Who in 2016?

[JakeStarkey]

it would be better if all states had their primaries on the same day. 2 or 3 states should not pick the candidates.

I agree with you, but that would require tremendous war chests for every candidate, and even that much money is not possible and if it were, the donors would not permit it all being risked on one days' primaries.

Well, if you look at the calendar, there are 26 weeks from the beginning of 2016 to the beginning of July 2016. This is the normal campaign season although candidates start much earlier than the beginning of the year now.

Bachman won the straw poll in August of 2011 for example.

Anyway, what should happen is we take the 26 weeks and schedule regional primaries. Iowa can still be first but as part of a larger group of contiguous states, New Hampshire can be second but as part of the entire New England voting block. And you go from there. Schedule 2 weeks per group of 5 states or so and you can have plenty of down time between voting blocks and groups. When necessary have blocks of 3 or 4 states or where necessary have as many as 6.

I, too, regret that there are one or two states that propel or eliminate candidates and this is one way to at least defuse the influence

I agree in that I would like it to be over in six weeks from IA and NH to the final primaries.

 

[Flopper]

By a long shot...and if he runs for POTUS again? He has my full unwaivering support.

NO MORE BUSHES! (That means YOU JEB...).

I don't understand the bush-hate, but thats your business. Compared to obama, any Bush would be a vast improvement.

Think back to HW and GW? They both torpedoed Reagan's Doctrine with 'Kindler/Gentler' And 'Compassionate Conservatism'...

BOTH are onboard with Obama's tact but their way was a slower way to the demise of the Republic.

Obama is correct to blame Bush...only Obama's and the Democrat's way is quicker death to the Republic.

Partisan sickness...I subscribe to neither.

Sorry.

In 1982, Doug Wead co-authored with Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, James G. Watt, the book The Courage of a Conservative and developed his ideas further in chapter five of the book, which was entitled “The Compassionate Conservative.

George Bush certainly didn't come up the Compassionate Conservative idea.

 

[candycorn]

I agree with you, but that would require tremendous war chests for every candidate, and even that much money is not possible and if it were, the donors would not permit it all being risked on one days' primaries.

Well, if you look at the calendar, there are 26 weeks from the beginning of 2016 to the beginning of July 2016. This is the normal campaign season although candidates start much earlier than the beginning of the year now.

Bachman won the straw poll in August of 2011 for example.

Anyway, what should happen is we take the 26 weeks and schedule regional primaries. Iowa can still be first but as part of a larger group of contiguous states, New Hampshire can be second but as part of the entire New England voting block. And you go from there. Schedule 2 weeks per group of 5 states or so and you can have plenty of down time between voting blocks and groups. When necessary have blocks of 3 or 4 states or where necessary have as many as 6.

I, too, regret that there are one or two states that propel or eliminate candidates and this is one way to at least defuse the influence

I agree in that I would like it to be over in six weeks from IA and NH to the final primaries.

A 42 day campaign season?

 

[JoeB131]

I think Iowa is overrated and is countered by New Hampshire. Thanks to Citizens United, candidates no longer have to kill in the early primaries or drop out. Even mediocre candidates can go the distance in the primaries if they have some deep pocket donors.

Got to disagree.

In 2012, after New Hampshire, Bachmann, Huntsman, Perry had all been eliminated from contention.

I can give three reasons why Perry dropped out and none have to do with New Hampshire

YOu can, but the point is, none of them would have mattered had he won either Iowa or New Hampshire.

 

[JoeB131]

I can give three reasons why Perry dropped out and none have to do with New Hampshire

OK, let's hear your intelligent, verifiable reasons.(not the brain freeze example)

First, Perry was unprepared on the issues
second, he was lazy
Um......um.......I forgot the third reason

NIce joke setup...

Perry made the same mistake Fred Thompson made, he jumped in without having built up the organization. You really have to be working at this for years.

Now, here's the thing, if he went into 2016 better prepared, the press would marvel at how much he improved because the standard was so low.

 

[rightwinger]

OK, let's hear your intelligent, verifiable reasons.(not the brain freeze example)

First, Perry was unprepared on the issues
second, he was lazy
Um......um.......I forgot the third reason

NIce joke setup...

Perry made the same mistake Fred Thompson made, he jumped in without having built up the organization. You really have to be working at this for years.

Now, here's the thing, if he went into 2016 better prepared, the press would marvel at how much he improved because the standard was so low.

Perry's biggest fault was that he was lazy and took his eventual win of the nomination for granted. It was quickly evident that he was not the candidate he was made out to be. Perry was too lazy to learn more than talking points ant thought his country charm could bluff him through

 

[JoeB131]

First, Perry was unprepared on the issues
second, he was lazy
Um......um.......I forgot the third reason

NIce joke setup...

Perry made the same mistake Fred Thompson made, he jumped in without having built up the organization. You really have to be working at this for years.

Now, here's the thing, if he went into 2016 better prepared, the press would marvel at how much he improved because the standard was so low.

Perry's biggest fault was that he was lazy and took his eventual win of the nomination for granted. It was quickly evident that he was not the candidate he was made out to be. Perry was too lazy to learn more than talking points ant thought his country charm could bluff him through

Look who he was running against. The biggest problem for Republicans was that the establishment insisted on Romney even though the rank and file wanted no part of him.

Everyone else was kind of a joke. Gingrich had all his baggage, Santorum was a religious fanatic, Bachmann and Ron Paul were outright crazy.

The GOP needs to reach to the back of the room and find one of their governors to run who has some accomplishments. I really don't think Christy will be that guy, as I think he's too liberal for a lot of the rank and file.

 

[Derideo_Te]

NIce joke setup...

Perry made the same mistake Fred Thompson made, he jumped in without having built up the organization. You really have to be working at this for years.

Now, here's the thing, if he went into 2016 better prepared, the press would marvel at how much he improved because the standard was so low.

Perry's biggest fault was that he was lazy and took his eventual win of the nomination for granted. It was quickly evident that he was not the candidate he was made out to be. Perry was too lazy to learn more than talking points ant thought his country charm could bluff him through

Look who he was running against. The biggest problem for Republicans was that the establishment insisted on Romney even though the rank and file wanted no part of him.

Everyone else was kind of a joke. Gingrich had all his baggage, Santorum was a religious fanatic, Bachmann and Ron Paul were outright crazy.

The GOP needs to reach to the back of the room and find one of their governors to run who has some accomplishments. I really don't think Christy will be that guy, as I think he's too liberal for a lot of the rank and file.

Huntsman fits your description but he has the same downside of being perceived as "too liberal". The problem the GOP faces is that anyone who appeals to the far right will lose the general election and anyone moderate enough to win the general election will lose out in the primaries to candidates that appeal to the far right extremists. That was why Huntsman was eliminated in 2012. Christie does know how to appeal to the extremists and he is smart enough to know that he will need to shift back to the center in order to win the general. This is why he is the best choice for the GOP in 2016 in my opinion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Christie will tap Huntsman as his VP running mate.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Huntsman fits your description but he has the same downside of being perceived as "too liberal". The problem the GOP faces is that anyone who appeals to the far right will lose the general election and anyone moderate enough to win the general election will lose out in the primaries to candidates that appeal to the far right extremists. That was why Huntsman was eliminated in 2012. Christie does know how to appeal to the extremists and he is smart enough to know that he will need to shift back to the center in order to win the general. This is why he is the best choice for the GOP in 2016 in my opinion.

I can't necessarily agree with that. The GOP's best sucesses in the last 30 years were guys who were unapolgetically conservative (Reagan and Dubya), as opposed to guys like Dole, McCain and Romney, who were establishment moderates who pandered to the right.

I think idealogy itself is overrated in the general election. You will have that 47% that will always vote Democratic, you will have that 47% or so that will always vote Republican.

And you have that 6% in the middle that votes on the basis of which guy they like better as a person, regardless of his idealogy.

Obama won because he was more likable than McCain or Romney.

Bush won because he was more likable than Gore or Kerry.

So I'm less worried about how right wing the GOP nominee is than whether he's going to be more likable than Hillary. Hillary just isn't likable.

 

[JoeB131]

Christie will tap Huntsman as his VP running mate.

If I had a Mormon as a running-mate, I'd hire someone to taste my food and start my car in the morning.

Ain't gonna happen.

If Christie does finagle the nomination, he's going to need a really conservative runningmate to give the right soemthing to get enthusastic about. It's why McCain picked Palin and Romney picked Ryan.

