2016 Polls: Republican Candidate

[Havard]

John Kasich. Govenor of Ohio. Nuff said.

I only hear good things about Kasich, but his name doesn’t come up often. Has he said that he wants to run?

 

[ishii]

Glad people feel the need to laugh at or put down on my preferences.

@ishii: Condi held very influential positions and a great relationship with the President, but accounts on all sides confirm that she was an independent thinker who did not always agree with Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc., and was not shy to speak her mind about them. Most people don’t know where these distinctions lie because the spotlight hasn’t been shone on her.

Thanks for the clarification havard. As I mentioned , I’ve always liked her (except on social issues ). She would be a good response to a Hillary first woman in history campaign.

Ishii

 

[estesbob]

I only hear good things about Kasich, but his name doesn’t come up often. Has he said that he wants to run?

He burned his bridges when he instituted a State ACA exchange in Ohio. He would never make it through the primaries

 

[TMC]

I think the GOP would be best served by nominating an accomplished governor. I hope that the various firebrand-style professional candidates and rabble rousers will stay out this time. (I would put Carson, Gingrich, Santorum all in that category. And maybe Huckabee). But the GOP has several good governors with current or recent success; the party should run them off against each other and pick whoever catches fire. (Examples include Kasich, Christie, Perry, Pence, and probably more I am not thinking of.)

Part of what hurt the GOP last time around was the over-long nominating process that featured mostly unserious candidates. It made the party look extreme and unserious. A small but serious field of mostly sitting or recent governors can produce a very competitive candidate - even if the specific person has little name recognition now. Letting professional talking head/candidates spew forth nonsense for nine months, and then nominating whatever one not imploded yet, is not a good prescription for success.

 

[powerofk]

He burned his bridges when he instituted a State ACA exchange in Ohio. He would never make it through the primaries

And that, right there, is the crux of the problem. Most of the Republicans that appeal to the “centrist Independents” wouldn’t make it out of primaries. Why? Because, in today’s two party system, the party line dominates primaries. What ends up happening after the primaries is that the Presidential candidates try to appeal to the people who are not in their party. Like him or hate him, Obama was able to do that much better than McCain or Romney. That, more than anything else, is why he won. Dubya was able to do that better than Kerry (in 2000, most of the people who voted for Gore were actually voting for a 3rd term of Clinton).

 

[ishii]

And that, right there, is the crux of the problem. Most of the Republicans that appeal to the “centrist Independents” wouldn’t make it out of primaries. Why? Because, in today’s two party system, the party line dominates primaries. What ends up happening after the primaries is that the Presidential candidates try to appeal to the people who are not in their party. Like him or hate him, Obama was able to do that much better than McCain or Romney. That, more than anything else, is why he won. Dubya was able to do that better than Kerry (in 2000, most of the people who voted for Gore were actually voting for a 3rd term of Clinton).

You have a point. However. The GOP candidate must run against the democrat opponent and the media which shapes the narrative(eg war on women,romney the candidate for the rich , etc ). The media also shapes the debate by what it doesn’t cover: such as Obama’s radicalism in 2008 and Benghazi in 2012. But that is the reality the GOP has to deal with. We can have an effective candidate that is also conservative and appeal to centrists. Centrists believe in fiscal sanity.and I’m sure securing borders. And economic growth - not the new normal anemic “recovery” that the democrats seem satisfied with.

Obama was able to appeal to centrists because the media did not report on his radicalism. And McCain did not press the issue. I have seen recent polls that say many of the centrists would gladly vote for Romney if they could do it over again.

As for 2016- we need a governor ticket with a proven track record of getting things done. That would be a great alternative to a dc insider like Hillary. If scott walker wins his reelection watch his 2016 stock to rise. Walker - jindal. Or walker - Rubio.

Ishii

 

[powerofk]

You have a point. However. The GOP candidate must run against the democrat opponent and the media which shapes the narrative(eg war on women,romney the candidate for the rich , etc ). The media also shapes the debate by what it doesn’t cover: such as Obama’s radicalism in 2008 and Benghazi in 2012. But that is the reality the GOP has to deal with. We can have an effective candidate that is also conservative and appeal to centrists. Centrists believe in fiscal sanity.and I’m sure securing borders. And economic growth - not the new normal anemic “recovery” that the democrats seem satisfied with.

Obama was able to appeal to centrists because the media did not report on his radicalism. And McCain did not press the issue. I have seen recent polls that say many of the centrists would gladly vote for Romney if they could do it over again.

As for 2016- we need a governor ticket with a proven track record of getting things done. That would be a great alternative to a dc insider like Hillary. If scott walker wins his reelection watch his 2016 stock to rise. Walker - jindal. Or walker - Rubio.

