Elections GOP Road to 2016 Primary Thread

[Lead]

New poll has Walker leading in New Hampshire. I think he wasn't trying to become a frontrunner so early but Romney dropping out has escalated him.


New Hampshire Walker 21 Bush 14 Christie 7 Paul 8 Huckabee 7 Carson 8 Cruz 3 Rubio 5 Perry 3

 

[Jack V Savage]

New poll has Walker leading in New Hampshire. I think he wasn't trying to become a frontrunner so early but Romney dropping out has escalated him.

New Hampshire Walker 21 Bush 14 Christie 7 Paul 8 Huckabee 7 Carson 8 Cruz 3 Rubio 5 Perry 3

Walker's been my pick from the beginning. Well, I'd take the field over any one candidate at this point, but I think Walker has the best chance of any single candidate.

 

[Lead]

Walker's been my pick from the beginning. Well, I'd take the field over any one candidate at this point, but I think Walker has the best chance of any single candidate.

Who is your second and third or would those spots be far behind first for chances?

 

[RetiredWisFighter]

Walker's been my pick from the beginning. Well, I'd take the field over any one candidate at this point, but I think Walker has the best chance of any single candidate.

Which is just insane. His attacks on lower/middle class, higher education, women, environment. and ridiculous spending along with massive flipflops/double speak are going to get him wrecked in a general election. He managed to get WI out of a hole former governor Doyle created then he started handing out ridiculous tax breaks for the rich which helped put in another hole and now he wants to cut higher education among other things.

Dude's a joke

 

[Jack V Savage]

Who is your second and third or would those spots be far behind first for chances?

Maybe Perry and Bush (who seems to be the media's favorite, as I keep hearing him bizarrely described as a moderate). God, what a weak field. And, yeah, it's all close.

Which is just insane. His attacks on lower/middle class, higher education, women, environment. and ridiculous spending along with massive flipflops/double speak are going to get him wrecked in a general election.

All of those except flipflops are assets in a Republican primary these days. And it's doubly impressive that he doesn't just talk about wanting to hurt groups that Republicans oppose and redistribute wealth upward--he has the track record. Also, I wouldn't count him out in the general--he has the South locked up, and just needs to get lucky to take enough swing states to win. I'd give Democrats a pretty good chance (well better than even) in 2016 at this point, but a lot can happen between now and the election.

 

[Lead]

Maybe Perry and Bush (who seems to be the media's favorite, as I keep hearing him bizarrely described as a moderate). God, what a weak field. And, yeah, it's all close.



All of those except flipflops are assets in a Republican primary these days. And it's doubly impressive that he doesn't just talk about wanting to hurt groups that Republicans oppose and redistribute wealth upward--he has the track record. Also, I wouldn't count him out in the general--he has the South locked up, and just needs to get lucky to take enough swing states to win. I'd give Democrats a pretty good chance (well better than even) in 2016 at this point, but a lot can happen between now and the election.

Would you have considered 2008's Democratic field weak at the time?

 

[Diamond Jim]

New poll has Walker leading in New Hampshire. I think he wasn't trying to become a frontrunner so early but Romney dropping out has escalated him.


New Hampshire Walker 21 Bush 14 Christie 7 Paul 8 Huckabee 7 Carson 8 Cruz 3 Rubio 5 Perry 3

Realistically, it's too far out for polls to matter. Right now and for the coming 6 months or so it comes down to raising cash. It will be crowded field in Iowa but a few won't have the cash to go forward after that and more won't after New Hampshire. That's why I think it will ultimately come down to Walker (Koch money) and Bush. Christie is a wild card IMO because Walker has the personality of a rock and Bush is still a Bush at the end of the day. Christie can raise money and will showcase his personality, that brash, Tony Soprano attitude, which many will find appealing.

 

[Lead]

Realistically, it's too far out for polls to matter. Right now and for the coming 6 months or so it comes down to raising cash. It will be crowded field in Iowa but a few won't have the cash to go forward after that and more won't after New Hampshire. That's why I think it will ultimately come down to Walker (Koch money) and Bush. Christie is a wild card IMO because Walker has the personality of a rock and Bush is still a Bush at the end of the day. Christie can raise money and will showcase his personality, that brash, Tony Soprano attitude, which many will find appealing.

Yea but its surprising Walker leads in New Hampshire regardless. I expected Iowa and other states but I though New Hampshire would have Bush or Christie leading. It shows Walker is a serious threat in that pool cause he can win the Evangelical, Tea Party and Moderate base of the party.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Would you have considered 2008's Democratic field weak at the time?

