• 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!

Rand Paul as President in 2016

Should be Rand Paul the candidate for the Republicans in 2016

  • I'm a right leaning American, yes

    Votes: 12 25.5%
  • I'm a left leaning American, yes

    Votes: 8 17.0%
  • I'm a right leaning American, no

    Votes: 12 25.5%
  • I'm a left leaning American, no

    Votes: 15 31.9%

  • Total voters
    47
Sounds like 2012 all over again with Romney and how at 1st it was said he didn't have a chance. There was even a term for the other candidates, they were the Not-Romney candidates. But he was still the nominee in the end.

Each one of the not-Romney's was deeply flawed in a way that crippled their candidacy. While I agree it is possible that they split the conservative vote, giving Jeb a plurality, the top tier opposition candidates to Jeb at this time aren't going to self-destruct one after another in a row.

He was the GOP establishment's pick, he was seen as he most moderate(even though for some reason in the general election he ran waaay to the right, which killed him with the moderate voters

No he didn't - he was successfully defined by the Obama campaign, who then managed an incredible turnout of their base.

You got pretty much the same thing in 2016. Bush will be the GOP's establishment's pick, he's moderate(the difference is IMO Bush will tell the right wing loons to F off and he'll run as a moderate, where as Romney was a wussy and caved to the right wing), and he has the best chance to win.

The Establishment and Moderates weren't happy with any of the Romney Alternatives - they poll, however, as liking both Walker and Rubio, Jeb's key contenders.

:shrug: but we'll see :)
 
That is the problem. All Presidents have to clean up any messes left over from the previous administration and there is always a mess or two to clean up no matter who is or was President. The thing is, if he does a good job of that, he looks good. Even though he had some rocky economic times, Reagan looked really good in comparison to Carter because he was able to improve on Carter's far more disastrous economy. A really good presidency is a tough act to follow because the next president may or may not have as fortunate a situation as his predecessor.

George W. Bush for instance had to follow Bill Clinton who was a competent administrator and who had one of the best congresses to work with, at least in my lifetime. Clinton also had no major crises to deal with except for the dot.com bubble burst. And because there was a forward looking Congress in place at that time and because Clinton didn't resist them all that much, we recovered from that crisis fairly quickly--though the Nasdaq has yet to reach its former heights. Bush, in comparison, had the old guard GOP back in power for his first six years and the most left leaning Democratic congress ever in power the last two years plus he had to contend with 9/11, Katrina, and the housing bubble burst. He could have been the best President in the world--which he wasn't--and he wouldn't have looked good in comparison to Clinton, at least to those who don't look below the surface for their facts.

Obama had the best of all scenarios--inherited a miserable economy and all manner of crises when he took office, and had he been competent to deal with it, he could have really shone and been the hero. But alas, not being up the job, he simply has mostly bungled that opportunity. The more the pity.

Whoever takes over in 2017 has a golden opportunity to shine. Let's try to elect somebody who can capitalize on that opportunity in a way that is for the greater good of us all.

Its all about Electing a Leader a genuine one.....like Fiorina said. Not a Manager.
 
Yep. Someone mentioned earlier that there's more and more Independents but the media doesn't give the Independents a mention or air time. The reason is what you said, it's better for ratings when they report about the polarization. The moderates and Indy's just go about their business everyday, no drama, no screaming. The Dems and the GOP fights and insults sells. It's the political version of a reality show. The media knows this, as do the GOP and the Dems. Keep us at each others throats, it keeps the 24/7 news channels going and keeps the GOP and Dem dominance alive and well.
There's am old saying (from the '60's, I believe) that goes: "Demonizing an enemy empowers the powerless".

These parties & party politicians are in it for power & greed, but besides that they have little to offer.

Without us (voting them into office), they are powerless - they have no power outside of that derived from us through our votes. With nothing to offer, the only way they can assume power (by getting our vote) is to demonize an enemy, and then proclaim we need them to save us! The 'enemy' of course, is the other guy!

