Sounds like 2012 all over again with Romney and how at 1st it was said he didn't have a chance. There was even a term for the other candidates, they were the Not-Romney candidates. But he was still the nominee in the end.
He was the GOP establishment's pick, he was seen as he most moderate(even though for some reason in the general election he ran waaay to the right, which killed him with the moderate voters
You got pretty much the same thing in 2016. Bush will be the GOP's establishment's pick, he's moderate(the difference is IMO Bush will tell the right wing loons to F off and he'll run as a moderate, where as Romney was a wussy and caved to the right wing), and he has the best chance to win.
That is the problem. All Presidents have to clean up any messes left over from the previous administration and there is always a mess or two to clean up no matter who is or was President. The thing is, if he does a good job of that, he looks good. Even though he had some rocky economic times, Reagan looked really good in comparison to Carter because he was able to improve on Carter's far more disastrous economy. A really good presidency is a tough act to follow because the next president may or may not have as fortunate a situation as his predecessor.
George W. Bush for instance had to follow Bill Clinton who was a competent administrator and who had one of the best congresses to work with, at least in my lifetime. Clinton also had no major crises to deal with except for the dot.com bubble burst. And because there was a forward looking Congress in place at that time and because Clinton didn't resist them all that much, we recovered from that crisis fairly quickly--though the Nasdaq has yet to reach its former heights. Bush, in comparison, had the old guard GOP back in power for his first six years and the most left leaning Democratic congress ever in power the last two years plus he had to contend with 9/11, Katrina, and the housing bubble burst. He could have been the best President in the world--which he wasn't--and he wouldn't have looked good in comparison to Clinton, at least to those who don't look below the surface for their facts.
Obama had the best of all scenarios--inherited a miserable economy and all manner of crises when he took office, and had he been competent to deal with it, he could have really shone and been the hero. But alas, not being up the job, he simply has mostly bungled that opportunity. The more the pity.
Whoever takes over in 2017 has a golden opportunity to shine. Let's try to elect somebody who can capitalize on that opportunity in a way that is for the greater good of us all.
There's am old saying (from the '60's, I believe) that goes: "Demonizing an enemy empowers the powerless".Yep. Someone mentioned earlier that there's more and more Independents but the media doesn't give the Independents a mention or air time. The reason is what you said, it's better for ratings when they report about the polarization. The moderates and Indy's just go about their business everyday, no drama, no screaming. The Dems and the GOP fights and insults sells. It's the political version of a reality show. The media knows this, as do the GOP and the Dems. Keep us at each others throats, it keeps the 24/7 news channels going and keeps the GOP and Dem dominance alive and well.
Each one of the not-Romney's was deeply flawed in a way that crippled their candidacy. While I agree it is possible that they split the conservative vote, giving Jeb a plurality, the top tier opposition candidates to Jeb at this time aren't going to self-destruct one after another in a row.
No he didn't - he was successfully defined by the Obama campaign, who then managed an incredible turnout of their base.
The Establishment and Moderates weren't happy with any of the Romney Alternatives - they poll, however, as liking both Walker and Rubio, Jeb's key contenders.
:shrug: but we'll see
Gee, that doesn't leave many to vote for since they all take those kinds of contributions for their campaigns and leadership pacs. Nobody gets elected President without it.
Walker and Rubio have no chance. Rubio is a possible VP choice for Jeb, but he'll never get the prez nod for the GOP. He'll bring in the Latino vote as VP. But if you think the moderates will vote for him as the prez? Nope. Too far right.
Walker's will get a sniff in the mid-west states, but on the coasts he'll fail. He too is too far right, and he's prone to sounding like a moron when he's in front of a mic. Reminds me a little of Rick Perry in 2012..He had some legs early, then the debates started and he opened his mouth. That was all she wrote.
FOX and Priebus want Walker and Rubio.
That's my prediction right now--Walker/Rubio.
Kochs and Adelson approve--Warhawks approve--Walker has walked back his immigration reform support and Rubio is no longer a Dreamer .
