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

:alertPLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!!!:alert

ok ok calm down, reading all the early obnoxious polls like this:
Poll: Clinton leads Christie in early look at 2016

Having Clinton vs Christie and Clinton winning got me thinking, what if that is what happens?
What if these are the two people who run against each other?

While i dont agree with them both on everything i do like things about both of them, I honestly believe that would be the two best candidates to run against each other or at least among the best in 50 years.

I can honestly say barring something extreme being in their running platforms i would be "OK" with either of them so im curious what others think especially since so many seem to like them both.

Now again this isnt about who is better between them or what individual stances you like about them but about if you think it would be the best two candidates or among the best we have had in 50 years? I think so.

i only have 10 spots in a poll so im just going to group the winning president with who ran against him, please vote for the times you think the presidential candidates were better, and no not ONE candidate better, but BOTH. When were there two candidate that were better?

I did this quick so i may have made mistakes in the years etc but who cares, here they are check all that apply when you see TWO candidates you think are better?
Please pick all the times you think the TWO candidates were BOTH better than Clinton vs Christie would be.

5 years (Obama vs McCain, Romney
6-13 years (W Bush vs Kerry, Gore)
14-21 years (Clinton vs Dole, H.W. Bush)
22-25 years (H.W. Bush vs Dukakis)
26-33 years (Reagan vs Mondale, Carter)
34-37 years (Cater vs Ford)
38-45 years ( Nixon vs Humphrey, McGovern)
46-49 years ( Johnson vs Goldwater)
50-54 years (Kennedy vs Nixon)
I love mashed potatoes . . . hmmmmmmmmmmmm

Poll to follow be patient

also please feel free to specify exactly which are better when the groups are together

AGENT J said:

:alertPLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!!!:alert

ok ok calm down, reading all the early obnoxious polls like this:
Poll: Clinton leads Christie in early look at 2016

Having Clinton vs Christie and Clinton winning got me thinking, what if that is what happens?
What if these are the two people who run against each other?

While i dont agree with them both on everything i do like things about both of them, I honestly believe that would be the two best candidates to run against each other or at least among the best in 50 years.

I can honestly say barring something extreme being in their running platforms i would be "OK" with either of them so im curious what others think especially since so many seem to like them both.

Now again this isnt about who is better between them or what individual stances you like about them but about if you think it would be the best two candidates or among the best we have had in 50 years? I think so.

i only have 10 spots in a poll so im just going to group the winning president with who ran against him, please vote for the times you think the presidential candidates were better, and no not ONE candidate better, but BOTH. When were there two candidate that were better?

I did this quick so i may have made mistakes in the years etc but who cares, here they are check all that apply when you see TWO candidates you think are better?
Please pick all the times you think the TWO candidates were BOTH better than Clinton vs Christie would be.

5 years (Obama vs McCain, Romney
6-13 years (W Bush vs Kerry, Gore)
14-21 years (Clinton vs Dole, H.W. Bush)
22-25 years (H.W. Bush vs Dukakis)
26-33 years (Reagan vs Mondale, Carter)
34-37 years (Cater vs Ford)
38-45 years ( Nixon vs Humphrey, McGovern)
46-49 years ( Johnson vs Goldwater)
50-54 years (Kennedy vs Nixon)
I love mashed potatoes . . . hmmmmmmmmmmmm

Poll to follow be patient

also please feel free to specify exactly which are better when the groups are together

View attachment 67156753

Click to expand...

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.

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...

awesome insight!

While i have "read" about those elections some i have no personal insight since its before my time its why i havent voted yet but im going to, i was going to vote for Kennedy/Nixon just based on reading but again, before my time.

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...

also here is two cool sites with commercial and info over the last 50 years im lookin at
Hasn’t Always Been Like This – Presidential Election 50 year History
The Living Room Candidate

AGENT J said:

awesome insight!

While i have "read" about those elections some i have no personal insight since its before my time its why i haven't voted yet but im going to, i was going to vote for Kennedy/Nixon just based on reading but again, before my time.

Click to expand...

Most of these were well before my time but the ones youve pointed out were pretty good from what I've read. Obama vs. Romney was just another oneof who can shove the mast money into their campaign.

JJB3333 said:

Most of these were well before my time but the ones youve pointed out were pretty good from what I've read. Obama vs. Romney was just another oneof who can shove the mast money into their campaign.

Click to expand...

some info you might find interesting . . . . . . .
The 2012 Money Race: Compare the Candidates - NYTimes.com

AGENT J said:

:alertPLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!!!:alert

ok ok calm down, reading all the early obnoxious polls like this:
Poll: Clinton leads Christie in early look at 2016

Having Clinton vs Christie and Clinton winning got me thinking, what if that is what happens?
What if these are the two people who run against each other?

While i dont agree with them both on everything i do like things about both of them, I honestly believe that would be the two best candidates to run against each other or at least among the best in 50 years.

I can honestly say barring something extreme being in their running platforms i would be "OK" with either of them so im curious what others think especially since so many seem to like them both.

Now again this isnt about who is better between them or what individual stances you like about them but about if you think it would be the best two candidates or among the best we have had in 50 years? I think so.

i only have 10 spots in a poll so im just going to group the winning president with who ran against him, please vote for the times you think the presidential candidates were better, and no not ONE candidate better, but BOTH. When were there two candidate that were better?

I did this quick so i may have made mistakes in the years etc but who cares, here they are check all that apply when you see TWO candidates you think are better?
Please pick all the times you think the TWO candidates were BOTH better than Clinton vs Christie would be.

5 years (Obama vs McCain, Romney
6-13 years (W Bush vs Kerry, Gore)
14-21 years (Clinton vs Dole, H.W. Bush)
22-25 years (H.W. Bush vs Dukakis)
26-33 years (Reagan vs Mondale, Carter)
34-37 years (Cater vs Ford)
38-45 years ( Nixon vs Humphrey, McGovern)
46-49 years ( Johnson vs Goldwater)
50-54 years (Kennedy vs Nixon)
I love mashed potatoes . . . hmmmmmmmmmmmm

Poll to follow be patient

also please feel free to specify exactly which are better when the groups are together

View attachment 67156753

Click to expand...

No, not mashed potatoes, but one choice of response is related to MASH.

Suicide Is Painless (MASH Theme) with lyrics - YouTube

Or

Tom Petty and The HeartBreakers- Rebels - YouTube

and Ammo Sale - Ammunition Sale - Discount Ammo - Ammo De : Cabela's, they might be having an election special sale at the time.

AGENT J said:

:alertPLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!!!:alert

ok ok calm down, reading all the early obnoxious polls like this:
Poll: Clinton leads Christie in early look at 2016

Having Clinton vs Christie and Clinton winning got me thinking, what if that is what happens?
What if these are the two people who run against each other?

While i dont agree with them both on everything i do like things about both of them, I honestly believe that would be the two best candidates to run against each other or at least among the best in 50 years.

I can honestly say barring something extreme being in their running platforms i would be "OK" with either of them so im curious what others think especially since so many seem to like them both.

Now again this isnt about who is better between them or what individual stances you like about them but about if you think it would be the best two candidates or among the best we have had in 50 years? I think so.

i only have 10 spots in a poll so im just going to group the winning president with who ran against him, please vote for the times you think the presidential candidates were better, and no not ONE candidate better, but BOTH. When were there two candidate that were better?

I did this quick so i may have made mistakes in the years etc but who cares, here they are check all that apply when you see TWO candidates you think are better?
Please pick all the times you think the TWO candidates were BOTH better than Clinton vs Christie would be.

5 years (Obama vs McCain, Romney
6-13 years (W Bush vs Kerry, Gore)
14-21 years (Clinton vs Dole, H.W. Bush)
22-25 years (H.W. Bush vs Dukakis)
26-33 years (Reagan vs Mondale, Carter)
34-37 years (Cater vs Ford)
38-45 years ( Nixon vs Humphrey, McGovern)
46-49 years ( Johnson vs Goldwater)
50-54 years (Kennedy vs Nixon)
I love mashed potatoes . . . hmmmmmmmmmmmm

Poll to follow be patient

also please feel free to specify exactly which are better when the groups are together

View attachment 67156753

Click to expand...

Good question. I would have to go with Clinton vs. Christie but I wonder if that has more to do with being most familiar with the candidates since I wasn't alive when Kennedy ran against Nixon, for example.

I like both Clinton and Christie but Christie more for few reasons. Clinton seems to have a mean streak especially during campaign seasons. Christie has proven probably more than any politician in America a willingness to work with all other leaders for the benefit of the people he serves, particularly noteworthy in a climate where being an absolute jerk and treating the sitting president as the enemy of the country is actually an advantage with his party's base. Other than Christie, the current culture of the GOP honestly makes me ashamed to be a Republican.

I doubt Christie can get the nomination but if he wins it, I'll likely support him. Anybody else and I'll vote for Secretary Clinton. Either would make a good President.

Smeagol said:

Good question. I would have to go with Clinton vs. Christie but I wonder if that has more to do with being most familiar with the candidates since I wasn't alive when Kennedy ran against Nixon, for example.

I like both Clinton and Christie but Christie more for few reasons. Clinton seems to have a mean streak especially during campaign seasons. Christie has proven probably more than any politician in America a willingness to work with all other leaders for the benefit of the people he serves, particularly noteworthy in a climate where being an absolute jerk and treating the sitting president as the enemy of the country is actually an advantage with his party's base. Other than Christie, the current culture of the GOP honestly makes me ashamed to be a Republican.

I doubt Christie can get the nomination but if he wins it, I'll likely support him. Anybody else and I'll vote for Secretary Clinton. Either would make a good President.

Click to expand...

I have to agree in many way not all

I also like that about christie too, i dont know if it was show or not but it defineitley seem to work aaaaaand its what i would want a president/Governor etc to do.

Cant remember what it was but werent people made at him during the election cause he didnt attend something for Romney? BUT the reason was because he was dealing with the crisis in his state and he verbally said, if anybody thinks it was more important for me to sit at some dinner than to be haloing the people in my state that needs they can pound salt. Something like that? Whatever it was i like it.

I do think that - as of today - both Christie and Clinton might be the most electable candidates their respective parties can put forward. However, I suspect that Christie is not going to be able to get through the GOP primary cycle as it favors the right.

However, if they both are nominated, I suspect that Clinton would have a built in advantage as the first female candidate in an electorate with a majority female voting population. I also think Christie has a tendency to make bombastic statements and that could open the door for a Romney type 47% fiasco at any point.

I would guess that the best matchup was JFK vs. Nixon.

I was alive for Nixon, I was a very ardent Republican at the time.

But what I take away from Nixon is he was very opportunistic, his early years would be more like a radical Tea Party man like Cruz to then transforms into a peacemaker with China. He obsessed with being the first President to lose a war and engaged in 'crazy Ivan' diplomacy. His paranoia ran deep and eventually led to his disgraceful early exit from the White House when his own party told him he would be successfully impeached if he didn't leave.

I see Christie as head and shoulders above Nixon. While the Jersey Governor can be a bit lippy he doesn't invoke the 'crazy Ivan' image when dealing with opponents. he doesn't seem to have that huge persecution complex Nixon did, and a 300 pound politician sure has plenty of reason to think everyone is out to get his fat ass.

Christie has already shown a far more willingness to do what's correct rather than what helps the right- the 'embrace' of President Obama after the hurricane comes to mind. I'd say he would be perhaps the single best candidate for the GOP and for our nation at this time. I don't see the current GOP with TP cankersore ever working with a democrat President, the only way forward would be a RINO, and that is very telling on the so-called conservative camp's no way Jose attitude.

But for Governor Christie to get the GOP nomination there will need to be a Night of the Long Knives within the Republican Party. The TP's have served their purpose and need to be taken out. While the TPs were very helpful last presidential election by having it's candidates implode one after the other, they were successful at making the party platform unappealing to many Independents, and I don't see Cruz or Rubio being as flawed as Santorum or Gingrich.

I don't see the TPs giving up control of many Red State caucuses or the platform crafting positions. Give or take a saner governor there are roughly 25 very hard right GOP governors in the central part of the state. There are 30 some with rather radical right state legislatures and there are 20 to 30 gerrymandered TP Congressional districts who's only fear is someone even MORE radical right than they coming from within their own party.

All of that is to say unless the GOP old school elite step in and change the primary/platform process- not a very democratic move- I see a very rough row to hoe for any GOP moderate who tries to stay a moderate.

But I do think Christie is better than Nixon...

AGENT J said:

Having Clinton vs Christie and Clinton winning got me thinking, what if that is what happens?
What if these are the two people who run against each other?

While i dont agree with them both on everything i do like things about both of them, I honestly believe that would be the two best candidates to run against each other or at least among the best in 50 years.

Click to expand...

There's the problem, really. When a democratic system (and believe me, I'm not singling out the US here. It happens everywhere) provides the electorate with a choice between two candidates that are separated by virtually indistinguishable political differences, then really no one has any kind of choice. Could anyone tell me what the main political difference would be between Clinton and Christie?

I'm not interested in what they call 'character'. Some of the most effective political leaders have been poor role models (Churchill - alcoholic and racist; Kennedy - pathological adulterer; Bill Clinton - ditto). In the UK perhaps our most principled and decent leaders have turned out to be useless e.g. John Major, Neville Chamberlin. It was the scummier ones who made a real mark e.g. Lloyd George, Churchill, Wilson. You don't have to be a good person to be a good politician, in fact history would tell us that decency is a distinct handicap to being an effective states(wo)man.

So, how would one decide between Clinton and Christie? And how would one try to differentiate him- or herself from the other when the campaign got going?

Andalublue said:

1.)There's the problem, really. When a democratic system (and believe me, I'm not singling out the US here. It happens everywhere) provides the electorate with a choice between two candidates that are separated by virtually indistinguishable political differences, then really no one has any kind of choice. Could anyone tell me what the main political difference would be between Clinton and Christie?

2.) I'm not interested in what they call 'character'. Some of the most effective political leaders have been poor role models (Churchill - alcoholic and racist; Kennedy - pathological adulterer; Bill Clinton - ditto). In the UK perhaps our most principled and decent leaders have turned out to be useless e.g. John Major, Neville Chamberlin. It was the scummier ones who made a real mark e.g. Lloyd George, Churchill, Wilson. You don't have to be a good person to be a good politician, in fact history would tell us that decency is a distinct handicap to being an effective states(wo)man.

So, how would one decide between Clinton and Christie? And how would one try to differentiate him- or herself from the other when the campaign got going?

Click to expand...

1.) i agree i wish there were no parties to be honest but since that is super fantasy id take the just normal fantasy of making it mandatory that there are always three main candidates after the primaries and that is regulated through government and donations that go to ALL parties.

but again fantasy.

2.) i also agree "role model" is pretty meaningless to me too. I dont know if i could go as far as you but i do agree they should just be judged mostly on thier jobs/performance.

fornication and things like that are meaningless to the job

3.) The media and extremists will separate them by social issues, trust, connections and conformist or loose cannons IMO

Johnson vs Goldwater. Two men of substance.
Needless to say, being a classical liberal ("libertarian"), I think of Goldwater as one of the best, and of Johnson as evil incarnate (second only to Nixon, in our post-war history), but there's no denying that both were the "real thing". Nothing like the parade of empty suits we are witnessing now.

AGENT J said:

some info you might find interesting . . . . . . .
The 2012 Money Race: Compare the Candidates - NYTimes.com

Click to expand...

exactly why Obama won

JJB3333 said:

exactly why Obama won

Click to expand...

I dont follow?
no im not saying either of them won or lost based on the link i gave you im asking what in the link to you think is the reason obama won?

AGENT J said:

:alertPLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING!!!:alert

ok ok calm down, reading all the early obnoxious polls like this:
Poll: Clinton leads Christie in early look at 2016

Having Clinton vs Christie and Clinton winning got me thinking, what if that is what happens?
What if these are the two people who run against each other?

While i dont agree with them both on everything i do like things about both of them, I honestly believe that would be the two best candidates to run against each other or at least among the best in 50 years.

I can honestly say barring something extreme being in their running platforms i would be "OK" with either of them so im curious what others think especially since so many seem to like them both.

Now again this isnt about who is better between them or what individual stances you like about them but about if you think it would be the best two candidates or among the best we have had in 50 years? I think so.

i only have 10 spots in a poll so im just going to group the winning president with who ran against him, please vote for the times you think the presidential candidates were better, and no not ONE candidate better, but BOTH. When were there two candidate that were better?

I did this quick so i may have made mistakes in the years etc but who cares, here they are check all that apply when you see TWO candidates you think are better?
Please pick all the times you think the TWO candidates were BOTH better than Clinton vs Christie would be.

5 years (Obama vs McCain, Romney
6-13 years (W Bush vs Kerry, Gore)
14-21 years (Clinton vs Dole, H.W. Bush)
22-25 years (H.W. Bush vs Dukakis)
26-33 years (Reagan vs Mondale, Carter)
34-37 years (Cater vs Ford)
38-45 years ( Nixon vs Humphrey, McGovern)
46-49 years ( Johnson vs Goldwater)
50-54 years (Kennedy vs Nixon)
I love mashed potatoes . . . hmmmmmmmmmmmm

Poll to follow be patient

also please feel free to specify exactly which are better when the groups are together

View attachment 67156753

Click to expand...

I would choose JFK-Nixon as being better. The Nixon of 1960 wasn't even close to the Nixon of 1968 and after. I also like the Adlie Stevenson-Eisenhower match ups of the 8 previous years. IMO in the years 1952, 1958 and in 1960 this nation couldn't go wrong regardless of who was elected. It is also my opinion that the two worse match ups was the Carter-Ford and the Bush-Dukakis matchups. I noticed you left off Wallace, Anderson and Perot as third party choices that could have had a bearing on the election outcome.

I personally do not feel Clinton will be the nominee for the Democrats in 2016, a fresh face will be. I also think Christie being so out front now is a liability to him and he also might not make it. But I love these what if games.

AGENT J said:

I dont follow?
no im not saying either of them won or lost based on the link i gave you im asking what in the link to you think is the reason obama won?

Click to expand...

I think he was refering to 2008 when President Obama spent 750 million vs. 328 million for McCain, that was per ABC news. But I don't think that huge difference really was the deciding factor. I think it was more that the electorate were just fed up and tired of Republican rule. Time for a change and if McCain had a billion and one half dollars the results would have been the same.

AGENT J said:

I dont follow?
no im not saying either of them won or lost based on the link i gave you im asking what in the link to you think is the reason Obama won?

Click to expand...

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

Perotista said:

I would choose JFK-Nixon as being better. The Nixon of 1960 wasn't even close to the Nixon of 1968 and after. I also like the Adlie Stevenson-Eisenhower match ups of the 8 previous years. IMO in the years 1952, 1958 and in 1960 this nation couldn't go wrong regardless of who was elected. It is also my opinion that the two worse match ups was the Carter-Ford and the Bush-Dukakis matchups. 1.)I noticed you left off Wallace, Anderson and Perot as third party choices that could have had a bearing on the election outcome.

2.) I personally do not feel Clinton will be the nominee for the Democrats in 2016, a fresh face will be.
3.) I also think Christie being so out front now is a liability to him and he also might not make it.

4.) But I love these what if games.

Click to expand...

1.) i did think about adding them but i wanted it to be a two vs two and i also get even more unfamiliar with the 3rd guy as time goes.

2.) hmmm i think a fresh face is a big risk for them unless you just mean fresh on the national scene. Would Cory Booker qualify for fresh face or do you mean totally new.

I do however agree in certain ways that Im not willing to give her the push unless she makes it through the primaries, i know that seems obvious lol but what i mean to express by that is that its possible she may not get it, but i do think if she does she has it locked. But 2016 is so far away.

3.) I agree how many GOPers bash him that could cause him not to be the nominee but when it comes to "winning" and putting up qlitifed people i think that move would be dumb

4.) yeah they are fun at times

Perotista said:

I think he was refering to 2008 when President Obama spent 750 million vs. 328 million for McCain, that was per ABC news. But I don't think that huge difference really was the deciding factor. I think it was more that the electorate were just fed up and tired of Republican rule. Time for a change and if McCain had a billion and one half dollars the results would have been the same.

Click to expand...

i only posted vs Romney though ill have to wait and see what he says

also i agree with the bolded

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...

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.

AGENT J said:

1.) i did think about adding them but i wanted it to be a two vs two and i also get even more unfamiliar with the 3rd guy as time goes.

2.) hmmm i think a fresh face is a big risk for them unless you just mean fresh on the national scene. Would Cory Booker qualify for fresh face or do you mean totally new.

I do however agree in certain ways that Im not willing to give her the push unless she makes it through the primaries, i know that seems obvious lol but what i mean to express by that is that its possible she may not get it, but i do think if she does she has it locked. But 2016 is so far away.

3.) I agree how many GOPers bash him that could cause him not to be the nominee but when it comes to "winning" and putting up qlitifed people i think that move would be dumb

4.) yeah they are fun at times

Click to expand...

I hadn't thought of Booker, but Mark Warner, Brian Schweltzer and John Hickenlooper have crossed my mind. My dark horse or wild card might be Jay Nixon of Missouri. Notice I have 3 governors or ex-governors and only one senator. I had thought of Andrew Cuomo, but if you throw in Clinton, senator NY, Biden, DE, warren MA along with Booker NJ, these are all from the Northeast although Clinton may be a stretch. Perhaps some of my choices would end up being VP candidates. VA, MT, CO, and MO. Time will tell.

Perotista said:

I hadn't thought of Booker, but Mark Warner, Brian Schweltzer and John Hickenlooper have crossed my mind. My dark horse or wild card might be Jay Nixon of Missouri. Notice I have 3 governors or ex-governors and only one senator. I had thought of Andrew Cuomo, but if you throw in Clinton, senator NY, Biden, DE, warren MA along with Booker NJ, these are all from the Northeast although Clinton may be a stretch. Perhaps some of my choices would end up being VP candidates. VA, MT, CO, and MO. Time will tell.

Click to expand...

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

AGENT J said:

i only posted vs Romney though ill have to wait and see what he says

also i agree with the bolded

Click to expand...

Just the way I read it. It seems some people need a ton of excuses to justify defeat when the main reason is staring them right in the face.