• 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!

2016 Republican Presidential Primary (2nd Poll, this time multiple choice)

2016 Republican Presidential Primary (Pick as many as you want)


  • Total voters
    25
The more conservative the Republican candidate, the more likely they are to lose the general. The Dems start with between 242 and 260 solid electoral votes. The Reps have the run the table on the rest to win. You are not likely to win a purple state with a candidate on the extreme of the political spectrum. Run a real conservative and enjoy eight years of Hilary.

PS- its pretty unlikely the Republicans will see the White House, except as a tourist or guest for a decade. This is why they are working so hard to reverse Imperial Presidency, which they had a strong hand in crafting.

The missing story of the 2014 election - GOPlifer
The Democrats have a lock on the White House - MarketWatch
Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast

That is a LIE! You are wrong!

The only time a conservative GOP lost in recent history was 1964. They won in 1980, 1984, and the coattails helped in 1988 but not in 1992 when Bush Sr. ran for re-election. 2000, 2004 - the conservatives won. But 1976, 1992, 1996, 2008, 2012 - the MODERATES LOST.

I REFUSE TO BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE ARE JUST GONNA "GIVE" THE PRESIDENCY TO THE MOST EVIL AND CORRUPTED WOMAN IN AMERICA - HILLARY! Do you NOT know of how horrible she has been EVERY SINGLE TIME she was given power??????? Or do you not care?

Conservative policies always help - Liberal policies always fail - that's a proven fact.
 
Ted Cruz can beat Hillary Clinton in a general election because he's a smarter, more experienced man (don't argue that with me, just read his resume), a man of principle and integrity, while she is a woman of pride and corruption. Don't be stupid, America. I would hope you learned your lesson from having the worst Presidency in U.S. History - under Barry Soetoro, AKA Barack Hussein Obama II.
 
I think Jeb Bush who was a popular governor of Florida would win that state if he ran. Florida and its 29 electoral votes are a must if the Republicans are going to come close to winning in 2016. I wouldn't sell him short. Christie, as it looks at least to me at this point in time, bridgegate has soiled him too much.

But if I were a Republican I would be looking toward John Kasich and trying to convince him to run. Ohio and its 18 electoral votes are another must win state for the Republicans. Put together a Kasich/Rubio ticket, you would have the two must win states covered. Jeb Bush wouldn't accept being number two, at least I don't think so.

On the other side assuming Hillary is the nominee, Jim Webb announced an exploratory committee for a possible run at the White House. A Hillary/Webb ticket would be very hard to beat, mainly because Webb could deliver the swing state of Virginia and its 13 electoral votes.

All the above is pure speculation.

i cant see JEB winning america based on last name alone lol

and again this is about the current state of america, with his stances on abortion, civil rights and grey stance on equal rights I dont see it.

now of course like you its pure speculation but in 2016 i think it will be impossible for any candidate to win if they make pro-life/anti-choice and or anti-equal rights for gays in thier "running platform"
they cant run on those issues because it will add up to a lose. But they could do enough dancing and not run on those issues and fair much better
 
That is a LIE! You are wrong!

The only time a conservative GOP lost in recent history was 1964. They won in 1980, 1984, and the coattails helped in 1988 but not in 1992 when Bush Sr. ran for re-election. 2000, 2004 - the conservatives won. But 1976, 1992, 1996, 2008, 2012 - the MODERATES LOST.

I REFUSE TO BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE ARE JUST GONNA "GIVE" THE PRESIDENCY TO THE MOST EVIL AND CORRUPTED WOMAN IN AMERICA - HILLARY! Do you NOT know of how horrible she has been EVERY SINGLE TIME she was given power??????? Or do you not care?

Conservative policies always help - Liberal policies always fail - that's a proven fact.

I think you have some anger issues. When people disagree with your worldview, they are not "lies", they are differences of opinion. But, in this case, I brought some support to my opinion. Did you read the articles? Why don't you do so and write each of the authors (two of which are conservative) to tell them they are wrong. Past performance is not indicative of future results. There a major differences in the electoral landscape over the past four cycles. States do not swing as freely between candidates as they did 40 years ago. Feel free to lay out a compelling argument for a Republican win in 2016 and show us what states that candidate will carry.

The most "evil and corrupted"..... going through life embracing superlatives will not help the blood pressure.

The notion that "...conservative policies always help and liberal policies always fail..." is an opinion. You are entitled to such an opinion, but believing one side is always right and the other is always wrong is not a particularly intelligent world view. I think you need to better understand the difference between "lies" and "things that are not true" and the difference between "fact" and "opinion"...
 
Last edited:
Why doesn't the poll have a write in spot? I would write in Jon Huntsman.

Jon Huntsman ain't my cup of tea but he's markedly better than the others. He and Rand Paul would both probably make fairly decent nominees, though admittedly I would not vote for either in the general.
 
Jon Huntsman ain't my cup of tea but he's markedly better than the others. He and Rand Paul would both probably make fairly decent nominees, though admittedly I would not vote for either in the general.

so would you vote for the hildabeast over either one of those two?
 
so would you vote for the hildabeast over either one of those two?

Nah. Clinton is a terrible candidate. I will probably vote for Gary Johnson again because neither party lineup is all that appealing to me.
 
Wow, it's a common rule on the internet that the Pauls always win polls. From the largest media sites to the smallest corners of the web, the trolls always find a way to drive traffic to these stupid polls. Then, during the midst of the election, they get soooo brainwashed by the Paul family "values" that they actually believe that they can win a general election, and... when they don't. They end up pouting and shouting at the top of their lungs that it's a huge conspiracy against them! When in reality, it was them who hacked the polls in the first place!

Now, I'm not saying that these polls are internally hacked. I know the site wouldn't allow that to happen, but hacking here can mean many things. Paul fanboys driving their "friends" to vote in this poll so that Paul can win. I'm not sure what they get out of it, but I've seen it happen, in real time, on too many sites for me to sit around and not speak up about what I have seen on other sites. That this is exactly the same scenario. Let me reiterate, that this is not an assumption I am making here!

Ted Cruz only has 5 which is quite normal but I'm surprised he doesn't have more. My guess is that he is the reluctant second choice for paulbots. Even though, he is a better candidate for their stated belief system. If only a Paul wasn't running... Paul, the hypocrite turned tea party crazy, has 11 and is sadly winning. I think this proves the short attention span of the American internet people, and its devotion to Hand-me-down political brands

The two strongest choices in reality (Not the alternative universe where paulbots live) Walker and Bush are relatively similar in the rankings here. Walker surprisingly is winning with 10. Bush has 7.

I would have thought something like this couldn't happen on DP. Paul winning polls. Whenever a Paul name is winning in a poll I just automatically throw those votes out. He has no chance guys. Just like his father!
 
Last edited:
Wow, it's a common rule on the internet that the Pauls always win polls. From the largest media sites to the smallest corners of the web, the trolls always find a way to drive traffic to these stupid polls.

I have another explanation: Who the **** else are Dems, isolationists and CTers gonna vote for among republican candidates?
 
I have another explanation: Who the **** else are Dems, isolationists and CTers gonna vote for among republican candidates?

Actually I would have thought Ted Cruz, because despite his exaggerations he is articulate and stays within their belief system. Rand Paul is just a phony hypocrite. While I may not like Cruz for many many reasons. I don't have anything against the guy, yet. Many of them hope/wish for a Paul/Cruz Ticket. Not going to happen with the recent GOP rebranding.
 
Wow, it's a common rule on the internet that the Pauls always win polls. From the largest media sites to the smallest corners of the web, the trolls always find a way to drive traffic to these stupid polls. Then, during the midst of the election, they get soooo brainwashed by the Paul family "values" that they actually believe that they can win a general election, and... when they don't. They end up pouting and shouting at the top of their lungs that it's a huge conspiracy against them! When in reality, it was them who hacked the polls in the first place!

Now, I'm not saying that these polls are internally hacked. I know the site wouldn't allow that to happen, but hacking here can mean many things. Paul fanboys driving their "friends" to vote in this poll so that Paul can win. I'm not sure what they get out of it, but I've seen it happen, in real time, on too many sites for me to sit around and not speak up about what I have seen on other sites. That this is exactly the same scenario. Let me reiterate, that this is not an assumption I am making here!

Ted Cruz only has 5 which is quite normal but I'm surprised he doesn't have more. My guess is that he is the reluctant second choice for paulbots. Even though, he is a better candidate for their stated belief system. If only a Paul wasn't running... Paul, the hypocrite turned tea party crazy, has 11 and is sadly winning. I think this proves the short attention span of the American internet people, and its devotion to Hand-me-down political brands

The two strongest choices in reality (Not the alternative universe where paulbots live) Walker and Bush are relatively similar in the rankings here. Walker surprisingly is winning with 10. Bush has 7.

I would have thought something like this couldn't happen on DP. Paul winning polls. Whenever a Paul name is winning in a poll I just automatically throw those votes out. He has no chance guys. Just like his father!

well-thats-just-like-your-opinion-man-gif-the-dude-lebowski_zpsc9b4ece2.gif
 
I do not want to discuss this until at the very least late 2015
 
Actually I would have thought Ted Cruz, because despite his exaggerations he is articulate and stays within their belief system. Rand Paul is just a phony hypocrite. While I may not like Cruz for many many reasons. I don't have anything against the guy, yet. Many of them hope/wish for a Paul/Cruz Ticket. Not going to happen with the recent GOP rebranding.

Ted Cruz does not have much to offer anybody not a far-right Tea Party nutter. Paul, while every bit as crazy economically, at least seems to be pretty decent on civil liberties, foreign policy, and immigration from what I've seen.
 
i cant see JEB winning america based on last name alone lol

and again this is about the current state of america, with his stances on abortion, civil rights and grey stance on equal rights I dont see it.

now of course like you its pure speculation but in 2016 i think it will be impossible for any candidate to win if they make pro-life/anti-choice and or anti-equal rights for gays in thier "running platform"
they cant run on those issues because it will add up to a lose. But they could do enough dancing and not run on those issues and fair much better

America can't be that evil that they will support the murdering of babies. Don't call it pro-choice since the baby doesn't have a choice.
 
i cant see JEB winning america based on last name alone lol

and again this is about the current state of america, with his stances on abortion, civil rights and grey stance on equal rights I dont see it.

now of course like you its pure speculation but in 2016 i think it will be impossible for any candidate to win if they make pro-life/anti-choice and or anti-equal rights for gays in thier "running platform"
they cant run on those issues because it will add up to a lose. But they could do enough dancing and not run on those issues and fair much better

When I look at these things, it is more through numbers than ideology. Therefore I am a bad choice to predict who the nominees would be. But I can tell you who would have the best chance of winning. The Republicans start off with 191 electoral votes in their trustworthy states. States that will go Republican no matter who they run and have gone Republican since 2000 in all 4 presidential races. Jeb Bush would win these states, so would John Kasich or Howdy Doody unless they stepped into a huge pile of manure. You add Florida to that mix with Bush that is 220. More than McCain or Romney received, but a long way from 270. Hence a Kasich/Rubio ticket would in my opinion add Ohio to that total bring the GOP up to 238.

The problem for the Republicans is the number of electoral votes in Democrat trustworthy states, 247. Just 23 shy of the 270 needed to win. This is where Jim Webb comes in with the state of Virginia, add its 13 EV and now the Democrats are at 260 needing just 10 more.

Left are the swing states of New Hampshire 4, North Carolina 15, Iowa 6, Nevada 6, Colorado 9.

The last 3 swing states are Florida 29, Ohio 18 and Virginia 13 which I mentioned above.
 
