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.
Walker will not be the nominee. It will be Jeb Bush. The GOP has the fix in for him to receive the nomination. I'm not sure he would be much better than Clinton, but he certainly has the name recognition that would be required to beat her handily.
Who is putting in the 'fix' and what is the evidence? People go to their primaries and caucuses, The candidate who gets the most votes wins. It's a competitive, merit-based process. There is no wizard of Oz behind the curtain.
I can't support Jeb Bush right now because just don't think that he can beat Hillary in the general. The low info voter will link him with W Bush and vote for Hillary. If I thought he had a chance, I'd give him consideration but for now I like the new blood candidates: Walker, Rubio, Cruz, Paul, along w/ Jindal and Martinez should they decide to get in.
Who is putting in the 'fix' and what is the evidence? People go to their primaries and caucuses, The candidate who gets the most votes wins. It's a competitive, merit-based process. There is no wizard of Oz behind the curtain.
I can't support Jeb Bush right now because just don't think that he can beat Hillary in the general. The low info voter will link him with W Bush and vote for Hillary. If I thought he had a chance, I'd give him consideration but for now I like the new blood candidates: Walker, Rubio, Cruz, Paul, along w/ Jindal and Martinez should they decide to get in.
I think Jeb Bush is on track to raise something like $100 million dollars by the end of March of this year. I suspect he is going to utterly devastate any other viable Republican hopefuls in Iowa and New Hampshire with an endless barrage of negative ads and I suspect he will buy a half decent field team as well and while not a fix it will likely be pretty rough for any opposition.
I think Jeb Bush is on track to raise something like $100 million dollars by the end of March of this year. I suspect he is going to utterly devastate any other viable Republican hopefuls in Iowa and New Hampshire with an endless barrage of negative ads and I suspect he will buy a half decent field team as well and while not a fix it will likely be pretty rough for any opposition.
Fair point, but remember that money does not always translate to victory. There are numerous examples of this, but from the top of my head Steve Forbes outspent everyone in the 1996 GOP primary but never gained traction. Overall I do not disagree. The big money often wins--but not always.
Fair point, but remember that money does not always translate to victory. There are numerous examples of this, but from the top of my head Steve Forbes outspent everyone in the 1996 GOP primary but never gained traction. Overall I do not disagree. The big money often wins--but not always.
That's the truth. Much to the consternation of Karl Rove in 2012.
Nontheless, I expect 5016 to be another Most Expensive Election In History. I wish the wealthy would throw their money someplace where it would actually help out the Americans who could really use a little bit of it.
Fair point, but remember that money does not always translate to victory. There are numerous examples of this, but from the top of my head Steve Forbes outspent everyone in the 1996 GOP primary but never gained traction. Overall I do not disagree. The big money often wins--but not always.
1996 is a bit different since the sheer amount of money in campaigns was much less and while money doesn't necessarily mean a candidate will win, it is pretty clear that if targeted it money can pretty much devastate an opponent especially in a primary. If you remember 2012 when Gingrich and Romney were in a primary they basically went nuclear on each other due to the vast amounts of money they had. Romney carpet bombed Iowa airwaves with anti-Gingrich ads which crippled his campaign there and Gingrich responded with a full length anti-Romney documentary which defined him as "vulture capitalist" right out of the gate. Romney won, but he was crippled from that mess.
This is not meant to be a prediction on who will win, but rather a statement that I have faith in the destructive power lots of money has when applied to a negative campaign.
I'm not reading very much into the polls at the moment as we are too far out and don't have full campaigns running to fully influence voters. Seriously, though, did anyone with a brain serious think Hillary was up by 12-15 nationally (and in several battleground states) against ALL of her GOP competitors? Give me a break.
1996 is a bit different since the sheer amount of money in campaigns was much less and while money doesn't necessarily mean a candidate will win, it is pretty clear that if targeted it money can pretty much devastate an opponent especially in a primary. If you remember 2012 when Gingrich and Romney were in a primary they basically went nuclear on each other due to the vast amounts of money they had. Romney carpet bombed Iowa airwaves with anti-Gingrich ads which crippled his campaign there and Gingrich responded with a full length anti-Romney documentary which defined him as "vulture capitalist" right out of the gate. Romney won, but he was crippled from that mess.
This is not meant to be a prediction on who will win, but rather a statement that I have faith in the destructive power lots of money has when applied to a negative campaign.
And then there was Ron Paul, chugging right along.
Doing what he did without wall street bankers and the money they sread to keep their power over the people.
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.