View Poll Results: Should the RNC/GOP only back Governors running for the Presidency?

Voters
15. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    4 26.67%
  • No

    8 53.33%
  • I don't know

    0 0%
  • Pass on the Buffett

    3 20.00%
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43

Thread: Should the RNC/GOP only back Governors running for the Presidency?

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Should the RNC/GOP only back Governors running for the Presidency?

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    It seems to be to be a damned if you do damned if you don't kind of question. The experience of having governed is very valuable, and prepares one for blindsided political warfare. On the down side if one has been in the game, they are still playing games and greasing palms. I'd give Big Ben Carson a shot. He seems honest and smart enough with a good temperament. Closely followed by Rubio and Paul.


    Mornin' JD. Looking at things realistically. I think we can now consider Rubio.....out of the Running. He needs to hold that Senator seat. But.....uh oh, and I just got word myself along with the DB. Jeb Bush is going to make the Dash. Rubio and Jeb Bush have made a deal. Rubio will stay out and Take on Wassermann Schultz.....who thinks she can move up to Senator. Now that is a scary thought.

    Dammit.....another Bush run!!!!!


    Forget the White House, Marco Rubio Might Be Lucky Just to Be Reelected.....

    He still makes the presidential wannabee lists, but Rubio might be lucky in 2016 just to hold his Senate seat.

    In fact, he may be forced into a career change. Why? Because Senator Rubio is up for a difficult reelection in November 2016, and he told Jonathan Karl that if he runs for president he would not simultaneously run for the Senate.

    This could be construed as a jab at Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who is actively considering both. But Rubio does not have a choice because Florida law prevents ambitious politicians from having their names appear twice on the ballot for different offices, as does Kentucky. And Paul has more in-state political clout and is engaged in changing the law in Kentucky, while Rubio has accepted the Sunshine State status quo.

    A quick glance at the Real Clear Politics poll averages for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination indicates that Rubio would be better off focusing all his energy on his Senate reelection if he wants to keep “politician” as his current profession. The current three leaders are Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee with 13 percent each, and Jeb Bush at 12.3 percent. Rubio is stuck in the middle at 6.5 percent. <<<<< !

    He doesn’t even fare well at home. The latest Quinnipiac survey of 2016 GOP voters has Jeb Bush winning 27 percent, Rand Paul garnering 14 percent and Rubio trailing at 11 percent. Furthermore, in a Florida 2016 general election match-up Hillary Clinton stomps Rubio by a margin of 52 to 40 percent.

    So things don’t look so encouraging for Rubio. But he may not be seriously eyeing a White House run anyway: A high-ranking GOP party official who asked that his name be withheld told me on Monday that Jeb Bush’s people have just met with Rubio’s people and a 2016 deal was struck: If Jeb runs for president, then Rubio would drop out—and “Jeb is running,” according to my well-placed source. (Alert the media!).....snip~

    Forget the White House, Marco Rubio Might Be Lucky Just to Be Reelected - The Daily Beast

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    (none)
    Last Seen
    04-04-15 @ 09:11 PM
    Lean
    Communist
    Posts
    6,112
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should the RNC/GOP only back Governors running for the Presidency?

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    So the question is.....should the RNC/GOP establishment only back those that have been Governors and know what it is like to govern a State, take care of budgets, and can get people to back to work, and have the record or working with the Demos, even if they weren't in control of anything.....or was?
    Are you talking about the official party? Are you talking about the individual delegates at the convention?

    No. In the first scenario. The official party should only back the person that secures the nomination.

    Yes. In the second scenario. Executive experience is always helpful. Otherwise we are rolling dice and crossing our fingers. If the candidate has been a governor then we know what to expect and what not to expect. I would take it a step further. I would only want a governor that has serve two terms and won by a landslide in his second election.

    I voted yes in the poll because I think I know what you meant.

    I was just being technical with the language.

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Denio Junction
    Last Seen
    11-13-14 @ 12:09 AM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,039
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Should the RNC/GOP only back Governors running for the Presidency?

    I'm in favor of a Christie / Rubio ticket. All it needs is a "D" behind it for accuracy.

  4. #24
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,669

    Re: Should the RNC/GOP only back Governors running for the Presidency?

    Just as all investments must include this caveat "past performance is not indicative of future yields" so must all politicians. I am sick and tired of hearing that governor X has balanced the state budget, created a surplus, has created (or saved) jobs or has raised/lowered taxes. What I want is a candidate with simple and honest positions on any given issue (even if that position is I don't know) and a clear (and simple) plan for proposed major policy changes.

