• 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 Primary

REPUBLICANS ONLY PLEASE- YOUR TOP CHOICE FOR 2016 REPUBLICAN NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENT

  • Ted Cruz

    Votes: 8 10.0%

  • Rand Paul

    Votes: 23 28.8%

  • Marco Rubio

    Votes: 2 2.5%

  • Mike Huckabee

    Votes: 2 2.5%

  • Chris Christie

    Votes: 16 20.0%

  • Rick Perry

    Votes: 2 2.5%

  • Rick Santorum

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Jon Huntsman

    Votes: 11 13.8%

  • Paul Ryan

    Votes: 4 5.0%

  • Other (Please specify)

    Votes: 12 15.0%
  • Total voters
    80
Psychoclown said:
That said, I do have strong doubts that it would every be Paul. They seem to have very striking differences on foreign policy. After Paul made his filibuster about drones, Christie came out saying that libertarian views on foreign policy were dangerous. What I've heard from Christie makes me think he's a staunch neoconservative. I can't see him wanting a non-interventionist like Paul, nor can I see Paul being willing to go with Christie. But you never know. Politics do make strange bedfellows.
Click to expand...

And I agree that Rand wouldn't seem like an obvious candidate given some of their differences, etc. I guess I put more stock in Christie being a deft politician over some of their differences, and I think Rand is intelligent enough and pramgatic enough compared to his father to see the benefit of taking such a position. It also wouldn't be the first time where a candidate pick someone that many would've never guessed would've been a fit...see Sarah Palin in 2008.

Strangely, Palin in 2008 would be similar to why I'd like to see Rand in 2016...I would just pray that the campaign not bungle the situation like they did in 2008
 
Psychoclown said:
I agree with you that what someone does in a state election, isn't necessarily going to carry over to a national election. In a blue state like New Jersey, Christie can't afford to be seen as too far right, so moderates are going to be his likely running mates. On a national stage, Christie has the opposite issue. He can't be seen as too moderate by the base, so he's far more likely to nominate someone who can keep in the base loyal without alienating the moderates and centrists he'll need. He's smart enough to realize this and would likely pick someone who will play well to the right.

That said, I do have strong doubts that it would every be Paul. They seem to have very striking differences on foreign policy. After Paul made his filibuster about drones, Christie came out saying that libertarian views on foreign policy were dangerous. What I've heard from Christie makes me think he's a staunch neoconservative. I can't see him wanting a non-interventionist like Paul, nor can I see Paul being willing to go with Christie. But you never know. Politics do make strange bedfellows.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of bitterness between Christie and Paul.

The most conservative elected official I have seen Christie openly embrace is Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.
 
52 voted.

Rand Paul 32%
Jon Huntsman 17%
Chris Christie 17%
Ted Cruz 11%
Mike Huckabee 1%
Rick Perry 1%
Paul Ryan 1%
Rob Portman 1%
 
Oh my. Rand Paul leads the poll.

Hello President Hillary. :doh
 
Captain America said:
Oh my. Rand Paul leads the poll.

Hello President Hillary. :doh
Click to expand...

You're using the name of my favorite fictional superhero and you dare to say something so foolish? Do you hate America that much or do you think that many Americans are too foolish or that they hate America too?

Rand Paul is one of the few Senators who stand up to corrupted washington elite of single digit approval rating Congress. Rand Paul defends freedom. Hillary Clinton does not care about your freedom. She will take more power for herself. Every time she has ever been given a position of power, she is known for consistent ethics violations and then trying to cover it up - every single time.

If you nominate Christie, he will lose.

If you nominate Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, they will win. Because they will inspire the conservative base.

Hillary Clinton is also old and unhealthy and had a brain aneurism before leaving office as Secretary of State. People are tired of hearing her name already.

People think conservatives can't win in general elections but they said the same thing about Ronald Reagan. Just wait until the general election debates. Rand Paul would own Hillary Clinton.
 
Tothian said:
You're using the name of my favorite fictional superhero and you dare to say something so foolish? Do you hate America that much or do you think that many Americans are too foolish or that they hate America too?

Rand Paul is one of the few Senators who stand up to corrupted washington elite of single digit approval rating Congress. Rand Paul defends freedom. Hillary Clinton does not care about your freedom. She will take more power for herself. Every time she has ever been given a position of power, she is known for consistent ethics violations and then trying to cover it up - every single time.

If you nominate Christie, he will lose.

If you nominate Ted Cruz or Rand Paul, they will win. Because they will inspire the conservative base.

Hillary Clinton is also old and unhealthy and had a brain aneurism before leaving office as Secretary of State. People are tired of hearing her name already.

People think conservatives can't win in general elections but they said the same thing about Ronald Reagan. Just wait until the general election debates. Rand Paul would own Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...

Maybe. And then be an awful President.

One of the things about conservativism is that we also prize competence and experience. Presidents need to have significant Executive experience, or we will get... well, the same kind of incompetency and embarrassment from the last guy we put in who had less than a full term in the Senate under his belt. No thanks.

I like Rubio alot. I think he could be President and win. But Reagan wasn't great only because he was a conservative - he was great because he had also run California.

We need a governor. McDonnell is pretty much toast from the gifts' scandal, so that leaves Perry, Jindal, or Walker. Perry ran last time and made himself look like an idiot on national stage. Unless he is a helluva lot more erudite now (and I would sincerely doubt that), there is no way we want that guy trying to convince the American people that he knows how to put our house back in order after the last few years. That leaves Jindal and Walker - both of whom have impressive reform records, but neither of whom is really a "national face" right now. Jindal had one national speaking gig and screwed it up a bit, but not enough to have left an impression on anyone except the junkies (like us). Walker would pretty much guarantee mass cranial-explosion among the public union and their support sector; which would probably help him a lot in the primary, and be (at best) a wash in the General. He also comes with a lot more name-recognition and built-in support networks, especially with the Tea Party types, who enjoyed him winning repeatedly in Wisconsin quite a lot. Jindal is likely to generate less controversy, but might have the more impressive record overseeing the recovery from Katrina and BP Oil Spill. And imagine the fun of telling Democrats that every time they criticize him it's because they are racists :mrgreen:.
 
cpwill said:
Maybe. And then be an awful President.

One of the things about conservativism is that we also prize competence and experience. Presidents need to have significant Executive experience, or we will get... well, the same kind of incompetency and embarrassment from the last guy we put in who had less than a full term in the Senate under his belt. No thanks.

I like Rubio alot. I think he could be President and win. But Reagan wasn't great only because he was a conservative - he was great because he had also run California.

We need a governor. McDonnell is pretty much toast from the gifts' scandal, so that leaves Perry, Jindal, or Walker. Perry ran last time and made himself look like an idiot on national stage. Unless he is a helluva lot more erudite now (and I would sincerely doubt that), there is no way we want that guy trying to convince the American people that he knows how to put our house back in order after the last few years. That leaves Jindal and Walker - both of whom have impressive reform records, but neither of whom is really a "national face" right now. Jindal had one national speaking gig and screwed it up a bit, but not enough to have left an impression on anyone except the junkies (like us). Walker would pretty much guarantee mass cranial-explosion among the public union and their support sector; which would probably help him a lot in the primary, and be (at best) a wash in the General. He also comes with a lot more name-recognition and built-in support networks, especially with the Tea Party types, who enjoyed him winning repeatedly in Wisconsin quite a lot. Jindal is likely to generate less controversy, but might have the more impressive record overseeing the recovery from Katrina and BP Oil Spill. And imagine the fun of telling Democrats that every time they criticize him it's because they are racists :mrgreen:.
Click to expand...

You actually do make a good point there. Also, Rand Paul sort of sold out by accepting Obamacare. That's like accepting the mark of the beast.

Rubio is worse. While he does have the leadership experience of being the Florida House Speaker for 2 years (2007 - 2009), he actually supported the reauthorization of NDAA. So, no thanks.

Mike Huckabee is also good because he had nearly 10 years of being the Governor of Arkansas, serving 2 and a half terms. And not to mention being the Lieutenant Governor before then. And he also has one Presidential run under his belt in 2008, and was nearly tied for 2nd place with Mitt Romney. He's also still a prominent name both from his Presidential run and also from his show on Fox News. Oh and not to mention the 2008 endorsement from Chuck Norris.

Ted Cruz wasn't a Governor but he was the Texas Solicitor General for 5 years.

Perhaps even a Mike Huckabee/Ted Cruz ticket wouldn't be bad neither. But that ticket would be good in either order.
 
63 voted.

Rand Paul 30%
Ted Cruz 20%
Chris Christie 15%
Jon Huntsman 14%
Mike Huckabee 1%
Rick Perry 1%
Paul Ryan 1%
Rob Portman 1%
 
Tothian said:
63 voted.

Rand Paul 30%
Ted Cruz 20%
Chris Christie 15%
Jon Huntsman 14%
Mike Huckabee 1%
Rick Perry 1%
Paul Ryan 1%
Rob Portman 1%
Click to expand...

Rand Paul has remained the frontrunner of this poll, taking it away from the original frontrunner of this poll, and that was Jon Hunstman. Jon Huntsman and Chris Christie, and then just Chris Christie were runner up. But now Ted Cruz is that. With both Ted Cruz and Rand Paul combined, 32 out of the 63 voters in this poll - a slight majority, 50.79% to be exact - have voted for the GOP Senators who belong to the Tea Party.
 
64 voted.

Rand Paul 29%
Ted Cruz 20%
Chris Christie 15%
Jon Huntsman 14%
Mike Huckabee 1%
Rick Perry 1%
Paul Ryan 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
Rob Portman 1%

That makes 1 extra vote, and that was for Rick Santorum. This means out of 64 votes, 9 options plus 1 "Other" option (which 9 chose but I only saw 1 mention their other vote was for Rob Portman), and not one person voted for Marco Rubio.

But that's alright. He voted Yay on NDAA.
 
I voted for Paul Ryan. His ability to reach across the aisle to get compromise will be critical as the President, if he decides to run and get elected. His running mate could be Chris Christie, People like to argue that we need people with more conservative this conservative that. We need moderate candidates that will work for the good of the entire American population not just fringe extremes. Fiscally conservative and socially moderate that's How I feel and would love to see in my president and congressmen
 
Judging by the votes tabulated here, where unelectable candidates are leading this poll, the GOP will not be in power in 2016.

Ted Cruz?! Whether YOU like him or not, you surely should be able to recognize that he could not be elected president.
 
Steve Ja said:
I voted for Paul Ryan. His ability to reach across the aisle to get compromise will be critical as the President, if he decides to run and get elected. His running mate could be Chris Christie, People like to argue that we need people with more conservative this conservative that. We need moderate candidates that will work for the good of the entire American population not just fringe extremes. Fiscally conservative and socially moderate that's How I feel and would love to see in my president and congressmen
Click to expand...

Thanks for voting & sharing your thoughts!

And moderates will not get the conservative base. Not that "electability" is the key - standing up for what you believe in is key. I don't think people care which parties are working together if it's both to equally hurt the people. I think we need more politicians willing to stand up and fight for what is right. It's important that they argue these key important points out, of what works best in practice and why (not just sounds nice in theory).

For example, gun control is wrong in both theory and doesn't even work in practice. They could show data as evidence to support this. As well as real examples.

NSA spying, NDAA. Why these things aren't working.

The conservatives feel under-represented when politicians are not truly standing up for what is right.
 
Vodon said:
Judging by the votes tabulated here, where unelectable candidates are leading this poll, the GOP will not be in power in 2016.

Ted Cruz?! Whether YOU like him or not, you surely should be able to recognize that he could not be elected president.
Click to expand...

Why do people keep telling me that? What is WRONG with these people?!?! Do they not see that Ted Cruz is the best thing that has ever happened to the United States Senate? Yes I like him - he's my favorite Senator.

I haven't lost ALL hope for America yet. People can't be that unintelligent and hateful towards America to simply reject someone like Ted Cruz. Someone who will NOT support NDAA, Patriot Act, Gun Control, nor Obamacare (AKA Obamadontcare).

You all can have your false theories now, but once the debates start, Ted Cruz would own any candidate in a debate.
 
Tothian said:
Why do people keep telling me that? What is WRONG with these people?!?! Do they not see that Ted Cruz is the best thing that has ever happened to the United States Senate? Yes I like him - he's my favorite Senator.
Click to expand...

Your opinion is irrelevant in a presidential race. The fact is that the only chance in hell the GOP have of winning is by putting up a pragmatic moderate.

You all can have your false theories now, but once the debates start, Ted Cruz would own any candidate in a debate.
Click to expand...

False theories?

What's hard to understand? The average American doesn't think like you. They are hostile to Cruz and his grandiloquent Tea Party, especially after the Government shutdown.

The most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that only 14% of Americans had a favorable opinion of Cruz. In fact, the polls showed that as Cruz' name recognition increased, his favorability ratings dropped.
 
72 voted.

Rand Paul 29%
Ted Cruz 25%
Chris Christie 13%
Jon Huntsman 12%
Paul Ryan 2%
Mike Huckabee 1%
Rick Perry 1%
Rob Portman 1%
 
Tothian said:
Why do people keep telling me that? What is WRONG with these people?!?! Do they not see that Ted Cruz is the best thing that has ever happened to the United States Senate? Yes I like him - he's my favorite Senator.

I haven't lost ALL hope for America yet. People can't be that unintelligent and hateful towards America to simply reject someone like Ted Cruz. Someone who will NOT support NDAA, Patriot Act, Gun Control, nor Obamacare (AKA Obamadontcare).

You all can have your false theories now, but once the debates start, Ted Cruz would own any candidate in a debate.
Click to expand...

Ted Cruz is indeed a good representative of Texas in the US Senate, and got my vote for that position. But that alone does not translate into making him a viable national candidate for president.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Ted Cruz is indeed a good representative of Texas in the US Senate, and got my vote for that position. But that alone does not translate into making him a viable national candidate for president.
Click to expand...

First of all - THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for voting for Ted Cruz and blessing the United States with him in the Senate. I can't thank you enough for that.

And as for President - he is a viable candidate. He has the right ideology that America desperately needs. To balance the experience on the ticket, perhaps Mike Huckabee could be a good balance for the ticket since he had nearly 10 years as Governor, after being Lieutenant Governor for a few years, and also having a Presidential run before. So that would help balance things there.
 
Tothian said:
Thanks for voting & sharing your thoughts!

And moderates will not get the conservative base. Not that "electability" is the key - standing up for what you believe in is key. I don't think people care which parties are working together if it's both to equally hurt the people. I think we need more politicians willing to stand up and fight for what is right. It's important that they argue these key important points out, of what works best in practice and why (not just sounds nice in theory).

For example, gun control is wrong in both theory and doesn't even work in practice. They could show data as evidence to support this. As well as real examples.

NSA spying, NDAA. Why these things aren't working.

The conservatives feel under-represented when politicians are not truly standing up for what is right.
Click to expand...

Gotta be electable in order to win the general election IMO, it is more then simply democrats and republicans, you have independents and dozens of other political parties to try to attract as well. Not saying you have to go completely left or even total center, but likeability and electability wins elections. Just ask our Current POTUS. Fiscally conservative and socially moderate seems to be how Americans are trending as a whole, which definitely is not our current POTUS but look what he ran against? An over the hill out of touch maverick and a phoney bologna republican, who isn't really a republican. The base will vote for a Christie, or a more moderate republican before they allow a Clinton, or a Obamaish repeat. Gotta put the truely best candidates forward, No more McCains and Romneys.
I like hearing your thoughts though and you are not way off base
 
Steve Ja said:
Gotta be electable in order to win the general election IMO, it is more then simply democrats and republicans, you have independents and dozens of other political parties to try to attract as well. Not saying you have to go completely left or even total center, but likeability and electability wins elections. Just ask our Current POTUS. Fiscally conservative and socially moderate seems to be how Americans are trending as a whole, which definitely is not our current POTUS but look what he ran against? An over the hill out of touch maverick and a phoney bologna republican, who isn't really a republican. The base will vote for a Christie, or a more moderate republican before they allow a Clinton, or a Obamaish repeat. Gotta put the truely best candidates forward, No more McCains and Romneys.
I like hearing your thoughts though and you are not way off base
Click to expand...

I think Ted Cruz is electable. He's inspirational and he will fight for what is right.

Chris Christie is another McCain and Romney. The GOP needs to STOP NOMINATING MODERATES just because they're viewed as "more likely to win". It isn't only wrong morally, but also strategically too.

It isn't even WORTH electing a Republican if they're basically gonna be more like a Democrat anyway.
 
Tothian said:
I think Ted Cruz is electable. He's inspirational and he will fight for what is right.

Chris Christie is another McCain and Romney. The GOP needs to STOP NOMINATING MODERATES just because they're viewed as "more likely to win". It isn't only wrong morally, but also strategically too.

It isn't even WORTH electing a Republican if they're basically gonna be more like a Democrat anyway.
Click to expand...

There are very few differences between the two parties as it is. Being a supporter of Same sex marriage doesn't mean you are not conservative anymore then being pro guns means you are not a liberal. Gotta look at the entirety of a candidate. Christie seems to fit the bill nicely and I like Ryan even more. Cruz doesn't play well with others from what I ahve seen and that will hurt him. of course these are my opinions and there is still time for Cruz to change my mind if I can see a different side of him. I do love his ambitions and enthusiasm towards a fiscally responsible government
 
Steve Ja said:
There are very few differences between the two parties as it is. Being a supporter of Same sex marriage doesn't mean you are not conservative anymore then being pro guns means you are not a liberal. Gotta look at the entirety of a candidate. Christie seems to fit the bill nicely and I like Ryan even more. Cruz doesn't play well with others from what I ahve seen and that will hurt him. of course these are my opinions and there is still time for Cruz to change my mind if I can see a different side of him. I do love his ambitions and enthusiasm towards a fiscally responsible government
Click to expand...

The problem with Christie is that he is a known traitor to his own party. So the Republican base will not support him in the primary election. He turned his back on Mitt Romney in 2012. If you really listen to what he said. He also acted more committed towards the Democratic State Senate President than he was the Republican State Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean Jr. - who was the 2006 Republican Nominee for U.S. Senate - and the son of former NJ Governor Tom Kean, Sr. (1982 - 1990) - who the Sr. was also Chairman of the 9/11 Commission - and also was Christie's political mentor. Christie turned his back on them. He also supported a Democratic NJ State Senator for re-election in 2013.

He also didn't do as much as he could have done to help Steve Lonegan in the 2013 Special Election for U.S. Senate - just because they were primary opponents in 2009. While Steve Lonegan will tell you that Christie did a lot for him in 2013 - it is true he did some stuff - he also didn't endorse him in the primary earlier on and he also didn't do as much as he could have done in 2013.

Christie lead his 2013 general election opponent for Governor by like 30 to 40 percent margins. Steve Lonegan lagged by about 4 to 25 percent margins - but Christie was more concerned with his own race - which he was already going to win anyway. Just because he is buddy buddy with Cory Booker.

Christie didn't want to hurt his working relationship with people like Andrew Cuomo so he wasn't really concerned with finding a GOP opponent to run for NY Gov in 2014. Despite the fact that Christie is the RGA Chairman.

Christie is all about these public appearances with Bill Clinton but he will ignore someone like Ted Cruz or even will criticize Rand Paul.

Christie isn't about "playing nice" if it comes to other Republicans. He is just playing for the other team. He's infiltrating the GOP that way. If anything, Christie is closer to being a liberal.

Paul Ryan is fairly moderate. He just voted to raise the debt ceiling limit - which means the country will be in further debt now thanks to him and his deal with Senator Patty Murray.

We need a conservative to reduce taxes, reduce spending, balance the budget.

They need to audit the federal reserve - if not shut it down.
 
Tothian said:
The problem with Christie is that he is a known traitor to his own party. So the Republican base will not support him in the primary election. He turned his back on Mitt Romney in 2012. If you really listen to what he said. He also acted more committed towards the Democratic State Senate President than he was the Republican State Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean Jr. - who was the 2006 Republican Nominee for U.S. Senate - and the son of former NJ Governor Tom Kean, Sr. (1982 - 1990) - who the Sr. was also Chairman of the 9/11 Commission - and also was Christie's political mentor. Christie turned his back on them. He also supported a Democratic NJ State Senator for re-election in 2013.

He also didn't do as much as he could have done to help Steve Lonegan in the 2013 Special Election for U.S. Senate - just because they were primary opponents in 2009. While Steve Lonegan will tell you that Christie did a lot for him in 2013 - it is true he did some stuff - he also didn't endorse him in the primary earlier on and he also didn't do as much as he could have done in 2013.

Christie lead his 2013 general election opponent for Governor by like 30 to 40 percent margins. Steve Lonegan lagged by about 4 to 25 percent margins - but Christie was more concerned with his own race - which he was already going to win anyway. Just because he is buddy buddy with Cory Booker.

Christie didn't want to hurt his working relationship with people like Andrew Cuomo so he wasn't really concerned with finding a GOP opponent to run for NY Gov in 2014. Despite the fact that Christie is the RGA Chairman.

Christie is all about these public appearances with Bill Clinton but he will ignore someone like Ted Cruz or even will criticize Rand Paul.

Christie isn't about "playing nice" if it comes to other Republicans. He is just playing for the other team. He's infiltrating the GOP that way. If anything, Christie is closer to being a liberal.

Paul Ryan is fairly moderate. He just voted to raise the debt ceiling limit - which means the country will be in further debt now thanks to him and his deal with Senator Patty Murray.

We need a conservative to reduce taxes, reduce spending, balance the budget.

They need to audit the federal reserve - if not shut it down.
Click to expand...
Ryan's deal with Murray is to set a budget for the next two years, which can always be tweaked in the future as we all know. Raising the debt ceiling is a must if you value your dollar. I agree we need to balance the budget and stop spending out of control. Mr. Ryan is working towards this as is Mr. Cruz. Being a moderate is not as bad as it sounds. The base will support a Ryan and whoever he picks as his running mate. Difference is Ryan can win more independents and even moderate democrats that Mr. Cruz will have issues with, unless he picks a Christie or Ryan as his running mate. a Ryan/Cruz, or Cruz Ryan.. even a Ryan/Rubio could be highly viable. I'm starting to see your point on Christie and he reminds me a lot of Romney. He would need a strong conservative to have a shot now that I have read your valid points. Cruz/Christie can work. I still prefer Ryan over Cruz as the lead ticket and Cruz as a running mate. Ryan/Cruz can dominate.
 
Steve Ja said:
Ryan's deal with Murray is to set a budget for the next two years, which can always be tweaked in the future as we all know. Raising the debt ceiling is a must if you value your dollar. I agree we need to balance the budget and stop spending out of control. Mr. Ryan is working towards this as is Mr. Cruz. Being a moderate is not as bad as it sounds. The base will support a Ryan and whoever he picks as his running mate. Difference is Ryan can win more independents and even moderate democrats that Mr. Cruz will have issues with, unless he picks a Christie or Ryan as his running mate. a Ryan/Cruz, or Cruz Ryan.. even a Ryan/Rubio could be highly viable. I'm starting to see your point on Christie and he reminds me a lot of Romney. He would need a strong conservative to have a shot now that I have read your valid points. Cruz/Christie can work. I still prefer Ryan over Cruz as the lead ticket and Cruz as a running mate. Ryan/Cruz can dominate.
Click to expand...

Paul Ryan in his debate with VP Joe Biden - they each had different pro's and con's.

Ryan Pro's - Intelligent, level headed, serious
Ryan Con's - he didn't do enough to attack his opponent and turn people away from him. Ryan did what would sound nice in theory but would somewhat help for voters looking for sane candidates to vote for, but turn away voters looking for someone to excite them and interest them enough to get their attention.

Also a lot of the fiscal stuff was over a lot of voters heads that didn't understand it so well.

Biden pro's - Biden was viewed as owning Ryan in the debate, and dominating him, having been in elected office since the same year Ryan was born
Biden's con's - Biden was considered to be possibly drunk that night, and not taking it too seriously, and being too goofy and also very rude as well.

That also shaped the way people viewed Paul Ryan. Plus voters might also consider that Ryan couldn't even deliver his own home state in the 2012 election.

Ryan choosing Christie, and I would worry that Christie would betray Ryan - or not do things to really help Ryan but perhaps turn away Republican voters.

Christie choosing Cruz - I would not see that happening. Christie tends to favor his "friends" - the most conservative people I could ever see Christie choosing would be either Scott Walker or John Kasich. The obvious choice would actually be Susana Martinez, if not for the fact that she doesn't want it - and not in the sense that most future candidates say - but she she has a more legitimate reason, like taking care of her disabled sister. So I'm not sure who else Christie would be more likely to pick as a running mate - assuming he ever won the nod. Rob Portman, Peter King, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio.

I also could not see Cruz picking Christie. Cruz doesn't seem to care who he upsets - as long as he sticks to what he believes in.
 
Tothian said:
Paul Ryan in his debate with VP Joe Biden - they each had different pro's and con's.

Ryan Pro's - Intelligent, level headed, serious
Ryan Con's - he didn't do enough to attack his opponent and turn people away from him. Ryan did what would sound nice in theory but would somewhat help for voters looking for sane candidates to vote for, but turn away voters looking for someone to excite them and interest them enough to get their attention.

Also a lot of the fiscal stuff was over a lot of voters heads that didn't understand it so well.

Biden pro's - Biden was viewed as owning Ryan in the debate, and dominating him, having been in elected office since the same year Ryan was born
Biden's con's - Biden was considered to be possibly drunk that night, and not taking it too seriously, and being too goofy and also very rude as well.

That also shaped the way people viewed Paul Ryan. Plus voters might also consider that Ryan couldn't even deliver his own home state in the 2012 election.

Ryan choosing Christie, and I would worry that Christie would betray Ryan - or not do things to really help Ryan but perhaps turn away Republican voters.

Christie choosing Cruz - I would not see that happening. Christie tends to favor his "friends" - the most conservative people I could ever see Christie choosing would be either Scott Walker or John Kasich. The obvious choice would actually be Susana Martinez, if not for the fact that she doesn't want it - and not in the sense that most future candidates say - but she she has a more legitimate reason, like taking care of her disabled sister. So I'm not sure who else Christie would be more likely to pick as a running mate - assuming he ever won the nod. Rob Portman, Peter King, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio.

I also could not see Cruz picking Christie. Cruz doesn't seem to care who he upsets - as long as he sticks to what he believes in.
Click to expand...

Possible Cruz/Rubio could attract the latino vote and conservative base will be excited and fired up
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom