Who will run in 2016?

Mott the Hoople said:
I think the Democratic nomination will be more interesting than the Republican.

There are currently five front runners for the Republican nomination and no....Rand Paul is definately not one of them (That's just libertarian lala land wishful thinking.). Those are, in no particular order. Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Condeleza Rice.

Republicans would be idiots to nominate anyone other than Christie. He's the only electable candidate they have. He's tough on foriegn policy, he's pro business, he's a moderate on most issues and he's shown the bipartisan ability to build coalitions and get things done.

Ryan might as well have "Owned by the Koch Brothers" tatooed on his forehead. His economic and social views will alienate minorities and women. He's incapable of building a winning coalition. This nation needs another Bush like it needs a hole in it's head but after Christie Jeb would be the only other viable candidate, though a long shot to beat a tough Dem opponent. Rubio is a rookie and too inexperienced and hasn't show the political ability to build a winning coalition, not at the national level. Condeleza Rice, who has shown no inclination to run for public office, has never ran a campaign for elective office and has the immoral war in Iraq hanging over her head like a lead anchor. Not a chance of her winning.

Democrats have more interesting possibilities. Hilliary Clinton would be the obvious front runner if she chose to run and would probably win if anyone but Christie is nominated by the Republicans. Joe Biden comes in close second as a sitting Veep for getting the nomination but the track record of Veeps/Senators running for the top job hasn't been steeler with a few notable exceptions. Then there's Joes ability to put his foot in his mouth. My personal favorite is John Warner. Like Christie he's a crossover politician who appeals to moderate of both stripes and has a steller public/private career. He's also a dynamic personality. Andrew Cuomo is more of a dark horse candidate but is one of the more popular governors in the nation.

If Hilliary does run then my guess is that the race would be between her and Chris Christie. The question then would be could Christie win the nomination with out destroying his national election possibilities like Romney did with the incessantly long GOP primary that forced him to move way to far to the right.
Click to expand...

Most of the people you mention for GOP are unlikely to run. Frankly, I think you are out of touch.
 
Superfreak said:
Wow... you should look up what substance means Garud. Saying he is a joke is not substance. Not in the least.
Click to expand...

I agree, that was not the substance in my comment. I assumed everyone knew he was a joke. The substance of my point was that if the person writing that article thought Scott was a likely viable candidate... his creditability is seriously in question.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I think the Democratic nomination will be more interesting than the Republican.

There are currently five front runners for the Republican nomination and no....Rand Paul is definately not one of them (That's just libertarian lala land wishful thinking.). Those are, in no particular order. Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Condeleza Rice.

Republicans would be idiots to nominate anyone other than Christie. He's the only electable candidate they have. He's tough on foriegn policy, he's pro business, he's a moderate on most issues and he's shown the bipartisan ability to build coalitions and get things done.

Ryan might as well have "Owned by the Koch Brothers" tatooed on his forehead. His economic and social views will alienate minorities and women. He's incapable of building a winning coalition. This nation needs another Bush like it needs a hole in it's head but after Christie Jeb would be the only other viable candidate, though a long shot to beat a tough Dem opponent. Rubio is a rookie and too inexperienced and hasn't show the political ability to build a winning coalition, not at the national level. Condeleza Rice, who has shown no inclination to run for public office, has never ran a campaign for elective office and has the immoral war in Iraq hanging over her head like a lead anchor. Not a chance of her winning.

Democrats have more interesting possibilities. Hilliary Clinton would be the obvious front runner if she chose to run and would probably win if anyone but Christie is nominated by the Republicans. Joe Biden comes in close second as a sitting Veep for getting the nomination but the track record of Veeps/Senators running for the top job hasn't been steeler with a few notable exceptions. Then there's Joes ability to put his foot in his mouth. My personal favorite is John Warner. Like Christie he's a crossover politician who appeals to moderate of both stripes and has a steller public/private career. He's also a dynamic personality. Andrew Cuomo is more of a dark horse candidate but is one of the more popular governors in the nation.

If Hilliary does run then my guess is that the race would be between her and Chris Christie. The question then would be could Christie win the nomination with out destroying his national election possibilities like Romney did with the incessantly long GOP primary that forced him to move way to far to the right.
Click to expand...

Cuomo's hard left stance on gun control has already destroyed any chance he may have once had. He didn't think that through very well, IMO.
 
Anyways, here is the people I'd LIKE to see on the Republican side:
Jan Brewer (would almost certainly vote for here over even a Libertarian)
Jon Huntsmen
Susana Martinez
David Petraus
Mike Mullen

From the Democrats:
Bill Richardson (would vote for him over some Libertarians)
Howard Dean
John Lynch
Peter Shumlin
 
Chapel The Evergreen said:
No, it's not. You just said the Democrats want to keep it (prayer) out. That's sticking government directly in.
Click to expand...
restraining a branch of the government from doing something, is limiting the government. Arguing to allow the government to do something is promoting more government. Geesh you are mixed up.
 
Chapel The Evergreen said:
And the Libertarian position is that it should NOT BE PART OF GOD DAMN MOTHER FUCKING GOVERNMENT. Do I need to say that again?
Click to expand...
Exactly and said Tess government intruston is better than more. You want the government to be allowed to force prayer, that's more prayer not less...
 
Jarod said:
Exactly and said Tess government intruston is better than more. You want the government to be allowed to force prayer, that's more prayer not less...
Click to expand...

How is getting government out forcing government in? Is this like Schrodingers cat? It must be. There is no other explanation for the stupidity you've spewed forth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top