 

[Edgetho]

[

Huntsman fits your description but he has the same downside of being perceived as "too liberal". The problem the GOP faces is that anyone who appeals to the far right will lose the general election and anyone moderate enough to win the general election will lose out in the primaries to candidates that appeal to the far right extremists. That was why Huntsman was eliminated in 2012. Christie does know how to appeal to the extremists and he is smart enough to know that he will need to shift back to the center in order to win the general. This is why he is the best choice for the GOP in 2016 in my opinion.

I can't necessarily agree with that. The GOP's best sucesses in the last 30 years were guys who were unapolgetically conservative (Reagan and Dubya), as opposed to guys like Dole, McCain and Romney, who were establishment moderates who pandered to the right.

I think idealogy itself is overrated in the general election. You will have that 47% that will always vote Democratic, you will have that 47% or so that will always vote Republican.

And you have that 6% in the middle that votes on the basis of which guy they like better as a person, regardless of his idealogy.

Obama won because he was more likable than McCain or Romney.

Bush won because he was more likable than Gore or Kerry.

So I'm less worried about how right wing the GOP nominee is than whether he's going to be more likable than Hillary. Hillary just isn't likable.

GW was hardly a Conservative. He was the one who got the ball rolling on the UAW Bailouts.

He was called a 'Compassionate Conservative' which, translated means RINO.

Bush a Conservative? That's laugher. Hardly

If Chris Christie runs, he'll be hard to beat.

By 2016, any Republican will be hard for dimocraps to beat.

The Country is getting 'obama fatigue' and Hitlery won't be a respite. She'll just be a continuation of more divisiveness, more of the same victim bullshit.

"Vote for me because I'm Black" will simply be changed to "Vote for me because I'm a woman".

Christie, who I'm not wild about, will trounce Hitlery. Or any other dim candidate.

He's a Republican Governor in a VERY Red State and all the 'experts' have him in a Landslide this November.

In a VERY Union, dimocrap State, that's no simple accomplishment.

He carries the election in a Landslide and re-shapes America's Landscape, crippling Unions.

 

[nodoginnafight]

[

Huntsman fits your description but he has the same downside of being perceived as "too liberal". The problem the GOP faces is that anyone who appeals to the far right will lose the general election and anyone moderate enough to win the general election will lose out in the primaries to candidates that appeal to the far right extremists. That was why Huntsman was eliminated in 2012. Christie does know how to appeal to the extremists and he is smart enough to know that he will need to shift back to the center in order to win the general. This is why he is the best choice for the GOP in 2016 in my opinion.

I can't necessarily agree with that. The GOP's best sucesses in the last 30 years were guys who were unapolgetically conservative (Reagan and Dubya), as opposed to guys like Dole, McCain and Romney, who were establishment moderates who pandered to the right.

I think idealogy itself is overrated in the general election. You will have that 47% that will always vote Democratic, you will have that 47% or so that will always vote Republican.

And you have that 6% in the middle that votes on the basis of which guy they like better as a person, regardless of his idealogy.

Obama won because he was more likable than McCain or Romney.

Bush won because he was more likable than Gore or Kerry.

So I'm less worried about how right wing the GOP nominee is than whether he's going to be more likable than Hillary. Hillary just isn't likable.

GW was hardly a Conservative. He was the one who got the ball rolling on the UAW Bailouts.

He was called a 'Compassionate Conservative' which, translated means RINO.

Bush a Conservative? That's laugher. Hardly

If Chris Christie runs, he'll be hard to beat.

By 2016, any Republican will be hard for dimocraps to beat.

The Country is getting 'obama fatigue' and Hitlery won't be a respite. She'll just be a continuation of more divisiveness, more of the same victim bullshit.

"Vote for me because I'm Black" will simply be changed to "Vote for me because I'm a woman".

Christie, who I'm not wild about, will trounce Hitlery. Or any other dim candidate.

He's a Republican Governor in a VERY Red State and all the 'experts' have him in a Landslide this November.

In a VERY Union, dimocrap State, that's no simple accomplishment.

He carries the election in a Landslide and re-shapes America's Landscape, crippling Unions.

