaker and more cowardly son, who campaigns for the likes of Romney and McConnell and has extremely low standards for backing off when he has DC insiders in a corner (e.g. the drone filibuster's ending), but that's another topic entirely.
**A prime example being Ron Paul raising the possibility that a border fence can and probably will be used eventually to keep us in rather than keep the foreigners out. Just in recent history, the Berlin Wall was officially called the Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart.
One example that wacko birds have been chided for is drones killing people on American soil, but it is not a kooky conspiracy theory to anyone except the deluded (crazy?) ruling class in Washington - the President has already claimed the legal right to kill anyone he chooses anywhere in the world at any time because "the whole world's a battlefield", and drones are already infiltrating American airspace. Why would the government want the power to murder Americans on American soil if they are so angelic they would never do such a thing? It doesn't add up - an innocent government concerned with protecting your liberties has no need of the myriad powers that Bush and Obama have assumed, but those powers are the lifeblood of a government concerned with absolute power and control that uses murder, rape, torture, and terror to keep its own people in line. Which kind of government do you want to live under? Anyone that points out that this is defective, dangerous, and immoral is called crazy, but I would argue that being called crazy by crazy people is no insult.
Cruz:
Probably. He has yet to show that he's anywhere close to being ready for prime time, however.
Obama never "showed" he was ready for "prime time" either, and yet the Democrats nominated him and people voted for him. Goes to show you, any idiot can run and get elected, I guess, if he has the right "crease in his pants," or can fool enough people into thinking he is the "messiah." Of course, Obama was "black," which was the main reason people voted for him, because to not vote for the "first black president" made one "racist." (I didn't vote for him)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
Huckabee:
He doesn't seem to have the fire in the belly. It's personally useful to pretend he might run, but I highly doubt he pulls the trigger in the end.
I don't think he's interested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
Paul:
Probably. His recent wading into a discussion of the Lewinsky scandal and his trying to taint Hillary Clinton with it, then backing away from that, suggests that like Cruz he has a ways to go politically. Still, I think he's much more savvy than Cruz. That said, if they both run - which seems very plausible - they're likely going to be competing for the very same part of the GOP base. Problematic for both of them.
I like Rand Paul. He seems to me to be the smartest guy out there, and he is a real statesman. He knows what our problems are, and he is not afraid to say. He is articulate, and very savvy. He understands the problems with our current foreign policy (do we even have a foreign policy?) too. Further, he understands the Constitution and why we need to adhere to it, unlike some (Democrats in particular) who think it's outdated and can be ignored (Progressives), which means as citizens, we aren't protected from our government, and our rights are not "unalienable" as the Declaration tells us.
Paul is the kind of man we need. He is a leader.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
Bush:
If he runs, and I think it more likely than not, he immediately becomes the establishment candidate and brings the massive pre-existing campaign infrastructure of his family to the race. He then becomes the favorite, though far from the lock.
I'm with Barbara Bush: "We don't need another Bush in the White House." I just don't see the excitement that some have over Jeb Bush running. What does he have going for him?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
Christie:
2016 is a long way away, but his star is rapidly fading.
I never understood the enthusiasm for Christie. He might be great for NJ. I don't see him as a World Leader, which any President of the U.S. must be. Look at the current occupant of the W.H. As a World Leader, he's a total flop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
Rubio:
Rubio runs only if Bush doesn't, most likely. Rubio's political base is Florida, and if Bush runs that base mostly goes to Bush, eliminating Rubio's chances before they start.
Maybe. I don't see it happening though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
Absolutely. Santorum ran extremely strong in 2012, finishing second overall on a campaign with little money and meager infrastructure. And he'd likely have won even more if he'd gotten credit for winning Iowa immediately, rather than two weeks later. Food for thought - Santorum did about as good in 2012 as Romney did in 2008. If Huckabee runs it hurts Santorum, as their bases largely overlap. But if Huckabee bails, as I think he will, Santorum should run a strong campaign.
Two more who appear likely to run are Perry and Huntsman. As for Perry, rarely has there been a bigger flameout of a Presidential bid as Perry in 2012 - can he overcome that? I doubt it. He just doesn't have what it takes on the national stage. Huntsman has his niche but he really has no place in the current Republican Party except perhaps in a Bush cabinet (or maybe as a running mate).
Forget Huntsman. He bores me to death. Perry? Perhaps.
Obama never "showed" he was ready for "prime time" either, and yet the Democrats nominated him and people voted for him. Goes to show you, any idiot can run and get elected, I guess, if he has the right "crease in his pants," or can fool enough people into thinking he is the "messiah." Of course, Obama was "black," which was the main reason people voted for him, because to not vote for the "first black president" made one "racist." (I didn't vote for him)
Quite the contrary - Obama proved that politically, he was more than ready for prime time. He defeated the candidate - Hillary Clinton - who got more primary/caucus votes than anyone in history, Obama included. He ran an excellent primary campaign in 2012.
This thread is about political potential during primaries. I get that you can't understand that, and even if you could you just can't discuss the GOP prospects in 2016 without nonsensically (the irony) whining about Obama.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
I'm with Barbara Bush: "We don't need another Bush in the White House." I just don't see the excitement that some have over Jeb Bush running. What does he have going for him?
This thread is about who is likely to run or not likely to run - now about who you want to run.
But I understand that you're part of the self-absorbed masses who just can't comprehend that there's a difference.
The democrats will try to personally smear any republican so the republican must be smear proof. The dems can only run on demonizing republicans they will not be able to run on the democratic record. One of the most smear proof candidates would be ben carson
Dems cant say he is a racist
Dems can not say he is dumb
Whatever it was Huckabee said I don't even remember. That's how unimportant it is, and whatever it was that got a few so upset (at least allegedly) it was totally ridiculous. People are too easily offended.
I wish that were the case but I think the Dems would make mince meat out of him and his socially conservative views. I am not a social conservative: I am probably close to middle of the road to slightly right, but I do like him and would support him.
I also like Rand Paul; not all his ideas, but I think he can attract the young voters and that might be just what we need. The conspiracy issue is the one thing that might do him in. He has to get over it or put it on the back burner.
Laura mentioned John Kasick, I don't expect him to run and if he does get very far, but I have always liked him; I could easily support him.
The democrats will try to personally smear any republican so the republican must be smear proof. The dems can only run on demonizing republicans they will not be able to run on the democratic record. One of the most smear proof candidates would be ben carson
Dems cant say he is a racist
Dems can not say he is dumb
They also can't say he cheated on his wife, he has already dared them to dig up any dirt on him because "there isn't any."
I like Rand Paul. He seems to me to be the smartest guy out there, and he is a real statesman. He knows what our problems are, and he is not afraid to say. He is articulate, and very savvy. He understands the problems with our current foreign policy (do we even have a foreign policy?) too. Further, he understands the Constitution and why we need to adhere to it, unlike some (Democrats in particular) who think it's outdated and can be ignored (Progressives), which means as citizens, we aren't protected from our government, and our rights are not "unalienable" as the Declaration tells us.
Paul is the kind of man we need. He is a leader.
Rand Paul is not presidential material. No charisma. Not likeable. Only appeals to the fringe demographic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
I'm with Barbara Bush: "We don't need another Bush in the White House." I just don't see the excitement that some have over Jeb Bush running. What does he have going for him?
Are you kidding me? How about having Florida in the bag?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
I never understood the enthusiasm for Christie. He might be great for NJ. I don't see him as a World Leader, which any President of the U.S. must be. Look at the current occupant of the W.H. As a World Leader, he's a total flop.
Maybe. I don't see it happening though.
That just shows you have no clue what it takes to be a world leader is. Obama certainly is. GW Bush was certainly not.
Quite the contrary - Obama proved that politically, he was more than ready for prime time. He defeated the candidate - Hillary Clinton - who got more primary/caucus votes than anyone in history, Obama included. He ran an excellent primary campaign in 2012.
This thread is about political potential during primaries. I get that you can't understand that, and even if you could you just can't discuss the GOP prospects in 2016 without nonsensically (the irony) whining about Obama.
This thread is about who is likely to run or not likely to run - now about who you want to run.
But I understand that you're part of the self-absorbed masses who just can't comprehend that there's a difference.
You really think, beating Clinton in the primaries means he was ready for prime time? He meant he had the charisma it takes and people, especially certain groups believed he had a product to sell, but as it has turned out, he was snake oil salesman. He has shown his lack of readiness or experience more times than not.
A comprehensive look at the polling going back to April 2012 (yes, PPP actually polled the 2016 Republican nomination seven months before the 2012 Presidential Election) is interesting.
Chris Christie topped that sole pre-2012 election poll.
Marco Rubio was the initial post-election leader, consistently topping polls until getting tripped up in the immigration issue in mid-2013.
Then, it was Christie dominating the lead, with Rand Paul occasionally winning a poll here and there, and Ted Cruz winning precisely one poll.
Following Christie's Bridgegate collapse it's been fairly scattered, with only Mike Huckabee leading on a consistent basis, topping five polls. Paul has won a couple since then, and Paul Ryan won a couple immediately after Christie's fail (probably just name-recognition at play there). Rubio managed to get back atop the polling once, as did Christie recently (though with a low 13%), and Jeb Bush has topped a couple of polls since January.
The verdict? Polls mean nothing at the moment in this race. What we are seeing now is just a series of flavors-of-the-month. It is not that polls are necessarily irrelevant, but none of these leaders are commanding any substantial proportion of the vote. In 2014, only twice has a candidate managed to claw his way out of the teens and into the twenties - Paul Ryan with 20% and Jeb Bush with 21%. Some of these polls are being 'won' with as little as 15%, 14% and even 13% of the vote.
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.
) are "kooks" or "conspiracy theorists". Ron Paul in particular* has been correct in his predictions when everyone laughed at him, and now on many major issues a lot of politicians are emulating Paul, so who's laughing now? "Kook" and "conspiracy theorist" are vague phrases, usually used in conjunction with someone who strays from the status quo of thought among the DC elite, but I have yet to see any of these supposed kooks profess belief in any "conspiracy theory" that is not based in fact or a sound understanding of history**.
