View Poll Results: Pick every time you think there were two candidates better than Clinton vs Christie.

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • 5 years (Obama vs McCain, Romeny)

    0 0%
  • 6-13 years (W Bush vs Kerry, Gore)

    3 12.50%
  • 14-21 years (Clinton vs Dole, H.W. Bush)

    6 25.00%
  • 22-25 years (H.W. Bush vs Dukakis)

    0 0%
  • 26-33 years (Reagan vs Mondale, Carter)

    7 29.17%
  • 34-37 years (Cater vs Ford)

    1 4.17%
  • 38-45 years ( Nixon vs Humphrey, McGovern)

    2 8.33%
  • 46-49 years ( Johnson vs Goldwater)

    5 20.83%
  • 50-54 years (Kennedy vs Nixon)

    13 54.17%
  • I love mashed potatoes . . .hmmmmmmmmm

    6 25.00%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 43

Thread: Christie vs Clinton 2016, best candidates or top best canidates in 50 years?

  1. #11
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,619

    Re: Christie vs Clinton 2016, best candidates or top best canidates in 50 years?

    I was alive for Nixon, I was a very ardent Republican at the time.

    But what I take away from Nixon is he was very opportunistic, his early years would be more like a radical Tea Party man like Cruz to then transforms into a peacemaker with China. He obsessed with being the first President to lose a war and engaged in 'crazy Ivan' diplomacy. His paranoia ran deep and eventually led to his disgraceful early exit from the White House when his own party told him he would be successfully impeached if he didn't leave.

    I see Christie as head and shoulders above Nixon. While the Jersey Governor can be a bit lippy he doesn't invoke the 'crazy Ivan' image when dealing with opponents. he doesn't seem to have that huge persecution complex Nixon did, and a 300 pound politician sure has plenty of reason to think everyone is out to get his fat ass.

    Christie has already shown a far more willingness to do what's correct rather than what helps the right- the 'embrace' of President Obama after the hurricane comes to mind. I'd say he would be perhaps the single best candidate for the GOP and for our nation at this time. I don't see the current GOP with TP cankersore ever working with a democrat President, the only way forward would be a RINO, and that is very telling on the so-called conservative camp's no way Jose attitude.

    But for Governor Christie to get the GOP nomination there will need to be a Night of the Long Knives within the Republican Party. The TP's have served their purpose and need to be taken out. While the TPs were very helpful last presidential election by having it's candidates implode one after the other, they were successful at making the party platform unappealing to many Independents, and I don't see Cruz or Rubio being as flawed as Santorum or Gingrich.

    I don't see the TPs giving up control of many Red State caucuses or the platform crafting positions. Give or take a saner governor there are roughly 25 very hard right GOP governors in the central part of the state. There are 30 some with rather radical right state legislatures and there are 20 to 30 gerrymandered TP Congressional districts who's only fear is someone even MORE radical right than they coming from within their own party.

    All of that is to say unless the GOP old school elite step in and change the primary/platform process- not a very democratic move- I see a very rough row to hoe for any GOP moderate who tries to stay a moderate.

    But I do think Christie is better than Nixon...

  2. #12
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    26,111

    Re: Christie vs Clinton 2016, best candidates or top best canidates in 50 years?

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post

    Having Clinton vs Christie and Clinton winning got me thinking, what if that is what happens?
    What if these are the two people who run against each other?

    While i dont agree with them both on everything i do like things about both of them, I honestly believe that would be the two best candidates to run against each other or at least among the best in 50 years.
    There's the problem, really. When a democratic system (and believe me, I'm not singling out the US here. It happens everywhere) provides the electorate with a choice between two candidates that are separated by virtually indistinguishable political differences, then really no one has any kind of choice. Could anyone tell me what the main political difference would be between Clinton and Christie?

    I'm not interested in what they call 'character'. Some of the most effective political leaders have been poor role models (Churchill - alcoholic and racist; Kennedy - pathological adulterer; Bill Clinton - ditto). In the UK perhaps our most principled and decent leaders have turned out to be useless e.g. John Major, Neville Chamberlin. It was the scummier ones who made a real mark e.g. Lloyd George, Churchill, Wilson. You don't have to be a good person to be a good politician, in fact history would tell us that decency is a distinct handicap to being an effective states(wo)man.

