View Full Version : GOP Presidential Primary
ICantSpellDawg
08-09-2013, 03:32
I'm just waiting for my favorite game to roll around again. My favorites for the run are:
Ryan
Rubio
Paul
Christie
Bush :no:
Ayotte :no:
Jindal
Cruz :no:
McMorris-Rodgers
It's going to be great, I doubt we've ever seen so much new talent so prominently featured for a run simultaneously. Obviously, I have a feeling that a few are going to drop early, my money is on Iowa and NH being close, but favoring Paul. Subsequent States are likely to favor Christie, particularly after he tacks right following his NJ gubernatorial re-election. All bets are off if Christie scrambles after winning his re-election. They are polling best right now, 3 years away, so it means nothing.
Am I missing any more long-standing names? This has to be a first that the old guard are largely absent from the field.
Either Christie or Jeb Bush. Bush will easily draw a lot of Hispanic vote while Christie is just a plain cool no-nonsense guy. Of course a lot depends on who will emerge on the Dem side.
https://i.imgur.com/D7xruFj.jpg
ICantSpellDawg
08-09-2013, 04:36
Tell that to the candidates. If there is a game being played, I'm watching and talking about it.
a completely inoffensive name
08-09-2013, 07:46
By starting the discussion this early they hope to gain the momentum in the public discourse and force a lame duck president situation on Obama.
Papewaio
08-09-2013, 07:54
We just had the longest election campaign in Australia history started by the Australian PM.
It certainly contributed to people's weariness and she was kicked out of office by her own party before it ended.
Long election campaigns irritate people. All talk and promises and no action.
CountArach
08-10-2013, 16:57
Obviously, I have a feeling that a few are going to drop early, my money is on Iowa and NH being close, but favoring Paul.
Certainly NH favours Paul and Nevada too, but I would be wary of Iowa if I were him. None of the current likely candidates are really looking to appeal to that Evangelical vote that can do so well there (see Huckabee winning comfortably) though the caucus format does naturally suit those like Paul who are likely to have an energised and passionate core following. I would expect a new candidate to rise up running on an evangelical platform in the not too distant future. Really, even an establishment conservative like Bush could have a great deal of success given how beloved George W was amongst that demographic.
Also no way in hell Christie gets the nomination. No. Way. In. Hell. Not conservative enough (at least in popular perception) and seen as too close to Obama.
ICantSpellDawg
08-11-2013, 14:36
.
Also no way in hell Christie gets the nomination. No. Way. In. Hell. Not conservative enough (at least in popular perception) and seen as too close to Obama.
I think that opinions will change dramatically after November.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-13-2013, 22:47
Quite a bit too early for this. Check the fund-raising success/state headquarters staffing set up totals at roughly April in 2015 and you will begin to get a sense of things. Until then, its all moonlight and shadow.
Hopefully between now and then someone new will come along, because I don't like any of what I see.
Major Robert Dump
08-14-2013, 18:04
A quality, decent frontrunner will emerge, and the Jeb Bush will enter the race and get the nomination thanks to all his moneys and a fear that the only thing that can stop a Clinton legacy is a Bush legacy.
I have no problem with Jeb. He is experienced, stays away from the fringe, is popular with Hispanics and is not retarded. His last name doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Fisherking
08-14-2013, 20:43
A quality, decent frontrunner will emerge, and the Jeb Bush will enter the race and get the nomination thanks to all his moneys and a fear that the only thing that can stop a Clinton legacy is a Bush legacy.
The reasons are not important but I am pretty sure the next POTUS will be Jeb Bush.
His last name doesn't bother me in the slightest.
His last name is the same as both the best and worst presidents of my lifetime.
His last name is the same as both the best and worst presidents of my lifetime.
W being the best of course.
No Clintons, no Bushes, please. Let's get some new blood. Dynasties are un-American.
CountArach
08-15-2013, 00:52
Time you lot had another Adams I think.
No Clintons, no Bushes, please. Let's get some new blood. Dynasties are un-American.
Not voting for a man because of his name is just as bad as voting for a man because of his name. He is not his brother and he is not his father. Judging him on anything other than merit, that's what is really un-american.
Fisherking
08-17-2013, 09:56
I would rather see a Paul or someone not your standard mold politician but the chances of that are about nil. The parties and the press would not allow such a thing.
HopAlongBunny
08-17-2013, 12:10
Ralph Nader 2016!
Fisherking
08-17-2013, 16:16
Ralph Nader 2016!
Well, this thread only applies to he possible GOP Candidates.
It would be great if a viable third party were put together and not beholden to the two big boys.
We are not likely to see much new from them and their corporate sponsors.
People are not upset enough yet to quite believing their lies and looking for real representation and real solutions to problems.
Everyone thinks Congress and the Government are dumb and doing these things out of shear stupidity.
The honest truth is they do these things to help themselves along with their corporate and special interest backers.
Seems to me they are doing a good job for them while fooling the voting public.
Major Robert Dump
08-18-2013, 13:59
Maybe Petreaus will run on a family values/literacy platform
CountArach
08-18-2013, 14:11
Maybe Petreaus will run on a family values/literacy platform
I think he would be much better as an insurgent candidate.
I'm not too interested in who will win the nomination. I'm more interested in the 2 or 3 psycho fundie whack-jobs that will make an early splash and then fade away, but not before permanantly damaging the GOP brand. Those guys are way more entertaining, and if Clinton looks strong on the other side they will be even more animated. :yes:
The Lurker Below
08-18-2013, 15:40
Weiner - Holder 2016!
ah poop, sorry, wrong party.
Fisherking
08-18-2013, 21:35
There are 6 major networks reporting the news; ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, & MSNBC. Five of the five show a clear left wing bias and one shows a clear right wing bias. There is really no one reporting the unfiltered facts. There is something very wrong with that. But even dumber is that so many people want to shut down Fox because of its alternative view.
Since they are going to remain biased no matter what we say, why would it be better to have all six telling the same lies? That
only makes it harder to find the truth. Not that anyone actually does that.
I see the GOP are taking that "stuck in an echo chamber" analysis thing seriously. ~:rolleyes:
Strike For The South
08-18-2013, 23:09
The "Left" has no American outlet
The "upper middle class white demographic who likes to see stories about poor people, brown people, and poor brown people; all the while still being committed to corporatism" has 4 outlets
There is no left in mainstream America
and even outside the mainstream it's nothing but socially awkward malcontents who know :daisy: all
Since they are going to remain biased no matter what we say, why would it be better to have all six telling the same lies?
Whether you like it or hate it, what Fox News is doing is unique. To assert they're playing by the same set of rules as any other mainstream news organization is absurd.
Fisherking
08-19-2013, 06:29
Whether you like it or hate it, what Fox News is doing is unique. To assert they're playing by the same set of rules as any other mainstream news organization is absurd.
Interesting, you will need to explain that a bit.
My only grounds for assessment come from their web sites, as I have been out of the country for nearly 10 years.
The only English language broadcasts I receive are MSNBC and CNN International, which is a bit more to the left than MSNBC. Generally, they make Der Spiegel look as though it is coming from right of center, which is equally absurd.
Fox was mostly pundits, with intermittent news coverage, is that the unique part?
Fisherking
08-19-2013, 08:52
No, I don’t think so. It is not the evils of Murdoch that is the problem. The bias was there long before there was a Fox. It presented one side of the story and that was it. When Fox started presenting things from the right there was outrage from the other side. There has not been just the reporting of objective facts for a long, long time, if ever. Some few stories may be presented somewhat less biased than others but as a whole it is always presented from a political view point.
On both sides it always favors their corporate perspectives.
Fox has high ratings because there is only the one rightwing outlet vs. the others competing for the moderate to left wing share. They watch what most agrees with what they already think. It is just to get validation for their world view.
There are no nonbiased sources. Every bit of news you can glean has to be weighed and balanced against the opposing view point.
Demonizing Murdoch is just obviouscation. The other side never wants people to look at things objectively. He may be scum but he is no more or less scum than many who oppose him.
a completely inoffensive name
08-19-2013, 09:10
The other side never wants people to look at things objectively.
The problem here is how do you know that your view on CNN, NBC and CBS is the objective one? Or even more objective than other opinions posted here?
The discussion itself is a red herring in my opinion. It does not matter which way the big networks lean, they all do a proper job of misinforming and misleading the public. Some days if you watch the local news channels in LA you might think to yourself that LA has never been worse, that the 1992 riots are going to occur all over again.
FOX sells fear and claims the source is liberals.
Everyone else sells fear and claims the source is society and your neighbors.
Fisherking
08-19-2013, 11:05
I am not selling liberalism or conservatism. They will both gladly sell you a bill of goods.
Excepting that either has the answers to all problems is foolish IMHO. Both sides play on fear and emotion, as you point out.
Why is that a red herring? Or do I misunderstand what you were saying?
I'm old enough to remember when CNN was a decent news station. Low on the punditry, generally straight news reporting. Then Fox came around, took the right wing viewers, and left it with paparazzi and Nancy Grace...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sIYe74sczE
Yeah, CNN as a credible news source has been in the toilet since the start of the new millennium.
There are 6 major networks reporting the news; ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, & MSNBC. Five of the five show a clear left wing bias and one shows a clear right wing bias. There is really no one reporting the unfiltered facts.
The bias was there long before there was a Fox. It presented one side of the story and that was it. When Fox started presenting things from the right there was outrage from the other side.
I hope you realize that you are repeating, almost word-for-word, Fox News' public justification for their rather extreme slant on news.
It's a dualistic perspective, which makes it suspect from the get-go, and at best partially true.
We've had newspapers and broadsheets that were organs of a single party in the USA, but until Fox News we never had a network dedicated to a single party. Also, as GC points out, there were major economic changes brought on by FN.
Sending reporters out into the field to actually report on things: Expensive.
Talking heads shouting at each other in a studio: Cheap.
So even if a show with shouty heads gets, say 60% of the ratings of a real news show, the network still wins. On top of which, if the shouty heads can stir up fear and outrage, they can achieve better ratings than actual reporting.
So obviously, the advent of FN created massive structural change in cable news.
From what I've seen MSNBC tries to do the Fox News thing, but with much less discipline and skill. CNN is just lost, apparently.
I swore off cable news a long time ago. The all-shouty-heads format leaves me cold, and there's strong evidence that it leaves viewers less informed than if they never turned it on (http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5).
I would also question the wisdom of allowing a cable network to define a party, but that's a question for a different thread. More than one prominent Republican has raised the question of whether Fox News is working for the party, or the party is now working for the network.
Fisherking
08-19-2013, 18:05
As I think I said, the only reason to watch any of the US network news programs is to find someone you agree with.
I usually check some news headlines to find a starting place for searches.
I am not sticking up for Fox or any of the others. I see no justification in deliberately slanting the news.
I find that they are all unreliable so far as truth goes or which party is in office.
Thanks for clarifying the financial side of what Fox did, disgusting. Reality show TV and shouting matches passing for news. Glad I am not there. lol
None of the sources seem very good. From one to almost two correct answers out of five? Of course it is all single source news or none at all but still…
And the question of who is working for whom is a good on, no matter the outlet.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.