• 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
Hateful of the GOP I'll give you. The most fanatically in favor of Hilary? Not even close. Hilary would be down my list about 4-5...but the reality, she will walk away with the Presidency if she wants it and I'm happy to keep the whitehouse with the Democrats even if she isn't close to my first choice.

No. She won't just be "GIVEN" the Presidency. She's the most corrupted woman in America. People will see the truth just like they did in 2008.
 
Not about excitement. It's about name recognition, and familiarity. Many GOP candidates in recent history with exception of George Bush, have ran before and lost before winning (Well, GW Bush lost race for Congress in 1978, if that counts). All the way back since 1968. Excluding 1976 since Ford was the incumbent at the time.

The race hasn't openly started yet. Just fundraising and polling to explore running.

yes since open primaries started in 1972 all of the GOP nominees have been either incumbent presidents or runner ups in previous presidential primaries with the exception of 2000 where GWB was governor of the biggest red state and had presidential lineage. Only 4 fit that bill for 2016. McCain, Romney, Santorum and Jeb. If history follows suit I think it will be Jeb but I dont think history will follow suit this time.
 
yes since open primaries started in 1972 all of the GOP nominees have been either incumbent presidents or runner ups in previous presidential primaries with the exception of 2000 where GWB was governor of the biggest red state and had presidential lineage. Only 4 fit that bill for 2016. McCain, Romney, Santorum and Jeb. If history follows suit I think it will be Jeb but I dont think history will follow suit this time.

However, he did have same first and last name as his dad, and his father's 2nd middle name - who was previously President.
 
Cruz isn't a nutjob. Hillary is a liberal loony nutjob.

What does Cruz have to do with Hillary? Cruz is easily the farthest right candidate and aside from Carson the least qualified, you would have to be crazy to have him as your best person the be president and even crazier to think he would have a shot to win the general election.
 
What does Cruz have to do with Hillary? Cruz is easily the farthest right candidate and aside from Carson the least qualified, you would have to be crazy to have him as your best person the be president and even crazier to think he would have a shot to win the general election.

TED CRUZ? THE "LEAST" QUALIFIED?!??!?! SERIOUSLY????

Bachelor's Degree from Princeton University (1992)
Harvard Law School (1995)

Was a Law Clerk for J. Michael Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 1995, and in 1996 for William Rehnquist the then-Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

He took a position with a law firm known as Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal, which is now known as Cooper & Kirk, LLC, from 1997 to 1998. He dealt with matters on the National Rifle Association, and also helped prepare impeachment proceedings against then-President Bill Clinton. He also served as private counsel for Congressman John Boehner during Boehner's lawsuit against Congressman Jim McDermott for releasing a tape recording of a Boehner telephone conversation.

In 1999, he took a position in GW Bush's presidential campaign, as a Policy Director for issues ranging from constitutional law, government reform, and criminal justice. He also held a high ranking position in the U.S. Justice Department, as Associate Deputy Attorney General, then as Director of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission. This was all until around 2003.

In 2003, Texas Attorney General Abbott selected Ted Cruz to serve as Texas Solicitor General. A position he held for about 5 years. He argued 9 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, winning 5, losing 4.

He authored more than 70 U.S. Supreme Court briefs and orally presented 43 of them.

After being a Solicitor General of Texas but before being a U.S. Senator, he worked at another law firm in Houston, Texas, called Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, and a lot of the time representing clients on corporate matters.

In 2012, he beat the establishment favorite for the U.S. Senate seat, Lt. Governor David Dewhurst. Even after winning 2nd place in the initial primary, and not favored to win the runoff, Ted Cruz still managed to close the gap in polls and pull out a primary runoff win.

Since 2013, Ted Cruz has taken the lead on a wide variety of issues that matter most to conservatives, stopping gun control, Obamacare, Obama's lawlessness and executive overreach, etc.

Ted Cruz made one of the longest speeches on the Senate floor, about 21 hours. With the incoming GOP Senate majority, I expect him to at least Chair a Subcommittees in the Judiciary Committee.

By 2017, Ted Cruz will have had 4 years in the Senate, but having been involved in politics for about 21 years, minus 6 of those 21 years but still gaining experience in that time - which is more than can be said for most candidates.

Ted Cruz is probably the most smartest, energetic, passionate, experienced, intelligent candidate. Don't underestimate him.
 
