Hilary vs Huntsman 2016

rocket88 said:

Doesn't matter, there's no way Huntsman is the GOP candidate. He has too much integrity to tell the TP what they want to hear.

Click to expand...

He doesn't have the "it" factor for the national party either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

I truly don't understand the left's seeming acceptance of Huntsman. He was an ardent supporter of Ryan's budgets and by in large a social conservative. Why he garners so much praise in comparison with the remainder of the GOP field is beyond me. On topic though, I'd likely lean towards Huntsman in a choice between the two, given the right circumstances.

laska said:

Who would you vote for?

Click to expand...

Thankfully, I wouldn't have to choose either.

Why does the Republican candidate have to be as lame, or lamer, than Clinton?

I'd vote for anybody else. Jesus, God in heaven, I hate to even consider the idea that either would be on the final ballot. At the present, to be honest, I'm wondering if I'll vote at all. I voted for Gary Johnson last time. I'd vote for him again if he runs.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

*sigh*...

Huntsman has god-awful environmental ideas and wants to ban abortion. I just... can't.

I will say I regard him as one of the more reasonable conservatives in the current big-stage line-up, and I'm not a very big fan of Hilary, but... I can't. Those issues are just too big for me to ignore.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think either of them are going to do anything about the most serious issues in the country and government: jobs, infrastructure, government over-reach and war-mongering, etc. I don't have any hope for either of them doing jack about any of that.

So... yeah.

I honestly don't give a crap about 2016 at this point.

Click to expand...

Nobody's going to do anything with abortion, either.

Josie said:

Neither.

Click to expand...

This exactly. If it's either of them I'm voting my party.........Libertarian.

Bush was an anti-abortionist and abortion rights survived 8 years of him and will continue to survive while we entertain ourselves with protracted legal battles that keep those poor lawyers off food tamps.

Huntsman seems to me to be an intellectual, rather than a politician. I think he may be capable of wisdom, something I haven't seen in a long time. Of course, intellect is not respected much in America, where we pride ourselves on being fat, dumb and happy.

Since this is all fantasy, I'll be a Hunstman supporter for at least a few weeks.

radcen said:

Nobody's going to do anything with abortion, either.

Click to expand...

Would Hilary make any concerted effort towards the pro-choice cause? No, you're right.

But she won't sign anything draconian that hits her desk, if for absolutely no other reason than the fact that she'd never get a second term if she did. Too much of her base is women. But she does have a solid pro-choice record.

She's also not unlikely to nominate a pro-choice judge.

Huntsman, on the other hand, would sign anything and everything against choice that he could get his hands on, and he'd make a concerted effort to nominate an anti-Roe judge.

So would she do anything? Not really. But there are things she wouldn't do. And that's the best anyone can hope for with our current grab-bag of useless idiots in the Capitol.

laska said:

Who would you vote for?

Click to expand...

Absolutely would vote for Huntsman, but I think he'd have harder time winning the General election in 2016 then he would've in 2016. He's a tailor made candidate to take down Obama, but ran one of the most horrific primary campaigns I've ever seen. He's still a strong general election candidate in my mind, but not as strong of one going against Hillary.

I'd vote for him 100 times out of a 100 over Hillary, but that's really not saying much.

But it's hard to know what the "issues" are going to be in 2016. I LOVED him in 2012 because he had the best combined track record of any candidate when it came to Job Creation, reduction of government spending, taxes, and health care along with foreign policy experience and a holistic approach to dealing with our budgetary issues.

I'm still pissed off at how horrible his campaign was managed, and it's actually something that gives me a bit of pause with him because an IDIOT could've seen it was a poor strategy. Basic Political Campaigning 101 is that you move TOWARDS your base during a primary and towards the middle in the general. Everyone does that, at least everyone that is anywhere to close to winning.

Zyphlin said:

Absolutely would vote for Huntsman, but I think he'd have harder time winning the General election in 2016 then he would've in 2016. He's a tailor made candidate to take down Obama, but ran one of the most horrific primary campaigns I've ever seen. He's still a strong general election candidate in my mind, but not as strong of one going against Hillary.

Click to expand...

Do you see him as having much of a chance in primaries in 2016? Just strikes me as unlikely.

The only real question at this point is who will the repiglicons will run against Hillary in the campaign for her second term. The GOP hates Huntsman. They will never run him.

laska said:

Who would you vote for?

Click to expand...

Hope that's not the choice. But I would have to vote for Huntsman, who seems reasonable to me, as I have a personal rule against voting for either Clinton's or Bush's. however, one thing we can count on, both will look like the worse possible choices ever before we vote. Anyone who runs will look that way before the process is over.

Redress said:

Do you see him as having much of a chance in primaries in 2016? Just strikes me as unlikely.

Click to expand...

Not particularly. After McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012, the template that's been placed upon him as "moderate" is going to be too big of an anchor to overcome along with what seems to be a lack of high level charisma needed for that kind of stage.

Hell, I still love the guy as a politician but would probably be open to looking at other candidates in 2016 because I don't think he has nearly the chance of a clear victory like I think he had in 2012.

I absolutely believe with all certainty that he would've defeated Obama had he just made it through the primaries...the man was the blue print for how to do it, but had no hope of actually getting to that point.

Zyphlin said:

Not particularly. After McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012, the template that's been placed upon him as "moderate" is going to be too big of an anchor to overcome along with what seems to be a lack of high level charisma needed for that kind of stage.

Click to expand...

Do you see this as a problem for the party? As in, do you think some one seen as more hardline is going to have a better chance to win a national election?

Hell, I still love the guy as a politician but would probably be open to looking at other candidates in 2016 because I don't think he has nearly the chance of a clear victory like I think he had in 2012.

I absolutely believe with all certainty that he would've defeated Obama had he just made it through the primaries...the man was the blue print for how to do it, but had no hope of actually getting to that point.

Click to expand...

I am not so sure he would have won against Obama. Romney won the primaries, when it is all said and done, because more people supported him than they other candidates. He would have had a higher hurdle to overcome than Romney within the party, and with lower name recognition, been a harder sell outside the party. It is not impossible, and we will never know for sure, but it seems like the idea that a less popular republican would win where a more popular one didn't seems counter intuitive to say the least.

Zyphlin said:

Absolutely would vote for Huntsman, but I think he'd have harder time winning the General election in 2016 then he would've in 2016. He's a tailor made candidate to take down Obama, but ran one of the most horrific primary campaigns I've ever seen. He's still a strong general election candidate in my mind, but not as strong of one going against Hillary.

I'd vote for him 100 times out of a 100 over Hillary, but that's really not saying much.

But it's hard to know what the "issues" are going to be in 2016. I LOVED him in 2012 because he had the best combined track record of any candidate when it came to Job Creation, reduction of government spending, taxes, and health care along with foreign policy experience and a holistic approach to dealing with our budgetary issues.

I'm still pissed off at how horrible his campaign was managed, and it's actually something that gives me a bit of pause with him because an IDIOT could've seen it was a poor strategy. Basic Political Campaigning 101 is that you move TOWARDS your base during a primary and towards the middle in the general. Everyone does that, at least everyone that is anywhere to close to winning.

Click to expand...

I agree about the campaign. Besides seemingly not knowing the political winds, his campaign under prioritized the importance of social media imo which is surprising as he seems cutting edge in so many other areas. I think he still matches up better vs Hillary than the other GOP candidates especially in a debate setting. He's the only one that is not going to look like a complete amateur on foreign policy questions and he has the experience, intelligence, and gravitas to match up with her. He got in the race late for 2012 and it was his first run so he hopefully learned a lot of lessons. He definitely needs a much better campaign team.

Redress said:

Do you see this as a problem for the party? As in, do you think some one seen as more hardline is going to have a better chance to win a national election?

Click to expand...

I don't actually see it as a problem for the party. It COULD be, but doesn't mean it WILL be. It would depend a bit on the candidate I thought McCain was a horrible choice in 2008, even though he wasn't "hardlined". I thought someone like Santorum would've been attrocious in 2012.

I almost HOPE they get a guy whose a pretty staunch conservative in the next go round, if for no other reason than to see what actually happens. What's it seeming affect on the Conservative turnout? How much different do the numbers of independents, democrats, and various minorities ATUALLY end up looking?

I am not so sure he would have won against Obama. Romney won the primaries, when it is all said and done, because more people supported him than they other candidates. He would have had a higher hurdle to overcome than Romney within the party, and with lower name recognition, been a harder sell outside the party. It is not impossible, and we will never know for sure, but it seems like the idea that a less popular republican would win where a more popular one didn't seems counter intuitive to say the least.

Click to expand...

I don't actually think he would've been a harder sell outside of the party. While he did have less name recognition than Romney, that isn't a huge issue to me. One, because one the general starts up people start paying attention and name recognition will expand greatly simply for being in the running. Two, I believe there was a fair bit of NEGATIVE name recognition with Romney, if not MORE negative than positive.

Romney was hardly a loved figure by the base, so I don't believe Huntsman...once you hit the general and the aternative was Obama...would've done worse with them. I think Huntsman had a far better government record to run on in terms of job creation than Romney, which was something I think that could've played big in this election cycle. He also would've allowed Obamacare to become more of a factor as the healthcare reforms passed in his state tracked closer to what congressional republicans wanted rather than having to say "Well, it was good for massachusetts but not necessarily the country". I also think that the fact that Obama gave him a spot in his administration, and as ambassador to one of our largely international contacts no less, greatly would've hindered the ability to successfully attack him as some kind of right wing crazy that can't be trusted.

I can see why some would think he wouldn't be a shoo in, but I absolutely think he would've taken it barring a general election strategy as bad as his primary one. Which, sadly, is a legitimate concern.