In early 2006? I honestly don't remember what I thought of the field at the time. I remember liking Richardson, being mixed on Edwards (liked his messaging, but he seemed oily and I remembered him being trounced by Cheney in the debates in 2004), being somewhat impressed with Obama and not liking Clinton, but that was probably later in the process. Never considered Biden or Dodd seriously.

 

[Lead]

In early 2006? I honestly don't remember what I thought of the field at the time. I remember liking Richardson, being mixed on Edwards (liked his messaging, but he seemed oily and I remembered him being trounced by Cheney in the debates in 2004), being somewhat impressed with Obama and not liking Clinton, but that was probably later in the process. Never considered Biden or Dodd seriously.

What makes a strong field? I don't see how you could call this field weak unless you also think 2008s Dem field was weak. Obama had the same credentials as three Senators looking to run and Hilary could be matched up with any handful of governors looking to run.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What makes a strong field? I don't see how you could call this field weak unless you also think 2008s Dem field was weak. Obama had the same credentials as three Senators looking to run and Hilary could be matched up with any handful of governors looking to run.

Perry exposed himself as a total idiot last time. Walker has no educational background, and he's a career, mostly low-level politician with a poor record as governor. Bush is best known for being the brother of the worst president since Hoover (at least), but has a fundraising and media-relations advantage for that same reason. And those are the best candidates. Paul is a wackjob, Rubio is a major lightweight, Cruz is way too extreme, etc. Again, I don't recall how the Democrats looked in early 2006, but by late 2007, I think the people I mentioned were all looking much stronger than any Republicans this time around.

The GOP had a strong field in 2008, with McCain and Romney both looking very viable, and Huckabee looking possible. I think you need a few respectable candidates to have a strong field.

 

[Lead]

Perry exposed himself as a total idiot last time. Walker has no educational background, and he's a career, mostly low-level politician with a poor record as governor. Bush is best known for being the brother of the worst president since Hoover (at least), but has a fundraising and media-relations advantage for that same reason. And those are the best candidates. Paul is a wackjob, Rubio is a major lightweight, Cruz is way too extreme, etc. Again, I don't recall how the Democrats looked in early 2006, but by late 2007, I think the people I mentioned were all looking much stronger than any Republicans this time around.

The GOP had a strong field in 2008, with McCain and Romney both looking very viable, and Huckabee looking possible. I think you need a few respectable candidates to have a strong field.

So you are telling me McCain and Huckabee are a stronger field than any two of the people looking to run this year? Despite the bad luck of McCain running against Obama, I don't believe he would've won a Presidency. Huckabee is the evangelical wing of the party that brings the GOP down. Him and Santorum get wrecked in a GE.

I don't understand how you can find Edwards Senate career significantly more impressive compared to Rubio at this point. If Rubio is a "lightweight", what did that make Obama's Senate term? How about Edwards if he co-sponsored the war in Iraq? That made you see him as a significantly stronger contender at the time but you also were impressed with Obama?'

"Career low level politician"? What that even mean? That he won his states election three times?

You're not really convincing me here. I understand that you support liberal candidates but I think it may fog your view on this years GOP field. You did mention earlier that one could win so I guess that was your nudge but it's weird to call this a weak field.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I still have it as:

Christie
Bush
Walker

All moderate enough on social issues (for Republican standards) and all friendly enough to corporate overlords.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So you are telling me McCain and Huckabee are a stronger field than any two of the people looking to run this year?

McCain, Romney, Huckabee. Yeah, those three are all stronger than anyone running this year.

Despite the bad luck of McCain running against Obama, I don't believe he would've won a Presidency. Huckabee is the evangelical wing of the party that brings the GOP down. Him and Santorum get wrecked in a GE.

I'm not sure why you'd think that a large portion of the party's base is bringing it down. Republicans absolutely need evangelicals to turn out in order to win. And Huckabee appeals to other groups that Republicans normally target.

I don't understand how you can find Edwards Senate career significantly more impressive compared to Rubio at this point. If Rubio is a "lightweight", what did that make Obama's Senate term? How about Edwards if he co-sponsored the war in Iraq? That made you see him as a significantly stronger contender at the time but you also were impressed with Obama?'

Sounds like you're getting too excited to type coherently here. And are you seriously comparing Rubio to Obama? Check their resumes. They aren't in the same ballpark.

"Career low level politician"? What that even mean? That he won his states election three times?

It means he went into politics when he was very young and hadn't accomplished anything. Is that a controversial statement?

You're not really convincing me here. I understand that you support liberal candidates but I think it may fog your view on this years GOP field. You did mention earlier that one could win so I guess that was your nudge but it's weird to call this a weak field.

