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.
Y'all need to find jesus. There isn't a Republican on that stage that holds a candle to Hillary in a national election. Carson and Trump are a a couple of nut jobs; Rubio and Cruz are WAY to naïve and inexperienced; Bush has demonstrated EXTREME out of it'ism; Fiorina looks on the verge of a breakdown any minute (sorry, I kind of like her); Christie...maybe would give Hillary a run--experience, knowledgeable, charismatic (in a way) and understand politics (but seems to have faded in the public eye). Who else is up there? Huckabee? Paul? is Kasich still around?
I would have voted for her but recent disclosures have demonstrated that she is completely immoral (if not illegal) in her actions and behavior (pretty much defines ALL politicians). Regardless, she will devour any of the current Republican candidates unless she gets indicted (unlikely).
My current choice? None of the above.
I believe there is only one who can hold his own in a serious debate with Clinton; Kasich. That's the only equal match, because both have elephantine memories and both are policy wonks. On any given day, Kashich could beat her, too, because he holds tighter control of his emotions.
But most of all, after reading all the responses in this thread, I see the Republican party and conservative independent voters falling into the same trap that broke their leg and held them pinned down to the ground in 2008: The presumption that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee.
I watch the Democrats as much as the Republicans, and I'm a liberal voter. Ignoring Bernie Sanders could easily become the same fatal mistake in 2016 that denying Obama's chances and appeal was for McCain in 2008.
Sanders is the Democrat's Donald Trump, but unlike Trump, he is the longest serving independent in congressional history, and in both Houses has voted with both parties and voted against both. He knows them all, know how they think and how they will vote, and has consistently gone with whichever side most agrees with his own agenda, which has been well formed from long experience.
Sanders' entire campaign is based on one single thing; restoring the middle class to its former political and economic power. Like Trump, he refuses to take any Big Money donations. Unlike Trump, Sanders came from and remains solidly in the middle class and is not one of the rich. His message resonates deeply with every person who comes to hear him on the trail, and he has drawn huge numbers in his turnout, as large as Trump's.
Most of all, the real lethality of presuming Clinton will be the nominee is conservative ignorance of the discontent that dwells inside the Democratic party. Democrats are just as fed up with the influence of Big Money in the electoral process as Republicans, and within the party, Hillary is far less solid than the conservatives think she is. The only solid party support she has is the women, and Bernie is chewing away at that support, as he pays attention to and addresses the women's issues strongly and directly.
Just like the male voters, the females share many of the same gripes and issues as the males, and the have their own issues in addition that are not being addressed by and candidate but Sanders.
Just like Barack Obama, nobody seems to be paying much attention to what's happening with Sanders out on the trail except for those who have seen him, and like it was with Obama, once seen the word is spreading fast and quietly.
Clinton has the money, but she had the money in 2007, too. She recently got a big bounce after her appearance in Gowdy's Behghazi committee dropped an implosion grenade into it, but she got similar bounces in 2007 as well, from similar congressional questioners.
Hillary is formidable, but has weaknesses as strong as any on the Republican side, and her weaknesses are much more vivid to liberals than conservatives, as the GOP race has distracted conservatives much more than the 2007 primaries did.
The fact is Hillary could well be facing a mutiny by Democratic voters who are now fighting the DNC as hard as the GOP fought the RNC in 2007. To many Democrats, Clinton is the face of the DNC, and she cannot extricate herself from that, as the Chairwoman is a person the Clintons pretty much hand picked.
So- conservatives, take care. Try hard not to repeat your 2007 mistakes. Despite your most fervent beliefs, the Democrats' odds of winning are still as great as they were then and in 2012. Who is chosen as the GOP nominee had best be prepared to oppose a strong liberal, not a centrist as Obama is and was back then.
As I see it now, all bets are off on either side of the fence, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Trump debating Sanders in the final rundown to the election. 2016 will be even more of an emotional election than 2008.
I agree with this. Trump and Carson are the pre-game entertainment, and while they have certainly entertained us well, they will not be getting the nomination. I think Cruz is playing it smart, staying under the radar, not making any waves and certainly doing nothing to attract Trump's big mouth. He's looking to swoop in and grab the Tea Party votes when Trump implodes, which is only a matter of time. Cruz would be the left's dream opponent, so I'm rooting for him.
