• 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 Presidential Primary (2nd Poll, this time multiple choice)

2016 Republican Presidential Primary (Pick as many as you want)


  • Total voters
    25
There is no question the GOP has some good candidates capable of taking down "The wicked witch of the west."

LOL....like who? Fred Thompson (or as you call him "the Savior of the Republican Party").....Huckabee? Jindal? Santorum?....or better yet.....Ted "Green Eggs and Ham" Cruz? BWAHAHAHAHA......the GOP doesn't have a decent front runner right now. Who is going to come out of the wings to save your beloved GOP NP?
 
Rand Paul is about the only good candidate from either primary mainstream party. Everyone else is just too many parts crazy for my liking.
 
LOL....like who? Fred Thompson (or as you call him "the Savior of the Republican Party").....Huckabee? Jindal? Santorum?....or better yet.....Ted "Green Eggs and Ham" Cruz? BWAHAHAHAHA......the GOP doesn't have a decent front runner right now. Who is going to come out of the wings to save your beloved GOP NP?

Vote for Ted Cruz and eat green eggs and ham. Am I gonna vote for him? Yes I am. I will not vote for Huckabee, nor will I vote for Santorum, you see. I will not vote for that guy Mitt, his policies are complete s***. I might vote for Senator Paul, and watch Hillary's campaign fall.
 
Rand Paul is about the only good candidate from either primary mainstream party. Everyone else is just too many parts crazy for my liking.

Rand Paul is good. But Ted Cruz is too.

Don't put a candidate's "sanity" into question. Everyone in the world is a little crazy.
 
Imo, anyone who thinks whomever is elected (from the bunch listed above) in 2016 will actually NOT do more harm then good for America is incredibly naive.

I believe, given the state of federal politics and the general ignorance of the American voter, that it is virtually impossible for truly fine leaders to rise to the White House. Heck, even decent ones cannot get in.

And so long as the public shrugs their shoulders and votes for mediocrity (at best) anyway...then they have NO ONE blame but themslves.

I believe, that to vote for a politician you believe to be incompetent but you do so simply because they are the 'best available' is unpatriotic.
And I also believe that to refuse to vote for lousy politician's even if that means not voting at all IS patriotic.

Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Bobby Jindal - are NOT doing harm. I don't care what the liberal media paints it as.

So you are wrong about the naive part. I think people who disagree with those candidates are naive.

I agree about how mediocrity is bad.

And, there are always write-in candidates. So it would be unpatriotic to not vote at all. I'm not saying vote for the bad candidate, but vote for a write-in if you have to.
 
Rand Paul is good. But Ted Cruz is too.

Don't put a candidate's "sanity" into question. Everyone in the world is a little crazy.

Yeah, but there is definitely a scale, and when there's too much, you know...

As to Senator Cruz, he's too McCarthyish for my liking. And, he wasn't born in the United States.
 
America can't be that evil that they will support the murdering of babies. Don't call it pro-choice since the baby doesn't have a choice.

where in my post did i mention "murdering babies" lol
 
I don't know much about Webb in his policies as a Senator (he was a Senator until 2013, when Senator-elect Tim Kaine was sworn in), but it was cool that he was Navy Secretary under Reagan.

I think it's cool he served in the Marines too. No U.S. President was ever in the Marines. I don't think any Vice President was, neither.

Yep, I doubt he will go far in the primaries. But here is hoping. Unlike the current president I think Webb knows the value of keeping the party across the aisle on friendly terms even if you battle them till the cows come in. A bit of give and take can lead to a very successful presidency if one knows when and how much, plus on what.
 
When I look at these things, it is more through numbers than ideology. Therefore I am a bad choice to predict who the nominees would be. But I can tell you who would have the best chance of winning. The Republicans start off with 191 electoral votes in their trustworthy states. States that will go Republican no matter who they run and have gone Republican since 2000 in all 4 presidential races. Jeb Bush would win these states, so would John Kasich or Howdy Doody unless they stepped into a huge pile of manure. You add Florida to that mix with Bush that is 220. More than McCain or Romney received, but a long way from 270. Hence a Kasich/Rubio ticket would in my opinion add Ohio to that total bring the GOP up to 238.

The problem for the Republicans is the number of electoral votes in Democrat trustworthy states, 247. Just 23 shy of the 270 needed to win. This is where Jim Webb comes in with the state of Virginia, add its 13 EV and now the Democrats are at 260 needing just 10 more.

Left are the swing states of New Hampshire 4, North Carolina 15, Iowa 6, Nevada 6, Colorado 9.

The last 3 swing states are Florida 29, Ohio 18 and Virginia 13 which I mentioned above.

nothing wrong with looking at it that way but in 2016 i think social issues will be big in america and may give some surprises to the numbers and averages
 
Sadly for the Republicans, they cannot gerrymander state boundaries.

The electoral college must be respected.

Any talk of a candidate must be able to win the EC, no matter how they might do in the total popular vote.

So, when it comes to choosing a candidate and his running mate ..

.. Think hard, Republicans .. think very, very hard.

Personal pet ideology is meaningless if you're, once again, on the powerless outside looking in at all that executive power you so foolishly traded for your adamant ideological stand.
 
1.)Sincerely, not everyone is as jazzed about abortion as you are.
2.) Most people have reservations about it.
3.) Oh and referring to pro life as "anti choice" is a giant tell about where you're coming from, not that is in any way surprising to me,
4.) but you like to claim you're some sort of centrist on the issue and you're not.

1.) who said im jazzed about it and who said "everyone" is? oh thats right not me its ANOTHER thing you make up
2.) I agree i myself have "reservations" about it but thats another fact you ignore
3.) hey look MORE dishonesty . . notice where i said pro-life/anti-choice . . . . . see the slash? weird i mentioned TWO names but you only focus on one cause it feeds the emotions you have but not reality. Some people are in fact anti-choice, they want abortions banned completely. These people are the minority of course but they exists and i will always call these extremists anti-choice. Your "feelings" about that are meanignless, just more biased emotion.
4.) its not a claim its reality, my stances is in FACT in the middle. I want legislated rights for the ZEF and abortion limited. I dont want it mostly or completely banned, i dont want it mostly or completely unlimited. My stances in in fact in the middle. By definition my view on this is in fact centrist. Use dishonesty and emotion to disagree with that fact all you want it wont change.
 
I am offended where people can talk about murdering babies like it's an acceptable thing. Do you think God wants that? NO!
 
nothing wrong with looking at it that way but in 2016 i think social issues will be big in america and may give some surprises to the numbers and averages

Anything is possible. More than the social issues I will be watching the economy from now until 2016. It was the number issue in this years election, 45% cited it as their most important issue and 78% stated that they were worried about their and the nation's financial future. Healthcare was next at 19% and immigration third at 11%. Social issues never made the list, ISIS, Ebola, dissatisfaction with government, the deficit were all in single digits.

For social issues to rise the economy has to improve quite a bit in my opinion.
 
1.)Anything is possible. More than the social issues I will be watching the economy from now until 2016. It was the number issue in this years election, 45% cited it as their most important issue and 78% stated that they were worried about their and the nation's financial future. Healthcare was next at 19% and immigration third at 11%. Social issues never made the list, ISIS, Ebola, dissatisfaction with government, the deficit were all in single digits.

For social issues to rise the economy has to improve quite a bit in my opinion.

but we seen poll concenrs and voting turn out very different many times.
Presidential elections are very different than others IMO.

I personal would love if people voted on economy, jobs, education, healthcare for president as a group but ill have to see it to believe first.
 
Anything is possible. More than the social issues I will be watching the economy from now until 2016. It was the number issue in this years election, 45% cited it as their most important issue and 78% stated that they were worried about their and the nation's financial future. Healthcare was next at 19% and immigration third at 11%. Social issues never made the list, ISIS, Ebola, dissatisfaction with government, the deficit were all in single digits.

For social issues to rise the economy has to improve quite a bit in my opinion.

Everything matters, but everything works together, like a ripple effect or even a domino effect. Want a better economy, don't create any gun laws, the Constitution has spoken, so more gun stores will open, creating more jobs and letting business flow. That's one example. Plus less gun crimes that have a cost on society, since gun control always helps the bad guys since they don't follow those laws anyway, so why should the good people be screwed over?

It all matters, but the social issues matter more to me. Economic stuff bores me a little bit more than the other stuff. But since it's politics it doesn't bore me. Only by comparison to other things it would.

We do need a President with a strategy for destroying ISIS.
 
Romney should have been on the list.
 
The strongest ticket Republicans could run would be Romney with Ron Paul as his VP to cover his Right and religious rightwing flank.
 
The strongest ticket Republicans could run would be Romney with Ron Paul as his VP to cover his Right and religious rightwing flank.

Are you serious? If Romney runs chances are he will not pick a VP that also ran last time. Your statement is ridiculous.
 
Back
Top Bottom