I'm not looking in terms of ideology at all. Like I said, Romney was a very strong candidate for Republicans (great educational background, private-sector success, the Olympics, and then a fairly successful term as governor). Ideologically and in terms of policy, he was terrible, and he was a total phony, but he had the resume that you look for in a president. Likewise (in a very different way) for McCain. Huckabee's resume isn't quite on the same level, but it was pretty strong and he was very comfortable on the mic.

 

[ShoelessRye]

Nobody is ever really qualified to be President. Last guy I'd say was "ready on day one" was probably George HW Bush and he only lasted one term.

 

[Gandhi]

Bush is a scary choice. Even if we forget his brotato, look how he acted over Terri Shiavo.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Nobody is ever really qualified to be President. Last guy I'd say was "ready on day one" was probably George HW Bush and he only lasted one term.

Romney has to be one of the most qualified candidates there has been. Obama had a pretty solid background. But, yeah, anyone is going to be learning on the job. Fortunately, they always have a tremendous amount of support. That's why I don't sweat it too much. Like, I don't think highly of Clinton as a person, but she's smart, and she'll have a great team and listen to them so she should be a fine president (and obviously she'll be ready on Day 1).

 

[Lead]

McCain, Romney, Huckabee. Yeah, those three are all stronger than anyone running this year.



I'm not sure why you'd think that a large portion of the party's base is bringing it down. Republicans absolutely need evangelicals to turn out in order to win. And Huckabee appeals to other groups that Republicans normally target.



Sounds like you're getting too excited to type coherently here. And are you seriously comparing Rubio to Obama? Check their resumes. They aren't in the same ballpark.



It means he went into politics when he was very young and hadn't accomplished anything. Is that a controversial statement?



I'm not looking in terms of ideology at all. Like I said, Romney was a very strong candidate for Republicans (great educational background, private-sector success, the Olympics, and then a fairly successful term as governor). Ideologically and in terms of policy, he was terrible, and he was a total phony, but he had the resume that you look for in a president. Likewise (in a very different way) for McCain. Huckabee's resume isn't quite on the same level, but it was pretty strong and he was very comfortable on the mic.

You need evangelicals but you don't want your candidate to centrally focus on that segment or you will be destroyed in the GE. GOP is constantly losing on social issues and the candidates that win are staying quiet or neutral on their stance. Evangelicals still end up voting for their side when given the two choices. The segment would bring a republican nominee down in the GE if they were expected to take a strong stance with their views.

Obama was a Senator for 3 years and State Senator for 7 years.

Rubio was Senator for 5 years (to this point) and State Representative for 6 years and was the Speaker of the House

Are you talking about Obama's law school education as the difference?

It's hard to compare Romney with this field because he got his time against a first term president. I think he could've had success against Hilary or another Democratic candidate but that time has passed at this point. They wasted him on 2012.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You need evangelicals but you don't want your candidate to centrally focus on that segment or you will be destroyed in the GE. GOP is constantly losing on social issues and the candidates that win are staying quiet or neutral on their stance. Evangelicals still end up voting for their side when given the two choices. The segment would bring a republican nominee down in the GE if they were expected to take a strong stance with their views.

I disagree strongly with that. Social conservatism (including racism) is what keeps the GOP alive. You're not going to win elections, even in the South, with a message of upward redistribution of wealth without it.

Obama was a Senator for 3 years and State Senator for 7 years.

Rubio was Senator for 5 years (to this point) and State Representative for 6 years and was the Speaker of the House

Are you talking about Obama's law school education as the difference?

IMO, that's a terrible way to compare their resumes. Obama was president of the Harvard Motherfucking Law Review (that might not be the official title). He was a civil rights attorney and a lecturer at the University of Chicago in Constitutional Law. And on top of that, he was great on the mic, and a successful memoirist. Their gov't experience was similar, but nothing else was or is.

It's hard to compare Romney with this field because he got his time against a first term president. I think he could've had success against Hilary or another Democratic candidate but that time has passed at this point. They wasted him on 2012.

He also ran in 2008, and was one of the front-runners. He was a great candidate then, too.

 

[ShoelessRye]

I think Huckabee could be a good VP running mate for Walker - the guy has some crazy views, but he's damn likable and that likability gives him certain teflon coating that other social fundies don't get the benefit of. Now maybe that would change come the GE, but as the running mate he wouldn't get much real scrutiny/focus, but would hold great appeal to the RR who really didn't like McCain or Romney but turned out in droves for George W. Bush.

Huck could also be a Southern bulwark against Clinton, specifically Bill, making any inroads in the South.