    So, how would one decide between Clinton and Christie? And how would one try to differentiate him- or herself from the other when the campaign got going?
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

  3. #13
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Christie vs Clinton 2016, best candidates or top best canidates in 50 years?

    Quote Originally Posted by Andalublue View Post
    1.)There's the problem, really. When a democratic system (and believe me, I'm not singling out the US here. It happens everywhere) provides the electorate with a choice between two candidates that are separated by virtually indistinguishable political differences, then really no one has any kind of choice. Could anyone tell me what the main political difference would be between Clinton and Christie?

    2.) I'm not interested in what they call 'character'. Some of the most effective political leaders have been poor role models (Churchill - alcoholic and racist; Kennedy - pathological adulterer; Bill Clinton - ditto). In the UK perhaps our most principled and decent leaders have turned out to be useless e.g. John Major, Neville Chamberlin. It was the scummier ones who made a real mark e.g. Lloyd George, Churchill, Wilson. You don't have to be a good person to be a good politician, in fact history would tell us that decency is a distinct handicap to being an effective states(wo)man.

    So, how would one decide between Clinton and Christie? And how would one try to differentiate him- or herself from the other when the campaign got going?
    1.) i agree i wish there were no parties to be honest but since that is super fantasy id take the just normal fantasy of making it mandatory that there are always three main candidates after the primaries and that is regulated through government and donations that go to ALL parties.

    but again fantasy.

    2.) i also agree "role model" is pretty meaningless to me too. I dont know if i could go as far as you but i do agree they should just be judged mostly on thier jobs/performance.

    fornication and things like that are meaningless to the job

    3.) The media and extremists will separate them by social issues, trust, connections and conformist or loose cannons IMO
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  4. #14
    Guru
    Cyrylek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Boston
    Last Seen
    02-05-17 @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: Christie vs Clinton 2016, best candidates or top best canidates in 50 years?

    Johnson vs Goldwater. Two men of substance.
    Needless to say, being a classical liberal ("libertarian"), I think of Goldwater as one of the best, and of Johnson as evil incarnate (second only to Nixon, in our post-war history), but there's no denying that both were the "real thing". Nothing like the parade of empty suits we are witnessing now.

  5. #15
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Colorado, U.S.A
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    464

    Re: Christie vs Clinton 2016, best candidates or top best canidates in 50 years?

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    some info you might find interesting . . . . . . .
    The 2012 Money Race: Compare the Candidates - NYTimes.com
    exactly why Obama won

  6. #16
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Christie vs Clinton 2016, best candidates or top best canidates in 50 years?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJB3333 View Post
    exactly why Obama won
    I dont follow?
    no im not saying either of them won or lost based on the link i gave you im asking what in the link to you think is the reason obama won?
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  7. #17
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,915
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Christie vs Clinton 2016, best candidates or top best canidates in 50 years?

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!!!

    ok ok calm down, reading all the early obnoxious polls like this:
    Poll: Clinton leads Christie in early look at 2016

    Having Clinton vs Christie and Clinton winning got me thinking, what if that is what happens?
    What if these are the two people who run against each other?

    While i dont agree with them both on everything i do like things about both of them, I honestly believe that would be the two best candidates to run against each other or at least among the best in 50 years.

    I can honestly say barring something extreme being in their running platforms i would be "OK" with either of them so im curious what others think especially since so many seem to like them both.

    Now again this isnt about who is better between them or what individual stances you like about them but about if you think it would be the best two candidates or among the best we have had in 50 years? I think so.

    i only have 10 spots in a poll so im just going to group the winning president with who ran against him, please vote for the times you think the presidential candidates were better, and no not ONE candidate better, but BOTH. When were there two candidate that were better?

    I did this quick so i may have made mistakes in the years etc but who cares, here they are check all that apply when you see TWO candidates you think are better?
    Please pick all the times you think the TWO candidates were BOTH better than Clinton vs Christie would be.

