Jump to content

2016 GOP Candidates for President


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 563
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There's always the rent is too damn high party.

not even sure i want to know what is going on here     im proud of not knowing what is on here     makes me more authentic     did i just give away that i know what i going on in here

I would find it hilarious considering all the Birthers out there railing on about Obama's birth certificate if Cruz was able to secure a nomination.

 

but it was crystal clear that Fox was just looking to bait Trump to make crazy news-worthy Trumpisms and to discredit him.

His life, reputation and mouth accompllished that long before the debate.

 

Agreed. BUT, to be fair, they didn't have to go out of their way to slam him. They could have asked him legit questions and let him fall on his face himself. This is why most people hate Fox News because they push their agenda with ZERO transparency. They don't even try and that's kid of sickening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there such a thing as an atheist/agnostic Republican? Where's CM when you need her?

Pavonis, there is at least one candidate that meets your criteria for having "feasible and realistic plans for the future." John Kasich. Unfortunately, given that his base of support is establishment Republicans and moderates, he has no chance of winning the nomination unless Bush implodes before the NH primary. Which is not beyond the realm of possibility- Bush hasn't impressed on the campaign trail so far.

 

As far as your comment that the GOP "wants Leave it to Beaver," lol.. please.. that kinda reads like something I'd see in some liberal college kid's blog who thinks they're being clever, and gets their news from alternatively the Daily Show or Gawker.

 

The GOP certainly utilizes certain rhetorical tactics when trying to influence voters, especially elderly voters, that much is true of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as your comment that the GOP "wants Leave it to Beaver," lol.. please.. that kinda reads like something I'd see in some liberal college kid's blog who thinks they're being clever, and gets their news from alternatively the Daily Show or Gawker.

He's smarter than that. Probably safe to assume he was antagonizing Pigfeet unless otherwise stated?

Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but for all intents and purposes, Tex is just a more directly obnoxious and cunning version of Pigfeet. Less apples and oranges than oranges and tangerines.

 

Of course, as you pointed out, the GOP more often employs rosy-eyed, rear-view rhetoric, but I think (retain hope) that Pav was just meeting hyperbole with hyperbole.

 

Maybe not.

 

:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyways, switching back on topic for a moment, some opinions on the GOP nomination so far, as I haven't gotten into it since pg 1, and have been absent from Nightly for a little while.

 

I think Trump is honestly the most fascinating thing to happen in politics in a long time. His entry to the race has created an element of unpredictability- I honestly am not sure how this is going to end up, and this is the first time I've said this since 2000. In every other election since then, I have correctly predicted both the nominees and the eventual winner. But I have no idea how this is going to unfold.

 

The thing that makes it unpredictable is Trump has the remarkable ability to bounce back from practically anything and everything that happens to him. I was certain that the McCain comments would hurt him, but no, his poll numbers actually went up. I thought the Fox News spat would hurt him, but no, Ailes came back to him, tail tucked between his legs, and people actually ended up turning on Megyn Kelly. So I guess the question is what would actually make his numbers go down, and I don't think anything will except for people getting bored with him (something that Trump himself admitted would probably be the only thing to end his campaign, in some interview, can't remember which one).

 

Upon some further reflection following these events, it's not hard to explain why his numbers are stable. Trump has decades of experience being in the spotlight and on TV. He knows everyone in media and how to work them. He's a known quantity- people sorta expected him to be a dick, so there's no souring of people's expectations. And perhaps most importantly, he's tapping into a very real desire for a populist that I've been talking about for years. It hadn't happened yet, since we haven't had a true populist come out that knows which issues to target, as well as how to work crowds and the media- but the opportunity has been there for a while now. On top of that, there is a very real angry streak in people that Trump speaks to. These people aren't necessarily even conservative (see, e.g. the signs of people at Tea Party rallies for government to keep their hands off of medicare), and their positions can be inconsistent. A good question is where that anger comes from- I think lack of real wage growth is a likely culprit. On top of that, of course, is Trump's willingness to be as un-PC as possible, something that I've also been predicting someone would tap into for a while now. Although it can be easy to think the SJW internet pitchfork mobs have "won," the truth is likely that most people are getting sort of tired of their sh-t, and a backlash has been brewing for some time now. To capitalize on that, however, you need a charismatic guy who is independently wealthy and not tied to any other special interests or groups.

 

Trump meets all those concerns and requirements, so it's not surprising that he's been able to pull a steady chunk of support. The question is, how long will it last? And that's where this gets unpredictable. I simply have no idea how long it will take for people to grow bored of Trump (if they ever do). If he picks off one (or both) of NH and IA, then this could be a very long primary season for the GOP. Eventually, the establishment will try and pull all the favors they can to get everyone behind one candidate. Will that work? The last time the GOP had to do something like that was 1964, and even then, it failed and Goldwater got the nomination. The problem is that the non-Trump segments of the party are equally divided- you have Tea Partiers behind Cruz, you have the bible thumpers divided between Huckabee and Carson, you have the fiscal hawks behind Walker (though Walker's support seems to be falling rapidly), you have libertarians mainly behind Paul (though Paul has not been able to strike the same chord that his father did), and you have the establishment and moderates split between Bush, Kasich, and Rubio.

 

At the end of the day, the establishment would try and push Bush, but there is little love for him in the bible thumper and Tea Party block. Rubio might end up the compromise candidate in that case, or even Kasich, but I'm not sure how that would work out if it's late in the game and Trump has already won several primaries (the rest being split between one or more candidates). Maybe what would happen in that case is a brokered convention, which for a political junkie like me, would be pretty much the greatest thing in the world. We haven't really been close to one since the Democrats in 1968, so one can hope.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

Good post, CM, especially after a long hiatus. I was starting to get worried that someone had finally tricked you into saying your true demon name backwards and banished you to the Underworld. :)

 

Maybe you'll agree with me, maybe not, but I think Bush is pretty much done for. He had a really weak showing in the Fox debate. The guy really isn't quick on his feet, lacks the acumen of his father, and the every guy charisma of his brother. Also, he has all of their, along with his own baggage. Plus, the GW Bush administration is still close to recent memory (just over 6 1/2 years ago). I think the higher ups in the GOP establishment would like to push Jeb, and conservative media would love to back him, but he just has no charisma, and he has a record just long enough to pick apart. So I agree with you that he won't be running for president this time around, anyway.

 

Superficially, and for the same reason it is entertaining to watch a train wreck in slow motion, Trump has shaken things up. But I question the substance of Trump's bid for the presidency, and I would be very surprised if Trump gets the nomination. First, it really raises alarm bells for me when I see a candidate tapping into the anger of voters, rather than giving them something positive to vote for. This is the type of thing that gives rise to dictators. I know that sounds cliche, but it also happens to be true. Despite his money and current popularity, I think (just opinion) that there will be some sort of scandal, perhaps unethical business dealings, that will bring him down. I am pretty sure the media just hates him, and I think a good portion of the GOP establishment doesn't want him anywhere near the party, either. The mud will fly until something sticks, and it will eventually halt the Trump campaign, IMHO. The question is how soon, and how bloodied will the other candidates be, once it is all over. It could very well end up that all the candidates will bloody each other to the point where none of them are electable. And if Trump goes indy after losing the GOP nomination, it will be Ross Perot all over again for the republicans.

 

I think if the republicans were smart, they would select Kasich, with Rubio as the VP. Kasich is the "compassionate conservative" that the GOP needs right now. For over 8 years, most GOP candidates have been rushing to the far extreme right on social issues, but most of those issues really do little to change the lives of anyone. These stances just tend to polarize people, and on a lot of social issues, people have been moving center left. Even issues like gay marriage and immigration, once thought as the prime rib of red meat for the base, no longer is guaranteed to bring them support. Someone like Kasich is more apt to talk about fiscal responsibility, without mucking with the lazy talking points from 2004, or coming off as some religious zealot. Rubio is someone that also represents the changing face of the US population, and one that the GOP had better start adopting and appeal to, if it is to survive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find Trump to be very anomalous. And I like and enjoy this. Sanders made a quip in Iowa yesterday after Trump left to local Fair people that "he left his helicopter at home".

 

When I start worrying I just go to my Facebook feed and read through the GOPers in my life throwing support to Cruz. He was in GA a little while ago and several of my family went to see him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chalup, not sure how to take the demon comment... so as a compliment, I guess?