Are you leaning toward Sanders? I am curious how others view him. He is an interesting candidate and I am hoping he curbs the Clinton machine by a substantial margin. That is, if we don't want to see any more elitists in the WH.
FOX and Priebus want Walker and Rubio.
That's my prediction right now--Walker/Rubio.
Kochs and Adelson approve--Warhawks approve--Walker has walked back his immigration reform support and Rubio is no longer a Dreamer .
Heya Nimby. :2wave: Hope all is well with ya. Oh, a bit on Rubio.
First of all, let me preface this blog post by stating right up front that no Republican candidate edges Hillary Clinton head-to-head in the latest CNN/ORC survey.
Marco Rubio, who is statistically the frontrunner among Republicans (polling at an impressive 14 percent), trails her by three percentage points (49/46). Even Rand Paul, who is the most competitive GOP candidate against her, trails her by the slimmest of margins (48/47).
Hillary Clinton’s internal polling numbers are somewhat alarming. Indeed, she is underwater on a number of key character questions.....snip~
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-el...erges-frontrunner-ugly-internals-hillary.html
Since I'm one of the few and proud DEMs to admit who I am, you also know I watch as much of the new FOX polls and commentary I can stomach.
You damn well know they're pushing Walker and Rubio and spinning hard against Paul.
Just go to Election 2016 - Presidential Primaries, Caucuses, and Conventions
The Green Papers have everything you could want to know of debates, caucuses, primaries, conventions, delegates--Premier link.
Just the facts man--and I haven't made a spreadsheet yet on the GOP primaries/caucus delegates yet.
And J.E.B. lost a round when Nevada voted to stay Caucus .
In 2012 Fox wanted anyone but Romney too. Hell, they and other conservative hosts are still pushing the BS that the reason Romney lost was because he was too moderate. For ratings they want someone as far to the right as possible. It sells.. So in 2016, I can see them pushing Walker, and anyone to the far right.
And there's no doubt Fox and the AM Radio conservatives have pull with the GOP, and they keep the Republican base riled up. But it still comes down the the GOP establishment, and Bush has them, and he has lots of money backers behind him. I think it will be Bush, and maybe Rubio as his VP choice.
Walker and Rubio have no chance. Rubio is a possible VP choice for Jeb, but he'll never get the prez nod for the GOP. He'll bring in the Latino vote as VP. But if you think the moderates will vote for him as the prez? Nope. Too far right.
Walker's will get a sniff in the mid-west states, but on the coasts he'll fail. He too is too far right, and he's prone to sounding like a moron when he's in front of a mic. Reminds me a little of Rick Perry in 2012..He had some legs early, then the debates started and he opened his mouth. That was all she wrote.
:lol: Rubio is the best communicator on either side of the aisle. He won against a heavily favored incumbent in Florida on a platform of entitlement reform.
he might gaffe, but I sincerely doubt he'll pull a Rick Perry.
That's State politics. You know on the National level it's a completely different ballgame.
It's very, very early.
I think he is a really good alternative to Jeb Bush who is not a really good Republican. Should Rand Paul be the candidate for the Republicans in 2016?
Yeah. One that heavily rewards solid communicative skills and the ability to winningly sell complex ideas to skeptical audiences. Rubio proved he could do that. The point about State Politics is that they were heavily against his ability to pull that off, and he did because he's a good communicator.
Indeed it is. And Jeb Bush is already spiraling downwards, and I don't really see what's going to pull him up and out.
I don't think that a Young Earth Creationist has any business with political power, let alone in the white house. If you are so out of touch with reality or so distrustful of facts that you think the world could be thousands instead of billions of years old, you can't be trusted with anything serious.
Are there any Republican potential nominees who are not creationists?
Are there any Republican potential nominees who are not creationists?
Good question....
There are two republicans that I find unacceptable, Graham and Huckabee. I'm on the fence with Santorum. I could live with the rest although I'm content to let the field narrow before I pick a favorite.
Sadly, I doubt they could admit it if they weren't.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?