So we have 'death panels' and a 'non-citizen illegal President' and a 'War on Women', etc., ad nauseum.

And it's working - we're often voting not because we like our guy, but because we more fear the other guy.

And by playing to our fears (often derived and definitely embellished by their propaganda), they attain & remain in power.

Without instilling fear, they have nothing. (and they're often enough pretty despicable human beings)
 
Each one of the not-Romney's was deeply flawed in a way that crippled their candidacy. While I agree it is possible that they split the conservative vote, giving Jeb a plurality, the top tier opposition candidates to Jeb at this time aren't going to self-destruct one after another in a row.



No he didn't - he was successfully defined by the Obama campaign, who then managed an incredible turnout of their base.



The Establishment and Moderates weren't happy with any of the Romney Alternatives - they poll, however, as liking both Walker and Rubio, Jeb's key contenders.

:shrug: but we'll see :)


Walker and Rubio have no chance. Rubio is a possible VP choice for Jeb, but he'll never get the prez nod for the GOP. He'll bring in the Latino vote as VP. But if you think the moderates will vote for him as the prez? Nope. Too far right.

Walker's will get a sniff in the mid-west states, but on the coasts he'll fail. He too is too far right, and he's prone to sounding like a moron when he's in front of a mic. Reminds me a little of Rick Perry in 2012..He had some legs early, then the debates started and he opened his mouth. That was all she wrote.
 
Gee, that doesn't leave many to vote for since they all take those kinds of contributions for their campaigns and leadership pacs. Nobody gets elected President without it.

Thanks to Citizens Divided 1.0 and 2.0.

Since Obama came in, neither chamber has shown any interest in campaign reform.

Who has run or filibustered those chambers?

McCain/Feingold anyone ?
 
Walker and Rubio have no chance. Rubio is a possible VP choice for Jeb, but he'll never get the prez nod for the GOP. He'll bring in the Latino vote as VP. But if you think the moderates will vote for him as the prez? Nope. Too far right.

Walker's will get a sniff in the mid-west states, but on the coasts he'll fail. He too is too far right, and he's prone to sounding like a moron when he's in front of a mic. Reminds me a little of Rick Perry in 2012..He had some legs early, then the debates started and he opened his mouth. That was all she wrote.

FOX and Priebus want Walker and Rubio.

That's my prediction right now--Walker/Rubio.

Kochs and Adelson approve--Warhawks approve--Walker has walked back his immigration reform support and Rubio is no longer a Dreamer .
 
FOX and Priebus want Walker and Rubio.

That's my prediction right now--Walker/Rubio.

Kochs and Adelson approve--Warhawks approve--Walker has walked back his immigration reform support and Rubio is no longer a Dreamer .

Heya Nimby. :2wave: Hope all is well with ya. Oh, a bit on Rubio. ;)

First of all, let me preface this blog post by stating right up front that no Republican candidate edges Hillary Clinton head-to-head in the latest CNN/ORC survey.

Marco Rubio, who is statistically the frontrunner among Republicans (polling at an impressive 14 percent), trails her by three percentage points (49/46). Even Rand Paul, who is the most competitive GOP candidate against her, trails her by the slimmest of margins (48/47).

Hillary Clinton’s internal polling numbers are somewhat alarming. Indeed, she is underwater on a number of key character questions.....snip~

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-el...erges-frontrunner-ugly-internals-hillary.html
 
Sen. Sanders is an avowed Socialist for whom zero GOPs will ever vote.
He is in the raise to discuss ISSUES in a positive and straightforward way, something GOPs don't understand.
Though Santorum did try to pick up a few of Sanders' populist economic themes.

Are you leaning toward Sanders? I am curious how others view him. He is an interesting candidate and I am hoping he curbs the Clinton machine by a substantial margin. That is, if we don't want to see any more elitists in the WH.

For GOP posters hoping Sanders will knock Clinton down, he doesn't work that way.
He's never had a negative campaign ad--what he does add is millions of new voters tired of the oligarchy--bad news for the GOP .
 
Sanders has called for GOP/DEM intraparty debates long before the conventions and intertwined with interparty debates.
I think Rand Paul would be up for that and I fully support this.
Paul and Sanders are great for the 2016 debate.
At this moment, I could only support Paul and Kasich from the GOP side .
 
FOX and Priebus want Walker and Rubio.

That's my prediction right now--Walker/Rubio.

Kochs and Adelson approve--Warhawks approve--Walker has walked back his immigration reform support and Rubio is no longer a Dreamer .

In 2012 Fox wanted anyone but Romney too. Hell, they and other conservative hosts are still pushing the BS that the reason Romney lost was because he was too moderate. For ratings they want someone as far to the right as possible. It sells.. So in 2016, I can see them pushing Walker, and anyone to the far right.

And there's no doubt Fox and the AM Radio conservatives have pull with the GOP, and they keep the Republican base riled up. But it still comes down the the GOP establishment, and Bush has them, and he has lots of money backers behind him. I think it will be Bush, and maybe Rubio as his VP choice.
 
Heya Nimby. :2wave: Hope all is well with ya. Oh, a bit on Rubio. ;)

First of all, let me preface this blog post by stating right up front that no Republican candidate edges Hillary Clinton head-to-head in the latest CNN/ORC survey.

Marco Rubio, who is statistically the frontrunner among Republicans (polling at an impressive 14 percent), trails her by three percentage points (49/46). Even Rand Paul, who is the most competitive GOP candidate against her, trails her by the slimmest of margins (48/47).

Hillary Clinton’s internal polling numbers are somewhat alarming. Indeed, she is underwater on a number of key character questions.....snip~

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-el...erges-frontrunner-ugly-internals-hillary.html

Since I'm one of the few and proud DEMs to admit who I am, you also know I watch as much of the new FOX polls and commentary I can stomach.
You damn well know they're pushing Walker and Rubio and spinning hard against Paul.

Just go to Election 2016 - Presidential Primaries, Caucuses, and Conventions

The Green Papers have everything you could want to know of debates, caucuses, primaries, conventions, delegates--Premier link.
Just the facts man--and I haven't made a spreadsheet on the GOP primaries/caucus delegates yet.
And J.E.B. lost a round when Nevada voted to stay Caucus .
 
Last edited:
Since I'm one of the few and proud DEMs to admit who I am, you also know I watch as much of the new FOX polls and commentary I can stomach.
You damn well know they're pushing Walker and Rubio and spinning hard against Paul.

Just go to Election 2016 - Presidential Primaries, Caucuses, and Conventions

The Green Papers have everything you could want to know of debates, caucuses, primaries, conventions, delegates--Premier link.
Just the facts man--and I haven't made a spreadsheet yet on the GOP primaries/caucus delegates yet.
And J.E.B. lost a round when Nevada voted to stay Caucus .

Yeah and Rubio schooled Bush on Foreign policy to.....he does have the advantage there over Bush.
 
I lean to Rubio as VP because he has a direct Hispanic face and American voters are like that--whether folks want to hear that or not.
However, I think Gov. Sandoval of NM would do a much better job as VP, has a much lengthier resume, and would bring along NV, NM, and CO.

Ii's easy to see Walker winning Iowa and Paul running a tie for 2nd.
NH is far different with an open primary--which I believe helps Paul the most.

If Bush was so sure of himself, I think he'd have announced already.
He's down to 10% in the winner-take-all Florida primary which will be a bloodbath .

In 2012 Fox wanted anyone but Romney too. Hell, they and other conservative hosts are still pushing the BS that the reason Romney lost was because he was too moderate. For ratings they want someone as far to the right as possible. It sells.. So in 2016, I can see them pushing Walker, and anyone to the far right.

And there's no doubt Fox and the AM Radio conservatives have pull with the GOP, and they keep the Republican base riled up. But it still comes down the the GOP establishment, and Bush has them, and he has lots of money backers behind him. I think it will be Bush, and maybe Rubio as his VP choice.
 
