Paul leads GOP NH field 2016, Hillary leads Dems

  • Thread starter Thread starter ishii
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SuperLuigi said:
Pertaining to our earlier conversation, I like the options you suggested.

I just don’t want people buying into the idea that an actual conservative would get only 35%.

The right sometimes thinks the same as Biden, but trust me, any candidate on the R or D ticket its good for at least 42%, if not 45%.
Click to expand...
The way I see it is this: The Republican will get maybe 40-44% guaranteed. The Democrat will get maybe 45-47% guaranteed. So the Republican really has to appeal to the independents which seem like a smaller and smaller slice of the electorate. The Democrats seem to have made it to the point where their redistributionist, entitlement spending ideology has created enough “taker” voters to put them over the top or very nearly over the top, regardless of who the GOP nominates. In this age of media driven narratives - “war on women”, intervening in presidential debates (as Candy Crowley did on the Benghazi issue), it seems that the Republicans will have a difficult time getting those votes that will push them over the top. The Democrats have been pushing identitly politics, division, envy, and entitlements for years and it is now paying off. In light of this, I think the best candidate the Republicans can nominate is one the Democrats can’t label as a “rich out of touch white guy” like they were able to do with Romney. That is why my two top candidates are Rubio or Jindal. They are both very smart and both good communicators.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Not necessarily, the “pre-Vatican 2 latin mass catholic” could refer to liking the Tridentine mass which is the pre-Vatican 2 latin mass. He may be describing himself in terms that he believes people would understand.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Yeah you’re probably right.
 
BlessedLDS said:
Rand is my number one pick. Though if Ted Cruz ran, which I don’t think he will if Rand does, I may support him for some Cuban pride. Not only would the first Latin President be Cuban, but also agree with me 90% of the time.

One candidate who is less known but is love to see him on the debate stage is Judge Andrew Napolitano. There’s a movement to Draft him to run. No one knows the Constitution like he does, so he’d provide a great perspective the other candidates might not have…and he describes himself as a traditionalist, pre-Vatican 2, Latin Mass Catholic

Those are my 3 picks.
Click to expand...
Cool. I believe Santorum is also a Latin Mass Catholic. As are Pat Buchanan and Justice Scalia. I don’t know if Paul Ryan is into Latin Mass but he was supposedly a member of his Latin club in school.
 
BlessedLDS said:
Rand is my number one pick. Though if Ted Cruz ran, which I don’t think he will if Rand does, I may support him for some Cuban pride. Not only would the first Latin President be Cuban, but also agree with me 90% of the time.
Click to expand...
I’ll make my decision after watching the Janet Yellen confirmation vote. I saw the testimony on C-SPAN3 this week and am convinced there is no one worse for the position.
 
ishii said:
To a hardened leftist, I suppose even a conservative would be viewed as a “right-winger”. I don’t think Bush and Christie are right-wingers. Who else is considered a possible candidate? If there were any prominent moderates I would have included them in the poll.

Ishii
Click to expand...
If it came down to Christie versus Hillary, my guess is that Christie would win.
 
ishii said:
To a hardened leftist, I suppose even a conservative would be viewed as a “right-winger”. I don’t think Bush and Christie are right-wingers. Who else is considered a possible candidate? If there were any prominent moderates I would have included them in the poll.

Ishii
Click to expand...
As if our country really has moderates anymore…

🙂
 
ishii said:
The way I see it is this: The Republican will get maybe 40-44% guaranteed. The Democrat will get maybe 45-47% guaranteed. So the Republican really has to appeal to the independents which seem like a smaller and smaller slice of the electorate. The Democrats seem to have made it to the point where their redistributionist, entitlement spending ideology has created enough “taker” voters to put them over the top or very nearly over the top, regardless of who the GOP nominates. In this age of media driven narratives - “war on women”, intervening in presidential debates (as Candy Crowley did on the Benghazi issue), it seems that the Republicans will have a difficult time getting those votes that will push them over the top. The Democrats have been pushing identitly politics, division, envy, and entitlements for years and it is now paying off. In light of this, I think the best candidate the Republicans can nominate is one the Democrats can’t label as a “rich out of touch white guy” like they were able to do with Romney. That is why my two top candidates are Rubio or Jindal. They are both very smart and both good communicators.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Jindal a good communicator? Ha ha ha
 
