Your 2 choices will be the following:

1) Big Government Democrat (insert name)

2) Big Government Republican (insert name)


It's going to be a barn burner. The primaries will be very entertaining as patriotic candidates will chime in with compelling points that we all share. But it's going to be the 2 of which you didn't personally like, but "it made the most sense" to vote for because the are more "electable"

I think the Democrats will actually pull off 2016.

What say you?

Hillary is going to be the next President.

The Democrat party are the masters of identity politics.

First it was the "first" black man. Now it will be the "first" women. Then the "first" Latino. Then the "first" Gay person. Then the "first" Asian. Then the "first" Lesbian. When they are done with all that they may just top it off with a Tranny in office since they ran out of other firsts.

All the while the GOP will be nominating white males and being accused of being racists.

This is the plan. Look how fast they have turned gay marriage into not only something accepted, but aspirational as just same old male/female marriage is out of vogue now.

The left will continue to get what it wants and the government will keep growing.

But the right may get what IT wants and the government will keep growing.

For me, it'll be interesting to see who the Libertarians back this time.

Last time they circle jerked and blew their collective wads (and votes) towards Ron Paul thereby assisting in cementing the rise of the inept and idiotic Barry Bunch to power. How's that working out?

Will they find a new unelectable Libertarian Icon this time to rally around or will they grudgingly back whatever establishment candidate the Power Republicans force upon us?

Or is it remotely possible that the Tea Party will gain some new momentum and force the Republican Party to rally behind a slightly different candidate?

Christie is an Obama-loving liberal Republican and would be a disaster. If Christie somehow gets the nod and he's presumably facing Hillary, I'd have to think long and hard about that "choice" before pulling the lever.

I don't think this country is ready for yet another Bush so I hope the Repubs aren't dumb enough to back Jeb just yet.

Lots of talk about Ben Carson and I think he'd make an excellent candidate, but let's face it, the media and the Dems would have a field day with the Republican "Uncle Tom" thing.

Jindal? My current pick is Ted Cruz.

But - YES - it always comes down to which Big Gubmint POTUS we choose.

The bottom-line for me is I look for conservative to moderate domestic policy but more importantly, effective economic and foreign policy. My personal experience is this country tends to fare somewhat better with Bug Gubmint Repubs than ultra-Big Gubmint Dems.

Going to be interesting to be sure.

It'll be interesting to see who the Libertarians back this time.

Last time they circle jerked and blew their collective wads (and votes) towards Saint Ron Paul thereby assisting with and cementing the rise of the inept and idiotic Barry Bunch to power. How's that working out by the way?

Will they find a new unelectable stand-alone Libertarian Icon to rally around (and waste their votes) again or will they whine but grudgingly back whatever establishment candidate the Power Republicans force upon us?

Or is it remotely possible that the Tea Party will gain some new momentum and force the Republican Party to seriously consider a more non-establishment candidate?

Christie is an Obama-loving liberal New Fucking Jersey "Republican" and would be yet another disaster. If Christie somehow gets the nod (and presumably faces Hillary), I'd have to think long and hard about that "choice" before pulling the lever.

And this country isn't ready for yet another Bush so I hope the Repubs aren't dumb enough to back Uncle Jeb - just yet.

Lots of talk about Ben Carson (and I think he'd make an excellent candidate by the way), but let's face it, the media and the Dems would have a field day with the Republican "Uncle Tom" thing. No chance in hell Carson gets the nod unfortunately.

Jindal? Rand Paul maybe? My current picks: Ted Cruz and/or Rick Perry.

But - YES - it always comes down to which Big Gubmint POTUS we choose.

The bottom-line is I look for conservative or at least moderate domestic policy but far more importantly, effective economic and foreign policy. My personal experience is this country tends to fare somewhat better with Big Gubmint Repubs than ultra-Big Gubmint Dems.

Going to be interesting to be sure.

More importantly, who loses. And the answer to that would be the American People.

Yet another fun election

I can't imagine what other petty issue libtards will grasp onto to decide their vote.

Jeb Bush vs. Hillary is the perfect turd on top of the shit sundae being whipped up in Washington.

I like Rand Paul, but I have my doubts as to how well he would work with Congress.

Gov Schweitzer is interesting to me on the Dem side. I doubt he can beat Hillary, but I hope like hell he at least challenges her.