MHO:
Pretty fair summation of the far right and the hurdles they bring to the GOP as a whole.
The insistance that the GOP is going to waltz in because of Democrat fatigue is pretty much the same song we heard in 2012. The polls show differently (51% favorable for Democrats v 40% favorable for Republicans). But because the far right is so hostile to Democrats, they assume everyone else is too.

I believe for the GOP to win, they are going to have to take these blinders off and get a good look at the real world. They make assumptions about how different demographics will vote and then are astounded when they find they were wrong. The problem - they don't actually LISTEN to women, hispanics, blacks, gays, etc and then are flabbergasted when they get smoked.

The far right is dragging the GOP into a party that talks AT people instead of WITH people.

I do agree that there is a fairly large segment that is just looking forward to electing a woman president (now that they've checked electing a black man off their list). They will be energized and enthusiastic about a Clinton candidacy. And had it not been for the Obama phenonmenon, she probably would have won in '08.

The GOP will need to bring their "A" game to win the White House in '16. And continuing to live in an echo chamber and neglecting to get out, listen, and meet voters where they are, is not an A game imho.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Christie will tap Huntsman as his VP running mate.

If I had a Mormon as a running-mate, I'd hire someone to taste my food and start my car in the morning.

Ain't gonna happen.

If Christie does finagle the nomination, he's going to need a really conservative runningmate to give the right soemthing to get enthusastic about. It's why McCain picked Palin and Romney picked Ryan.

And yet Palin hurt McCain.

Ryan probably helped Romney.

Palin was so clearly in over her head, that it reflected poorly on McCain for selecting her.

Just MHO.

 

[Edgetho]

I can't necessarily agree with that. The GOP's best sucesses in the last 30 years were guys who were unapolgetically conservative (Reagan and Dubya), as opposed to guys like Dole, McCain and Romney, who were establishment moderates who pandered to the right.

I think idealogy itself is overrated in the general election. You will have that 47% that will always vote Democratic, you will have that 47% or so that will always vote Republican.

And you have that 6% in the middle that votes on the basis of which guy they like better as a person, regardless of his idealogy.

Obama won because he was more likable than McCain or Romney.

Bush won because he was more likable than Gore or Kerry.

So I'm less worried about how right wing the GOP nominee is than whether he's going to be more likable than Hillary. Hillary just isn't likable.

GW was hardly a Conservative. He was the one who got the ball rolling on the UAW Bailouts.

He was called a 'Compassionate Conservative' which, translated means RINO.

Bush a Conservative? That's laugher. Hardly

If Chris Christie runs, he'll be hard to beat.

By 2016, any Republican will be hard for dimocraps to beat.

The Country is getting 'obama fatigue' and Hitlery won't be a respite. She'll just be a continuation of more divisiveness, more of the same victim bullshit.

"Vote for me because I'm Black" will simply be changed to "Vote for me because I'm a woman".

Christie, who I'm not wild about, will trounce Hitlery. Or any other dim candidate.

He's a Republican Governor in a VERY Red State and all the 'experts' have him in a Landslide this November.

In a VERY Union, dimocrap State, that's no simple accomplishment.

He carries the election in a Landslide and re-shapes America's Landscape, crippling Unions.

MHO:
Pretty fair summation of the far right and the hurdles they bring to the GOP as a whole.
The insistance that the GOP is going to waltz in because of Democrat fatigue is pretty much the same song we heard in 2012. The polls show differently (51% favorable for Democrats v 40% favorable for Republicans). But because the far right is so hostile to Democrats, they assume everyone else is too.

I believe for the GOP to win, they are going to have to take these blinders off and get a good look at the real world. They make assumptions about how different demographics will vote and then are astounded when they find they were wrong. The problem - they don't actually LISTEN to women, hispanics, blacks, gays, etc and then are flabbergasted when they get smoked.

The far right is dragging the GOP into a party that talks AT people instead of WITH people.

I do agree that there is a fairly large segment that is just looking forward to electing a woman president (now that they've checked electing a black man off their list). They will be energized and enthusiastic about a Clinton candidacy. And had it not been for the Obama phenonmenon, she probably would have won in '08.

The GOP will need to bring their "A" game to win the White House in '16. And continuing to live in an echo chamber and neglecting to get out, listen, and meet voters where they are, is not an A game imho.

Remember when Hitlery's husband, the rapist, said about the Stuttering Clusterfukk, " A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee."