LiberalPrincess said:
Jindal a good communicator? Ha ha ha
Click to expand...
Until 1992, Clinton was known as the governor who put everyone asleep at the 1988 DNC with his never ending speech. I wouldn’t count out Bobby Jindal - I would pit his knowledge and intellect against whichever statist Democrat is nominated in 2016.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
To a hardened leftist, I suppose even a conservative would be viewed as a “right-winger”. I don’t think Bush and Christie are right-wingers. Who else is considered a possible candidate? If there were any prominent moderates I would have included them in the poll.

Ishii
Click to expand...
The smile was more in jest. What about Santorum?
 
ishii said:
Until 1992, Clinton was known as the governor who put everyone asleep at the 1988 DNC with his never ending speech. I wouldn’t count out Bobby Jindal - I would pit his knowledge and intellect against whichever statist Democrat is nominated in 2016.

Ishii
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly, at that convention, when Clinton said, “In closing,” the convention hall erupted in applause.
 
Bklynguy said:
The smile was more in jest. What about Santorum?
Click to expand...
Is Santorum running in 2016? I haven’t heard his name mentioned much. He had some success in the primaries (remember that there was a string of different “front-runners” before Romney ended up winning). My own view of Santorum is that he is a great guy - good Catholic and I would agree probably with him on 90% of is stands, but: he would be very easily smeared as the candidate who would “turn the clock back” , war on women, etc. He is too identified as a social conservative, and while I like him, I think we need a candidate who can communicate with America on such things as the ACA, fiscal issues, entitlements, etc.

Then again, I could be wrong and its possible he’s exactly the candidate that we need in 2016. I am open to any arguments in favor of that

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Is Santorum running in 2016? I haven’t heard his name mentioned much. He had some success in the primaries (remember that there was a string of different “front-runners” before Romney ended up winning). My own view of Santorum is that he is a great guy - good Catholic and I would agree probably with him on 90% of is stands, but: he would be very easily smeared as the candidate who would “turn the clock back” , war on women, etc. He is too identified as a social conservative, and while I like him, I think we need a candidate who can communicate with America on such things as the ACA, fiscal issues, entitlements, etc.

Then again, I could be wrong and its possible he’s exactly the candidate that we need in 2016. I am open to any arguments in favor of that

Ishii
Click to expand...
I have seen his name on a list of potential GOP 2016 contenders, but I’m not quite sure who makes these “lists.” With the way the “wait your turn” GOP nomination works, I can see Perry or Santorum getting the nomination if they ran. Santorum is great, but I think you are right: he will be mercilessly attacked. If I recall correctly, a Washington Post columnist labeled him as “really weird” for how he dealt with his stillborn child. It was callous and classless, but that is the left for you. Unless you are completely secular, they label you as “weird.”

It should be interesting to see what would happen if Christie ran. I think he is the dark horse and is definitely a strong candidate. However, everyone assumed that Giuliani was that candidate in 2008 and he flamed out. That’s why I have my eye on Perry and Santorum.
 
Bklynguy said:
I have seen his name on a list of potential GOP 2016 contenders, but I’m not quite sure who makes these “lists.” With the way the “wait your turn” GOP nomination works, I can see Perry or Santorum getting the nomination if they ran. Santorum is great, but I think you are right: he will be mercilessly attacked. If I recall correctly, a Washington Post columnist labeled him as “really weird” for how he dealt with his stillborn child. It was callous and classless, but that is the left for you. Unless you are completely secular, they label you as “weird.”

