• 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
Well said. And I didn't know that Allen West supported the Patriot Act.

I don't know about the PA, but I know he voted for the NDAA ACT. And anyone who votes to give the President the authority to lock up citizens without them being charged or tried by a jury of their peers, does not get my vote.
 
Read somewhere Ted Cruz was born in Canada.
 
Yes...and is Cuban. He's working on renouncing his Canadian citizenship now. But I really think he's from Kenya...
Well if he was born in Canada, renouncing or not that would disqualify him would it not?
 
Well if he was born in Canada, renouncing or not that would disqualify him would it not?

The Constitution states: "No person except a natural born citizen...can become president of the United States." I remember when Barry Goldwater was running for president the SCOTUS ruled him eligible. He was born in the Arizona Territory before Arizona became a state. So perhaps it all depend on the term natural born citizen. I know any dependent born from a military family serving overseas or diplomats or anyone on official U.S. business is considered a natural born citizen.

Usually if someone gives birth while on vacation or on a job working overseas that child is also considered a natural born citizen if the parents were U.S. citizens and they register the kid with the Embassy. So if Cruz was born in Canada, it probably boils down to if his parents were citizens. If so, I have no doubt like Goldwater the courts would rule him to be a natural born citizen who just happened to be born outside of the United States. The constitution does not specify birth has to take place in the U.S.

So let the courts decide. My guess is Cruz will be considered a natural born citizen if his parents were citizens at the time.
 
Paul and Cruz both with double the votes of Christie? Let's hope the remainder of the GOP electorate is wiser than their DP counterparts.

I doubt if Paul or Cruz could win enough of the independent votes to win a general election. I do know today they couldn't but the election is over 2 years off. A lot can change, who knows what events will happen between now and then or what issues will be hot then. It is a crap shoot and this far out, polls are basically meaningless. Although I love to cite them.

Who ever the Republicans nominate, their candidate will have to pick up approximately 55% of the independent vote to win the popular vote. In the latest party identification/affiliation polls show the Democrats at 30% of the electorate and the Republicans at 24%. That is a huge hill to climb. In November of 2012 those numbers stood at 35% Democratic and 30% Republican and Romney last by 4 points. Just about the difference in party affiliation as independents split their votes roughly 50-50 per the exit polls. Hence my figure of around winning 55% of the independent vote. I really do not think Cruz or Paul could pull 50%, but that is my opinion and if I will see if I can find some numbers in the 2016 polls all ready taken to verify that.
 
The Constitution states: "No person except a natural born citizen...can become president of the United States." I remember when Barry Goldwater was running for president the SCOTUS ruled him eligible. He was born in the Arizona Territory before Arizona became a state. So perhaps it all depend on the term natural born citizen. I know any dependent born from a military family serving overseas or diplomats or anyone on official U.S. business is considered a natural born citizen.

Usually if someone gives birth while on vacation or on a job working overseas that child is also considered a natural born citizen if the parents were U.S. citizens and they register the kid with the Embassy. So if Cruz was born in Canada, it probably boils down to if his parents were citizens. If so, I have no doubt like Goldwater the courts would rule him to be a natural born citizen who just happened to be born outside of the United States. The constitution does not specify birth has to take place in the U.S.

So let the courts decide. My guess is Cruz will be considered a natural born citizen if his parents were citizens at the time.
Will be fun to watch
 
Will be fun to watch

Exactly. Even if Cruz is declared a natural born citizen, I think he might be able to win the Republican nomination, but not a general election.
 
Exactly. Even if Cruz is declared a natural born citizen, I think he might be able to win the Republican nomination, but not a general election.
Gonna be tough for any republican right now to win the general election, unless they can pull some minority votes.. Rubio?
 
Gonna be tough for any republican right now to win the general election, unless they can pull some minority votes.. Rubio?

Check this out, I did work on a simulated generic presidential election and posted it this morning. I was using the party affiliation numbers provided by gallup and a lot of research in how people vote. If the election was held today the republicans might just win. But once names are added, all bets are off.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs...ric-presidential-race-results-5-jan-2014.html
 
Paul and Cruz both with double the votes of Christie? Let's hope the remainder of the GOP electorate is wiser than their DP counterparts.

As promised

I found this inside a PPP poll. Favorable ratings Independent Voters only:

Name….Favorable Unfavorable Not Sure
Christie……40%............28%............25%
Hillary……..34%............55%............10%
Cruz…………29%............38%............33%
Paul………….40%...........33%............27%

I am surprised to see Christie and Paul both have independents approving of them at 40%.

But when it comes to voting in a match up there is both, all and independents only.
All Christie 45% Hillary 42%.......Independents only Christie 49% Hillary 26%
All Cruz 41% Hillary 49%............Independents only Cruz 43% Hillary 40%
All Paul 43% Hillary 48%............Independents only Paul 47% Hillary 37%

It looks like I may be wrong about independents. Here is the poll if anyone wants to go inside it.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2013/PPP_Release_National_1218.pdf
 
As promised

I found this inside a PPP poll. Favorable ratings Independent Voters only:

Name….Favorable Unfavorable Not Sure
Christie……40%............28%............25%
Hillary……..34%............55%............10%
Cruz…………29%............38%............33%
Paul………….40%...........33%............27%

I am surprised to see Christie and Paul both have independents approving of them at 40%.

But when it comes to voting in a match up there is both, all and independents only.
All Christie 45% Hillary 42%.......Independents only Christie 49% Hillary 26%
All Cruz 41% Hillary 49%............Independents only Cruz 43% Hillary 40%
All Paul 43% Hillary 48%............Independents only Paul 47% Hillary 37%

It looks like I may be wrong about independents. Here is the poll if anyone wants to go inside it.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2013/PPP_Release_National_1218.pdf

That looks like an outlier though. McClatchy/Marist, CNN, and Quinnipiac all have Clinton leading Cruz with independents by double digits. The previous PPP poll had Clinton up by 19 with them too.
 
Gonna be tough for any republican right now to win the general election, unless they can pull some minority votes.. Rubio?


That'll be really transparent to gather hispanic votes by nomninating Rubio. It's like saying, "Hey, so you don't agree with our platform, but we nominated a hispanic so..." That's a bit like saying, how can I be racist, I have a black friend? lol


I don't think just by making one of them the poster boy for Republicanism (because it sure as hell isn't conservatism!) that it'll garner many, if any, votes.
 
Exactly. Even if Cruz is declared a natural born citizen, I think he might be able to win the Republican nomination, but not a general election.

I think that would be an ideal general election matchup. Hillary and socialism vs Cruz and conservatism. Otherwise it would be Hillary and socialism vs <insert RINOS name here> and less socialism. Americans need a clear choice. Every 4 or 8 years we play ping pong between the 2 parties hoping for a change. When is the last time America had a genuine conservative candidate. Ohh, that's right, Raygun. And we all know how that election turned out!

It would greatly behoove the GOP to nominate a conservative IF they want to win. While Hillary has name recognition going for her, she is still a liberal, and no country has ever taxed itself into prosperity and thrived by adopting progressive policies.
 
That looks like an outlier though. McClatchy/Marist, CNN, and Quinnipiac all have Clinton leading Cruz with independents by double digits. The previous PPP poll had Clinton up by 19 with them too.

This was the last one I could find that broke down how independents view Cruz and Paul. It was published on 18 December. CNN had one published on the 26th of December but CNN didn't break theirs down into how independents viewed Cruz and Paul. In the CNN one Christie leads Hillary 48-46 instead of 45-42. CNN had Clinton leading Cruz 57-39 instead of 49-41 and Clinton lead Paul 54-41 in the CNN one instead of 48-43. But I was looking for a break down of independents which the latest poll, CNN didn't have so I went with PPP.

But I am not too worried about the discrepancies with the two polls concerning Cruz and Paul this far out. It is interesting that both give Christie the lead. CNN polled 950 RV with an error margin of plus or minus 3 points, PPP polled 1,316 RV with an error margin of plus or minus 2.7%. So both polls are not that far off from each other if you factor in the plus or minus error margins. Cruz could actually be at 42% in the CNN poll where PPP has him at 41 and he could be at 39% in the PPP poll with the margin error factored. Pretty close.

This is why I like the way RCP averages all the polls out together. They have 14 polls factored in when RCP does the Approval ratings and 11 when they do their favor/against in health care. This eliminate the wild swings and the margin errors pretty much. One poll can be way off, but when you average 5 or 6 or more, they come pretty close to the money.

Using RCP polls for December, 4 of them Christie leads Clinton by 0.7%, Clinton leads Cruz by 15 points and Clinton leads Paul by 10 points. I would put more stock in the averages I just listed instead of any single poll.
 
I think that would be an ideal general election matchup. Hillary and socialism vs Cruz and conservatism. Otherwise it would be Hillary and socialism vs <insert RINOS name here> and less socialism. Americans need a clear choice. Every 4 or 8 years we play ping pong between the 2 parties hoping for a change. When is the last time America had a genuine conservative candidate. Ohh, that's right, Raygun. And we all know how that election turned out!

It would greatly behoove the GOP to nominate a conservative IF they want to win. While Hillary has name recognition going for her, she is still a liberal, and no country has ever taxed itself into prosperity and thrived by adopting progressive policies.

Yeah, but whoever runs in 2016 will not be facing Jimmy Carter who had a misery index of 20 or higher and hostages held by Iran. Who ever the Republicans had nominated in 1980 would have won going away, a Dole, even a Ford, you just place a name in the blank and he would have won. It was one of those elections it didn't matter who the candidate was. The Republican would have won. Much like the election of 2008, the Democrats could have run just about anybody and won that one.
 
I would love for Rand Paul to be President. Some top contenders I wouldn't mind are Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Ben Carson, with Allen West as Secretary of Defense. However, someone such as West who voted to lock up US citizens indefinitely, I would never put in a position of too much authority.

I think the GOP will be making the biggest mistake of their life if they nominate a RINO like Christie, Bush or even Rubio. Sure a Christie will galvanize and lure a portion of moderates, but also he would turn away a key segment of the Republican voting block- real conservatives and libertarians, who are sick and tired of voting against someone, and now are searching 3rd party tickets.

I think the key will be to portray 2 distinctly different agendas to the American ppl. Clinton and socialism will be on 1 side of the ticket, and you don't want Christie and less socialism on the other side. Cruz or Paul would represent the biggest difference in ideals.

Yes, as well as guaranteeing the next president will again be a Democrat.
 
That'll be really transparent to gather hispanic votes by nomninating Rubio. It's like saying, "Hey, so you don't agree with our platform, but we nominated a hispanic so..." That's a bit like saying, how can I be racist, I have a black friend? lol


I don't think just by making one of them the poster boy for Republicanism (because it sure as hell isn't conservatism!) that it'll garner many, if any, votes.
I agree. I was going more off his public support for immigration reform.
 
The only two I would ever consider voting for on that list are Chris Christie and Jon Huntsman. I would absolutely never vote for Cruz or Paul under any circumstances. They're both lunatics.
 
Last measured popularity:

Ted Cruz 23% fav, 42% unfav., 21% never heard of, 15% no opinion (October 2013)
Rand Paul 30% fav, 33% unfav., 37% haven't heard enough, 1% refused (September 2013)
Marco Rubio 26% fav, 25% unfav., 49% no opinion (June 2013)
Mike Huckabee 47% fav, 34% unfav., 18% unsure (May 2011)
Chris Christie 40% fav, 22% unfav., 36% haven't heard enough, 2% refused (September 2013)
Rick Perry 27% fav, 51% unfav., 11% never heard of, 11% unsure (January 2012)
Rick Santorum 35% fav, 42% unfav., 13% never heard of, 9% no opinion (March 2012)
John Huntsman 25% fav, 25% unfav., 31% never heard of, 15% can't say (January 2012)
Paul Ryan 40% fav, 32% unfav., 19% never heard of, 8% no opinion (June 2013)


Hillary Clinton 59% fav, 37% unfav., 0% never heard of, 3% unsure (October 2013)


Sorry, but Hillary Clinton is by far the most popular of these politicians and she has one huge ace up her sleeve to play (hubby Bill Clinton)
 
According to current polls from Real Clear Politics, only a Christie - Clinton match up does not predict a huge Clinton victory

RealClearPolitics - 2016 Presidential Race

In the democratic race up to now, Hillary is up an average 55% over the challenger after her in the democratic race (Biden)

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - 2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination

With the republicans Christie is the front runner with 18.8% on average with Paul coming in second with 12.6%.
The last fox poll shows:
Christie 16%
Paul 11%
Cruz 12%
Ryan 12%
Bush 12%
Rubio 8%
Walker 6%

Looks like it is going to be a republican slug fest in the primaries all over.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination
 
The only two I would ever consider voting for on that list are Chris Christie and Jon Huntsman. I would absolutely never vote for Cruz or Paul under any circumstances. They're both lunatics.

Reasonable policies sound crazy to crazy ppl.

Peter King Sorry said:
Slick Willy can be as huge hindrance as well as a help. He's getting of age where he will say just about anything without thinking through the consequences first.

But you're right, she has name recognition, and everybody wishes to return to the good old days of the 90s. The Democratic primary will be cake for Hillary, but the General is where she will have problems. Can you even begin to imagine the campaign ads the GOP will run against her?


I think the Republican party, as it is known today, will look totally different in 2016. It is on the verge of transformation, not unlike the former WHIG party, whom was split between pro and anti slavery factions. Now the tea party and RINOS are split between conservatism and socialism factions.

I have a feeling that we see RINOS like McCain, Graham, Rubio, Christie, etc. pizzed off at the tea party because they are so used to getting all the GOP vote, and now all of a sudden they are taken to task on their conservative credentials. They now have to earn the GOP vote, and they don't like it 1 iota.
 
Reasonable policies sound crazy to crazy ppl.

Peter King Sorry said:
Slick Willy can be as huge hindrance as well as a help. He's getting of age where he will say just about anything without thinking through the consequences first.

But you're right, she has name recognition, and everybody wishes to return to the good old days of the 90s. The Democratic primary will be cake for Hillary, but the General is where she will have problems. Can you even begin to imagine the campaign ads the GOP will run against her?


I think the Republican party, as it is known today, will look totally different in 2016. It is on the verge of transformation, not unlike the former WHIG party, whom was split between pro and anti slavery factions. Now the tea party and RINOS are split between conservatism and socialism factions.

I have a feeling that we see RINOS like McCain, Graham, Rubio, Christie, etc. pizzed off at the tea party because they are so used to getting all the GOP vote, and now all of a sudden they are taken to task on their conservative credentials. They now have to earn the GOP vote, and they don't like it 1 iota.

I am not sure Hillary will win even the Democratic nomination. I look for a new face. Hillary does have name recognition and that puts here several football field ahead of any prospective rival at this time. But she has a problem, almost as many people view her unfavorable as favorable. 47% of all people have a favorable view of her, 45% disapprove of her. Her big advantage will be in the democratic primaries where 83% of all Democrats view her favorably vs. 11% who don't. But among independents who usually decide national elections, only 34% of all independents view Hillary favorably while 55% view her unfavorably.

If this holds there is no way she can win the independent vote. But she doesn't have to. She would need only around 45% of the independent vote as the Democratic base is much larger than the Republican one. 30 vs. 24. So the questions a numbers guy would ask can her 34% low favorability rating transform into the 45% of the independent vote she needs to win? The answer is yes, but it depends on who she is running against. It is like Missouri's senate race in 2012. How can a sitting senator, McCaskill with a very high 61% disapproval rating win? Simple, the Republicans nominate someone who has a 70% disapproval rating. McCaskill won. Candidates matter, in Missouri's case the Republicans threw away a sure win by nominating Aiken. The same thing can happen in 2016. But that is your problem.
 
Last measured popularity:

Ted Cruz 23% fav, 42% unfav., 21% never heard of, 15% no opinion (October 2013)
Rand Paul 30% fav, 33% unfav., 37% haven't heard enough, 1% refused (September 2013)
Marco Rubio 26% fav, 25% unfav., 49% no opinion (June 2013)
Mike Huckabee 47% fav, 34% unfav., 18% unsure (May 2011)
Chris Christie 40% fav, 22% unfav., 36% haven't heard enough, 2% refused (September 2013)
Rick Perry 27% fav, 51% unfav., 11% never heard of, 11% unsure (January 2012)
Rick Santorum 35% fav, 42% unfav., 13% never heard of, 9% no opinion (March 2012)
John Huntsman 25% fav, 25% unfav., 31% never heard of, 15% can't say (January 2012)
Paul Ryan 40% fav, 32% unfav., 19% never heard of, 8% no opinion (June 2013)


Hillary Clinton 59% fav, 37% unfav., 0% never heard of, 3% unsure (October 2013)


Sorry, but Hillary Clinton is by far the most popular of these politicians and she has one huge ace up her sleeve to play (hubby Bill Clinton)

December 2013 Last measured popularity and election results:

Ted Cruz 26% fav, 40% unfav. Election match up Clinton 49% Cruz 41%
Rand Paul 34% fav, 39% unfav) Election match up Clinton 48% Paul 43%
Mike Huckabee 38% fav, 35% unfav. Election match up Clinton 48% Huckabee 42%
Chris Christie 43% fav, 31% unfav. Election match up Christie 45% Clinton 42%
Jeb Bush 31% fav, 41% unfav. Election match up Clinton 48% Bush 43%

Hillary Clinton 47% fav, 45% unfav
John Kerry 36% fav, 44% unfav.
Elizabeth Warren 23% Fav, 27% unfav.

All these polls are dynamic and they continue to change. The others on your list is not being polled anymore. But on the Democratic side John Kerry and Elizabeth Warren are now. The poll matched these two against Christie but none of the others. Christie beat Kerry 46-35 and Warren 49-33.

I have seen no January polls, so these are the latest numbers. I suspect the ACA is causing the Democrats to lose support, especially among indpendents and has done so for the last two months. As of today it looks like the Republicans have a 50-50 change of gaining the senate in November. But of course all this depends on them nominating candidate capable of winning and no more Aiken’s or Mourdock’s which I highly doubt the GOP has that much sense.
 
Back
Top Bottom