• 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!

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

Pick every time you think there were two candidates better than Clinton vs Christie.

  • 5 years (Obama vs McCain, Romeny)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

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

    Votes: 1 6.3%

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

    Votes: 4 25.0%

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

    Votes: 0 0.0%

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

    Votes: 3 18.8%

  • 34-37 years (Cater vs Ford)

    Votes: 1 6.3%

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

    Votes: 1 6.3%

  • 46-49 years ( Johnson vs Goldwater)

    Votes: 4 25.0%

  • 50-54 years (Kennedy vs Nixon)

    Votes: 8 50.0%

  • I love mashed potatoes . . .hmmmmmmmmm

    Votes: 4 25.0%
  • Total voters
    16
AGENT J said:
hmmmm interesting, just curious how fresh of a face you meant, not familiar with all of them ill have to check them out.

I think a push for a woman is going to happen, not saying they will be the best just saying i think that might happen.

Also when McCain went and got a woman i honestly thought that was a BRILLIANT move but then the woman was Palin who on a national stage was no where near ready and it hurt.

They should asked Rice, that would have been interesting
Click to expand...

The Palin choice made no sense to me unless he thought he was shoring up his base. You know, to bring ideological balance to the ticket. The other reason that usually plays a big choice or it use to is to pick someone from a swing state to bring its EV into you column. Palin also failed on that account, AK with 3 EV was going to be McCain's anyway. That pick left me scratching my head.

I agree, Condi Rice would have been my choice too if it was just to get a woman on the ticket. Jim Gilmore of VA or Tommy Thompson of WI might have given him a real shot at those states as his VP choice. All the others were from relative safe states I can think of except Giuliani of NY and McCain wasn't going to win NY even with him on the ticket. I don't think Giuliani could have carried NY if he was in the presidential slot. But it might have made that state interesting.
 
AGENT J said:
really? interesting ive never heard any theory like that ever

but my instant question is, what percentage of the voters do you think were actually aware of that, how accurate/available was that info during the campaign and before voting day and then lastly what percentage of voters actually care about that?

interesting theory but it doesnt sell to me

i mean people are very different that could of just as easily made some people think he was trying to be shady and use the money in other ways. Just saying but that was interesting.
Click to expand...

ill admit, its not one of my favorite theory's, but i did find it an interesting one. and your right, a lot of that info wasn't around in voting time, so i could be wrong. Im actually quoting my grandfather there and hes a bit of a conspiracy/political-tricks theory junky. Hes right on a lot of things but there are a few points that i'm like ummmmm....
 
Perotista said:
1.)The Palin choice made no sense to me unless he thought he was shoring up his base. You know, to bring ideological balance to the ticket. The other reason that usually plays a big choice or it use to is to pick someone from a swing state to bring its EV into you column. Palin also failed on that account, AK with 3 EV was going to be McCain's anyway. That pick left me scratching my head.

2.)I agree, Condi Rice would have been my choice too if it was just to get a woman on the ticket. Jim Gilmore of VA or Tommy Thompson of WI might have given him a real shot at those states as his VP choice. All the others were from relative safe states I can think of except Giuliani of NY and McCain wasn't going to win NY even with him on the ticket.

3.) I don't think Giuliani could have carried NY if he was in the presidential slot. But it might have made that state interesting.
Click to expand...

1.) agreed it was a mistake and it hurt more than helped
2.) well i think Rice would have been a great dynamic because not only a woman but a minority woman, "media wise" thats a very great counter.

THink about the republicans putting the first woman in office even if VP and her be a minority? Media mileage for years to come.

I think the ONLY reason she probably wasnt a hard push is the association with Bush.

3.) i was always surprised he didn't run?
 
If those two are the best choice America has, then we are so deep in ****, we will never shovel our way out.
 
DVSentinel said:
If those two are the best choice America has, then we are so deep in ****, we will never shovel our way out.
Click to expand...

I think people who said the same thing about Reagan/Carter in 1980 and Bush/Gore in 2000 were equally accurate.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Great idea for a thread.

I started to pick both Kennedy/Nixon and Johnson/Goldwater, but given the parameter (better than Clinton/Christie) I could only vote for Johnson/Goldwater.

The reason? Where Kennedy was equal or superior in many ways to Mrs. Clinton, Nixon although a brilliant Chief Executive and good campaigner, was not as capable at the time of the 1968 election to garner support from as broad a cross section of ideologies as Christie can today. Kennedy won for many reasons, two of the most relevant were his charisma allowing him to connect across party lines and his amazing war record (or at least his heroic saving of his crew of the PT-109). Kennedy was a mix of liberalism and conservatism not seen in today's prominent politician. The closest may be Joe Manchin in the Democrat party and Richard Burr in the Republican Party.

Johnson and Goldwater however were both political juggernauts. Both were highly intellectual and both could connect across party lines. Johnson was running on the coat-tales of the slain King of Camelot, hence the overwhelming win by Johnson of 44 states plus the District of Columbia (486 electoral votes) to Goldwater's 6 states (44 electoral votes). This however doesn't diminish the intensity of the campaigns or the level of discussion that the campaigns created in the populous. Their campaigns brought to the forefront of the national debate many of the social questions and level of government questions that are still debated hotly today.
Click to expand...

The fact that people still reference Goldwater shows what a political force he was. He was definitely a game changer; the climate at the time just wasn't conducive to his winning.

People still refer to themselves as Goldwater Republican. I ain't ever heard anyone refer to himself as a Mondale Democrat.
 
JJB3333 said:
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
Click to expand...

There is not a scintilla of evidence to support this theory.
 
I suspect people are getting tired of Christie-is-fat jokes.
 
Kobie said:
The fact that people still reference Goldwater shows what a political force he was. He was definitely a game changer; the climate at the time just wasn't conducive to his winning.

People still refer to themselves as Goldwater Republican. I ain't ever heard anyone refer to himself as a Mondale Democrat.
Click to expand...

I see myself, in may ways, as a Goldwater Republican. Which unfortunately means I don't fit very well into the current ideology of the Republican Party.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I see myself, in may ways, as a Goldwater Republican. Which unfortunately means I don't fit very well into the current ideology of the Republican Party.
Click to expand...

I honestly respect Goldwater Republicans more than the people who carry water for the travesty that is the modern Republican Party.

The Dems are no better. Two corporatist sides of the same coin.
 
Kobie said:
I honestly respect Goldwater Republicans more than the people who carry water for the travesty that is the modern Republican Party.

The Dems are no better. Two corporatist sides of the same coin.
Click to expand...

Thank you, and you're correct.
 
no surprise the one vote for W Bush vs Kerry, Gore is anonymous lol
 
I voted a few of the options, and I knew that Kennedy/Nixon would likely have had the most votes.
 
By the way - I hope they don't make the mistake (like they usually do) of nominating the worst possible choice in each party.

Otherwise - America will have to elect the Jesse Ventura/Howard Stern ticket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom