2016 Polls: Republican Candidate

[epan]

I like Santorum, because he appears to be the most likely to lose in a national election.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Why not the old Reagan three-legged stool? Social conservatives, national security conservatives and small government conservatives all working together to reign in the old FDR central state liberalism?

Because that old FDR coalition is dying off and leaving no competing ideology other than neoMarxism wrapped in a multi-culti Politically Correct façade.

The neocons like the social re-engineering that the left wants as well. They are pro national security but opposed to meaningful reductions in government scope and size and also opposed to real significant opposition on social issues pushed by the left.

Until the GOP sheds its RINO neocon leadership it wont find the internal consistency to truly champion its conservative base and the values it holds dear.

I agree with most of this. Looking at the forest rather than the trees, we need a candidate who can appeal to the base but won’t alienate independents and moderates. This inevitably will involve compromise on everybody’s part. To me the first questions of a Republican candidate should be:

(1) Will the country club Republicans vote for him/her?
(2) Will the social conservatives (Catholic, Evangelical, etc.) vote for him/her?
(3) Will the tea party supporters/libertarians vote for him/her?
(4) Will the independents, moderate Republicans and moderate Democrat/swing voters (including women) vote for him/her? Is a good chunk of suburbia on board or are they running the other direction as fast as they can?
(5) Can he/she win all red and purple states? And pull one or two blue ones?

If we don’t have a candidate that gets 5 “yes” votes, we need to start creating him/her out of one of the serious contenders we have in the pool.

Realism. Pragmatism.

 

[ishii]

Hi Ishii,
Maybe it’s a local thing, but I wonderer if the Republican party might have fared better running Huckabee in the last election. People I knew, who normally would not consider voting Republican, were excited by his positions. He’s the only Republican candidate that I’m aware of, who seemed to be able to pick up votes from those normally unsympathetic to the party.

I think Huckabee is okay, but I can’t imagine running a southern, white, evangelical preacher governor and winning. We need to nominate someone a little less predictable who can appeal to more voters. I don’t see Huckabee as that guy. (or gal). Plus, there is something about him that I don’t really care for but I can’t put my finger on it to explain well enough. Not a huge fan of his show and his bass playing antics.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Disagree. GOP women get savaged. Or ignored. Per the mainstream media they are not really women. Like Allen Keyes wasn’t really black. Nor are any of the many smart, black conservatives taken seriously as leaders by the mainstream media. And they don’t poll all that well in the black community for some reason.

There ARE good female GOP candidates. AND Condoleeza Rice is one of them. She would probably be a good President. I could vote for her. But I’d guess the black vote would move no more from its current 95% Democratic support to maybe 90%.

Right now we don’t have a Margaret Thatcher class female candidate, IMO.

Palin - interesting person. In my opinion hurt herself by quitting the Governorship of Alaska. Even though she was being unfairly savaged by the press … and may have felt she’d accomplished what she wanted to in Alaska. That quitting thing can be deadly.

On the bright side Hillary’s quitting as Secretary of State hurts her too I think.

Michelle Bachman would have had a better chance had she stepped up and ran against Al Franken in Minnesota and beat him. Being a senator provides more gravitas than just being a congressperson. That said she has spunk. The media will (and has) savaged her - but in person, she sounds good on Greta van Susteren.

Other female leaders? Lyn Cheney. Elizabeth Dole. Phyllis Schlafly? Would they be better than what we have now? Yes. Would they be better than Hillary? Yes. Would they beat Hillary? Or even really get the GOP nomination? - I’d enjoy those results, but … I … dunno.

The GOP just needs a good, confident candidate that is not afraid to RUN. That is … one that is tougher on the Democratic candidate than he or she was vs. the other GOP hopefuls (thinking of Mc Cain here).

Please, no more wallflower campaigns showing us how “nice” you are. Didn’t work for: Thomas Dewey, Gerald Ford, GHW Bush the second time (especially!); Bob Dole or Mitt Romney. The women named here don’t SEEM to have ***that ***problem though, I must say.

Per your someone fresh (and female) look to the national commentators: Michelle Malkin could have whoever debates her heading for the hills.

Hello capnfun. Phyliss Schlafly is 90 years old. Bachmann is too far to the right and strident in her manner. Plus she’s a Jer-USA-lem type (white evangelical protestant conservative). She is probably right on most issues, but she’d never get nominated, much less be competitive in a general election. We can do much better than her. Condi Rice - pro-choice/social liberal. What she get the religious right voters? Or would they abandon the party for a 3rd party? Lynn Cheney? Wrong last name. Truth is, save for Condi Rice, we don’t have a female potential candidate with gravitas. And don’t get me going on Sarah Palin - resigning as governor was only one of her problems.