 

I do agree that Trump will probably fall at some point, but as you point out (and I agree with), it's a matter of when. If he stays strong through the spring and wins a few primaries, then that's basically the GOP's worst nightmare- as they'll have to desperately try and get the rest of the factions behind one candidate as to avoid a brokered convention.

 

Kasich/Rubio is my dream ticket right now. Kasich has a demeanor and style that contrasts well with Clinton, as well as a background of achievements that makes him probably the most qualified and competent of all the candidates. He's also the closest thing to an actual statesman that the GOP has this cycle. Rubio I think is a bit of a lightweight and probably wouldn't fare too well at the top of the ticket, but he's perfect for a VP pick IMO. Kasich/Rubio is a common preference for DC beltway republicans, moderates, GOP elites, and journalists, since that ticket likely has the best shot at getting to the Bush 2004 or 2000 maps (probably the GOP's only path to electoral college victory- I don't think the GOP can realistically pick off any Kerry '04 or Gore '00 states).

 

The problem is, once you leave those bases of support, it isn't clear where Kasich would get the votes. Kasich is unacceptable to the conservative and religious wings of the party. Moderates and the establishment right now likes him, but still seems about 60/40 in Bush's camp (at least for the time being). Kasich is currently running at 3rd in NH, behind Trump and Bush. What Kasich has to hope for is for Bush to implode before NH so Kasich can become the consensus establishment pick before SC, and then ride momentum into SC and NV. It would also help if Trump collapsed before then too, but not critical, since they draw from different factions of the party. If Trump is still in the game by NH and wins it, it's not too bad for Kasich as long as he places a strong 2nd and has displaced Bush by then.

 

If Bush is still running second by NH though, it's probably curtains for Kasich. In that case, Bush probably also ends up winning the nomination. I don't see the GOP beating Clinton in that scenario, no matter how pessimistic pong is over Clinton's chances in the general.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To capitalize on that, however, you need a charismatic guy who is independently wealthy and not tied to any other special interests or groups....

Trump meets all those concerns and requirements

I think you're confusing charisma with Q score

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

Chalup, not sure how to take the demon comment... so as a compliment, I guess?

It was meant as a compliment, and a joke.

 

 

 

 

I do agree that Trump will probably fall at some point, but as you point out (and I agree with), it's a matter of when. If he stays strong through the spring and wins a few primaries, then that's basically the GOP's worst nightmare- as they'll have to desperately try and get the rest of the factions behind one candidate as to avoid a brokered convention.

 

Kasich/Rubio is my dream ticket right now. Kasich has a demeanor and style that contrasts well with Clinton, as well as a background of achievements that makes him probably the most qualified and competent of all the candidates. He's also the closest thing to an actual statesman that the GOP has this cycle. Rubio I think is a bit of a lightweight and probably wouldn't fare too well at the top of the ticket, but he's perfect for a VP pick IMO. Kasich/Rubio is a common preference for DC beltway republicans, moderates, GOP elites, and journalists, since that ticket likely has the best shot at getting to the Bush 2004 or 2000 maps (probably the GOP's only path to electoral college victory- I don't think the GOP can realistically pick off any Kerry '04 or Gore '00 states).

 

The problem is, once you leave those bases of support, it isn't clear where Kasich would get the votes. Kasich is unacceptable to the conservative and religious wings of the party. Moderates and the establishment right now likes him, but still seems about 60/40 in Bush's camp (at least for the time being). Kasich is currently running at 3rd in NH, behind Trump and Bush. What Kasich has to hope for is for Bush to implode before NH so Kasich can become the consensus establishment pick before SC, and then ride momentum into SC and NV. It would also help if Trump collapsed before then too, but not critical, since they draw from different factions of the party. If Trump is still in the game by NH and wins it, it's not too bad for Kasich as long as he places a strong 2nd and has displaced Bush by then.

 

If Bush is still running second by NH though, it's probably curtains for Kasich. In that case, Bush probably also ends up winning the nomination. I don't see the GOP beating Clinton in that scenario, no matter how pessimistic pong is over Clinton's chances in the general.