When I look at these things, it is more through numbers than ideology. Therefore I am a bad choice to predict who the nominees would be. But I can tell you who would have the best chance of winning. The Republicans start off with 191 electoral votes in their trustworthy states. States that will go Republican no matter who they run and have gone Republican since 2000 in all 4 presidential races. Jeb Bush would win these states, so would John Kasich or Howdy Doody unless they stepped into a huge pile of manure. You add Florida to that mix with Bush that is 220. More than McCain or Romney received, but a long way from 270. Hence a Kasich/Rubio ticket would in my opinion add Ohio to that total bring the GOP up to 238.

The problem for the Republicans is the number of electoral votes in Democrat trustworthy states, 247. Just 23 shy of the 270 needed to win. This is where Jim Webb comes in with the state of Virginia, add its 13 EV and now the Democrats are at 260 needing just 10 more.

Left are the swing states of New Hampshire 4, North Carolina 15, Iowa 6, Nevada 6, Colorado 9.

The last 3 swing states are Florida 29, Ohio 18 and Virginia 13 which I mentioned above.

Do you really think Jim Webb can have THAT much pull? I don't know much about the guy, but he seems to be a great contender to Hillary.
 
Do you really think Jim Webb can have THAT much pull? I don't know much about the guy, but he seems to be a great contender to Hillary.

In Virginia, yes. Virginia is turning blue. It is at least purple today and Warner won in a close race during a Republican wave. Webb represented Virginia in the Senate before so he won statewide there before. But I think he would be too conservative for the Democrats of today, even as a VP nominee.
 
I made another poll late last year. http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/181089-2016-republican-primary.html

This time, with some candidates not running, and some new big names running, I'm making another poll. This time I'm adding multiple choice. Feel free to vote for as little or many as you'd like.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME WHY I DIDN'T ADD SO & SO. I MEAN YOU CAN SAY WHAT YOU WANT, BUT I'M GONNA ANSWER NOW. THESE ARE MY PERSONAL GUESSES - NOT NECESSARILY ENDORSEMENTS - JUST WHO I'M GUESSING IS MOST LIKELY TO RUN, AND OF THE 10 BIGGEST NAMES AND MOST LIKELY TO BE THE TOP 10 CANDIDATES. I COULD BE RIGHT, I COULD BE WRONG. SO WHILE YOU CAN REPLY WITH WHAT YOU WANT, I DO WANT TO MAKE THIS POLL LESS ABOUT WHO YOU THINK WILL RUN OR NOT RUN, AND MORE ABOUT WHICH CANDIDATES YOU LIKE OR DON'T LIKE, AND WHY.

Let's have fun with this discussion!


Why didn't you do so and so?

Or John Huntsman?

Wait

OR JOHN HUNTSMAN?

Worst poll ever
 
In Virginia, yes. Virginia is turning blue. It is at least purple today and Warner won in a close race during a Republican wave. Webb represented Virginia in the Senate so he won statewide there before. But I think he would be too conservative for the Democrats of today, even as a VP nominee.

As my username describes me. Just from glancing at the guy, I actually do like him. He could be perfect for me if he flipped a few of his beliefs. If I had to vote Democrat, I would vote for him probably. He looks like he is the Jon Huntsman of the Democrat Party, at this point. But yeah, I'm already seeing a lot of excitement around the guy online. Would he work with Republicans like Bill Clinton did?

That's the key to a great President. Plus you gotta have the Charisma. I don't see that in Hillary. Remember you have to follow Obama-mania!
 
Should I mention...Marco Rubio? But I like Huntsman better!

Amazingly stupid poll, and very control freakish..but the all capps posting made it all the more cromulent.

Huntsman can't win, he doesn't scream and yell and polarize and kiss up to the talibornagain fundies.

Barry Goldwater would be considered a commie athiest homosexual if he ran in the party today.
 
Oh I just found out, Webb used to be a Republican... But changed his party to win an election only to leave after one term. Not really sure about those tactics or if he has enough ambition for the job. I will be keeping a close eye on the man to see if he's just going to be selling books...
 
Back
Top Bottom