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.
Just by observations..I really don't think it matters given the huge FIELD...as Hillary knows more about all issues along with idea's, like them or not..SO whomever ends up debating with her..I say good luck with that...Even Jeb would have an excruciating hard to with her...given HRC was actually in Congress as a Senator..and knows full well how she and other's got led down that garden path of lies!!
I also think Sander's with his often far left agenda..HE has been in congress long enough to actually KNOW what poor Jeb or whomever else from GOP gaggle of candidates can offer..since none of them have one clue how higher office works....
Gop supporters should really be blaming their Representatives for what's happening now..YEP..People HATE Congress..hummm wonder why?? for past 7 years issues got kicked down the road ( short term) and big issues created Closures and everything else became nowhere zones... I do not blame anyone for being disgusted..except 2 or 3 majority has NOT moved anything useful forward...Amazed..
Anyway..Dem's actually don't GAD...and I do not blame them with blunder after blunder/mishandling/politicalizing everything..yet not passing anything substantive that hasn't got rider's ( written in bombs) that is so toxic.. Even normal bills tank with such silliness...
I guess I shouldn't have expected anything different..Since Boehner , from the giddiup ( 2010) refused to even utter the W O R D > Compromise....Why would anyone on the opposite side even try? I give BO credit tho..He finally after 2014 realized..Blockades will stymie any chance of anything substantive ever happening ..SO why after 6 years bother and move forward..and do whatever he could by Executive Order..which then led to "King" or Dictator or Czar or some other dirogetory term..conveniently forgetting same has been done by Presidents through USA's history..BUT Kenya/Monkey/Obummer is rhetorically painted as the Devil..disregarding past history and I won't bother reminding those who wilfully want to forget the truth of this...THAT's okay..I recognize base and bigoted viewpoints..and actually..I'm not one bit surprised considering all the complaints by Repubican's complaining how GW was painted for 8 years..
However..Denials of what GW did "Opened Pandora's Box" in the Middle East (escapes ardent Pubs) is just one of his major errors..I'm not even going to mention Financial Crash of 2008 ( prior to BO even being sworn in)....That again is being somehow blamed on BO....because..JUST BECAUSE
Long and short answer to OP thread title really should read..Which Nominee do we pick to face Dem's Candidate....??
Try to limit your choice to the top 5 Republicans
on the current poll numbers to make this realistic.
The establishment candidates (Bush, Christie, Kasich, Rubio, Fiorina) would be the easiest for HRC to defeat. The GOP ran establishment types again Obama and they both lost in landslides.
Defeating a leftist is much easier when one exposes a leftist for what (s)he is than when once tries to play nice as your opponent will stop at nothing to win. I was hoping Gingrich would be nominated in '12 -- IMO, he would have had the best chance of success vs. Obama.
IMO, the more conservative candidates have the best chances of defeating HRC. Not sure if there's an order but I'd rate Cruz, Carson, Trump, and Paul as the most likely to defeat HRC.
The establishment candidates (Bush, Christie, Kasich, Rubio, Fiorina) would be the easiest for HRC to defeat. The GOP ran establishment types again Obama and they both lost in landslides.
IMHO, that's a false narrative. Do we really think Santorum (runner up in 2012) would have done better? How about Romney (runner up in 2008, followed by Huckabee and Ron Paul)? We cannot just assume that another candidate would have done better than the establishment types, because that simply is not the case.
Every political scientist knows that, based on historical data, a candidate who is not somewhere in the middle simply cannot win a general election because of the bell curve distribution of the electorate in terms of ideological spectrum.
Try to limit your choice to the top 5 Republicans
on the current poll numbers to make this realistic.
One person happens to be in the lower tier, but it's certainly realistic to me.
Lindsey Graham. I'd like to see him tear her up, and he sure could. I don't know why everyone overlooks him. He has the best foreign policy experience among the entire group, and across the board, he has tremendous experience. It's all here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Graham
IMHO, that's a false narrative. Do we really think Santorum (runner up in 2012) would have done better? How about Romney (runner up in 2008, followed by Huckabee and Ron Paul)? We cannot just assume that another candidate would have done better than the establishment types, because that simply is not the case.
Every political scientist knows that, based on historical data, a candidate who is not somewhere in the middle simply cannot win a general election because of the bell curve distribution of the electorate in terms of ideological spectrum.
Mick
False narrative; Obama is (essentially) a communist and won in two landslides. There's nothing centrist or non-extreme about him besides the Madison Avenue spin with which he's covered.
It's hard to say how Santorum would have done, but I'd rather have someone who stands in stark contrast to Obama than someone like Romney who brought a plastic knife to a gun fight. The GOP Congress has given Obama almost everything he has pushed for on a silver platter, including the TPA (which the Dems opposed).
It's hard to prove hypotheticals, but I'm confident that the GOP will lose (and by healthy margins) if one of the establishment hacks runs against HRC. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior; they just ran two moderates and both got their clocks cleaned by Obama. If a more conservative candidate who makes a clear distinction between himself and HRC runs, at least the people will be presented with a clear choice between candidates and ideologies. If most people (in terms of Electoral College votes) are dumb enough to choose HRC, then they'll deal with the consequences of that (as will the rest of us).
False narrative; Obama is (essentially) a communist and won in two landslides. There's nothing centrist or non-extreme about him besides the Madison Avenue spin with which he's covered.
It's hard to say how Santorum would have done, but I'd rather have someone who stands in stark contrast to Obama than someone like Romney who brought a plastic knife to a gun fight. The GOP Congress has given Obama almost everything he has pushed for on a silver platter, including the TPA (which the Dems opposed).
It's hard to prove hypotheticals, but I'm confident that the GOP will lose (and by healthy margins) if one of the establishment hacks runs against HRC. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior; they just ran two moderates and both got their clocks cleaned by Obama. If a more conservative candidate who makes a clear distinction between himself and HRC runs, at least the people will be presented with a clear choice between candidates and ideologies. If most people (in terms of Electoral College votes) are dumb enough to choose HRC, then they'll deal with the consequences of that (as will the rest of us).
Since the election will hinge on a relative handful of competitive states, you're banking on a very conservative Republican doing better than a more moderate one in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. I have difficulty believing that there are legions of right wingers in those states who refused to vote for Mitt Romney because he wasn't pure enough, thus allowing the re-election of the most liberal President since Lyndon Johnson, but who will crawl out from under rocks to vote for Ben Carson, Ted Cruz or Rick Santorum (who lost his last run in Pennsylvania by 17%).
If elections were determined by total national popular vote rather than the electoral college and turning out larger margins in conservative states mattered, the theory of nominating a "true" conservative might be a little more plausible, but in the system we have it doesn't stand up to scrutiny very well.
Last edited by Bureaucat; 10-24-2015 at 08:34 AM..
Anyone that is a hardcore religious fanatic who wants to take down planned parenthood, end abortions nationwide, start another war, and end same sex marriage. A lot of people vote for democrats because of social issues.
So that's pretty much everyone besides Trump and maybe Kaisch.
Kaisch has done everything possible to end abortions in his home state; including sneaking it into completely unrelated bills.
He seems reasonable when it comes to mass incarceration and the poor but he has not been good for women. (Just an FYI). If not for that, he would be my top Republican choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pawporri
Hillary could wake him up with her laugh.
I have to give it to you on this one. Good one!
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.
Which GOP Candidate do the Dems Want to Run Against Hillary ?