    What the GOP lacks is any candidate with the balls to say that any specific unconstitutional federal gov't power defined at the program, agency or department level can (and will) be cut. Barring that, they can promise the moon and never be held accountable to change anything. There is no sense in running on "smaller gov't" while only proposing more of it.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  5. #25
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,927

    Re: Should the RNC/GOP only back Governors running for the Presidency?

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    The GOP is having quite a few people thinking about running for the Presidency.....and the list keeps growing with people throwing their name out there.
    So far those that have given word are, as follows. (which they are not in any order of who is polling or currently on top.)

    1. Christie
    2. Paul
    3. Jindal
    4. Perry
    5. Santorum
    6. Bush
    7. West
    8. Pence
    9. Carson

    10. Cruz
    11. Rubio
    12. Huntsman


    Even with the limiting of the Debates. Advertising and the MS Media is looking for a field day to catch the GOP up, and with the gotcha moments.

    We have some popular figures here with Ego's to match. We have some that have never governed. So the question is.....should the RNC/GOP establishment only back those that have been Governors and know what it is like to govern a State, take care of budgets, and can get people to back to work, and have the record or working with the Demos, even if they weren't in control of anything.....or was?
    We know who the GOP is going to back. The same types they always back. Democrat light. ie the likes Mitt Romeny, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush et al. All of whom suck. By the way Howdy there MMC
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Should the RNC/GOP only back Governors running for the Presidency?

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    I think it should be mandetory for a person who runs for the highest office in the country to have had at least one full term as governor or 2 terms as a senator.

    Or a workrecord of working in high office for a considerable amount of time.

    I would never give my vote to some upstart, no matter how nice the promisses may sound.

    Someone should show that they have expirience and can be trusted with the job.

    Which is why I was very suspicious of Obama in 2008.

    Heya German.....Well we have been shown when we get Senators in office. At least Kennedy had real Military experience and was a War Hero. Popular just within that regard.


    Obama had nothing under his belt.....absolutely nothing but a lil time in as a Senator. Otherwise he was what he always was in Chicago.....a Scrubm who carried no weight with the Democrats here. None whatsoever!

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Should the RNC/GOP only back Governors running for the Presidency?

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    We know who the GOP is going to back. The same types they always back. Democrat light. ie the likes Mitt Romeny, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush et al. All of whom suck. By the way Howdy there MMC
    Mornin Pirate. Yep.....look at my post above. Looks the RNC will back Rove and the NEO-Cons.


    I am not to happy about it.....I hope Pence runs and doesn't back off due to Bush. If I could would walk Right up and put my foot off into Bush's ass.....just for even thinking about Running. I would do so. Don't necessarily have to be his ass either. Kinda of hard to give a speech while talkin without any Bass.

  8. #28
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,949
    Blog Entries
    25

    Re: Should the RNC/GOP only back Governors running for the Presidency?

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    The GOP is having quite a few people thinking about running for the Presidency.....and the list keeps growing with people throwing their name out there.
    So far those that have given word are, as follows. (which they are not in any order of who is polling or currently on top.)

    1. Christie
    2. Paul
    3. Jindal
    4. Perry
    5. Santorum
    6. Bush
    7. West
    8. Pence
    9. Carson

    10. Cruz
    11. Rubio
    12. Huntsman


    Even with the limiting of the Debates. Advertising and the MS Media is looking for a field day to catch the GOP up, and with the gotcha moments.

    We have some popular figures here with Ego's to match. We have some that have never governed. So the question is.....should the RNC/GOP establishment only back those that have been Governors and know what it is like to govern a State, take care of budgets, and can get people to back to work, and have the record or working with the Demos, even if they weren't in control of anything.....or was?
    My preference would be a governor over a senator any day of the week for many of the reasons you mentioned. Governing experience and as a governor, he had to work with the opposite party to get things done. That is probably the problem with Obama, he is still campaigning and really hasn't settled down to governing. My opinion. So does being a governor really make a difference?
    FDR was a governor and is considered one the great presidents of all time.
    Truman no, but he is considered near great
    Eisenhower, no again. But he did run the military, he was a general and had experience in running a huge bureaucracy. He is top 10.
    JFK no again, but his death cut him short.
    LBJ no, he is ranked above average though.
    Nixon no, enough said
    Ford no, ditto enough said
    Carter, yes, he is not considered a very good president at all. He is more noted for his after presidency deeds than anything he accomplished as president.
    Reagan yes, Again considered above average.
    Bush the first, no he is considered average.
    Clinton, yes, again he is considered above average.
    Bush the second, yes, but is considered below average
    Obama no, we will see where history rates him, but probably down there with Bush the second, Carter and Ford.