Bush and Rubio are the establishment choices, in that order, but Bush has been really lackluster, so a lot of his money and support has been moving over to Rubio. Which, as a Democrat, I would rather see. I think Rubio is a real lightweight and wouldn't stand a chance in the general election against Clinton.
The left's biggest worry would be a Christie or Kasich nominee, but happily, the Tea Party will see to it that they get knocked out in the early primaries. Are we sure the Tea Party doesn't secretly work for the Democrats??
The tea party may not have as much influence as it appears, and apparently the primary formula is slightly more complex than it appears.
"The GOP’s Primary Rules Might Doom Carson, Cruz And Trump..."
"...If that happens, the moderate finalist — like Mitt Romney and John McCain before him or her — will have a hidden structural advantage: the party’s delegate math and geography... There are plenty of reasons to be cautious of national polls that show Trump and Carson leading. But perhaps the biggest reason to ditch stock in these polls is that they’re simulating a national vote that will never take place. In reality, the GOP nominating contest will be decided by an intricate, state-by-state slog for the 2,472 delegates at stake between February and June."
The fact is Hillary could well be facing a mutiny by Democratic voters who are now fighting the DNC as hard as the GOP fought the RNC in 2007.
My friends and neighbors are some pretty attentive Democratic voters who live in a county that is about as blue as it gets, and so far no one is really paying attention to the campaign much less fighting about it... yet. As for a potential "progressive" mutiny, I wouldn't put any money on that.
And not to be off topic, I discount any argument about such things as the Republican "odds of favorite" pronouncements considering the fact that the "front runner" has been more a case of musical chairs than anything and I suggest will change over the course of the campaign.
Last edited by TheWiseWino; 11-09-2015 at 06:39 PM..
I agree with this. Trump and Carson are the pre-game entertainment, and while they have certainly entertained us well, they will not be getting the nomination. I think Cruz is playing it smart, staying under the radar, not making any waves and certainly doing nothing to attract Trump's big mouth. He's looking to swoop in and grab the Tea Party votes when Trump implodes, which is only a matter of time. Cruz would be the left's dream opponent, so I'm rooting for him.
Bush and Rubio are the establishment choices, in that order, but Bush has been really lackluster, so a lot of his money and support has been moving over to Rubio. Which, as a Democrat, I would rather see. I think Rubio is a real lightweight and wouldn't stand a chance in the general election against Clinton.
The left's biggest worry would be a Christie or Kasich nominee, but happily, the Tea Party will see to it that they get knocked out in the early primaries. Are we sure the Tea Party doesn't secretly work for the Democrats??
Christie would get whipped by Hillary. He's despised by most people in his state and also by a lot of people out of state.
If the GOP was smart, they'd nominate Kasich and push him to take Fiorina (to capture those who support "outsiders" as well as women voters) as his running mate. But they're led by stupid people, to quote The Donald, and the Tea Party won't have Kasich-Fiorina at all because they aren't conservative enough.
I do think Trump has more of a chance than you're giving him. Bush and Rubio are going to end up making each other look awful when they inevitably start attacking each other (it's already started). Bush already has low numbers as it is, and there's questions about Rubio's debt and lack of experience. They will wipe each other out, and Carson is going to sharply decline soon due to the lies he's been telling and his lack of energy.
Y'all need to find jesus. There isn't a Republican on that stage that holds a candle to Hillary in a national election. Carson and Trump are a a couple of nut jobs; Rubio and Cruz are WAY to naïve and inexperienced; Bush has demonstrated EXTREME out of it'ism; Fiorina looks on the verge of a breakdown any minute (sorry, I kind of like her); Christie...maybe would give Hillary a run--experience, knowledgeable, charismatic (in a way) and understand politics (but seems to have faded in the public eye). Who else is up there? Huckabee? Paul? is Kasich still around?
I would have voted for her but recent disclosures have demonstrated that she is completely immoral (if not illegal) in her actions and behavior (pretty much defines ALL politicians). Regardless, she will devour any of the current Republican candidates unless she gets indicted (unlikely).
My current choice? None of the above.
You simply have not looked at the polling, and to be blunt, are talking completely out of your behind.
If Republicans really wanted to win the White House, they would nominate Kasich. He is the only one of the group that has a reasonable chance of shifting the electoral map. That does not look likely at the moment, but it is early.
They would have gotten Jon Huntsman to run if they really wanted to win he just might the most electable person in the republican party
Hey pubs ... it's even worse than it appears for you guys...
But...he is an excellent speaker! Lol...
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.
