2016 Polls: Republican Candidate

[CaptFun]

No need for a poll for a single candidate. Isn’t Hillary the chosen one who is going to lead the Dems to victory?

The Repub side is an open field.

TRUE! But then again …

Hillary was the runner-up to Obama (and is practically being annointed pre-2016)

The GOP runner-up to Romney (is being practically wished into the cornfield). Ironic because in America’s cornfield he was the darkhorse, practically unfunded, winner in 2012.

*(If you think this following news might be worthy of its own thread … visit the Popular Media forum) *



Here’s a WTH moment (What the HECK!) per the Popular Media.

In a poll on possible GOP Presidential choices the NewsMax newsgroup named 16 possible candidates for their readers to choose from. AND the link to the poll I hit to GET there (which I can no longer relocate ) had a picture of Romney above it and asked more directly “Should Romney Run in 2016?” – or something close to that paraphrase.

newsmax.com/surveys/2016GOP/GOP-s-2016-Nominee-(AOL)/id/162/kw/default/?dkt_nbr=1rosavtc < 12 of the 16 “choices” got a mugshot above the headline … marginalizing choices like Governors John Kasich, Bobby Jindal, and Jan Brewer and Senator Marco Rubio (?)

(from the poll page)

Newsmax will provide the results of this poll to major outlets. Newsmax’s results also will be shared with popular radio talk-show hosts across America.

Newsmax reports have been cited by major networks, including CNN, ABC, Fox News, CBS, MSNBC, and other leading news organizations.

Don’t miss the opportunity to let your voice be heard.

NOT among the “choices” in that poll was Rick Santorum … GOP nominee runner-up in 2012, winner of the last Iowa Caucus (eventually reported!), who now has a national organization he didn’t have in 2012 … and is, with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton, the most obviously running of all the unannounced 2016 candidates in either party IMO. AND, possibly “my choice” that CANNOT be heard … in the first place (on Newsmax) or in the second place per the results that will be published elsewhere … without my choice having even been a possibility.

When it comes to Rick Santorum’s candidacy (then 2012 and now …) I’ve noticed a seemingly deliberate “popular media” (way beyond just NewsMax) marginalization of him … which doesn’t get more marginalizing than ignoring him completely. In 2012 he was there but in the early debates placed at the extreme edge of the stage and asked dismissive questions about his faith (which he parried and deftly converted into making himself relevant enough to win Iowa and 10 other states).

However one feels about (banned?) Santorum (and marginalized other major GOP hopefuls) , this is curious reporting by Newsmax - even considering some of their OTHER stories in recent months.

**Going …***Going …*gone?

newsmax.com/Politics/Rick-Santorum-Iowa-president/2014/08/13/id/588475/
In Iowa, Rick Santorum Testing a Different Message for 2016 < August 13, 2014
newsmax.com/Newsfront/rick-santorum-presidential-run/2014/10/16/id/601230/
Rick Santorum on 2016: I’m 'Putting a Team Together’ Thursday, 16 Oct 2014
newsmax.com/Politics/Mitt-Romney-Presidential-election-2016/2014/09/17/id/595188/
***Poll: Voters Prefer ‘Anyone Else’ but Hillary, Romney in 2016 Election *** < Dated today (November 18, 2014) cites AOL poll headline

- Maybe he should ditch the sweater vest for a “Where’s Waldo suit?”

 

[RGCheek]

If Santorum is in, he needs to get moving. I have some friends who say that Rand Paul and Romney are already lining people up and making deals. This began last summer.

Some of Pauls folks say that they got some former Santorum backers behind him since 2012.

 

[TMC]

If Santorum is in, he needs to get moving. I have some friends who say that Rand Paul and Romney are already lining people up and making deals. This began last summer.

Some of Pauls folks say that they got some former Santorum backers behind him since 2012.

I just don’t see Santorum as a serious contender. He may run to raise his chances at a VP slot, or for some other position in the next administration. I don’t see any likelihood of him getting the top spot.

 

[Bklynguy]

I think Santorum is the most ideal choice, particularly on the moral issues of life and same-sex marriage. However, he is a long shot on electability. I also like Huckabee for those reasons. But, I fear that with the current demographic trends of the electorate, white, conservative, male orthodox Catholics or evangelical Christians are going to face uphill battles.

 

[RGCheek]

I just don’t see Santorum as a serious contender. He may run to raise his chances at a VP slot, or for some other position in the next administration. I don’t see any likelihood of him getting the top spot.

He would be a good pairing with another candidate that is more libertarian like Paul or Cruz, or a governor who lacks the ties with the Values Voters that Santorum has.

 

[johnnyt3000]

Says here ontheissues.org/senate/rick_santorum.htm that Rick Santorum is against abortion

Exception for rape & incest ok, even though they take a life.

Not very pro life nor someone to vote for if their are better candidates. Although it was back in 2006, he might have changed.

 

[CaptFun]

Says here ontheissues.org/senate/rick_santorum.htm that Rick Santorum is against abortion

Not very pro life nor someone to vote for if their are better candidates. Although it was back in 2006, he might have changed.

Santorum more recently

ontheissues.org/2012/Rick_Santorum_Abortion.htm

No abortions even in cases of rape; one violence is enough

 

[ishii]

Santorum more recently

ontheissues.org/2012/Rick_Santorum_Abortion.htm

No abortions even in cases of rape; one violence is enough

There are some purists who would rather have roe v wade remain the law of the land rather than have to vote for a candidate that is not 100% pro life (according to them). They seem much happier complaining than acknowledging how vast an improvement over obama any republican would be. While their numbers are minuscule they are very vocal - esp places like CAF.

Ishii

 

[Sunbreak]

None of the above.

 

[RGCheek]

There are some purists who would rather have roe v wade remain the law of the land rather than have to vote for a candidate that is not 100% pro life (according to them). They seem much happier complaining than acknowledging how vast an improvement over obama any republican would be. While their numbers are minuscule they are very vocal - esp places like CAF.

Ishii

There is nothing wrong with compromise and taking half a loaf to get a whole loaf later.

But there is nothing remotely like compromise when one side demands all our key points of principle be abandoned, then offers to only demanding that half be abandoned instead.

That is NOT compromise nor good statesmanship.

If the GOP had leaders that could be trusted inside the Beltway I would feel more comfortable about Paul and Rubio, but right now anyone there is infected with Big Government Cranialitis, IMO. Why take a chance on any of them if there are suitable candidates never exposed?

 

[adowcday]

As a Democrat and a supporter of Hillary Clinton, it will be interesting to watch the GOP candidates adopt ever more extreme positions to try to run to the right of the others in the race, running negative ad after negative ad against the frontrunner(s), then pivot to face Hillary Clinton in the general election. I think that there are one or two decent candidates in the GOP field from an electability perspective, notably Jeb Bush, but no one who can beat Hillary.

 

[ishii]

As a Democrat and a supporter of Hillary Clinton, it will be interesting to watch the GOP candidates adopt ever more extreme positions to try to run to the right of the others in the race, .

What extreme positions? Examples?

Ishii