Ishii

When it comes to fiscal policy, I’m pretty centrist. I do believe that we need to have a balanced budget, but I think that there’s a lot more room for “compromise” and new solutions when it comes to the budget and fiscal policy than we’ve seen in the past 4 years. I place the blame on the shoulders of both parties, as our politicians seem more intent on maintaining power and fending off primary threats (seriously… 95+% of seats in the House of Reps are safe seats for one party or the other, and there are many seats that aren’t even contested by the other party).

Of course, neither party actually admits the fatal flaw in Social Security: that in order for SS to be viable, more people need to be paying into the system than receiving benefits, and since we’re having fewer and fewer children and living longer as a society, it’s simply not feasible (even today, more people are receiving Social Security benefits than paying in to the system).

 

[Estevao]

Ted Cruz = 46th president of the USA. None of those other milquetoasts will have the cahones necessary to grill Hillary.

 

[ishii]

Ted Cruz = 46th president of the USA. None of those other milquetoasts will have the cahones necessary to grill Hillary.

If I had to choose between seeing a milquetoast run a weak, losing campaign against Hillary, and a guy with cahones (Ted Cruz, e.g.) go out swinging - and grilling the Democrat - then I would choose the latter. Problem is, the latter is all but guaranteed the defeat, whereas the former offers a better chance of winning. I think…

Ishii

 

[ishii]

When it comes to fiscal policy, I’m pretty centrist. I do believe that we need to have a balanced budget, but I think that there’s a lot more room for “compromise” and new solutions when it comes to the budget and fiscal policy than we’ve seen in the past 4 years. I place the blame on the shoulders of both parties, as our politicians seem more intent on maintaining power and fending off primary threats (seriously… 95+% of seats in the House of Reps are safe seats for one party or the other, and there are many seats that aren’t even contested by the other party).

Of course, neither party actually admits the fatal flaw in Social Security: that in order for SS to be viable, more people need to be paying into the system than receiving benefits, and since we’re having fewer and fewer children and living longer as a society, it’s simply not feasible (even today, more people are receiving Social Security benefits than paying in to the system).

Interesting. I always thought of moderates or centrists to be generally fiscally conservative and decent administrators - like businessmen - who are centrist in that they are wary of social conservatism. In the past they were also more likely less hawkish on foreign policy as well - like a Ford or a Nixon. Now you seem to be implying that centrism could be applied to fiscal matters as well - that centrism might mean accepting large budgets/spending, etc. Perhaps signing on to new govt. programs.

Of course, I’m very partisan (as anyone who has suffered through reading my posts would know), but I dare say that a Bill Clinton would have been able to compromise with the GOP House in a way that Obama hasn’t been able to (compromise isn’t his nature). Regarding SS and solvency - part of the problem is that when someone (usually a Republican) proposes some kind of reform, they are demagogued by Democrats as anti-elderly. So they wimp out. I regarded Romney as a centrist - but I supported him enthusiastically because I think he would have been a good president.

Ishii

 

[Path_Finder]

Yes, Ted Cruz likely would win the debates and would be able to “grill” the opposition. There may be other approaches too though, I don’t totally rule that out.

 

[Path_Finder]

Romney would have been very good. He’s a job creator but he’d also make the government more efficient, we have programs still going that receive big grants from the government even though they were established back in the 1960s. Okay, maybe those kinds of programs still deserve some funding but we have a monolithic structure where now, those are somewhat special interests that just want to get their money. This is a lot of wasted money.

Russia, yes, Romney would have done better.

Ebola, we could be up a creek on this.

Middle East, same as well, voting for Obama in fact, has created many problems in spite of all of those who will harp on winning the popular vote.

Health care does not seem very functional as well. Virtually nothing is working well.

 

[powerofk]

Interesting. I always thought of moderates or centrists to be generally fiscally conservative and decent administrators - like businessmen - who are centrist in that they are wary of social conservatism. In the past they were also more likely less hawkish on foreign policy as well - like a Ford or a Nixon. Now you seem to be implying that centrism could be applied to fiscal matters as well - that centrism might mean accepting large budgets/spending, etc. Perhaps signing on to new govt. programs.

Of course, I’m very partisan (as anyone who has suffered through reading my posts would know), but I dare say that a Bill Clinton would have been able to compromise with the GOP House in a way that Obama hasn’t been able to (compromise isn’t his nature). Regarding SS and solvency - part of the problem is that when someone (usually a Republican) proposes some kind of reform, they are demagogued by Democrats as anti-elderly. So they wimp out. I regarded Romney as a centrist - but I supported him enthusiastically because I think he would have been a good president.

Ishii

Honestly, it’s like this - we can accept new spending in an area if we have increased revenue to match the increased spending or if we cut spending in another area. If revenue is cut in one area, it must be set apart with a spending cut equal to the revenue cut or by a revenue increase in another area. The problem is that spending is easier to raise politically than it is to cut (because people get addicted to government spending) and taxes are easier to cut politically than to raise (because very few people want to pay more taxes).