Agree with you on the list of failure: Dole, Dewey, Ford, et al. You’re right - we need a dynamic, conservative, great communicator candidate now. Or, perhaps, more than a communicator, we just need a plain talking, conservative set of governors who have proven track records of accomplishments. Walker/Jindal (if Walker wins re-election) or Rubio/Jindal. No more nice guys taking it easy on the Dem nominee. Take the gloves off, spend money on ads telling the truth for once. I have my doubts that the GOP is capable of doing this.

But you’re right - no more Wallflower campaigns that let the Democrats and Democrat media shape the narrative - like Romney did. He didn’t answer the charges soon enough and that let the Dems frame the debate and put him on the defensive as a rich white guy out to screw the poor folks and deny women contraception.

Ishii

 

[savedbygrace71]

I voted other- I am not a politically savvy voter, and will just pray for ANYONE who can beat Hilary. I almost don’t care who it is. Almost.

 

[ishii]

Why not the old Reagan three-legged stool? Social conservatives, national security conservatives and small government conservatives all working together to reign in the old FDR central state liberalism?

Because that old FDR coalition is dying off and leaving no competing ideology other than neoMarxism wrapped in a multi-culti Politically Correct façade.

The neocons like the social re-engineering that the left wants as well. They are pro national security but opposed to meaningful reductions in government scope and size and also opposed to real significant opposition on social issues pushed by the left.

Until the GOP sheds its RINO neocon leadership it wont find the internal consistency to truly champion its conservative base and the values it holds dear.

That worked in 1980, RGCheek. But now I don’t think that coalition is quite as viable. The Cold War is over (which united all conservatives). The foreign policy now is much more complicated than “peace through strength” motto of Reagan - as shown by your criticism of “neo-cons” who are now the foreign policy “hawks.”

I also don’t think that the neo-cons are all for big government - Bill Kristol, a neo-con if there ever was one, is solid on the fiscal issues (and social issues too). I agree with you that the Democrat left has absolutely no new ideas at all: just spend, spend spend to give people stuff so that they get their votes. Rob Peter to pay Paul and get the votes of Paul. And promote gay agenda and abortion agenda. That is all they stand for really, and its just to maintain/increase power. I suspect that the motivation for some is more idealistic than mere pursuit of power, as some Democrats are truly committed leftists - Obama, e.g.

But yes, a candidate who promotes common sense ideals, realism in foreign policy (no nation building/endless wars) fiscal sanity, reforms of entitlements, etc. including healthcare - would probably be more competitive than a Rhino. One of the things I like about Chris Christie is that he seems real – yells at liberals, speaks his mind and doesn’t nuance everything. Imagine him debating Hillary! It would either be devastating for Hillary/Democrats or it would be a disaster for the GOP. Either way, it would be interesting. I have been promoting Bobby Jindal, but the only weakness I see with him is he’s too nice and earnest sounding. We need a straight talker. Maybe Christie is that man. But, he hugged Obama right before the election in 2012. Not good.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

I agree with most of this. Looking at the forest rather than the trees, we need a candidate who can appeal to the base but won’t alienate independents and moderates. This inevitably will involve compromise on everybody’s part. To me the first questions of a Republican candidate should be:

(1) Will the country club Republicans vote for him/her?
(2) Will the social conservatives (Catholic, Evangelical, etc.) vote for him/her?
(3) Will the tea party supporters/libertarians vote for him/her?
(4) Will the independents, moderate Republicans and moderate Democrat/swing voters (including women) vote for him/her? Is a good chunk of suburbia on board or are they running the other direction as fast as they can?
(5) Can he/she win all red and purple states? And pull one or two blue ones?

If we don’t have a candidate that gets 5 “yes” votes, we need to start creating him/her out of one of the serious contenders we have in the pool.

Realism. Pragmatism.

You have portrayed the challenge for the GOP well, FollowChrist34. The GOP nominee has to win independents. Has to. If Scott Walker wins his re-election in Wisconsin then he could make that claim to be the candidate that fulfills the criteria you listed above. I mean, the Democrat/unions/left has thrown everything they can at Walker to defeat him - including the recall campaign and now the re-election. If they fail again I think Walker can claim to really appeal to common sense thinking independents.

Ishii

 

[FollowChrist34]

I voted other- I am not a politically savvy voter, and will just pray for ANYONE who can beat Hilary. I almost don’t care who it is. Almost.

Agreed. Remember that horrible question - if you were starving would you steal a piece of bread? I can’t remember the “morally correct” answer.

My point being sometimes you have to violate your conscience. Frankly, I think voting for either party involves some of that. But keep in mind the greater evil you are trying to block.

