• 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!

Suppose the best Democrat and best Republican POTUS candidates are out..?

If neither Clinton nor Christie are candidates for POTUS in '16, which party wins?

  • The Democrats will win

    Votes: 20 83.3%
  • The Republicans will win

    Votes: 2 8.3%
  • A third party candidate will win

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • By 2016 President Obama will have successfully destroyed America. There will be no election.

    Votes: 2 8.3%

  • Total voters
    24
LOL! Yeah, and you are aware that people cast these things called "votes" for candidates, right? If maps decided the elections why would there even be a day to vote? And when the people (part of those demographic maps), especially independent voters 'break' one way or the other, that changes the model. Or when a third party candidate comes along, that too skews that map as well. And then of course there is always a margin of people who just may not vote for the candidate from the party they are registered with. Many, many variables that occur state by state and district by district that may keep a candidate in play. Like in 2004 when George W. Bush took a higher percentage of Hispanic votes than the model showed.

I don't have crystal ball and neither do you. But when it comes to Hispanic voters they are more interested in jobs and education than they are in immigration issues--- they are here for opportunity. So with that being said, and as I alluded to in my earlier post, the economy in 2016 may have more to do with the outcome than any red and blue map you are looking at in 2014. That is how it may work. To quote Clinton's adviser James Carvill, "it's the economy stupid!"

People do not directly vote for candidates. People vote for electors. WHen a candidate gets enough electors, they win. It is for example possible to win the election and not have the most popular votes, and this has in fact happened. You are welcome for the history lesson.

I was not aware that the results of the 2016 election are already a "founded claim".

You made guesses based on no evidence. I supplies guesses based on the best evidence available. There is a large, unsubtle difference between the two.
 
It would depend on who actually runs, no matter which party you're talking about. Right now, I don't want any party to win because the ideology of all of the parties suck.
 
People do not directly vote for candidates. People vote for electors. WHen a candidate gets enough electors, they win. It is for example possible to win the election and not have the most popular votes, and this has in fact happened. You are welcome for the history lesson.

Yes, thank you C.O. I am aware of the process! But you ignored my point in your effort in to teach an elementary school lesson. Is it your suggestion then that in the upcoming 2016 election that 'faithless electors' will change the outcome of the election? Is that your point? Because that has never happened in our history---- look it up. You are welcome in advance for the history lesson.


You made guesses based on no evidence. I supplies guesses based on the best evidence available. There is a large, unsubtle difference between the two.

I'm sorry I didn't realize that this was supposed to be a "guessing" contest. Like let's "guess" on which candidate will be the best president despite the "best evidence available" that they are completely unqualified?
 
too many factors to make an accurate prediction at this point. the only thing we know for sure is that America seems to exhibit partisan fatigue after eight years of a president. the exception to this rule usually produces a one term president.

part of it will also depend on how much emphasis the Republicans put on social issues, and how the midterms turn out.
 
Had to vote for option 4 just for the Lolz.

Althought it should read, "By 2016 Obama will have named himself dictator for life of the United Soviet Socialist States of Amerika"

In seriousness, I think a Republican wins in 2016.
 
If neither Christie, nor Hilary run in 2016, I would have to give the edge to the Democrats, unless they nominate Biden, in which case, The Republicans win. Personally, I like Biden, but he's not a good campaigner and the "one-liner" mentality of much of the electorate will give the GOP to much fodder to play to their advantage. If a relatively no-name Democrat runs against any of the rest of the bad GOP lot, I think the Dems win. The GOP just doesn't have anyone out there in the current field that isn't a wacko....and I think most of America recognizes that.
 
What about a Ryan/Paul ticket vs Clinton, Biden or both?
 
First of all, I disagree with your characterization of Christie and Hillary being the best candidates. Either of them.

Be that as it may, though, if it happens that both are out I'm sure each party will come up with another name. Who that might be, I have no idea. In regard to which party then has a better chance of winning, my answer will be the same whether the "best" candidates are running or someone else: The Democrats. They always have a better chance because they have the media in their pants, they don't hesitate to lie, spin and cheat and because this country is full of a bunch of people who respond to the mass-marketing-type of campaigns the Democrats excel at.

It really takes some extraordinary circumstances to give the Republican a reasonable shot, but the Democrats seem to be doing their best to give it this time around. But it's still early. Ask this question again a year from now.
 
A couple of years ago we were thinking 2016 would be Chris Christie vs. Hillary. However, today its looks at least plausible both Clinton and Christie might not be candidates.

My question is if both Clinton and Christie are out, which party has the best chance at winning the White House in 2016? I know, this poll isn't going to be anywhere near accurate has party loyalists tend to throw honesty out the window with questions like this and instead use the opportunity to make their side look strongest for partisan reasons but I thought I's at least ask and see what supporting comments would be offered....all with a grain of salt, of course.

My question is, why would you label Clinton or Christie as "best"? They are not even the "best" of those who might run. Being the most popular rarely, if ever, means someone is the "best".
 
There must be thousands of Americans who would make better presidents than the last two we've had, or most of the possible candidates we know of now.
 
not to sound too horribly offensive, but when the dust settles, the democrats have more candidates which are acceptable than the republicans. There are just too many republicans with bad baggage which will all have to fight themselves through a primary process which will increase the bad baggage they have for the general public/the independents.

Let us be honest, the primary battle of the republicans will force every candidate to swing to the right as much as possible and they will have a real problem defeating that image at the general election.
 
Back
Top Bottom