You got it all wrong. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz stand the best chance. America wants their politics, not Obama/Hillary failures. Those others who are mode moderate won't inspire the conservative base. There's no distinction n them and Hillary. Even Scott Walker was soft on NSA spying, and Ben Carson thinks there should be gun control in large cities, where they are needed the most.

Ted Cruz and Rand Paul make the best distinctions between them and Hillary. And they can make the best presentation to the American people about why their politics are better.

These are the issues most people vote on:

The Economy
Defense / Foreign Policy
To a lesser extent, they vote against what they see as over reach by the other party

Issues like Guns and NSA Spying are minor issues with most voters and those for which they are big issues for already vote in one camp or the other. Moreover, no voter says "That Hillary is so liberal that I am going to vote for her instead of the Republican because the Republican isn't conservative enough for me." Most people want a manager for a president, not some radical from either side.
 
TED CRUZ? THE "LEAST" QUALIFIED?!??!?! SERIOUSLY????

Bachelor's Degree from Princeton University (1992)
Harvard Law School (1995)

Was a Law Clerk for J. Michael Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 1995, and in 1996 for William Rehnquist the then-Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

He took a position with a law firm known as Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal, which is now known as Cooper & Kirk, LLC, from 1997 to 1998. He dealt with matters on the National Rifle Association, and also helped prepare impeachment proceedings against then-President Bill Clinton. He also served as private counsel for Congressman John Boehner during Boehner's lawsuit against Congressman Jim McDermott for releasing a tape recording of a Boehner telephone conversation.

In 1999, he took a position in GW Bush's presidential campaign, as a Policy Director for issues ranging from constitutional law, government reform, and criminal justice. He also held a high ranking position in the U.S. Justice Department, as Associate Deputy Attorney General, then as Director of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission. This was all until around 2003.

In 2003, Texas Attorney General Abbott selected Ted Cruz to serve as Texas Solicitor General. A position he held for about 5 years. He argued 9 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, winning 5, losing 4.

He authored more than 70 U.S. Supreme Court briefs and orally presented 43 of them.

After being a Solicitor General of Texas but before being a U.S. Senator, he worked at another law firm in Houston, Texas, called Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, and a lot of the time representing clients on corporate matters.

In 2012, he beat the establishment favorite for the U.S. Senate seat, Lt. Governor David Dewhurst. Even after winning 2nd place in the initial primary, and not favored to win the runoff, Ted Cruz still managed to close the gap in polls and pull out a primary runoff win.

Since 2013, Ted Cruz has taken the lead on a wide variety of issues that matter most to conservatives, stopping gun control, Obamacare, Obama's lawlessness and executive overreach, etc.

Ted Cruz made one of the longest speeches on the Senate floor, about 21 hours. With the incoming GOP Senate majority, I expect him to at least Chair a Subcommittees in the Judiciary Committee.

By 2017, Ted Cruz will have had 4 years in the Senate, but having been involved in politics for about 21 years, minus 6 of those 21 years but still gaining experience in that time - which is more than can be said for most candidates.

Ted Cruz is probably the most smartest, energetic, passionate, experienced, intelligent candidate. Don't underestimate him.

Harvard law school, no executive experience, first term senator, one of the more extreme members of his party. Something seems very similar about this.
 
Yeah, how crazy to think that an erudite, cerebral, minority candidate would be able to win a general election despite lacking any serious national political experience, huh? :lol: Cause that would never happen.
I lol'd on that one. That's great.
 
I also forgot to add that Ted Cruz helped form a legal team and legal strategy in BUSH V. GORE in 2000.
 
Took me a second.;)

Ted Cruz has experience though. Go to his Wikipedia page to see his resume. Longer and more impressive than most people realize.

Why doesn't the poll have a write in spot? I would write in Jon Huntsman.

Why do people keep asking me questions that I already answered in the main post? I even answered because I know there would be people who would ask me even though I already answered it. Seriously dude.
 
Besides, Jon Hunstman even said he isn't running at all. And he hasn't made any steps to indicate he will change his mind.

People - please read my main post before you ask me questions that make you look like you're not paying attention to details. It makes you look bad.
 
I would never catch myself voting for any of the above. However, if I had to choose the least terrible candidate, I'd probably shoot for Rand Paul. He definitely has his problems but he generally seems to be a bit more reasonable on the issues important to me than the rest on that list. Looks like he's in favor of some sort of amnesty, he doesn't want to bomb countries left and right, he's *ok* on civil liberties (though he seems to be selling himself out on that as the election gets closer), he's against the war on drugs, etc.

Ted Cruz is a total nutjob. Christie is an authoritarian idiot. Jeb Bush...we don't need another Bush in office. Bobby Jindal same as Cruz. Ben Carson has next to no experience and has made his political career thus far only on trashing Obama at some dinner and talking about how bad Obamacare is. Rick Santorum is an absolute theocrat. Rick Perry is a criminal. Scott Walker/John Bolton I don't know enough about them.


I agree with pretty much all that.

Though I would add one thing...John Bolton (IMO) is nuts or dangerously close to it.
 
Ted Cruz
Rand Paul
Scott Walker
Jeb Bush
Chris Christie
Bobby Jindal
Rick Perry
Rick Santorum
John Bolton
Ben Carson

based on my independant opinion of what "america" will I only see one guy on that list that has an actual shot of being president and thats christie but the reps probably wont support him as thier candidate.

Ben carson shouldnt be on any seriously list, he is on a list of never going to be president along Palin, Bachmann and Cain.

As for the rest they have some things i like and dont like but again based on the american public i dont see any of them being president.
 
Ted Cruz has experience though. Go to his Wikipedia page to see his resume. Longer and more impressive than most people realize.



Why do people keep asking me questions that I already answered in the main post? I even answered because I know there would be people who would ask me even though I already answered it. Seriously dude.

I'm not a dude.
 
Besides, Jon Hunstman even said he isn't running at all. And he hasn't made any steps to indicate he will change his mind.

People - please read my main post before you ask me questions that make you look like you're not paying attention to details. It makes you look bad.

Cool story, but you also need to read your "main post":

SO WHILE YOU CAN REPLY WITH WHAT YOU WANT, I DO WANT TO MAKE THIS POLL LESS ABOUT WHO YOU THINK WILL RUN OR NOT RUN, AND MORE ABOUT WHICH CANDIDATES YOU LIKE OR DON'T LIKE, AND WHY.


You asked which candidate I like or don't like and not about who I think will run or not run. I answered the question. Then you pouted about it.

Pay attention to your own details.
 
Ted Cruz
Rand Paul
Scott Walker
Jeb Bush
Chris Christie
Bobby Jindal
Rick Perry
Rick Santorum
John Bolton
Ben Carson

based on my independant opinion of what "america" will I only see one guy on that list that has an actual shot of being president and thats christie but the reps probably wont support him as thier candidate.

Ben carson shouldnt be on any seriously list, he is on a list of never going to be president along Palin, Bachmann and Cain.

As for the rest they have some things i like and dont like but again based on the american public i dont see any of them being president.

Chris Christie, John Bolton, Rick Santorum, and ESPECIALLY Ben Carson - are the ones with no chance in 2016. Christie won't inspire the conservative base (like 2008, 2012, 1996, 1992 [Reagan's coattails in 1988], 1976).

Palin could win a general election but her chances would be better if she ran for Senate again first, and maybe if she finished her term. Bachmann I like and her chances might not be as good at first, I think she could overcome it. Herman Cain is the 2012 version of Ben Carson. Moderates painted as Tea Party (I.E. Cain's 9-9-9 flat tax, or Carson's wanting gun control in big cities) with no political experience taken seriously.

The list I made has nothing to do with my personal thoughts about the candidates, it has to do with who I think will run (Only 10 can fit in a list, and didn't want to add a write-in option this time like I did in my first poll, wanted to try something difference and still add 10 options) and also who I think might be the top 10.

And someone like Ben Carson, who I cannot picture winning the nomination nor general election, could be 10th place for all I know. So I added him.

If these polls had unlimited options, I probably would add every single likely and possible candidate mentioned on the Wikipedia page for the 2016 election.
 
I'm not a dude.

Fair enough. Dudette.

Cool story, but you also need to read your "main post":

SO WHILE YOU CAN REPLY WITH WHAT YOU WANT, I DO WANT TO MAKE THIS POLL LESS ABOUT WHO YOU THINK WILL RUN OR NOT RUN, AND MORE ABOUT WHICH CANDIDATES YOU LIKE OR DON'T LIKE, AND WHY.


You asked which candidate I like or don't like and not about who I think will run or not run. I answered the question. Then you pouted about it.

Pay attention to your own details.

You asked me why I didn't add Jon Hunstman, so I referred to my main post when I already answered your question, but because you didn't read my main post and asked me anyway, thus wasting both mine and your time debating this rather than discussing the candidates, I referred you to that main post and then you tried to use that against me to justify not reading it in the first place.

If you like Jon Hunstman, Jr. as a candidate, alright. If you said you liked him as a candidate and wished he was running, I could've understood that. But you asked me why I didn't add him to this poll. Even though I answered you before you asked me, I still took the time to reply to you anyway about how Jon Hunstman said he won't under any circumstances run, and has largely avoided the political scene since making that statement, unlike someone like Mitt Romney who has maintained a presence, despite his saying he won't run.
 
Rand Paul isn't a joke. He stands up for what is right, unlike many politicians.

I give you credit for being a Democrat that isn't supporting Hillary first and would support other Democrats over her, but, I cannot comprehend why anyone in their right mind would actually support her. I cannot accept that people hate America that much.

Hillary is known for corruption any time she is given power. There is no good reason to vote for her. At all. She should be the last person on earth to be considered.

And no, Christie is probably the one person on this list, along with Lindsey Graham, who would do the worst in a general election. They wouldn't be able to get the conservative vote.

The more conservative the Republican candidate, the more likely they are to lose the general. The Dems start with between 242 and 260 solid electoral votes. The Reps have the run the table on the rest to win. You are not likely to win a purple state with a candidate on the extreme of the political spectrum. Run a real conservative and enjoy eight years of Hilary.

PS- its pretty unlikely the Republicans will see the White House, except as a tourist or guest for a decade. This is why they are working so hard to reverse Imperial Presidency, which they had a strong hand in crafting.

The missing story of the 2014 election - GOPlifer
The Democrats have a lock on the White House - MarketWatch
Can a Republican Win 270 Electoral Votes in 2016...or Ever? - The Daily Beast
 
Ted Cruz
Rand Paul
Scott Walker
Jeb Bush
Chris Christie
Bobby Jindal
Rick Perry
Rick Santorum
John Bolton
Ben Carson

based on my independant opinion of what "america" will I only see one guy on that list that has an actual shot of being president and thats christie but the reps probably wont support him as thier candidate.

Ben carson shouldnt be on any seriously list, he is on a list of never going to be president along Palin, Bachmann and Cain.

As for the rest they have some things i like and dont like but again based on the american public i dont see any of them being president.

I think Jeb Bush who was a popular governor of Florida would win that state if he ran. Florida and its 29 electoral votes are a must if the Republicans are going to come close to winning in 2016. I wouldn't sell him short. Christie, as it looks at least to me at this point in time, bridgegate has soiled him too much.

But if I were a Republican I would be looking toward John Kasich and trying to convince him to run. Ohio and its 18 electoral votes are another must win state for the Republicans. Put together a Kasich/Rubio ticket, you would have the two must win states covered. Jeb Bush wouldn't accept being number two, at least I don't think so.

On the other side assuming Hillary is the nominee, Jim Webb announced an exploratory committee for a possible run at the White House. A Hillary/Webb ticket would be very hard to beat, mainly because Webb could deliver the swing state of Virginia and its 13 electoral votes.

All the above is pure speculation.
 
1.) Chris Christie, John Bolton, Rick Santorum, and ESPECIALLY Ben Carson - are the ones with no chance in 2016. Christie won't inspire the conservative base (like 2008, 2012, 1996, 1992 [Reagan's coattails in 1988], 1976).
2.)Palin could win a general election but her chances would be better if she ran for Senate again first, and maybe if she finished her term.
3.) Bachmann I like and her chances might not be as good at first, I think she could overcome it.
4.) Herman Cain is the 2012 version of Ben Carson. Moderates painted as Tea Party (I.E. Cain's 9-9-9 flat tax, or Carson's wanting gun control in big cities) with no political experience taken seriously.

The list I made has nothing to do with my personal thoughts about the candidates, it has to do with who I think will run (Only 10 can fit in a list, and didn't want to add a write-in option this time like I did in my first poll, wanted to try something difference and still add 10 options) and also who I think might be the top 10.

And someone like Ben Carson, who I cannot picture winning the nomination nor general election, could be 10th place for all I know. So I added him.

If these polls had unlimited options, I probably would add every single likely and possible candidate mentioned on the Wikipedia page for the 2016 election.

1.) i agree that reps might not support him like they should but this is about america overall and i think enough reps, independents and some dems voting for a rep could happen more for him than anybody
2.) palin has ZERO chance to be president or the nominee
3.) see #2 same
4.) see #2 same

id bet anythign and take any bet given to me that those 4 people are complete jokes on a "national stage" never become president or get the nod for nominee. America would NEVER make them POTUS.
 
Back
Top Bottom