Elections GOP Road to 2016 Primary Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yea that's what I was thinking. I assume their economic is not that different, but Santorum is a bit of a religious nutter, which makes Romney seem like a more moderate candidate to me.

Santorum was senator in my state and I find it hard to believe him and Romney are in the same spot. It likely is due to the spending bills Santorum wanted. Romney burned Santorum a lot on spending and it helped him regain the momentum after Iowa.
 
Or, you know, polls label them as extreme.

Well over 50% of Americans support gay marriage, actually.

...each, according to polls conducted by the MSM. And don't be so gullible that poll results can be manipulated, if not completely fabricated. The polls leading up to the Nov '14 elections are many of even more examples.

In the abstract, sure. However when it comes to actually cutting anything, no. A similar example can be seen with Obamacare, even people that oppose "Obamacare" support most individual components of the ACA.
Exactly why it was named the ACA, to confuse and decieve the public.


Actually what happens is they get stomped in the general elections. A great example I like to point to is Harry Reid. There's no way that guy should have been re-elected, he was supremely unpopular. The republican primary came down to a candidate that talked about bartering with chickens for health care and a candidate that wanted most federal agencies disbanded, wanted the US out of the UN, wanted SS gone, and all the other things you seem to suggest aren't really extreme. The later won the primary (barely) but still got trounced in the general, despite spending a hell of a lot more money than Reid.

That's Nevada.

Reality doesn't match up well with your views.

The left's (and MSM's) manipulation of reality, yes.

And there's a reason less and less of the percentage of the population trust it.
 
Rubio moving towards 2016 bid


Seems like if he does run for president that he must feel certain he would get a VP or cabinet spot with whoever could beat him out.

Florida law says he can only run for one office. BUT he can appear on both primary ballots in Florida just can only run in one General. So he dabbles running for President, but then gets out early and uses his presidential money to fund his senate race. I think he stays in through Florida's primary - to play spoiler against Jeb (Koch's bidding) than drops out and runs for Senate re-election. Florida is a winner-take-all delegate state, so if Rubio could peel enough voters away from Jeb to allow Walker or any non-Jeb to win the State than Jeb would be in real trouble.
 
Exactly why it was named the ACA, to confuse and decieve the public.

Riight. Or the GOP dubbed it "Obamacare" to be able to smear it with no real substance other than "Obama made it so it's bad because he's a Marxist, Socialist, Kenyan, Racist, Extreme Liberal Murica hater".
 
Riight. Or the GOP dubbed it "Obamacare" to be able to smear it with no real substance other than "Obama made it so it's bad because he's a Marxist, Socialist, Kenyan, Racist, Extreme Liberal Murica hater".

Riight. And the ACA has actually made healthcare more afforable for those that were laying for it in the first place.

And Obama has embraced the nickname.
 
...each, according to polls conducted by the MSM. And don't be so gullible that poll results can be manipulated, if not completely fabricated. The polls leading up to the Nov '14 elections are many of even more examples.
Sometimes polls lean left, sometimes they lean right. While polls generally leaned left in 2014, they leaned right in 2012 and 2010. In the aggregate they're usually not too bad and public support, for example, of gay marriage is between 55-60% with under 40% against and a good number undecided.

Crying that you don't believe the polls is usually pretty silly.

Exactly why it was named the ACA, to confuse and decieve the public.
What name would you approve?

That's Nevada.
And wasn't too uncommon in 2010 or 2012. It was less common in 2014, granted, but the senate seats up 2014 we much different than those in play in 2016.

The left's (and MSM's) manipulation of reality, yes.

And there's a reason less and less of the percentage of the population trust it.
Oh right, you're the guy that thinks McCain would have won if it weren't for the "MSM". No shock you've a tenuous grasp on reality. Stick to discussing military hardware.
 
Sometimes polls lean left, sometimes they lean right. While polls generally leaned left in 2014, they leaned right in 2012 and 2010. In the aggregate they're usually not too bad and public support, for example, of gay marriage is between 55-60% with under 40% against and a good number undecided.

Crying that you don't believe the polls is usually pretty silly.

Who's crying? So far you're the closest one merely because I said I don't trust the MSM's polls.

I could write pages about how easily how polls can be manipulated by the phrasing of the questions, the available multiple choice answers, the place that the poll is conducted, the targeted demographic, the time of day that the landlines are called...

In short, remember in both the 2008 and 2012 Republican primaries how Ron Paul won the online polls by epic landslides? Regular polls are just as easily manipulated, the MSM just keeps the results close with their desired result to maintain the illusion of believability.


What name would you approve?
Why would I name a piece of legislation that I wouldn't approve of?

Perhaps a name that doesn't represent the 'lack of transparency' to decieve 'stupid american voters,' as Obamacare's chief author bragged about.


And wasn't too uncommon in 2010 or 2012. It was less common in 2014, granted, but the senate seats up 2014 we much different than those in play in 2016.

Indeed, we shall see huge poll numbers predicting big landslides for Democrat Senate candidates, that's guaranteed. Seeing if they're actually going to come close to the election results, is another.

Oh, one more short thing about polls I bet you didn't know. If you see poll numbers in the media for your candidate, does it make you more excited to vote for them? Studies say it does, at least to the masses. How about if your candidate has very low poll numbers? Chances are, you'll stay home. Why bother waste your time voting for someone that's going to lose? Same with the masses. MSM polls are, by design, conducted to encourage Democrat voters to show up to vote while discourages Republican voters.

For example, Mitch McConnell's opponent for his senate seat in Nov'14 was dead even with him in the days prior to the election, a few weeks out before the election she was up by 4 or 5 points depending upon the poll. So, exactly how did McConnell win the election by 18 points? It wasn't even close. She had no chance at any point. But the MSM wanted badly for her to win, thus the poll numbers.

Find me an example that this happened in the reverse for the other party.

Oh right, you're the guy that thinks McCain would have won if it weren't for the "MSM". No shock you've a tenuous grasp on reality. Stick to discussing military hardware.
Never said McCain would have won if it wasn't for the MSM. I said McCain could have won he wasn't such a coward about what the MSM would say about him if he played hardball in a Presidential election.

First, they'd call him an extremist.
 
Jon Huntsman Jr is exactly what the GOP needs. I think he'd be a good president

he is young though at 54 by President standards. Could still wait another election or two
 
They consider Rick Santorum more left than Romney?

I was in Hs and college when he was a senator so I'm not sure about his voting record but he was a senator in swing state so he might not have voted as conservatively as he's portrayed. He got killed by the pro life crowd because he took his still born kid home to meet his living kids and spend the night.
 
Jon Huntsman Jr is exactly what the GOP needs. I think he'd be a good president

he is young though at 54 by President standards. Could still wait another election or two

He has the enthusiasm of a frozen fish.

His only memorable quote of the 2012 debates was a joke he stole from Rush Limbaugh.

And he loved digging up shit on the other candidates and anonymously leaking them to the press. Remember when Cain was on top of the polls? Huntsman found out about some sexual harassment alligations from 15-20 years back and the MSM pounched on it. At the end of the day, Huntsman dropped out of the race not long after Cain did, so he gained nothing from the whole ordeal.

The only people I know of that want Huntsman Jr to run again is Huntsman Senior, and Democrats.

Oh, and check out his voting record with abortion.

Supports a right to life amendment. (Jun 2011)
No truce on abortion; don't trade life for economic life. (Jun 2011)
Make second-trimester abortions illegal. (Mar 2009)

Clearly, he's an extremist's extremist.
 
Huntsman would have probably been Obama's choice to replace Hillary at Foggy Bottom if he was still Chinese Ambassador and didn't make the terrible political calculation to run for President himself in 2012 - IIRC it was McCain who gave Huntsman the hard sell and convinced him it was a good idea. That should have been Huntsman's first warning sign that it was a terrible idea - listening to the guy who thought Palin was the right VP pick.

I could see him in a Jeb Bush cabinet though, but think he's dead to any Dems given his abject disloyalty shown to Obama - you could never trust him.

FWIW, wasn't it Huntsman who was leaking anti-Romney tax haven stuff to Harry Reid during the 2012 general? Huntsman vs Romney rivalry runs deep it seems.
 
Eh he seems moderate enough to capture Democrat voters and Libertarians. Though he would need to change his stance on the abortion thing.

He lacks enthusiasm but that could change. Idk I just feel the GOP will lose again in 2016 because they may push the same old issues and antagonize on the fence voters which they need. The demographic changes are not good for the GOP and everyone knows that Democrats hardly show up at mid-term elections. If Republicans really want to "save" America from the Democrats and their "socialism" than they need to stop the religious talking points and stop being anti gay, anti abortion, and anti climate change.

At the least be skeptical on climate change, say you support women "equal pay", say abortion is the law and you have no intention to overturn it, and say you support equal marriage. Oh and say you provide a pathway to citizenship. BTW you can ALWAYS change your mind once in office!

If a Republican says all those things they will win. And when it really comes down to it religious conservatives would rather vote for a moderate Republican who intends to save America from 'socialism' than for an Obama or Hillary.
 
Eh he seems moderate enough to capture Democrat voters and Libertarians. Though he would need to change his stance on the abortion thing.

He lacks enthusiasm but that could change. Idk I just feel the GOP will lose again in 2016 because they may push the same old issues and antagonize on the fence voters which they need. The demographic changes are not good for the GOP and everyone knows that Democrats hardly show up at mid-term elections. If Republicans really want to "save" America from the Democrats and their "socialism" than they need to stop the religious talking points and stop being anti gay, anti abortion, and anti climate change.

At the least be skeptical on climate change, say you support women "equal pay", say abortion is the law and you have no intention to overturn it, and say you support equal marriage. Oh and say you provide a pathway to citizenship. BTW you can ALWAYS change your mind once in office!

If a Republican says all those things they will win. And when it really comes down to it religious conservatives would rather vote for a moderate Republican who intends to save America from 'socialism' than for an Obama or Hillary.

Huntsman ain't winning any libertarian votes. He's a progressive, which historical means foreign interventionism abroad and tax increases for everyone lucky enough to have a job in this shit economy. Talk about a double whammy of stupid.
 
While I too have found Clinton to be overly eager as of late who, besides Rand Paul, of the GOP field do you think would actually be less likely to start combat operations everywhere?
So, although I don't disagree with your concern, I'm not seeing options.

I don't know.. It's sad but once again there are no good choices.
 
^Jeb Bush could be more dovish compared to Hillary if he's his fathers bent and not his brothers. It will be interesting to see who Jeb has around him in his foreign policy team - will it be Daddy's Scowcroft Disciples or a Neo-con rehash. If it's Scowcroft school than Jeb will be to the left of Hillary. I worry about Hillary thinking she has something to prove ie Im just as hardass as the boys, so wants to pick a fight. OTOH Hillary will have to at least listen to Democrats in Congress, whereas any Republican will ignore them and listen to Congressional Repubs.
 
In short, remember in both the 2008 and 2012 Republican primaries how Ron Paul won the online polls by epic landslides? Regular polls are just as easily manipulated, the MSM just keeps the results close with their desired result to maintain the illusion of believability.
Remember too how the "MSM" polls accurately reflected his actual performance?

Indeed, we shall see huge poll numbers predicting big landslides for Democrat Senate candidates, that's guaranteed. Seeing if they're actually going to come close to the election results, is another.
It's not like this shit is a secret, we know there's always some skew and we also know it doesn't always favor one party (link). Given their performance in 2014, I suspect we'll actually see the polls favoring the GOP more than their actual performance in 2016. We also know that democrats and moderates turn out in much higher numbers in presidential years.

Oh, one more short thing about polls I bet you didn't know. If you see poll numbers in the media for your candidate, does it make you more excited to vote for them? Studies say it does, at least to the masses. How about if your candidate has very low poll numbers? Chances are, you'll stay home. Why bother waste your time voting for someone that's going to lose? Same with the masses. MSM polls are, by design, conducted to encourage Democrat voters to show up to vote while discourages Republican voters.
So whether the poll results inaccurately skew in favor of republicans or democrats, it is always intended to benefit democrats. That's fucking ridiculous. Basically you've drawn a conclusion and will accept anything as evidence for that conclusion.

For example, Mitch McConnell's opponent for his senate seat in Nov'14 was dead even with him in the days prior to the election, a few weeks out before the election she was up by 4 or 5 points depending upon the poll. So, exactly how did McConnell win the election by 18 points? It wasn't even close. She had no chance at any point. But the MSM wanted badly for her to win, thus the poll numbers.

Find me an example that this happened in the reverse for the other party.
The 2010 election had many senate outcomes that came out wacky. What you've got is called ascertainment bias.

Never said McCain would have won if it wasn't for the MSM. I said McCain could have won he wasn't such a coward about what the MSM would say about him if he played hardball in a Presidential election.

First, they'd call him an extremist.
McCain was never going to win, particularly after picking Palin. McCain didn't get painted as an extremist because he wasn't truly one (though he did try at times to appeal to extremists, e.g. Palin was a cynical attempt to both seem like a broadly appealing choice but also aimed at the religious right).
 
Take this for what it's worth, but at my family's Christmas Eve party I talked with my cousin's husband who works for Kasich and he said that the people that would be gearing up the organization for a potential run at president aren't doing so, so he doesn't think Kasich is running in the primary.
 
...each, according to polls conducted by the MSM. And don't be so gullible that poll results can be manipulated, if not completely fabricated. The polls leading up to the Nov '14 elections are many of even more examples.

What are you talking about? 2014 midterms went almost exactly as the polls predicted if you did no toss ups with the average. The only one they were wrong on was Kansas with Orman as independent. I think that was so completely off because people being polled were confused about the entire situation of the Dem dropping out.

Either way, polls got it almost 100% right
 
Sometimes polls lean left, sometimes they lean right. While polls generally leaned left in 2014, they leaned right in 2012 and 2010. In the aggregate they're usually not too bad and public support, for example, of gay marriage is between 55-60% with under 40% against and a good number undecided.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ctions_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html

RCP average called it perfect with no toss ups. So far, 2012 and 2014 haven't leaned either way. They've been very accurate.
 
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...ctions_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html

RCP average called it perfect with no toss ups. So far, 2012 and 2014 haven't leaned either way. They've been very accurate.
I was talking about magnitudes, but yeah outcome is even more clearly and easily predicted.

As for gay marriage and the nonsense about "deal with it at the polls" and arguments about judicial activism that usually go along with that:
marriage.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top