 

I think this pretty much identifies the problem the GOP faces in general: go for the easy votes of the ultra religious or the past minded conservatives that are aging and/or becoming more obscure, or start changing their ideology to keep up with the times. I think Kasich and Rubio are the type of candidates the GOP needs to start fielding to remain relevant. I agree Rubio is a lightweight, and is best used to balance a ticket and provide broader appeal. When they field candidates like Santorum, Cruz, Perry, and Walker, that is basically appealing to the lowest common denominator.

 

Jeb Bush might be the leading moderate right now, but I think give it a few more debates and I think he will basically embarrass himself to the point of damage beyond repair. Also, I think the same problems Kasich has for the religious and conservative GOP factions, Bush also has. When are the republicans going to stop listening to the shrinking yet very vocal factions that complain about candidates not being conservative enough or religious enough? It is what is slowly killing the party, I believe. Not to mention I personally think a lot of people on both sides of the aisle have a problem with a 3rd Bush in the White House in less than 30 years. That smacks of dynasty, that would be unprecedented, and considering how unpopular GW was when he left office, I think the GOP is risking damaging their brand name indefinitely, at least as far as running for the presidency is concerned. This is to say nothing of the fact that every poll out there that puts Jeb Bush against Hillary Clinton, Bush loses handily.

 

The rest of them, Christie, Carson, Jindal, Paul, and Huckabee, while they have their little cults of followers, are very unlikley to get the nomination, and more importantly, could never win a general election, even if Bernie Sanders was running.

 

And finally, there is Trump. I don't doubt his managerial ability, but I just don't think he has the temperament (or the temper) for the job. In an odd way, maybe it is what the GOP needs to shake things up, but I also believe that once his star has fallen, rather than seeing it as an opportunity to move the party forward, I think they will double down on candidates like Ted Crazy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Chalup, not sure how to take the demon comment... so as a compliment, I guess?

It was meant as a compliment, and a joke.

 

Really? Because I've tried every incantation with every name and nada.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish but it is almost as racist as his misogyny against women and just as costly.

 

What? It's almost as... racist as its.. sexist? :confused:

 

Can you really compare these two? So, like you're saying there's two scales, side by side, and you've compared them, and the immigration policy.. say scores like a 8 on the racist scale, which I guess is about equal to an 8 on the misogyny scale?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is there such a thing as an atheist/agnostic Republican? Where's CM when you need her?

Pavonis, there is at least one candidate that meets your criteria for having "feasible and realistic plans for the future." John Kasich. Unfortunately, given that his base of support is establishment Republicans and moderates, he has no chance of winning the nomination unless Bush implodes before the NH primary. Which is not beyond the realm of possibility- Bush hasn't impressed on the campaign trail so far.

Yes, Kasich struck me as the best of the bunch, and certainly is the most appealing of the GOP picks, currently.

 

As far as your comment that the GOP "wants Leave it to Beaver," lol.. please.. that kinda reads like something I'd see in some liberal college kid's blog who thinks they're being clever, and gets their news from alternatively the Daily Show or Gawker.

Meh. On the one hand, not my best work (though maybe it irritated Pigfeet; if so, it's not a complete loss). On the other hand, you're not exactly surrounded by the religious right-wing Republicans, so what do you know? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose technically it's not. But the idealized, televised, version of the era was a far cry from the reality.

The Republican platform calls for defining marriage as between a man and a woman only. From their 2012 platform

...the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage...


What's the advantage of that? I mean, I don't really care - I'm not homosexual and I'm already married. But will legally defining marriage in a way that matches more closely with the 1950s ideal benefit me in any way?

 

For instance, another stance the Republicans support is "making the internet family-friendly". Will prohibiting internet gambling and generally "cleaning up the Internet" (i.e., censoring it) be good for me?

 

You know, after reading the 2012 Republican platform, there's a lot of ideas there that I can support. But the party has such close ties to the religious conservatives, harping on their fundamentalist Christian values, making all the GOP candidates profess their "abiding faith in Yahweh" (not God, not G-d, not LORD - it has a name) just to get their vote (as if those fundamentalists wouldn't vote Republican anyway) is revolting to me.

 

When the Republicans dump the Crazy Christians, then I'll be happier to vote for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...