 

[Dawnia]

I chose other, because there is no “It’s too dang early to be thinking about the 2016 elections”.

 

[lovetheLamb]

I hope Mike Huckabee decides to run. He is a conservative christian (baptist I believe) and I find myself agreeing with almost all of his posts on his facebook page, with the exception of immigrants/southern border issues because I haven’t quite made my mind up about that. I have parents who were both born outside of the U.S. so my opinion is a little biased on that matter.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Paul favors traditional marriage, but has said states should determine their own marriage laws.

“I don’t want my guns registered in Washington or my marriage,” he told me. “Founding Fathers all got married by going down to the local courthouse. It is a local issue and always has been.”

But can Republicans win a national election if they aren’t in tune with rapidly changing opinions on the matter? He took a soft tone.

“Society’s changing,” he said. “I mean, people change their minds all the time on this issue, and even within the Republican Party, there are people whose child turns out to be gay and they’re like, oh well maybe I want to rethink this issue. So it’s been rethought. The President’s rethought the issue. So I mean, a lot of people have rethought the issue.”

It sounded, for a moment, as if Paul was hinting that he, too, could change his thinking about marriage.

“The bottom line is, I’m old fashioned, I’m a traditionalist,” he said. “I believe in old-fashioned traditional marriage. But, I don’t really think the government needs to be too involved with this, and I think that the Republican Party can have people on both sides of the issue.”

“You could rethink it at some point, too?” I asked him.

He shrugged, and gave me a half-grimace. It wasn’t a yes or a no, but it revealed Paul’s complicated dance as he tries to color outside the lines of the Republican Party.

edition.cnn.com/2014/10/03/politics/rand-paul-hambycast/index.html?hpt=po_t1

Rand Paul may struggle with people who consider themselves social conservatives in 2016. On one hand, for the most part, he has an established pro-life voting recording on the abortion issue, on the other hand some of his comments, such as those on birth control, Plan B, and his comments on marriage are probably going to make social conservatives question him somewhat.

 

[ProVobis]

edition.cnn.com/2014/10/03/politics/rand-paul-hambycast/index.html?hpt=po_t1

Rand Paul may struggle with people who consider themselves social conservatives in 2016. On one hand, for the most part, he has an established pro-life voting recording on the abortion issue, on the other hand some of his comments, such as those on birth control, Plan B, and his comments on marriage are probably going to make social conservatives question him somewhat.

Rand Paul is still a libertarian more than a conservative and that should come as no surprise to social conservatives who believe (as I do to some extent) that you can’t keep the government out of our lives completely.

 

[RGCheek]

Santorum - I still think a white conservative Catholic whose last election was a double digit loss is not a candidate who can appeal to a wide enough group to be taken seriously.
Ishii

Santorum ran very strong against an establishment candidate that had the nomination virtually already sewn up. Against that a double digit loss in the waning days of the primary season is understandable.

Santorum’s chief difficulty is that most of those who would support him think he is unelectable because he is too moral and principled and thus couldn’t get enough support.

A self-fulfilling prophecy if I ever saw one.

People need to stop voting for who they think will win and instead vote for those who best represent their views. This isn’t a sporting event or a football league. Vote for the best candidate in the primaries that represents your values. Then let the resulting top guys sort out who gets the nomination.

Today everyone tries to find the winning bandwagon and it gives us pander kings for our nominees.

 

[ishii]

Santorum ran very strong against an establishment candidate that had the nomination virtually already sewn up. Against that a double digit loss in the waning days of the primary season is understandable.

Santorum’s chief difficulty is that most of those who would support him think he is unelectable because he is too moral and principled and thus couldn’t get enough support.

A self-fulfilling prophecy if I ever saw one.

People need to stop voting for who they think will win and instead vote for those who best represent their views. This isn’t a sporting event or a football league. Vote for the best candidate in the primaries that represents your values. Then let the resulting top guys sort out who gets the nomination.

Today everyone tries to find the winning bandwagon and it gives us pander kings for our nominees.

I was referring to santorums losing senate campaign in which he lost decisively. Is a candidate whose most recent campaign was a losing campaign (not even close ) the strongest candidate ? I would argue no. I think we should nominate the most conservative candidate with the best chance of winning. That would seem to count out guys like Ted Cruz and ben Carson. We can nominate the candidate that makes us feel good for sticking up for principles and not compromising. But then complain when we lose. Or we can deal with political reality.

Ishii

 

[DeniseNY]

We can nominate the candidate that makes us feel good for sticking up for principles and not compromising. But then complain when we lose. Or we can deal with political reality.

Ishii

But don’t you think we did that in 2012 with Romney?