My opinion is still the same after the debate:
Ben Carson is still the smartest guy in the room.
Trump is polarizing and may split up the GOP in the GE.
Christie needs to go away.
My wife says that Rubio’s ears are too big and nobody will vote for him.
My wife says Bush’s wife is too short and nobody will vote for him.
I felt like Rand Paul and Scott Walker were trying to sell me an '03 Ford Expedition.
I felt like Mike Huckabee was trying to sell me a cemetery plot.
Kasich, meh…
Cruz, we are already going to win Texas in the GE, so why bother.
I did not watch the early under card debate because none of those folks are going to factor in anyway.
Despite Kasich being a bore and my wife’s warnings about Jeb Bush’s wife, I think a Bush/Kasich ticket is the best chance to win. I think they lock down Ohio and Florida. If they can do that, I think the conservative base is so stirred up everywhere else over gay marriage, immigration and ISIS that they will turn out to vote in the GE, especially if Hillary is on the ticket on the other side.
[quote]OldOgre wrote:
I think a Bush/Kasich ticket is the best chance to win. I think they lock down Ohio and Florida. If they can do that, I think the conservative base is so stirred up everywhere else over gay marriage, immigration and ISIS that they will turn out to vote in the GE, especially if Hillary is on the ticket on the other side.
[/quote]
Excellent read on a twosome that could hand Hillary a nightmare. As for Rubio’s ears have you ever looked at Obama’s? I think, inspite of your wife’s warnings Rubio may stand the best chance of handing Hillary Clinton a huge defeat. It’s all about the contrast:
Old Hillary vs Young Rubio
Dishonest Hillary vs Honest Rubio
The ghost of the 90’s Hillary vs the representative of the future Rubio
The shrill panicky Hillary vs the calm collective great speaking Rubio
Don’t get me wrong a Bush/Kasich ticket will certainly win. But a Rubio Kasich ticket will win by a lager margin.
[quote]OldOgre wrote:
I did not watch the early under card debate because none of those folks are going to factor in anyway.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t rule Fiorina out just yet. Having a very intelligent and viable female candidate on the ticket could be a very powerful tool for the GOP. [/quote]
If she was chosen as VP, it could give women a chance to still vote for a woman who was not named Hillary. On the other hand would Hillary use that to her advantage? “The republicans think that women can only serve as second bananas bla bla bla”
Also, what does she bring to the ticket if she cannot draw women? In other words, she does not represent a state, or any other constituency other than women.
I like her, she’s very smart and quick on her feet. But, I don’t see her helping the GOP win the White House this time around.
[quote]OldOgre wrote:
I did not watch the early under card debate because none of those folks are going to factor in anyway.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t rule Fiorina out just yet. Having a very intelligent and viable female candidate on the ticket could be a very powerful tool for the GOP. [/quote]
I think that the problem with her is that the average person does not know who she is. Bush, Trump, Walker, Hillary, even Christie to some extent, are household names for various reasons. Name recognition goes a long way with the masses.
Didn’t watch, and don’t care because the GOP is setting up to spectacularly snatch defeat from the hands of victory…
All I know is the shear amount of Rule 5 on my facebook feed means 1 of 2 things:
The left is actually very, very nervous about losing in 2016
The GOP is a utter shambles with any quality candidates over shadowed by buffoons.
My gut is saying #2, and Bernie Sanders will be the next POTUS. It was nice knowing you guys, but the economic crash is going to be so spectacular that there might actually be country wide marshal law…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Didn’t watch, and don’t care because the GOP is setting up to spectacularly snatch defeat from the hands of victory…
All I know is the shear amount of Rule 5 on my facebook feed means 1 of 2 things:
The left is actually very, very nervous about losing in 2016
The GOP is a utter shambles with any quality candidates over shadowed by buffoons.
My gut is saying #2, and Bernie Sanders will be the next POTUS. It was nice knowing you guys, but the economic crash is going to be so spectacular that there might actually be country wide marshal law… [/quote]
There is a reason the GOP gets labeled electorally as “The Stupid Party”. The GOP often finds ways to screw it up.
I didn’t watch the debate either, but hearing the reviews tells me 2016 may very well be a winnable election that the GOP doesn’t win.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Didn’t watch, and don’t care because the GOP is setting up to spectacularly snatch defeat from the hands of victory…
All I know is the shear amount of Rule 5 on my facebook feed means 1 of 2 things:
The left is actually very, very nervous about losing in 2016
The GOP is a utter shambles with any quality candidates over shadowed by buffoons.
My gut is saying #2, and Bernie Sanders will be the next POTUS. It was nice knowing you guys, but the economic crash is going to be so spectacular that there might actually be country wide marshal law… [/quote]
There is a reason the GOP gets labeled electorally as “The Stupid Party”. The GOP often finds ways to screw it up.
I didn’t watch the debate either, but hearing the reviews tells me 2016 may very well be a winnable election that the GOP doesn’t win.
[/quote]
I don’t mind the losing part (as they control Congress, and I don’t want one party control) as much who they will lose to. Hilary, and I just dont’ care, we’ll be just like we are today… But Bernie is a bad, bad move for us.
[quote]OldOgre wrote:
I did not watch the early under card debate because none of those folks are going to factor in anyway.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t rule Fiorina out just yet. Having a very intelligent and viable female candidate on the ticket could be a very powerful tool for the GOP. [/quote]
I think that the problem with her is that the average person does not know who she is. Bush, Trump, Walker, Hillary, even Christie to some extent, are household names for various reasons. Name recognition goes a long way with the masses. [/quote]
[quote]OldOgre wrote:
I did not watch the early under card debate because none of those folks are going to factor in anyway.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t rule Fiorina out just yet. Having a very intelligent and viable female candidate on the ticket could be a very powerful tool for the GOP. [/quote]
If she was chosen as VP, it could give women a chance to still vote for a woman who was not named Hillary. On the other hand would Hillary use that to her advantage? “The republicans think that women can only serve as second bananas bla bla bla”
Also, what does she bring to the ticket if she cannot draw women? In other words, she does not represent a state, or any other constituency other than women. [/quote]
I think she bring much more than just appeal to women. Her appeal, imo, goes beyond gender. She claims to have relationships with foreign officials around the work like Netanyahu. She brings business savy much like Romney did without the baggage. She can out debate Hillary or Kerry or Biden or whoever in the Dem party is my guess.
[quote]
I like her, she’s very smart and quick on her feet. But, I don’t see her helping the GOP win the White House this time around.[/quote]
I’m talking about helping the GOP govern more than just win.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Didn’t watch, and don’t care because the GOP is setting up to spectacularly snatch defeat from the hands of victory…
All I know is the shear amount of Rule 5 on my facebook feed means 1 of 2 things:
The left is actually very, very nervous about losing in 2016
The GOP is a utter shambles with any quality candidates over shadowed by buffoons.
My gut is saying #2, and Bernie Sanders will be the next POTUS. It was nice knowing you guys, but the economic crash is going to be so spectacular that there might actually be country wide marshal law… [/quote]
I don’t think so. The only real buffoon is Trump and I’ll be very surprised if he’s around for much longer. He’ll put his foot in his mouth over and over again until he’s done. He already started last night called Kelly a Bimbo and O’Donnell fat last night. He’s just loud is all.
Is/are there any combination/s of Republican and/or Democrat candidates that will keep you(anyone) home on Election Day? (This can be either a particular combination of candidates from your own party, or combinations from both parties…or, perhaps, your party could run the candidates that would normally keep you home, but there is a combination of candidates from the opposing party that is too sinister to not vote against.) Is there a combination that would force you to vote for a third-party so that your “voice is heard,” in spite of the fact that you realize the third-party does not have a realistic shot at winning?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is/are there any combination/s of Republican and/or Democrat candidates that will keep you(anyone) home on Election Day? (This can be either a particular combination of candidates from your own party, or combinations from both parties…or, perhaps, your party could run the candidates that would normally keep you home, but there is a combination of candidates from the opposing party that is too sinister to not vote against.) Is there a combination that would force you to vote for a third-party so that your “voice is heard,” in spite of the fact that you realize the third-party does not have a realistic shot at winning?[/quote]
If it ends up being Jeb vs Hillary, I will be at a bar throwing them back.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is/are there any combination/s of Republican and/or Democrat candidates that will keep you(anyone) home on Election Day? (This can be either a particular combination of candidates from your own party, or combinations from both parties…or, perhaps, your party could run the candidates that would normally keep you home, but there is a combination of candidates from the opposing party that is too sinister to not vote against.) Is there a combination that would force you to vote for a third-party so that your “voice is heard,” in spite of the fact that you realize the third-party does not have a realistic shot at winning?[/quote]
I would not be enthusiastic about a Trump/_____ ticket… I would potentially vote third party (assuming a good option existed) or not at all if Trump was the nominee. That’s probably true for Christie as well; although, I don’t feel as strongly about him.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is/are there any combination/s of Republican and/or Democrat candidates that will keep you(anyone) home on Election Day? (This can be either a particular combination of candidates from your own party, or combinations from both parties…or, perhaps, your party could run the candidates that would normally keep you home, but there is a combination of candidates from the opposing party that is too sinister to not vote against.) Is there a combination that would force you to vote for a third-party so that your “voice is heard,” in spite of the fact that you realize the third-party does not have a realistic shot at winning?[/quote]
I would not be enthusiastic about a Trump/_____ ticket… I would potentially vote third party (assuming a good option existed) or not at all if Trump was the nominee. That’s probably true for Christie as well; although, I don’t feel as strongly about him. [/quote]
The dems would be enthusiastic about a Trump ticket.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is/are there any combination/s of Republican and/or Democrat candidates that will keep you(anyone) home on Election Day? (This can be either a particular combination of candidates from your own party, or combinations from both parties…or, perhaps, your party could run the candidates that would normally keep you home, but there is a combination of candidates from the opposing party that is too sinister to not vote against.) Is there a combination that would force you to vote for a third-party so that your “voice is heard,” in spite of the fact that you realize the third-party does not have a realistic shot at winning?[/quote]
I would not be enthusiastic about a Trump/_____ ticket… I would potentially vote third party (assuming a good option existed) or not at all if Trump was the nominee. That’s probably true for Christie as well; although, I don’t feel as strongly about him. [/quote]
The dems would be enthusiastic about a Trump ticket.[/quote]
I know it’s silly tin foil hat stuff, but I would not be surprised if Trump is running specifically to help Hillary win.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Didn’t watch, and don’t care because the GOP is setting up to spectacularly snatch defeat from the hands of victory…
All I know is the shear amount of Rule 5 on my facebook feed means 1 of 2 things:
The left is actually very, very nervous about losing in 2016
The GOP is a utter shambles with any quality candidates over shadowed by buffoons.
My gut is saying #2, and Bernie Sanders will be the next POTUS. It was nice knowing you guys, but the economic crash is going to be so spectacular that there might actually be country wide marshal law… [/quote]
There is a reason the GOP gets labeled electorally as “The Stupid Party”. The GOP often finds ways to screw it up.
I didn’t watch the debate either, but hearing the reviews tells me 2016 may very well be a winnable election that the GOP doesn’t win.
[/quote]
Nonsense TB, the GOP has never fielded a stronger group of candidates–ever!
As for the GOP being labeled the “stupid party” electorally, I’ve never heard of such phrase. If this is something that you have read recently please post the article I’d love to read it.
As I’ve said in prior posts if the GOP wins Florida and Ohio they will most likely win the election as those are must win states. Well, the republicans had 3 of the 10 candidates from those two states in the debate last night.
What reasons could you possibly have for claiming that the GOP will lose in 2016?
I think she bring much more than just appeal to women. Her appeal, imo, goes beyond gender. She claims to have relationships with foreign officials around the work like Netanyahu. She brings business savy much like Romney did without the baggage. She can out debate Hillary or Kerry or Biden or whoever in the Dem party is my guess. [/quote]
I do not disagree with you she’s a good candidate. But, what I mean to say is that she has no built in constituency. For example, if John Kasich were chosen as VP we know that (most likely) we are winning the state of Ohio as he is a popular Governor. What state does she bring with her? Now maybe she will attract so many other voters that it won’t matter, but why gamble?
[quote]
I like her, she’s very smart and quick on her feet. But, I don’t see her helping the GOP win the White House this time around.
I’m talking about helping the GOP govern more than just win. [/quote]
But, what you have to remember is this, if the GOP doesn’t win first there is no governing. And another four or eight years of a left wing loon will do much harm to the US. For example, the US Supreme court would be packed with lefty’s. Of course the damage goes deeper than just that.
As it is we have to dig out of a hole created by 8 years of Obama who has messed up just about everything he has touched. Eight more years creates many more layers. There will be a point where we cannot turn it around. And of course there is no guarantee that a republican President will turn us around. But, at least we have a shot at it if a republican wins.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is/are there any combination/s of Republican and/or Democrat candidates that will keep you(anyone) home on Election Day? (This can be either a particular combination of candidates from your own party, or combinations from both parties…or, perhaps, your party could run the candidates that would normally keep you home, but there is a combination of candidates from the opposing party that is too sinister to not vote against.) Is there a combination that would force you to vote for a third-party so that your “voice is heard,” in spite of the fact that you realize the third-party does not have a realistic shot at winning?[/quote]
This will come as no surprise to you, but there is no candidate or combination of candidates that would cause me to stay home. We need to oust the lefties from DC. In some cases I’d simply be voting against Hillary (or whomever gets the dems nod). And I would never throw my vote away on a third party candidate that is simply foolish. The next President will either be a democrat or a republican.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Is/are there any combination/s of Republican and/or Democrat candidates that will keep you(anyone) home on Election Day? (This can be either a particular combination of candidates from your own party, or combinations from both parties…or, perhaps, your party could run the candidates that would normally keep you home, but there is a combination of candidates from the opposing party that is too sinister to not vote against.) Is there a combination that would force you to vote for a third-party so that your “voice is heard,” in spite of the fact that you realize the third-party does not have a realistic shot at winning?[/quote]
I would not be enthusiastic about a Trump/_____ ticket… I would potentially vote third party (assuming a good option existed) or not at all if Trump was the nominee. That’s probably true for Christie as well; although, I don’t feel as strongly about him. [/quote]
The dems would be enthusiastic about a Trump ticket.[/quote]
I know it’s silly tin foil hat stuff, but I would not be surprised if Trump is running specifically to help Hillary win. [/quote]
You know I thought about that too. But, I figured that no one, especially a guy like Trump, wants to be the guy who helped Hillary get elected. Then I thought, what could Bill and Hillary possibly promise Trump that he cannot get without their help? A cabinet post? I don’t think he wants to take his life in that direction.
Also, at this point he really thinks he can win the nomination. His ego is too large to be shilling for the Clintons.
So what would be his motivation for helping Hillary?