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.
Yeah, about that... he isn't electable nationally. Rubio COULD be. Paul isn't due to his flip-flop and the fact the youth don't register Republican enough to create the impact needed for him to be electable.
I think Rubio has what it takes to become president, but not this go around. Jeb Bush, his mentor will come first, IMO. Rubio is young and needs seasoning.
What happened to Cruz? I thought the Tea Party was going to anoint him Saint Raphael of Texas.
Cruz became an also ran very quickly. He jumped in too early IMO, some of the recent announcements took the wind out of his sails overnight. The fact that he is much too extreme and unelectable has hurt him with the big money donors and mainstream GOP leaders that run the nomination process, I am sure they are glad to see his profile diminish before he did more damage to the brand.
Yeah, about that... he isn't electable nationally. Rubio COULD be. Paul isn't due to his flip-flop and the fact the youth don't register Republican enough to create the impact needed for him to be electable.
I agree that Cruz is not electable. Besides, nominating him for the presidency would create a dangerous precedent in regards to eligibility.
I really think that Rubio has a shot, he's youthful, a member of a minority group, and he hails from the important swing state of Florida. The only thing that he needs to do is focus on a central campaign theme. I haven't really seen him embrace one yet.
As for Rand Paul, I also think he has a good shot. He seems to appeal to both Conservatives and Libertarians, and the Libertarian faction of the Republican Party is a growing one that is popular with younger voters. Rand Paul has also been polling very well, even beating Hillary, in states like Iowa and Pennsylvania, so people seem drawn to him. However, like Rubio, he needs to be more concise in what he is trying to accomplishment.
I think a Rubio/Paul or Paul/Rubio ticket would be extremely strong in a general election.
Cruz became an also ran very quickly. He jumped in too early IMO, some of the recent announcements took the wind out of his sails overnight. The fact that he is much too extreme and unelectable has hurt him with the big money donors and mainstream GOP leaders that run the nomination process, I am sure they are glad to see his profile diminish before he did more damage to the brand.
I love Ted Cruz as a senator, but he's too polarizing to win a general election. I'd rather see him in the Senate.
And the marginal candidates will drop out as time goes on. They'll do so when they have a buck and a quarter in the campaign account and draw 4 people to their massive rallies.
Yup. But the winnowing will be brutal to the party, and the eventual winner will either be a genius at uniting his party or will emerge beaten up and worn out at a time when the important fight begins, with an equally beaten-up party staggering on behind him to the finish.
Preliminary boxing matches are supposed to only lead up to the championship. With so many contenders in the ring, they are all going to get their shots in, but there won't be a knockout. All will just be weakened.
It's been a very long time since a nomination has been decided by a convention, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 2016 Republican convention becomes a big fray of its own, and may be the last place where the nomination is finally decided.
That's not an optimistic picture for the voters to look at when they're making their decision a few months later in the voting booth. Such disarray does not bode well for any of the GOP candidates.
Does the GOP harm themselves by having so many Candidates? I ask because we keep getting more and more names being thrown into the ring and I would think that with the funding being spread out over such a large field does that not reduce the chances of the major candidates by limiting them being able to get out their message? Not to mention that we know that there are still some major players that have not even declared yet. understand it is always good to have a choice but too many choices could also reduce the ability of the best candidate to win against their opposite number. Can't the GOP come up with a few really good alternatives or is the GOP not as tight knit as many assume?
Actually though I would like to see the list stop at about 6, there have been many years where the original number have been out of control and it hasn't hurt the party: check to see how many ran in 1980, 88 and 2000? Can the party come up with just a handful? Probably, but that can't stop those who want to get into the race for God only knows what reasons.
Now, I pose this question, does Bernie Sanders validity claims that many Democrats in congress embrace socialist ideologies?
When this question has been posed in the past, Democrats have scoffed at that very notion. However, from what I've been seeing out of Hillary Clinton and posters on this very forum, they seem to be embracing many of Sanders's socialist ideals.
Please feel free to start a thread discussing that topic.
Actually though I would like to see the list stop at about 6, there have been many years where the original number have been out of control and it hasn't hurt the party: check to see how many ran in 1980, 88 and 2000? Can the party come up with just a handful? Probably, but that can't stop those who want to get into the race for God only knows what reasons.
I would think they could come up with a way to address the issue, limiting both Parties to a set number based on support or whatever rule of thumb they can come up with, far too much money is thrown away on some of these candidates and I doubt it does either side any good. I agree that some that run have to know they have no chance of getting their Parties nomination and it does make one wonder why they waste all of the funding when they know it is a dead end.
Actually though I would like to see the list stop at about 6, there have been many years where the original number have been out of control and it hasn't hurt the party: check to see how many ran in 1980, 88 and 2000? Can the party come up with just a handful? Probably, but that can't stop those who want to get into the race for God only knows what reasons.
But here is the issue for this year. We have half the field isn't likely to be the candidate in July/August of next year. Ted Cruz is too conservative, Ben Carson is as well and has no political experience at all and then Carly Firiono has no political experience and has no platform other than I'm not Hillary. That leaves Paul, Rubio and either Walker or Bush as serious candidates under this system. One would be left out.
I don't mind the idea the RNC has with it being a percentage threshold. That'll likely remove two non serious candidates.
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.
