Republcian nominee 2016

There seem to be four front runners for the republicans in 2016, who do you think is most likely to win? I'd say Christie, however, at the same time he seems to be the least likely of the four to run.

 

Ted Cruz.

 

Why? I think Christie because he's more popular with liberals than the others, so he has a better chance.

 

Chris Christie: He's been constantly blasted for his Hurricane Sandy fling with Obama. Republicans consider him too bi-partisan.

Sarah Palin: There's no way in hell she'll even be considered for nomination. People on both sides think she's an idiot.

Rand Paul: This is the obvious choice out of the four you listed. It seems like he's the only Republican around right now with any balls. His Libertarian background will also help bring in those voters that the GOP alienated during the last election (me being one of them).

Marco Rubio: The only appeal he'll have is his ethnicity, unfortunately. Plus his immigration reform bill isn't being well received.

 

There should be a "it won't matter" option. Hillary Clinton will be the next President.

 

DON'T FORGET GEORGE P. BUSH:




He's a Bush, so he'll have the establishment vote. He's hispanic, so he'll get their vote. His age will get him the youth vote. And his dashing good looks will get him the women/gay vote.

 

If they go with Christie....chances are I go Republican again (Hillary scares me), and I have no idea who the Indies will go with.

Unfortunately, he is probably too moderate to get the nomination......but we shall see.

 

Here is a thought that has been floating around in my head for some time: the Republicans lost the 2012 presidential elections because of Citizens United v.FEC.

It looked to me (as a Green Party member) that the big money from a very small clique of wealthy Republicans manipulated the nominating process. They backed some individuals that were not popular with the masses and thus thwarted the will of the base.

If we look at the fact that the vast majority (over 90%) of potential voters donate less than $200 to a candidate, it becomes obvious that if you squeeze these people out of the nomination selection process you will not get the most popular choice and hence won't get the most popular with the masses candidate. If the nominees had to get massive numbers of small donations, the most popular (read winnable) candidate would emerge, not the one who promises the most to a few rich doners.

Obama was very beatable, but Romney was the least likely opponent to bring out the enthusiastic support needed. Come on, a Morman who would not even release his old tax returns, the governor who created Obamacare in Mass, a flipflopper on just about every issue you can think of. Real people would not have nominated him, but the elites in their mansons saw nothing wrong with him.

Interestingly enough in 2016, we may have the rich elites in both parties nominating their preferred ivory tower candidate.

Ending Citizens United

 

1st....including Palin just completely negates the seriousness of your poll. Sarey is now just a reality TV star and spokesmodel (she rose to the level of her competence) and couldn't get elected US Senator ....FROM ALASKA...these days.

2nd....still betting on Rubio. The GOP Party Boss Mind-set has got to be "We need a Latino as Nominee to woo the Latino vote". Now they COULD try Ted Cruz....but Cruz has shown little ability to win a "swing state" like Florida.

 

Are we not expecting Gingrich to make another run at it? McCain tried twice, didn't he? On the GOP side, Here in NY, many of us would like to see Rudy Giuliani give it another go. And candidly, a Gingrich-Giuliani ticket might have a shot at Clinton-Kerry or Clinton-Christie in 2016. If I don't see Rudy on the ticket, my plan is to probably vote Libertarian as usual.

 

I've already crossed off Rubio and Ryan because Republicans in Washington these days are generally loathed and there is no expectation of that changing significantly.

I think the GOP will look for a popular governor - Chris Christie, Susana Martinez, Bob McDonnell, or John Kasich . Maybe even Bobby Jindal or Mike Pence.

(I'd love to see Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, and Perry again, but their shtick seems to have fizzled.)

 

Well, I'd pick Hillary over the alternatives, but he's certainly better than the others that have been mentioned.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh please, not them again again, all their good for is being made fun of.

 

Don't underestimate the entertainment value of zaniness.

 

Bachmann and Perry would be political suicide for the GOP.

 

I am throwing in my hopes for Paul Rand and Marco Rubio. Rand is a man who is strong and will give anyone a run for their campaign dollars. Anyone who can try to stand for 13 hrs. and filibuster against a bill to allow a to President to have the power to order a drone strike on a U.S. citizen, is a true patriot. He is against police being able to use those mini drones as an arsenal against us. He is also in the upper 25% with CPAC's 2016 straw poll.

Now if he is contending against Hillary Clinton it's going to be tough.

Rubio is needed as his V.P., to appeal to the young people as well as the Hispanic vote.

They both bring a fresh face to the GOP.

I just don't think Christie will pull it off. Republicans are not for expanding Medicaid and Christie endorsed it in February of this year. We need to cut the program by eliminating fraud and waste.

 

Hopefully the Republicans will run McCain again. By 2016 he should be totally senile which should make him a perfect spokesperson for the conservative wing of the party.

 

Christie has high favorability ratings in his state, even among Democrats, but I think his weight will be too great an issue, and he's something of a moderate - and after Mitt Romney and John McCain, I think Republicans will want to nominate someone they view as more ideologically conservative. Its too early to predict who will run, though. Rand Paul seems interested in running. I imagine he'll do better than his father, and will at least have a chance to get the nomination, but he lacks some of the charima of a Presidential candidate. Marco Rubio might be a bit more willing to run, which is perhaps why he is taking such a large role in the immigration bill, but he might not have Presidential aspirations.

I'd probably go with Rand Paul. Christie is too fat and too much a moderate. Rubio might not run. Palin has too high unfavorability.

I do really like Susana Martinez, New Mexico governor, first female Hispanic Gov. in the US... If you could get any GOP ticket with either Paul, Rubio or Martinez, I'd support it in a heartbeat.

 

I tend to agree that it has to be Rubio for the Hispanic vote (the question will be: is a Cuban Hispanic able to get Mexican voters?) and someone fresh for the top of the ticket. Certainly doing an old fashioned filibuster is a good feather in someone's cap, but the Congress is so unpopular a governor maybe a better (no baggage) choice.

The real question will be: Will the big doners both corporate and individual drown out the voices of the base like with Romney? Big and hidden money in politics is stealing the choices away from us citizens.

 

You've got one guy (Rand) in there who said he'd oppose the Civil Rights Act....while his Veep (Marco) would supposedly be in there to win over minority voters?

 

I'd take Christie over the first two anyday.

- - - Updated - - -

Great point, it will be like watching Arrested Development!

 

Seriously? Has any republicon ever won without massive support from law enforcement personnel, including those that are unionized?

Do you know what they think of Rotten Rudy even now, based on his handling of emergency operation during the 9/11 attacks?

Seriously?

And would you care to tell me why any soldier would want to vote for that bloated little horndog Gingrich?

Yeah, I would love to see them run that ticket, but for a different reason than you would.

 

Rand Paul is the guy. He's a Hillary smasher.

 

Christie may not run.
Paul's popular support is going to take a dive as he continues to abandon his base on the libertarian right.
Palin's a joke in the national sphere.
Rubio's kind of a standard Republican, from what I know. They might choose him if they decide to "play it safe".

 

don't know about that. he seems to be positioning himself as a politician who gets things done and work in a bipartisan atmosphere

 

I do not think it matters who the Republicans nominate. Last time we had a moderate charming Republican candidate who was smart, articulate and with it. He lost. He lost because the Democrat socialist agenda of a chicken in every pot is ringing home with a majority of voters. The winner of the next election will be touting big social programs all over the place. This will win. Sad but true.