Of course you don't.

If Hitlery runs, we'll remind the Country, every, single, day.

No way she gets the Black turnout the way the SCOAMF did. No way.

And no way she gets them voting in numbers so high, that they exceed the number of registered voters in some Districts. If you get my drift.

Now that the poll worker in Ohio has been sentenced to Five Years in Prison and States are cracking down on Voter Fraud.

dimocraps are going to have a tough row to hoe.

What we gotta do is nominate somebody more lively than Department Store mannequin.

It's unfortunate, but out National Elections have turned into something that more closely resembles American Idol than it does a Search for the best governance possible.

Romney was a good man, but a bad contestant

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, we need a grudge match between JoeBlowhard and the Fluttering StutterCluck.

Come on, JoeB and Edgetho, give us a show.

 

[rightwinger]

[

Huntsman fits your description but he has the same downside of being perceived as "too liberal". The problem the GOP faces is that anyone who appeals to the far right will lose the general election and anyone moderate enough to win the general election will lose out in the primaries to candidates that appeal to the far right extremists. That was why Huntsman was eliminated in 2012. Christie does know how to appeal to the extremists and he is smart enough to know that he will need to shift back to the center in order to win the general. This is why he is the best choice for the GOP in 2016 in my opinion.

I can't necessarily agree with that. The GOP's best sucesses in the last 30 years were guys who were unapolgetically conservative (Reagan and Dubya), as opposed to guys like Dole, McCain and Romney, who were establishment moderates who pandered to the right.

I think idealogy itself is overrated in the general election. You will have that 47% that will always vote Democratic, you will have that 47% or so that will always vote Republican.

And you have that 6% in the middle that votes on the basis of which guy they like better as a person, regardless of his idealogy.

Obama won because he was more likable than McCain or Romney.

Bush won because he was more likable than Gore or Kerry.

So I'm less worried about how right wing the GOP nominee is than whether he's going to be more likable than Hillary. Hillary just isn't likable.

You touch on a key issue which is like ability

While it sounds superficial, like ability is what elects presidents. In the majority of races the more like able candidate wins

Christie is like able
Hillary is respected but not liked
Jen Bush and Rubio are like able but Rubio comes off as immature
Rand Paul is outright creepy at times, so is Ted Cruz

 

[Edgetho]

OK, we need a grudge match between JoeBlowhard and the Fluttering StutterCluck.

Come on, JoeB and Edgetho, give us a show.

What's a matter?

Your boyfriends kick you out of the pivot position in their circle jerk again?

 

[JakeStarkey]

My dear Fluttering Stuttercluck, you just are not on your game anymore, are you?

 

[nodoginnafight]

[

Huntsman fits your description but he has the same downside of being perceived as "too liberal". The problem the GOP faces is that anyone who appeals to the far right will lose the general election and anyone moderate enough to win the general election will lose out in the primaries to candidates that appeal to the far right extremists. That was why Huntsman was eliminated in 2012. Christie does know how to appeal to the extremists and he is smart enough to know that he will need to shift back to the center in order to win the general. This is why he is the best choice for the GOP in 2016 in my opinion.

I can't necessarily agree with that. The GOP's best sucesses in the last 30 years were guys who were unapolgetically conservative (Reagan and Dubya), as opposed to guys like Dole, McCain and Romney, who were establishment moderates who pandered to the right.

I think idealogy itself is overrated in the general election. You will have that 47% that will always vote Democratic, you will have that 47% or so that will always vote Republican.

And you have that 6% in the middle that votes on the basis of which guy they like better as a person, regardless of his idealogy.

Obama won because he was more likable than McCain or Romney.

Bush won because he was more likable than Gore or Kerry.

So I'm less worried about how right wing the GOP nominee is than whether he's going to be more likable than Hillary. Hillary just isn't likable.

You touch on a key issue which is like ability

While it sounds superficial, like ability is what elects presidents. In the majority of races the more like able candidate wins

Christie is like able
Hillary is respected but not liked
Jen Bush and Rubio are like able but Rubio comes off as immature
Rand Paul is outright creepy at times, so is Ted Cruz

I think it boils down to looking at a person and asking yourself, "Is that who I want representing the United States of America."

Not just sheer likeability. I think there is a difference - maybe a subtle one - but imho a significant one.