    Who knows if being a governor is a plus or minus, I guess it is up to each individual to make up their own minds.
    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. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Should the RNC/GOP only back Governors running for the Presidency?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fearandloathing View Post
    Placing limitations on who runs will not lead the GOP to the land of milk and honey, nor will having the GOP dictate from above.

    First, Republicans need to stop listening to the White House propaganda; 2012 was not the disaster they paint. Romney ran Obama through the middle part of the campaign and won the opening debate, ending five points behind. He was gaff prone, weak, cold and distant and his campaign people were complete morons; they let Obama get away with so much crap they deserved to lose by 15%....YOU NEVER take your heel off your opponent's throat. EVER.

    So under a weak, kind of cardboard cut out too-square chinned candidate, against a brilliant showman, glowingly protected in the media and armed with the largest war chest in the history of politics, the Republican machine still delivered its core and then some......within 5% as I recall.

    The last run up was indeed self defeating. After the third debate I was wondering if the echelon knew something I didn't, but it was an ass-grab contest most notable for the media being unable to see or hear Ron Paul and the character destruction of perhaps the most decent man up there and the only guy with what might have been some answers, what I said then was the perfect VP candidate.

    The problem, in the end, was that the whole show was about cardboard cut out pretty people who had fooled enough people some of the time to appear successful who came armed with talking points, no answers and far too few questions. They ended up with a chilly, gaff prone, candidate with the charisma of a gold fish after sifting through the party's collection of swelled head ambition whores; a guy who was simply using the party as his machine to stardom.

    By the time the game begins publicly and in earnest, it will be too late. I have long seen the GOP circle its wagons and shoot inward. However I was at the pinnacle of my career when Nixon went out the hard way, that slime sucking ****-for-brains Ford making a mockery of justice; events we, the collective brain trust of the day were sure signs the GOP would languish in the political desert for decades. Enter Reagan and shooting outwards. There's a hint there.

    The mid terms are an opportunity for the party to meld together on the points they agree on, close the pie hole on what they disagree on, then start shooting outward. It would seem to me the GOP has forgotten a basic rule of the nastiest non-contact sport in the universe; a house divided cannot stand. Democrats have a few fissures running through them and while they clobber the crap out of Republicans on so-called social issues, the Republicans ignore the huge divide on the other side: the rich, Hollywood environmental people with the $ on one side, and out of work, under employed working men and women who are not working but could be with one pipeline....

    The party is still circled, still facing inward...at least for now their not shooting, but they need to turn around and see the enemy for what it is....smoke, mirrors, incompetence and lies....


    Heya F&L. Well to be honest.....it was the Tea party that came out and said they would field their own candidates to run against Repubs. Then put up the money and said they would go for those like McConnell and some that we need. Which caused that Demo there to pic up some pace.


    Still its who will be in just to pull votes from another. Both Cruz and Paul will be splitting those Tea Party Votes.

    I think Cruz jumps to counter Paul and definitely Christie.....but then he is nothing more than like a wannabe, and a Junior Senator. One that should look to hold his seat.

    Also Look at Rand Paul wanting to change a States Law just so he can run for Both Senator and the Presidency. That Law don't need to be changed. He just needs to decide which one he wants and go for it. Should he lose.....deal with those consequences.

  10. #30
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,669

    Re: Should the RNC/GOP only back Governors running for the Presidency?

    Quote Originally Posted by a351 View Post
    If a governor is the most viable/appealing candidate, so be it. However, I see no reason to arbitrarily limit the pool of candidates in order to fit a select mold. That could result in a loss of enthusiasm among one's own base and a strong feeling of disconnect between the electorate and the establishment.
    They would never choose to back someone like Mitt Romney, Bob Dole or John McCain.

    The GOP "establishment" should get out of the way and let all of the contenders fend for themselves during the GOP primary process. Wasting resources to encourage picking the future underfunded loser in the general race is simply stupid. If the GOP establishment candidate needs help just to win the GOP primary then they are very unlikely to win in the general election anyway.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •