What's new

Welcome to Offtopix 👋, Visitor

Off Topix is a well-established general discussion forum that originally opened to the public in 2009! We provide a laid-back atmosphere, and our members are down to earth. We have a ton of content, and fresh stuff is constantly being added. We cover all sorts of topics, so there's bound to be something inside to pique your interest. We welcome anyone and everyone to register and become a member of our awesome community.

Join Our Facebook Page Today!

Join the conversation and help spread the word about offtopix on Facebook! Your voice matters—let’s make an impact together!

Join Our X.com Page Today!

Join the conversation and become a champion for Offtopix on X.com! Your voice is powerful, and together, we can create meaningful change!

Join offtopix Discord Server Today!

Join the conversation and become a champion for Offtopix on Discord! Your voice holds incredible power, and together, we can create impactful change!

2016 GOP Primary Field Expected To Be Huge

Webster

Retired Snark Master
Administrator
Joined
May 11, 2013
Posts
24,893
Reaction score
13,616
Points
2,755
Location
Morganton, N.C.
Website
conversations-ii.freeforums.net
...oh, this is nice: a huge GOP clown car masquerading as presidential primary candidates...
New Washington Post-ABC News polling on the 2016 Republican presidential race makes one thing very clear: Every GOPer who has even a hint of ambition for national office is likely to run in two years time. Why? Because the field is remarkably frontrunner-less, meaning that every Ted, John and Rob can make a plausible case to activists and donors that they are going to eventually be the guy.

Check out the field without Mitt Romney, who isn't running, included:
imrs.php


National polls of a race whose first vote won't be cast for another fourteen months should be taken as a test not of electoral viability but of name identification. That is, when asked who they will support in a race that is two years and one election away, people tend to choose not necessarily who they will really vote for when the time comes but rather whatever name comes to their mind when being asked the question.

Even though this poll isn't predictive, it is telling. Two of the top three candidates -- Bush and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee -- are, at best, 50-50 shots at running. (Bush is entirely unreadable; Huckabee seems smart enough to understand that he had his presidential moment in 2008.) The only other person pulling double digits is Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a status due, at least in part, to voters' familiarity with his last name because of his father's two presidential bids in 2008 and 2012.

The simple fact is that this is a historically wide-open Republican field. As Dan Balz noted over the weekend: "For the first time in a long time, there is neither an heir apparent (George H.W. Bush in 1988, Bob Dole in 1996, John McCain in 2008, Romney in 2012) nor a dominant first-time candidate (George W. Bush in 2000)."

So, if you are, say, Ohio Gov. John Kasich (2 percent), Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (4 percent) or Ohio Sen. Rob Portman (0 percent) or really anyone else with an 'R' after his or her name, you should look at this poll and think: I have a decent shot at being the Republican presidential nominee in 2016. Because, you do.

That fact is affirmed by more than just the lack of a well-known frontrunner. Look at the "top" candidates -- and their flaws.
* Jeb Bush: Supports Common Core and immigration reform
* Rand Paul: His views on foreign policy are ripe for opposition research.
* Mike Huckabee: Economic record as governor of Arkansas has made him an enemy of fiscal conservatives like the Club For Growth.
* Paul Ryan: Almost certainly not running.
* Marco Rubio: The face of the Senate's immigration reform bill.
* Chris Christie: Time for some more traffic problems in Fort Lee.
* Ben Carson: Um....
* Rick Perry: You don't get a second chance to make a first impression.

Now, flawed candidates in the eyes of the party base win nominations all the time. Witness Mitt Romney and John McCain in 2012 and 2008, respectively. My point is not that one of the people mentioned above won't be the nominee but rather that all of them have significant hurdles they will have to overcome to be their party's standard-bearer in 2016. No one in this field scares anyone out of it -- with the possible exception of Bush who would likely thin the field somewhat (Rubio would likely get out, Kasich might reconsider.)

The long, long list of potential presidential candidates stretches to 26 names. Now, let's assume that only half that number run. It would still be the largest Republican field in more than four decades. And, the trend line on size of fields is moving toward bigger. In 1980, seven GOPers ran for the chance to take on President Jimmy Carter. In 1988, it was six. By 1996, double digits (10) had been reached. In 2000, 2008 and 2012, 12 people ran each time.

The prospect of a massive field is catnip for political junkies but will strike fear and anxiety in the hearts of Republican strategists -- led by party chairman Reince Priebus -- who have gone out of their way to try to massage the nominating process in a way that will produce a nominee quickly against Hillary Clinton. There is, of course, always the possibility someone in the field -- either a name we already know or one we aren't thinking of -- catches fire and surges through the primary field and to the nomination. But, it's increasingly obvious that such a candidate will have to navigate through a historically large field of would-be rivals, spending money and political capital every step of the way.(Washington Post)

I'm of two minds on this...the political-science junkie in me is really looking forward to watching who emerges from the field above. The progressive in me, though, is laughing his ass off at the coming GOP clown car...:lol::lol::lol:

Thoughts?
 
I am looking forward to the election.

Go Ted Cruz!
 
TRUE LIBERTY said:
I am looking forward to the election.

Go Ted Cruz!

To which part, Calgary Cruz getting' thumped in the primary...or to whichever GOP candidate survives the clown car experience getting thumped in the general?:lol::lol::lol:
 
Or Carson. Or Jindel. Maybe Marco if he has truly seen the light on illegals. After that the lot is nothing to celebrate about. But I would vote for my sneakers over criminal Hillary.
 
TRUE LIBERTY said:
Or Carson. Or Jindel. Maybe Marco if he has truly seen the light on illegals. After that the lot is nothing to celebrate about. But I would vote for my sneakers over criminal Hillary.

Even then, Hillary would win, so what's the point?
 
Webster said:
TRUE LIBERTY said:
Or Carson. Or Jindel. Maybe Marco if he has truly seen the light on illegals. After that the lot is nothing to celebrate about. But I would vote for my sneakers over criminal Hillary.

Even then, Hillary would win, so what's the point?

Hillary ain't winning squat. She couldn't even sell her book. The leftists are doing everything to prop her up because they have no one else. With her health issues I don't think she is running but I hope I am wrong. She is the best chance for a conservative to win.
 
TRUE LIBERTY said:
Hillary ain't winning squat. She couldn't even sell her book. The leftists are doing everything to prop her up because they have no one else. With her health issues I don't think she is running but I hope I am wrong. She is the best chance for a conservative to win.

Given the changing demographics of the country, Liberty, the only way Republicans win in 2016 is if Hillary doesn't run; if she runs, she has the potential - yes, I know its' 2 years out but still - to bring back the old 90's Clinton Coalition which the Big Dog rode to electoral victory back in the 1990's. Even if Hillary doesn't run, I'd still gamble on the Democratic candidate winning than the Republican candidate just on having a bigger turnout in presidential elections alone.
 
With the changing demographics it is very likely if we can actually get a conservative like Ted Cruz and Rubio's ability to speak about conservatism to win. I can't wait for the race to begin.
 
TRUE LIBERTY said:
With the changing demographics it is very likely if we can actually get a conservative like Ted Cruz and Rubio's ability to speak about conservatism to win. I can't wait for the race to begin.

When people hear those clown car riders talk...good luck with that idea! :lol::lol::lol:
And no, the changing demographics are breaking towards the left, not the right, Liberty... :whistle::whistle::whistle:
 
When they hear someone who can actually speaks without a teleprompter and actually make sense they will see who the true clowns are from the left.

No the demographics are going more conservative. Say thank you to obama for that. People seeing there health care being destroyed right in front of them has done that. And not to mention the border, how they handle a crisis like ebola and a list as long as my arm.

And this was late last years study. I am sure it has only gotten better sense then.

Americans are more conservative than they have been in decades. James Stimson knows as much about public opinion as anyone in America. He has been tracking the nation’s policy preferences for more than 20 years using a “policy mood” index derived from responses to a wide variety of opinion surveys involving hundreds of specific policy questions on topics ranging from taxes and spending to environmental regulation to gun control.

The latest update of Stimson’s policy mood series suggests that the American public in 2012 was more conservative than at any point since 1952. (Actually, since mood in each year is estimated with some error, it seems safer to say that the current level of conservatism roughly equals the previous highs recorded in 1980 and 1952.) While the slight increase in conservatism from 2011 to 2012 is too small to be significant, it continues a marked trend that began as soon as Barack Obama moved into the White House. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/09/30/americans-are-more-conservative-than-they-have-been-in-decades/
 
TRUE LIBERTY said:
When they hear someone who can actually speaks without a teleprompter and actually make sense they will see who the true clowns are from the left.

No the demographics are going more conservative. Say thank you to obama for that. People seeing there health care being destroyed right in front of them has done that. And not to mention the border, how they handle a crisis like ebola and a list as long as my arm.

And this was late last years study. I am sure it has only gotten better sense then.

Americans are more conservative than they have been in decades. James Stimson knows as much about public opinion as anyone in America. He has been tracking the nation’s policy preferences for more than 20 years using a “policy mood” index derived from responses to a wide variety of opinion surveys involving hundreds of specific policy questions on topics ranging from taxes and spending to environmental regulation to gun control.

The latest update of Stimson’s policy mood series suggests that the American public in 2012 was more conservative than at any point since 1952. (Actually, since mood in each year is estimated with some error, it seems safer to say that the current level of conservatism roughly equals the previous highs recorded in 1980 and 1952.) While the slight increase in conservatism from 2011 to 2012 is too small to be significant, it continues a marked trend that began as soon as Barack Obama moved into the White House. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/09/30/americans-are-more-conservative-than-they-have-been-in-decades/

Sure...remind me again who won the last two presidential elections, Liberty?
 
Webster said:
Sure...remind me again who won the last two presidential elections, Liberty?

Yeah, about that 2012 election.

Exactly what was the margin of victory again?

✓ Barack Obama 51% 62,615,406
Mitt Romney 48% 59,142,004

Not exactly a landslide.


As for 16.

That list of suspects is going to change a lot between now and then.

As for the Clown Car aspect.

Let's look at who's in line behind Hillary.


 
DrLeftover said:
Webster said:
Sure...remind me again who won the last two presidential elections, Liberty?

Yeah, about that 2012 election.

Exactly what was the margin of victory again?



✓ Barack Obama 51% 62,615,406
Mitt Romney 48% 59,142,004


Not exactly a landslide.

He still won...and sometimes, that's all that matters.
 
DrLeftover said:
There are some that would say "he won, and we lost."

Elections have consequences...they lost.
 
Webster said:
TRUE LIBERTY said:
When they hear someone who can actually speaks without a teleprompter and actually make sense they will see who the true clowns are from the left.

No the demographics are going more conservative. Say thank you to obama for that. People seeing there health care being destroyed right in front of them has done that. And not to mention the border, how they handle a crisis like ebola and a list as long as my arm.

And this was late last years study. I am sure it has only gotten better sense then.

Americans are more conservative than they have been in decades. James Stimson knows as much about public opinion as anyone in America. He has been tracking the nation’s policy preferences for more than 20 years using a “policy mood” index derived from responses to a wide variety of opinion surveys involving hundreds of specific policy questions on topics ranging from taxes and spending to environmental regulation to gun control.

The latest update of Stimson’s policy mood series suggests that the American public in 2012 was more conservative than at any point since 1952. (Actually, since mood in each year is estimated with some error, it seems safer to say that the current level of conservatism roughly equals the previous highs recorded in 1980 and 1952.) While the slight increase in conservatism from 2011 to 2012 is too small to be significant, it continues a marked trend that began as soon as Barack Obama moved into the White House. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/09/30/americans-are-more-conservative-than-they-have-been-in-decades/

Sure...remind me again who won the last two presidential elections, Liberty?

And remind me again where the conservative was running against him. We had around 5 million conservatives and 5 million libertarians sit out of the elections.
 
DrLeftover said:
Webster said:
Sure...remind me again who won the last two presidential elections, Liberty?

Yeah, about that 2012 election.

Exactly what was the margin of victory again?

✓ Barack Obama 51% 62,615,406
Mitt Romney 48% 59,142,004

Not exactly a landslide.


As for 16.

That list of suspects is going to change a lot between now and then.

As for the Clown Car aspect.

Let's look at who's in line behind Hillary.



And not to mention some pretty bad voter fraud in key states.
 
TRUE LIBERTY said:
And remind me again where the conservative was running against him. We had around 5 million conservatives and 5 million libertarians sit out of the elections.

Last time I checked, both John McCain and Mitt Romney were conservatives...or at least, they had to be to get through the jackasses that make up the conservative electorate in the past two elections...
 
Webster said:
TRUE LIBERTY said:
And remind me again where the conservative was running against him. We had around 5 million conservatives and 5 million libertarians sit out of the elections.

Last time I checked, both John McCain and Mitt Romney were conservatives...or at least, they had to be to get through the jackasses that make up the conservative electorate in the past two elections...


Check again. Not even close to conservatives.
 
TRUE LIBERTY said:
Webster said:
TRUE LIBERTY said:
And remind me again where the conservative was running against him. We had around 5 million conservatives and 5 million libertarians sit out of the elections.

Last time I checked, both John McCain and Mitt Romney were conservatives...or at least, they had to be to get through the jackasses that make up the conservative electorate in the past two elections...


Check again. Not even close to conservatives.

Depends on how far you push the political window....which, viewing it from your perspective, takes us right straight from the world of sane rationality right into right-wing whackjob territory...no offense.:lol::lol::lol:
 

Create an account or login to post a reply

You must be a member in order to post a reply

Create an account

Create an account here on Off Topix. It's quick & easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Welcome to Offtopix 👋, Visitor

Off Topix is a well-established general discussion forum that originally opened to the public in 2009! We provide a laid-back atmosphere, and our members are down to earth. We have a ton of content, and fresh stuff is constantly being added. We cover all sorts of topics, so there's bound to be something inside to pique your interest. We welcome anyone and everyone to register and become a member of our awesome community.

Theme customization system

You can customize some areas of the forum theme from this menu.

  • Theme customizations unavailable!

    Theme customization fields are not available to you, please contact the administrator for more information.

  • Choose the color combination that reflects your taste
    Background images
    Color gradient backgrounds
Back