It should be interesting to see what would happen if Christie ran. I think he is the dark horse and is definitely a strong candidate. However, everyone assumed that Giuliani was that candidate in 2008 and he flamed out. That’s why I have my eye on Perry and Santorum.
Click to expand...
Don’t think Perry is a viable candidate after his terrible performance in the debates and somewhat bizarre antics on the stump - his accomplishments and qualifications notwithstanding. Santorum would be a stronger canididate the 2nd time around, but he’d be up against a stronger field this time - Rubio, Rand Paul, Ryan, Christie, Jindal, Scott Walker, etc. - much stronger field than in 2012 with Ron Paul, Bachmann and Herman Cain. Gingrich & Romney with all their baggage, etc.

Ishii
 
I like Santorum and wish he would be able to run again - but I think the media would attack his family mercilessly due to his youngest child Bella (I can’t remember what she has…but its something that many would probably abort over). I like Jindal and I believe as Governor of Louisiana he has done much good. Plus, he’s a Catholic convert.

Actually I’d go for Susanna Martinez and Jindal as a team. Both are minorities and Susana could help appeal to the Hispanics.

as for why there are “right wingers” in this poll - Catholics that follow their faith know that if they are true to their faith, they can NOT vote for Democrats who are for abortion on demand.

And the democrats have done nothing GOOD, especially with the mess the ACA has done to this country (like those cancer patients that lost their health insurance!).
 
jediliz said:
…as for why there are “right wingers” in this poll - Catholics that follow their faith know that if they are true to their faith, they can NOT vote for Democrats who are for abortion on demand.
Click to expand...
That is curious, because the most pro-abortion Congressman in US history was a Roman Catholic priest, Father Drinan who has a 100% pro-abortion voting record. AFAIK, he was never excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church and he advised the Kennedys.
 
ishii said:
Don’t think Perry is a viable candidate after his terrible performance in the debates and somewhat bizarre antics on the stump - his accomplishments and qualifications notwithstanding. Santorum would be a stronger canididate the 2nd time around, but he’d be up against a stronger field this time - Rubio, Rand Paul, Ryan, Christie, Jindal, Scott Walker, etc. - much stronger field than in 2012 with Ron Paul, Bachmann and Herman Cain. Gingrich & Romney with all their baggage, etc.

Ishii
Click to expand...
In the last election, Romney seemed to be winning, but for some reason, he appeared weak in the last two weeks.
 
Tomdstone said:
In the last election, Romney seemed to be winning, but for some reason, he appeared weak in the last two weeks.
Click to expand...
He had a glorious opportunity on the final debate to take Obama to task over Libya but didn’t. He also could have destroyed Obama’s points about the Lilly Ledbetter Act he helped passed but yet female interns in his OWN in Administration were making significantly less than male counterparts

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2374471/President-Obama-refuses-pay-interns-campaigns-raise-minimum-wage.html

and apparently this practice goes back to when he was a State Senator:

cnsnews.com/news/article/obamas-equal-pay-yet-pays-female-staffers-less-males
On average, women working in Obama’s Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That’s according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama’s Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one – Obama’s administrative manager – was a woman.
Click to expand...
Obama didn’t win the election, Romney lost it.
 
saintjohnxxiii said:
He had a glorious opportunity on the final debate to take Obama to task over Libya but didn’t. He also could have destroyed Obama’s points about the Lilly Ledbetter Act he helped passed but yet female interns in his OWN in Administration were making significantly less than male counterparts

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2374471/President-Obama-refuses-pay-interns-campaigns-raise-minimum-wage.html

and apparently this practice goes back to when he was a State Senator:

cnsnews.com/news/article/obamas-equal-pay-yet-pays-female-staffers-less-males

Obama didn’t win the election, Romney lost it.
Click to expand...
Romney was, and is, a decent man who would have made a great president. He was ahead and he could have won if he had put a little more effort in the endgame of the campaign. Perhaps toward the end, he was tired of the criticisms and his family might not have been that keen on having him in the presidential office.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top