    5 years (Obama vs McCain, Romney
    6-13 years (W Bush vs Kerry, Gore)
    14-21 years (Clinton vs Dole, H.W. Bush)
    22-25 years (H.W. Bush vs Dukakis)
    26-33 years (Reagan vs Mondale, Carter)
    34-37 years (Cater vs Ford)
    38-45 years ( Nixon vs Humphrey, McGovern)
    46-49 years ( Johnson vs Goldwater)
    50-54 years (Kennedy vs Nixon)
    I love mashed potatoes . . . hmmmmmmmmmmmm

    Poll to follow be patient

    also please feel free to specify exactly which are better when the groups are together

    Attachment 67156753
    I would choose JFK-Nixon as being better. The Nixon of 1960 wasn't even close to the Nixon of 1968 and after. I also like the Adlie Stevenson-Eisenhower match ups of the 8 previous years. IMO in the years 1952, 1958 and in 1960 this nation couldn't go wrong regardless of who was elected. It is also my opinion that the two worse match ups was the Carter-Ford and the Bush-Dukakis matchups. I noticed you left off Wallace, Anderson and Perot as third party choices that could have had a bearing on the election outcome.

    I personally do not feel Clinton will be the nominee for the Democrats in 2016, a fresh face will be. I also think Christie being so out front now is a liability to him and he also might not make it. But I love these what if games.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  8. #18
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,915
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Christie vs Clinton 2016, best candidates or top best canidates in 50 years?

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    I dont follow?
    no im not saying either of them won or lost based on the link i gave you im asking what in the link to you think is the reason obama won?
    I think he was refering to 2008 when President Obama spent 750 million vs. 328 million for McCain, that was per ABC news. But I don't think that huge difference really was the deciding factor. I think it was more that the electorate were just fed up and tired of Republican rule. Time for a change and if McCain had a billion and one half dollars the results would have been the same.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  9. #19
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Colorado, U.S.A
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    464

    Re: Christie vs Clinton 2016, best candidates or top best canidates in 50 years?

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    I dont follow?
    no im not saying either of them won or lost based on the link i gave you im asking what in the link to you think is the reason Obama won?
    well according to the link Romney spent 6 million dollars more than Obama, but Obama raised 80 million more than Romney. by not spending the 90 million dollar difference compared to Romney who spent almost every cent he could get, Obama showed the people he was more conservative with the money and made people want to trust him more with our money. Now mind you that really dident work out when you consider the dept we have and how much he had contributed, but this was the elections. And of course you cant say he isent a good speaker

  10. #20
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Christie vs Clinton 2016, best candidates or top best canidates in 50 years?

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    I would choose JFK-Nixon as being better. The Nixon of 1960 wasn't even close to the Nixon of 1968 and after. I also like the Adlie Stevenson-Eisenhower match ups of the 8 previous years. IMO in the years 1952, 1958 and in 1960 this nation couldn't go wrong regardless of who was elected. It is also my opinion that the two worse match ups was the Carter-Ford and the Bush-Dukakis matchups. 1.)I noticed you left off Wallace, Anderson and Perot as third party choices that could have had a bearing on the election outcome.

    2.) I personally do not feel Clinton will be the nominee for the Democrats in 2016, a fresh face will be.
    3.) I also think Christie being so out front now is a liability to him and he also might not make it.

    4.) But I love these what if games.
    1.) i did think about adding them but i wanted it to be a two vs two and i also get even more unfamiliar with the 3rd guy as time goes.

    2.) hmmm i think a fresh face is a big risk for them unless you just mean fresh on the national scene. Would Cory Booker qualify for fresh face or do you mean totally new.

    I do however agree in certain ways that Im not willing to give her the push unless she makes it through the primaries, i know that seems obvious lol but what i mean to express by that is that its possible she may not get it, but i do think if she does she has it locked. But 2016 is so far away.

    3.) I agree how many GOPers bash him that could cause him not to be the nominee but when it comes to "winning" and putting up qlitifed people i think that move would be dumb

    4.) yeah they are fun at times
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •