Who would you vote for in a republican primary?

TurtleDude said:

Plus he's really wealthy and the envy-as a virtue crowd-will whine about that

Click to expand...

Only if the candidate is a Republican. A wealthy Democrat makes all the difference in the world.

Gringo allstar said:

After reading this thread it's seems most people are all in for "more of the same"'. Gee that's really going to right the ship and get us back on course. I noticed not one mention of a candidate who stands for the constitution? And that, not " he needs to lose weight" or " he might be a creationist"' is what we should be focusing on.

Click to expand...

"More of the same", to me, is going to be the reality check for any person voting. Once they get into office, you'll see even more "more of the same." That's just reality biting true believers in the ass every four years, like it should.

Geoist said:

No, as indicated by your own source, it is not.



Essentially what you are saying here is that the definitions of words do not matter. There is a big difference between a non-interventionist and an isolationist.

Click to expand...

Say what you wish but the wiki page even has reference to scholars disputable definitions over the word. Ill take their word over yours

I would vote for Jeb Bush. I voted for him three times running for Governor when I lived in Florida. He is the first Republican governor in the state's history to serve two full four year terms and he left office with a high approval rating. He could carry Florida, a swing state.

upsideguy said:

How? Do tell, tell us specifically how we would be better off. I appreciate your fantasy here, but what would be different after 21 months than we experience today?

Click to expand...

Well, partly because his views on income taxes, corporate taxes, over-regulation, and energy production would have driven us to a much better economy and that would have helped everyone of all races, genders, and economic backgrounds. And that would have expanded the size of the economic pie for everyone. That would mean a bigger more dynamic private sector and that would in turn provide more money to the government, so it would have been a win-win for both Democrats and Republicans.

Porchev said:

Well, partly because his views on income taxes, corporate taxes, over-regulation, and energy production would have driven us to a much better economy and that would have helped everyone of all races, genders, and economic backgrounds. And that would have expanded the size of the economic pie for everyone. That would mean a bigger more dynamic private sector and that would in turn provide more money to the government, so it would have been a win-win for both Democrats and Republicans.

Click to expand...

Certainly would be super-human results to have done that in less than two years, especially with a totally dysfunctional congress. Moreover, he had NO "dynamic" plans, so there would be no "dynamic" private sector. In fact, so "undynamic" was Romney's economic plan that his "bold" promise was that he would lower the unemployment rate to 6% after 4 years in office. It was done in less than 2 years under Obama.

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlo...d-campaign-promise-achieved-bypresident-obama

I appreciate how you believe Romney would be delivering warm apple pie ala-mode to every home and that our lawns would be so much greener under Romney's political green thumb, but the reality is that things would not be much different today with Romney or Obama.

upsideguy said:

Certainly would be super-human results to have done that in less than two years, especially with a totally dysfunctional congress. Moreover, he had NO "dynamic" plans, so there would be no "dynamic" private sector. In fact, so "undynamic" was Romney's economic plan that his "bold" promise was that he would lower the unemployment rate to 6% after 4 years in office. It was done in less than 2 years under Obama.

Mitt Romney's bold campaign promise, achieved by...President Obama | Arkansas Blog | Arkansas news, politics, opinion, restaurants, music, movies and art

I appreciate how you believe Romney would be delivering warm apple pie ala-mode to every home and that our lawns would be so much greener under Romney's political green thumb, but the reality is that things would not be much different today with Romney or Obama.

Click to expand...

Obama has been encouraging the dysfunctional Congress. Romney would want to work with both parties. Obama and Reid have been ignoring almost everything coming from the Republican side of the aisle and that has not been helpful to the country.

My concern is who will be faithful to the Constitution and be committed to limiting and downsizing the federal government. Among the likely candidates, I will be supporting Paul. I could also support Cruz and Carson though.

Also, the list leaves out people obviously positioning themselves to run, including Huckabee, Santorum, Rubio, Kasich, Jindal, Perry, and Walker.

Ockham said:

Paul Ryan or Rand Paul for me.

Click to expand...

They really aren't that similar. Ryan is a big government Republican who has been portrayed otherwise by the liberal media, but is a moderate nonetheless.

Bigfoot 88 said:

They really aren't that similar. Ryan is a big government Republican who has been portrayed otherwise by the liberal media, but is a moderate nonetheless.

Click to expand...

Paul Ryan is a plausible POTUS. Rand Paul is a punchline looking for the set up.

Jack Hays said:

Paul Ryan is a plausible POTUS. Rand Paul is a punchline looking for the set up.

Click to expand...

Disagree. Paul is an appealing general election candidate because of his reasonable views on foreign policy, justice, and civil liberties. As an opponent of corporate welfare and a non-career politician, he is also appealing to the middle class.

Ryan would be painted as pro-rich, pro-war, George W. Bush Republican and it would be correct, and he would lose.

Bigfoot 88 said:

Disagree. Paul is an appealing general election candidate because of his reasonable views on foreign policy, justice, and civil liberties. As an opponent of corporate welfare and a non-career politician, he is also appealing to the middle class.

Ryan would be painted as pro-rich, pro-war, George W. Bush Republican and it would be correct, and he would lose.

Click to expand...

In foreign affairs Rand Paul is an irresponsible loon, and a know-nothing. If he were the Repub nominee I would support Hillary Clinton.

Jack Hays said:

In foreign affairs Rand Paul is an irresponsible loon, and a know-nothing.

Click to expand...

Even as Senator Paul has try to wrap himself in the "Realist" label, his views remain far closer to neo-isolationism than Realism. If one examines his budget proposal, he sought to freeze U.S. foreign aid at $5 billion per year (p.46). Moreover, even as he correctly talked about some of the ineffective applications of foreign aid, absent from his discussion were conceptions of the national interest, balance of power, and strategic allies, all of which are hallmarks of the Realist school. Also absent were concrete discussions about the nation's major foreign policy challenges and opportunities. His budget discussion was largely an argument against foreign aid as a rationalization for maintaining a token amount. IMO, whether a candidate is from the Liberal Internationalist, Realist (my preference), or Neoconservative schools, that candidate almost certainly has a more well-conceived approach to foreign policy than Senator Paul.

If one looks at Paul's proposed 2014-2023 defense outlays (p.93), one finds a cumulative figure of approximately $5.584 trillion. That's approximately 19% less than President Obama's latest budget for the same timeframe (p.8). Put another way, President Obama proposed spending approximately $1.23 on defense for every dollar Paul would spend. Recognition of the importance of power, of course, is an essential element of the Realist school.

Paul's budget concept articulates where he stands. His recent attempts to package himself as a Realist in the tradition of many past GOP Presidents rings hollow once one examines his proposed budget allocations.

Zyphlin said:

Huntsman "accepting science" is hardly what did him in.

Click to expand...

True, what killed Huntsman is that he refused to pander to the crazy. He staked his last stand in an area known for its moderate, more secular Republicans. That was fatal. You cannot win the GOP nomination unless you pander to the crazy, that's why Romney abandoned so many of his previous positions. He knew he couldn't follow Huntsman's model of being a reasonable adult. The science part was just part of Huntsman refusing to pander.

If you're going to point to his comments on global warming and evolution as part of what did him in it'd be more accurate to point at the way in which he went about speaking of it. Throughout his entire campaign he made it a point to be very neutral in tone towards Obama and the Democrats, not overly aggressive, trying to remain "positive"....and then all of a sudden his first outburst of seeming annoyance or anger or energy is in a belittling fashion towards other individuals running/part of the base he's attempting to attract.

Click to expand...

Huntsman tried to run a positive campaign as a responsible reasonable adult. Johnson tried to do that as well. Obviously both were cast into the cold. The science part is merely a manifestation of the bigger problems both had in trying to reach out to the people who they needed. The GOP primaries give power to the extremist of the Republican party, the kind that thinks that temperatures globally haven't changed at all, that the President determines the price of oil, and that the world is still a unipolar place. Huntsman tried to be an educated adult and it failed. Predictable.

In an election year where the base was desperately looking for a fighter it was unwise to come out as an even keeled measured individual. It was even more unwise to allow your one moment of looking like you COULD be a fighter to come about being aimed at your own side.

It was one of NUMEROUS missteps his campaign made during the primaries that just left me shaking my head.

Click to expand...

But you cannot be a reasonable adult and be the fighter the GOP primary voters wanted. Look at who won the nomination. A candidate who abandoned position after position to get votes, only to abandon the very position he promised the GOP primary voters. That is not the actions of an reasonable adult who makes Clinton look principled.

Porchev said:

Obama has been encouraging the dysfunctional Congress. Romney would want to work with both parties. Obama and Reid have been ignoring almost everything coming from the Republican side of the aisle and that has not been helpful to the country.

Click to expand...

This. And the difference I saw between Romney and Obama in 2012 was that Romney had a proven history of working with the other party when he was top dog. There are few states if any that have such a disparity in party representation in the state legislature as Massachusetts, yet Romney managed to compromise to death in order to get things through, including that oh so famous healthcare law in that state.

Obama, on the other hand, had no history of working collaberatively across party lines, neither before 2009 nor during the 4 years he was POTUS.

Romney would have been another Clinton. And while Clinton wasn't my favorite President, he certainly knew how to build consensus.

tres borrachos said:

This. And the difference I saw between Romney and Obama in 2012 was that Romney had a proven history of working with the other party when he was top dog. There are few states if any that have such a disparity in party representation in the state legislature as Massachusetts, yet Romney managed to compromise to death in order to get things through, including that oh so famous healthcare law in that state.

Obama, on the other hand, had no history of working collaberatively across party lines, neither before 2009 nor during the 4 years he was POTUS.

Romney would have been another Clinton. And while Clinton wasn't my favorite President, he certainly knew how to build consensus.

Click to expand...

laugh of the day and it's not even 8am

Paul Ryan, and I think that Dr. Carson would be great as second on the ticket. But it's too soon to say.

Zyphlin said:

Huntsman "accepting science" is hardly what did him in. If you're going to point to his comments on global warming and evolution as part of what did him in it'd be more accurate to point at the way in which he went about speaking of it. Throughout his entire campaign he made it a point to be very neutral in tone towards Obama and the Democrats, not overly aggressive, trying to remain "positive"....and then all of a sudden his first outburst of seeming annoyance or anger or energy is in a belittling fashion towards other individuals running/part of the base he's attempting to attract.

In an election year where the base was desperately looking for a fighter it was unwise to come out as an even keeled measured individual. It was even more unwise to allow your one moment of looking like you COULD be a fighter to come about being aimed at your own side.

It was one of NUMEROUS missteps his campaign made during the primaries that just left me shaking my head.

Click to expand...

I was deeply invested in the Huntsman campaign during the NH primaries (volunteer wise, not financially). I spent a lot of time with him and with his people. While I was grateful for that opportunity, unfortunately his focus on NH didn't serve him well. Back then the big focus if you will among the Republicans in this state (both the voters and the state's leaders) was to ride an anti-Obama wave. Huntsman had a connection to Obama and he refused to disavow it. Republicans here wanted the guy who they thought could beat Obama, and to the majority of them, that was Romney. I think too Huntsman believed he could capitalize on our large Libertarian population here but I think Ron Paul's success in appealing to a lot of them also hurt Huntsman. In the end Huntsman finished 3rd, behind Romney & Paul, and the only group he won in the primary was the Democrats - yes, the Democrats.

Unfortunately he really ran out of money after NH and his gamble cost him any additional chance. It was a damn shame too. He was by far the best candidate in 2012 in either party.

In Georgia we have open primaries so I can choose to vote in either one. I will either vote for the person I want to win the most regardless of party or vote against the one I want to lose the most. Usually my vote in either primary is a vote against someone, not for anyone.

obvious Child said:

True, what killed Huntsman is that he refused to pander to the crazy. He staked his last stand in an area known for its moderate, more secular Republicans. That was fatal. You cannot win the GOP nomination unless you pander to the crazy, that's why Romney abandoned so many of his previous positions. He knew he couldn't follow Huntsman's model of being a reasonable adult. The science part was just part of Huntsman refusing to pander.

Click to expand...

Again, I disagree entirely. There's a chasm between "pandering" to a segment of the base and abjectly insulting, attacking, and belittling them.

Huntsman didn't need to pander to that part of the base...he just didn't need to use the only significant aggressive act of his campaign to attack them.

Huntsman tried to run a positive campaign as a responsible reasonable adult.

Click to expand...

Which is what made him acting like a child tossing out insults towards his own side all the more ridiculous and suicide from a political sense. He was trying to run a positive campaign....and then when he finally went negative it was towards people on his own side. That's a political equivilent of kicking the ball into your own goal in soccer.

I know its fun for liberals to sit on the outside looking in and paint Huntsman, or his campaign, as something he wasn't. It happened the ENTIRE time throughout his campaign and it was also a factor playing into his problems. But the simple issue of his views on Evolution and Global Warming, in and of themselves, were far from the top reasons for his campaigns issues.

tres borrachos said:

Unfortunately he really ran out of money after NH and his gamble cost him any additional chance. It was a damn shame too. He was by far the best candidate in 2012 in either party.

Click to expand...

Agree. And this goes back to my general stance that he ran one of the worst primary campaigns I've ever seen. What you described is part of it.

One of my complaints about Obama is a question regarding his judge of character based on those he's allied with and put himself around politically in the past. Huntsman's choice of McCain's 2008 campaign manager, based on how things worked out, has given me a similar (though lesser) pause.

They seemed to have NO understanding of the changes within the republican voting base that occured between 2008 and 2012. Part of their issue was treating 2012 like it was 2008 and that was just completely and utterly foolish.

tres borrachos said:

This. And the difference I saw between Romney and Obama in 2012 was that Romney had a proven history of working with the other party when he was top dog. There are few states if any that have such a disparity in party representation in the state legislature as Massachusetts, yet Romney managed to compromise to death in order to get things through, including that oh so famous healthcare law in that state.

Obama, on the other hand, had no history of working collaberatively across party lines, neither before 2009 nor during the 4 years he was POTUS.

Romney would have been another Clinton. And while Clinton wasn't my favorite President, he certainly knew how to build consensus.

Click to expand...

I like what you said about Romney and Obama. About Clinton, only post-1994 did he work with both parties and suddenly agreed with things like welfare reform and other Republican controlled Congress ideas, however, he didn't build consensus to avoid government shutdowns. Although, it is too bad that Obama didn't become pragmatic and more Clinton-like after the 2010 election, but since he still had Reid running the Senate, he felt he can just ignore at least half of the countries elected representatives.

i have 3 i would vote for

Rand Paul

Gary Johnson

Scott Walker

that is based upon candidates i am aware of right now

none are perfect...not close in fact

but Romney....please no

Another Bush....please shoot me first

Christie.....really?

and we cant go too far on the social conservative side.....

Carson is a nice departure from the usual. But he is weak on the 2A. Of that list, Romney is the most qualified.

and this ladies and gentlemen is exactly why the republican party is in trouble

what are the odds of Hillary getting the democratic nomination 75%...80%....higher?

yes, we have a couple of years until the election, but you ask 20 different people who the republican candidate should be, and you'll probably get 10 different names

hell...not even sure if we know anything about what our platform ideas will be other than

"we arent Obama"

someone high up in the party better get their crap together, and fairly soon

we'll have 8 guys running for the ticket, all of them attacking each other, and the democrats smiling all the way to November