Full out vomit: Hillary, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry
Indigestion: Jeb Bush, Christie, Guiliani
Meh: Schweitzer, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Dr. Carson
Maybe: Rand Paul, Scott Walker

Vote for grandma Hillary just because she was born with a vagina. That's her presidential qualification...estrogen.

gut;1623465 wrote:Full out vomit: Hillary, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry
Indigestion: Jeb Bush, Christie, Guiliani
Meh: Schweitzer, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Dr. Carson
Maybe: Rand Paul, Scott Walker

I get most of it except for the Cruz hatred. He certainly is not the big gubmint type, so why the vomit?

Hillary may be a virtual slam-dunk for the nomination, but I'm not so sure she's a shoe-in for POTUS. Back in 2008, when she was arguably [much] more popular than now, she was still very polarizing even among women. And she may need a lot of help form Obama to turn-out the African American vote, which will require a delicate balance between kissing his ass and creating distance from his performance/policy to win independent voters.

And I think it's VERY scary, bordering on disturbing, that her thugs are already intimidating the NY Times for being critical of her.

BGFalcons82;1623468 wrote:I get most of it except for the Cruz hatred. He certainly is not the big gubmint type, so why the vomit?

I think he's phoney and an empty suit like Obama.

I think Elizabeth Warren may surprise some people. Hilary is carrying a lot of baggage.
Personally, I think the 'Pubs would do alright nominating Rubio with a nod towards the libertarians and/or Tea Party in VP'ing Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. Both would not be window dressing. My personal fave would be Ben Carson.

Personally, I think the 'Pubs would do alright nominating Rubio with a nod towards the libertarians and/or Tea Party in VP'ing Rand Paul or Ted Cruz.

After this country's experience with the Dear Leader the chances of electing another first term Senator with no executive experience this election cycle is exactly nil.

For as deep as the Republican bench is purported to be I see alot of guys that will be ready next cycle or 2, but not right now.

The Democratic bench is non=existent (Liz Warren has zero experience and is already 65) outside of Hillary. She has frozen the field, and no one can raise a dime until she decides what to do.

What will make her run different this time around is that her polling numbers are actually much better than they were in 2008, and Clinton nostalgia is far more prominent now than it was then. Slick Willy might be the most popular politician in America, as his presidency looks the glory days to most people the further we get from it.

Couple that with the fact that feminists will finally get a chance to triumph putting their woman in the White House and I don't see how Hillary doesn't win the Presidency. If anything, I could see her winning in a major route. She will make some southern states competitive that loath Obama, as the working class whites have always gravitated towards the Clintons.

There are enough stupid people in this country that think voting for Hillary will really be a 3rd term for Slick Willy. Obama was able to rally a war angry base on the left last time to take the nomination away from Hillary (who voted for Iraq). This time around all factions are all in for her as there is no real mobilizing issue that could put her nomination in jeopardy.

I just don't see anyone on the right that would be able to be Conservative enough to win the primary and yet moderate enough to win the general. Willard ran into that problem in that he had to run so far to the right to win the nomination when it came time for the general comments like the "self-deportation" and the 47% just buried him.

Republicans need to run someone like Huckabee who is likable and an excellent communicator. He is not conservative enough to appeal to the base, but he would do great with independents and such as he is quick witted and easy to like. That combination did wonders for Reagan. Likeability is majorly important in an electorate that is as diverse as this one is and plays largely to Democrat party strengths as it gets less white by the cycle.

Huckabee = zero chance.

Romney was spot on with 47%....that being the percentage of people who will vote democratic no matter what. In order for the 'pubs to win they will need to mend fences, form a coalition, and run a charismatic person that will excite enough people to overcome that 47%.

As much as the electorate had Bush fatigue helping to usher in the latest fiasco occupying the White House, I think there's enough anti-Obama sentiment out there (despite the growing darkening of the electorate) to be a major advantage to the Repubs this time around.

Keep in mind that the Dems are fickle. I remind you that Queen Hillary was a virtual lock on the Dem nomination back in 2008 but somehow, someway a junior senator straight from Chicago Political Machine scurried out of the woodwork to knock her off her throne. And with the help of an adoring mainstream media that refused to do any true vetting on this unqualified "community organizer" replete with questionable friends and background, Barry managed to weasel his way to the party nomination and eventually the White House.

The Repubs, even now, have a bench of people far more qualified to be POTUS. It's really a matter of who the party decides to back. It is true that we now live in an age where "sellability" outweighs true leadership ability, but I disagree that Huckabee might be that guy. He's too "Christian" to appeal to moderates, libertarians, and the media. Rand Paul is probably too libertarian to appeal to the establishment Repubs in the same way his old man was snubbed. Ben Carson has the "curb appeal" to be liked but liberals and their pals in the media fear the conservative blackness in him so much that they will surely find or create enough dirt on this guy that he's already dead on arrival. Paul Ryan is a possibility but his association with Romney may weigh him down. I still think that Cruz or Perry are the best bets overall.

Getting back to Hillary, while she may still inexplicably hold some appeal despite the Benghazi debacle I'm betting she's lost enough luster to be beatable.

It's early...we'll see.

it is so Warm in here
White
Angry
Reactionary
Males

Yeah, I don't think Huckabee has a chance, either.

But Hillary is definitely beatable. In 2012 a major factor with Obama was he was still able to turn out the minorities and youth vote. Hillary won't do nearly as well there, not without Obama's help which she might not get (will be tough to distance herself from Obama while having him stump for her).

Hillary is still as polarizing as ever. And beside her age being a factor, it won't help that her most memorable Sec State moment was "what difference does it make?!?". Honestly, WTF has she done beside forgive Slick Willy?

I doubt Schweitzer can beat Hillary, but if he runs he'll hammer her pretty good and do real damage to her POTUS candidacy.

IggyPride00;1623519 wrote:After this country's experience with the Dear Leader the chances of electing another first term Senator with no executive experience this election cycle is exactly nil.

If the voting contingent is knowledgable enough to put this together, we wouldn't be in a second term.

believer;1623548 wrote:As much as the electorate had Bush fatigue helping to usher in the latest fiasco occupying the White House, I think there's enough anti-Obama sentiment out there (despite the growing darkening of the electorate) to be a major advantage to the Repubs this time around.

Keep in mind that the Dems are fickle. I remind you that Queen Hillary was a virtual lock on the Dem nomination back in 2008 but somehow, someway a junior senator straight from Chicago Political Machine scurried out of the woodwork to knock her off her throne. And with the help of an adoring mainstream media that refused to do any true vetting on this unqualified "community organizer" replete with questionable friends and background, Barry managed to weasel his way to the party nomination and eventually the White House.

The Repubs, even now, have a bench of people far more qualified to be POTUS. It's really a matter of who the party decides to back. It is true that we now live in an age where "sellability" outweighs true leadership ability, but I disagree that Huckabee might be that guy. He's too "Christian" to appeal to moderates, libertarians, and the media. Rand Paul is probably too libertarian to appeal to the establishment Repubs in the same way his old man was snubbed. Ben Carson has the "curb appeal" to be liked but liberals and their pals in the media fear the conservative blackness in him so much that they will surely find or create enough dirt on this guy that he's already dead on arrival. Paul Ryan is a possibility but his association with Romney may weigh him down. I still think that Cruz or Perry are the best bets overall.

Getting back to Hillary, while she may still inexplicably hold some appeal despite the Benghazi debacle I'm betting she's lost enough luster to be beatable.

It's early...we'll see.

I'm somewhat surprised the GOP has not come up with a legitimate candidate thus far for 2016. Not trying to troll but it seems like time is running out. It seems Ted Cruz might make a go of it but goddamn Hillary, call it a day.

Mohican00;1623645 wrote:I'm somewhat surprised the GOP has not come up with a legitimate candidate thus far for 2016. Not trying to troll but it seems like time is running out. It seems Ted Cruz might make a go of it but goddamn Hillary, call it a day.

In the Mericun political universe there's still plenty 'o time for the Repubs to come up with a viable final candidate. I'm not overly concerned about it.

What I am concerned about is Hillary. The fact is 47% of Americans will still vote for her despite Benghazi, her age, Slick Willy, etc. She could murder a baby on the White House lawn in broad daylight and the media would go to bat for her and American liberals would still vote for her.

The key for the Repubs this time is swinging moderates, independents, and libertarians back over to the other side of the aisle.

It's possible, but the ticket has to be appealing and the campaign has to be well orchestrated. The media will be relentless with the attacks on the eventual Repub choices and will bang the Queen Hillary drum all the way to election night.

Scott Walker/Ben Carson 2016,2020,2024
Ted Cruz/Ben Carson 2016,2020,2024