 

[Path_Finder]

I know we have heard, not even sure if that is an acceptable term here but RINO, people will say so and so is a RINO. Actually, the discussion I watched, I forget who said it but maybe the word we are looking for is CINO, Conservative in name only because being a Republican can mean a variety of things while yes, still having Core values. But even if I disagree with someone, some of the people who get called a RINO seems to be a bit unfair. Just IMHO. One is free to believe what they want but to me this is a valid point.

 

[TheConservative]

I really have no idea at this point who I’d be interested in. I didn’t vote Republican last time (L) but will this time. Even if I have to represent someone chosen by TPTB I atleast want them to line up with me somewhat.

 

[Path_Finder]

I did vote for Ted Cruz but this is just a straw poll vote really, we don’t know all of the issues here. Cruz has great views, is a Baptist. I think one can construe him though as being a bit hawkish and perhaps even falling into the Fundamentalist thought of seeing Israel in Bible prophecy. It may not be straight forward but it may be implicit.

Then, in turn, Jindal may share many of the same views except for this listed above. I think Cruz perceives that what many Fundamentalists would believe about the rapture, armageddeon, Israel, really might not be a strong point across a vast electorate. These fundamentalist views are the kinds of things preachers like John Hagee seem to dwell on.

We can support Israel without thinking this all fits into Bible prophecy. I am NOT implying Cruz has said this but he did say that bit a few weeks ago about Israel being our best ally in the Mid East.

So, I would question Ted just a bit on this point.

 

[RGCheek]

I agree with most of this. Looking at the forest rather than the trees, we need a candidate who can appeal to the base but won’t alienate independents and moderates. This inevitably will involve compromise on everybody’s part. To me the first questions of a Republican candidate should be:

(1) Will the country club Republicans vote for him/her?
(2) Will the social conservatives (Catholic, Evangelical, etc.) vote for him/her?
(3) Will the tea party supporters/libertarians vote for him/her?
(4) Will the independents, moderate Republicans and moderate Democrat/swing voters (including women) vote for him/her? Is a good chunk of suburbia on board or are they running the other direction as fast as they can?
(5) Can he/she win all red and purple states? And pull one or two blue ones?

If we don’t have a candidate that gets 5 “yes” votes, we need to start creating him/her out of one of the serious contenders we have in the pool.

Realism. Pragmatism.

I think Perry or Huckabee at the top of the ticket with Cruz or Paul as the VP is a winner and pulls all five.

A former governor or major cabinet level experience is needed to show executive chops and these guys that came out of nowhere to win senate seats don’t have those chops yet; they need to spend eight years as VP to get something akin to it. While I prefer Santorum, I don’t see a good ‘fit’, but I guess he could go anywhere, maybe even as a cabinet officer.

A Jindal/Santorum ticket would be dynamite, but would be like a nerd/wonk singularity risk.

 

[mary_bobo]

I couldn’t get past the Mormonism. I never saw Romney as a moderate candidate. I know that topic has been beaten to death, and I actually don’t want to start it up again - just making the point that to a lot of people, Romney was not exactly perceived as a moderate. I am more or less an independent. To me, a much better example of a moderate is Christie. Not saying he would win but I would vote for him. I do think we need to get someone who has principles and will stick to them. Rubio, Jindal, Paul Ryan, etc. Rand Paul really worries me. Too flashy, too Obama, no substance.

That’s the first time I have ever heard Paul Ryan called “flashy”. Charismatic he is not, intelligent he is.

 

[FollowChrist34]

That’s the first time I have ever heard Paul Ryan called “flashy”. Charismatic he is not, intelligent he is.

Wait! I am calling Rand Paul flashy, not Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan actually kind of puts me to sleep , but I like him all the same - he’s thoughtful and appeals to all wings of the party. Not sure he has enough, what’s the word, drive? Bite? Something like that.

 

[CaptFun]

I like Santorum, because he appears to be the most likely to lose in a national election.

The candidate “they” fear most! Last time Santorum lost the Democrats had to nominate a pro-life person for a high political office (Senator Robert Casey D-PA … who is possibly the most prominent “pro-life” person of rank in the party). So even in losing maybe he helped get the camel’s nose into the Democrat’s tent on the issue of life.

2016 is a way off. We don’t know who the Democrats will run yet - even though now it seems to be the inevitable Hillary. She is unliked by many even in her own party … if 2008 is any indication. And given more exposure, as candidates often are, Hillary might be just unlikable enough to lose to ANY GOP nominee. In my opinion.

Cross on over and vote in the GOP primary for Rick! “I like Santorum …” doesn’t have the same metre to it as “I like Ike …” but hey, I like him “too” for possibly opposite reasons.

 

[Holly3278]

I personally think that Paul Ryan would be a good pick. He seems to be an orthodox Catholic and that would surely affect his politics.

 

[CaptFun]

CaptFun Responds in RED below

Hello capnfun. Phyliss Schlafly is 90 years old. < True, but wouldn’t it be delicious if SHE became, forever and always, the “First Woman President of the USA”? What a thumb in the eye to the baby-killing wing of feminism.

Bachmann is too far to the right and strident in her manner. Plus she’s a Jer-USA-lem type (white evangelical protestant conservative). She is probably right on most issues, but she’d never get nominated, much less be competitive in a general election. We can do much better than her. < I agree with you somewhat. Although I sometimes prefer her “too much” to the rest of the party’s “too little” (strident and zealous over lukewarm and mushy). Warm up a cabinet post where Michelle can be her controversial self and take heat off the GOP President by being a media lightning rod. HHS? Successor to Kathleen Sebellius … and administrator of Obamacare? :yyeess: THAT I think I’d like to see.

Condi Rice - pro-choice/social liberal. What she get the religious right voters? Or would they abandon the party for a 3rd party? < :sad_yes: - bye Condi … Lynn Cheney? Wrong last name. Truth is, save for Condi Rice, we don’t have a female potential candidate with gravitas. And don’t get me going on Sarah Palin - resigning as governor was only one of her problems.

Agree with you on the list of failure: Dole, Dewey, Ford, et al. You’re right - we need a dynamic, conservative, great communicator candidate now. Or, perhaps, more than a communicator, we just need a plain talking, conservative set of governors who have proven track records of accomplishments. Walker/Jindal (if Walker wins re-election) or Rubio/Jindal. No more nice guys taking it easy on the Dem nominee. Take the gloves off, spend money on ads telling the truth for once. I have my doubts that the GOP is capable of doing this.

But you’re right - no more Wallflower campaigns that let the Democrats and Democrat media shape the narrative - like Romney did. He didn’t answer the charges soon enough and that let the Dems frame the debate and put him on the defensive as a rich white guy out to screw the poor folks and deny women contraception.

Ishii

You know there was one exception to the strong, slient (loser for GOP) posture. In 1968 it worked for Nixon. BUT … he had Spiro Agnew out there as his attack dog. Nixon already had cred as a fighter … but switched gears, spoke softly of a secret plan to win the war, and watched Hubert Humphrey yell and George Wallace yell … and due partially to that split in the Democratic Party, he won by a small plurality. Four years later he ran hard for re-election and won with a whopping 60% of the vote (most by a GOP candidate in my lifetime).

It would be a nice thing for the GOP to have the first woman President or hispanic President … but more important than those niceties is that we have a GOOD President - sex or ethnicity notwithstanding. Still at this point its fun to speculate about who might possibly be that good candidate. So I do.

 

[mary_bobo]

Wait! I am calling Rand Paul flashy, not Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan actually kind of puts me to sleep , but I like him all the same - he’s thoughtful and appeals to all wings of the party. Not sure he has enough, what’s the word, drive? Bite? Something like that.

Sorry, I misread what I responded to.

 

[ishii]

I did vote for Ted Cruz but this is just a straw poll vote really, we don’t know all of the issues here. Cruz has great views, is a Baptist. I think one can construe him though as being a bit hawkish and perhaps even falling into the Fundamentalist thought of seeing Israel in Bible prophecy. It may not be straight forward but it may be implicit.

Then, in turn, Jindal may share many of the same views except for this listed above. I think Cruz perceives that what many Fundamentalists would believe about the rapture, armageddeon, Israel, really might not be a strong point across a vast electorate. These fundamentalist views are the kinds of things preachers like John Hagee seem to dwell on.

We can support Israel without thinking this all fits into Bible prophecy. I am NOT implying Cruz has said this but he did say that bit a few weeks ago about Israel being our best ally in the Mid East.

So, I would question Ted just a bit on this point.

Yes, that is one of my concerns with Ted Cruz. And of some of the other protestant conservatives - how their views toward Israel might shape their foreign policy views. They seem to see the Israeli state through the lens of their fundamentalist biblical views. Moreover, they also conflate American foreign policy with Israeli foreign policy - as if they are the same. These types have bumperstickers that say: “Jer USA lem” - which bothers me. I would be wary of any candidate who seems to support that view. Michelle Bachmann seems to, and Ted Cruz. I say this as a usual supporter of Israel - though not a knee jerk supporter.

Ishii

 

[DoGodsBidding]

You have portrayed the challenge for the GOP well, FollowChrist34. The GOP nominee has to win independents. Has to. If Scott Walker wins his re-election in Wisconsin then he could make that claim to be the candidate that fulfills the criteria you listed above. I mean, the Democrat/unions/left has thrown everything they can at Walker to defeat him - including the recall campaign and now the re-election. If they fail again I think Walker can claim to really appeal to common sense thinking independents.

Ishii

I like Walker. I am expecting him to win his re-election campaign.

DGB