Walker and Rubio have no chance. Rubio is a possible VP choice for Jeb, but he'll never get the prez nod for the GOP. He'll bring in the Latino vote as VP. But if you think the moderates will vote for him as the prez? Nope. Too far right.

:lol: Rubio is the best communicator on either side of the aisle. He won against a heavily favored incumbent in Florida on a platform of entitlement reform. He'll be fine.

Besides, being strongly right or strongly left isn't a disadvantage anymore in Presidential politics, but an advantage. American politics is bifurcating - we're no more a bell curve, but rather two bell curves.

PP-2014-06-12-polarization-0-01.png


Presidential elections are no longer won by winning the middle without losing your base, but by energizing your base without scaring off the middle.


Walker's will get a sniff in the mid-west states, but on the coasts he'll fail. He too is too far right, and he's prone to sounding like a moron when he's in front of a mic. Reminds me a little of Rick Perry in 2012..He had some legs early, then the debates started and he opened his mouth. That was all she wrote.

:shrug: he might gaffe, but I sincerely doubt he'll pull a Rick Perry. He's less than half of a percentage point behind Jeb in South Carolina and 1.7% points behind Jeb in New Hampshire. And those polls are before Jeb's recent collapse in support among the GOP.
 
Paul is the only viable candidate from either party.

Hoping he doesn't succumb to pressure from the Establishment to go neocon. Neocons are as worthless as any liberal/progressive/socialist.
 
:lol: Rubio is the best communicator on either side of the aisle. He won against a heavily favored incumbent in Florida on a platform of entitlement reform.

That's State politics. You know on the National level it's a completely different ballgame.

he might gaffe, but I sincerely doubt he'll pull a Rick Perry.

It's very, very early.
 
That's State politics. You know on the National level it's a completely different ballgame.

Yeah. One that heavily rewards solid communicative skills and the ability to winningly sell complex ideas to skeptical audiences. Rubio proved he could do that. The point about State Politics is that they were heavily against his ability to pull that off, and he did because he's a good communicator.

It's very, very early.

Indeed it is. And Jeb Bush is already spiraling downwards, and I don't really see what's going to pull him up and out.
 
I think he is a really good alternative to Jeb Bush who is not a really good Republican. Should Rand Paul be the candidate for the Republicans in 2016?

He's not my favorite Republican but an acceptable choice. I don't think isolationism is good foreign policy and some of his ideas remind me a little bit of Obama which is why he's not at the top of my list.
 
Yeah. One that heavily rewards solid communicative skills and the ability to winningly sell complex ideas to skeptical audiences. Rubio proved he could do that. The point about State Politics is that they were heavily against his ability to pull that off, and he did because he's a good communicator.

It's still State politics. Republicans do fine on the State level, but lately on the national stage not so good. And also obviously there's a whole different set of backers and power brokers in a National election/primary. Many of you Republicans are underestimating the Bush money, backers, and the Bush political machine.

Indeed it is. And Jeb Bush is already spiraling downwards, and I don't really see what's going to pull him up and out.

In 2012 Romney spiraled down about 1/2 dozen times. He still ended up the GOP nom. It's early.
 
I don't think that a Young Earth Creationist has any business with political power, let alone in the white house. If you are so out of touch with reality or so distrustful of facts that you think the world could be thousands instead of billions of years old, you can't be trusted with anything serious.
 
I don't think that a Young Earth Creationist has any business with political power, let alone in the white house. If you are so out of touch with reality or so distrustful of facts that you think the world could be thousands instead of billions of years old, you can't be trusted with anything serious.

Are there any Republican potential nominees who are not creationists?
 
There are two republicans that I find unacceptable, Graham and Huckabee. I'm on the fence with Santorum. I could live with the rest although I'm content to let the field narrow before I pick a favorite.

I put santorum on the No way I'd vote for him list though if the Hildabeast is the candidate I might.
 
Back
Top Bottom