• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

As a Republian, who do you turn to in 2016?

2016 Republican Candidate

  • Chris Christie

    Votes: 8 18.2%
  • Rand Paul

    Votes: 9 20.5%
  • Paul Ryan

    Votes: 4 9.1%
  • Marco Rubio

    Votes: 6 13.6%
  • Bob McDonnell

    Votes: 1 2.3%
  • Jeb Bush

    Votes: 1 2.3%
  • Rick Santorum

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Bobby Jindal

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Rob Portman

    Votes: 2 4.5%
  • Other

    Votes: 13 29.5%

  • Total voters
    44
I was pro-Hunstman in the primaries, but now that Romney has run and lost, a Hunstman campaign will remind people too much of Mittens, just because they're both Mormon. Simple as that.

Rand Paul is a stubborn man like his father, so no.

Jindal is a fundamentalist, so no.

McDonnell is basically Santorum with a better haircut.

Jeb Bush is a G, but his last name is tainted.

Chris Christie is a gaffe machine.

Paul Ryan is a lapdog with no substance.

Rob Portman is probably the best choice on the list, but he's not getting younger and honestly, I don't think he really wants the job.

Rubio is a maybe, but he's still pretty much nobody on the national stage. He has a lot of ground to cover if he wants to be anything but the token Hispanic Republican.
 
Last edited:
I find that patently ridiculous
Ok how so? Take this election for example. With the libertarian vote, Romney would have added 1+ million votes, and would've done far better with women. Also keep in mind that during the primaries, Paul polled better against Obama than any other Republican candidate. A socially liberal fiscal conservative would probably be even more appealing to certain minority groups and some Democrats.
 
Last edited:
Please God... not Rick Santorum again.
 
No option for Mitch Daniels? Certainly as weighty a resume as any candidate on the list above, and would likely appeal to moderate demographics.
 
today i like ::

Rubio/Haley

too far away to make a firm decision

We definitely need a woman in the race, IMO,
tho Haley may be too good looking for women to like her, and vote for her, out of jealousy' of her looks & Not consider her Intelligence and achievements as Gov.
 
IMO, this is a sign of who not to support:

National Journal 2016 Insiders Poll: Bush and Rubio Strongest Potential GOP Nominees | Race 4 2012

I voted for Rand Paul because I can't trust the others to uphold the Constitution. I feel good about his chances too. He is much more mainstream and well liked than his father, and can appeal to the social, fiscal, and libertarian wings of the party at the same time.

He can get early momentum in the early states. Look at what his dad did and go from there. Ron lost Iowa by 3%; Ron Paulers now control the Iowa Republican party. Ron got 23% of the vote in New Hampshire even though Romney practically lived there; it is very libertarian leaning. In South Carolina, Paul got 12%. This is where things may go differently. Rand is very close with DeMint. Paul supporter and state senator Tom Davis will likely challenge Lindsey Graham in 2014 and win, I am following the fundamentals of this race closely. Mark Sanford voted for Ron Paul. Rand may very well have the endorsements of both Senators and a former Governor which would help him win this state. Florida is the roadblock, especially if Rubio or Bush runs. If they both run, that would split it, but they won't I don't think. Nevada is a caucus, and Ron got 18% last time; there is a heavy Mormon population that went for Romney and he won't be running again. I think Rand will have the Tea Party grassroots enabling a win there. Colorado I don't know much about really; Ron got 12%. In Minnesota, Ron got 27%, and get this: his supporters also gained control of the party in that state. This should be another good showing. Missouri I don't really know about. Then comes Maine, where Ron lost by a percentage point and where Rand should win handily.

I could go on but those start to depend on how it goes up until this point.
 
isn't it like too freaking early to plot out support for the next election - the world could end before it gets here.
 
...Rand Paul is a stubborn man like his father, so no.

You do realize Ron Paul's closest friend, and ally, in the House was Democrat Dennis Kucinich.
They co-authored many bills together.
 
Ok how so? Take this election for example. With the libertarian vote, Romney would have added 1+ million votes, and would've done far better with women. Also keep in mind that during the primaries, Paul polled better against Obama than any other Republican candidate. A socially liberal fiscal conservative would probably be even more appealing to certain minority groups and some Democrats.

Yep. My sentiments, and earlier made point, exactly.
Fact is, the Republicans decided that the Libertarian vote was not what they wanted, so, despite Paul being the last competitor to Mitt standing, and with a huge delegate count of his own, they decided to change the delegation process, effectively disenfranchising a huge amount of delegates and GOP supporters, and at the same time, ending a path to the presidency that their great idol, Ronald Reagan, had used to secure his own victory.
 
Chris Christie would lose, and lose badly; he wouldn't even make it out of the primary. He is free to throw his hat in, I suppose, but given his tongue lashing abilities, I'd rather he not damage the final candidate.
Here's the thing though. There's alot of people, myself included, who like that in your face governing and who isn't afraid to say "up yours" to the media. We had a mayor here in Buffalo with the same gruff personality (Mayor James D. Griffin) and as it turned out, his 16 years as mayor turned out to be some of the most successful years that Buffalo saw. We need someone like that, not some primadonna media whore in the WH.
 
Christie, Rand, and Rubio winning.

I expected that.
 
For the love of God can we go at least six months after the election before we talk about the NEXT ONE!?

If I see election ads next week, I'm gonna find you people!
 
since ron paul isnt on there i voted for rand paul. not a republican, but if ron paul was on a major political ticket, i'd vote for him.


I don't believe the Republicans deserve the same amount of respect in the political arena as they've enjoyed in the past. Myself, my father (who has donated $$ annually for the last 40 years), and several people that I know are no longer supporters of the Republican party. What they did to Ron Paul was unacceptable. I supported Ron Paul, but my father didn't - only because he knew it would be a wasted vote. However, I know that even some Romney supporters were turned off by the behavior of the GOP establishment. The fact that they openly broke all the rules and simply bypassed the process in order to hand romney the nomination - and just the idea that they did this openly like we're all gonna think it's cool. What WERE they thinking? That we would want a cheating party (that made a mockery of a once fair election process) in the white house?

Everyone says Paul never had a chance but I continue to emphasize that if that were true, then why didn't they simply do what's right and let romney win the nomibation fair and square? Can anybody answer this question? Here it is again: If Paul really had no chance, why didn't the GOP keep out of it and let romney win the nomination honorably? You don't have to be a Paul supporter to be disgusted by this.

They don't deserve their usual spot 4 years from now. I would like to see a deviation from the whole 2 choices BS because it has gotten so - for lack of a better word, pre-fab. This you only have 2 choicesL: crap or sht has got to end. Why can't America just leave the whole "party" idea a thing of the corrupt past and just have 5 to 10 candidates that have no labels, only their ideas and policies. That would be a breath of fresh air. Why ISN'T it like that ? And the media should be regulated. Every candidate gets an equal amount of coverage and we need to make it a federal crime (felony) to falsify news. If you advertise and promote yourselves as "the news", then you are legally bound to that. Simple solutions... that won't happen. Pathetic.
 
Last edited:
Portman probably has the best chance of the options given.
 
Back
Top Bottom