Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[nenjin]

Isn't a primary a private affair? How do you legally challenge your own party failing to sufficiently check up on adherence to their own policies?

Maybe that's just us weird Iowans.

Not if it's an open primary.

[Owlbread]

What do you fellows think of Rand Paul's chances as the GOP Presidential nominee against Hilary Clinton?

[misko27]

What do you fellows think of Rand Paul's chances as the GOP Presidential nominee against Hilary Clinton?

Onion: "Bored GOP Vetting Rand Paul Just To Kill Time Before Viable 2016 Candidate Emerges"

[smjjames]

What do you fellows think of Rand Paul's chances as the GOP Presidential nominee against Hilary Clinton?

Not great I think. Honestly, I would like them to field a good quality candidate, not like Romney, not like Santorum, none of the Tea Party junk.....

I'd still like to see what else the Democrats have to offer besides Hillary.

[palsch]

I'd still like to see what else the Democrats have to offer besides Hillary.

A list here hits some of the significant ones.

I'm not sure about Biden running. I don't see his odds as all that good and there's not really much more to gain for him. He turns 74 in November '16, which is not attractive even for another term as VP. He would also be running hard on Obama's record, which is always an awkward position. Sitting VPs don't have the best history when it comes to upgrading.

Pretty sure that Martin O’Malley is running even if it's hopeless. He's been acting like he's gearing up for a while now, and is term limited. If he wants to move up then he needs the national profile that a primary run (even losing to a Clinton coronation) would help build. 2016 would likely just be a setup for 2020 after a Romney style extended campaign.

Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand are both rather attractive ideas to run against Hillary, as they are considerably more liberal than her and remove the Clinton baggage while still being, well, women. Warren polls third behind Biden and Clinton, but is very close or ahead of Biden in some Iowa and New Hampshire polls. Such numbers are completely meaningless this far out, but if she could get a strong showing in one of the early votes she could draw considerable numbers of voters away from Clinton.

Another name I've seen; Julián Castro is probably too young and inexperienced (three term mayor of San Antonio, previously city councillor, soon to be HUD secretary) but has been promoted hard by the party and discussed as either a VP candidate or future national prospect. His twin brother already holds the obvious House seat and there is no Senate seat available (and a win in Texas might not be likely anyway), so a primary run might be his best bet to keep moving forwards.

[nenjin]

I really don't see Biden running, or if he does, having a real chance of winning. Both sides have used him as a punch line since the first term.

[SealyStar]

So what's the forum's thoughts on NLRB v. Noel Canning? Obviously it's a huge pain in the ass for Obama and by extension Democrats everywhere, but on the other hand I do have to applaud the logic behind it, because if the president could just appoint people without any congressional intervention shit could easily go down. That said, I'm not requiring congressional agreement is a really great idea. But then again with the changed filibuster rules, as long as the Democrats control the Senate (at least until January, beyond that we can't say), most Obama nominees won't be affected.

I'm really, really surprised that the ruling was unanimous. That the four liberal justices were in on it does demonstrate a refreshingly apolitical/non-corrupt Supreme Court. Tem bucks say next case is something really partisan, though.

[smjjames]

Biden? No, he is WAY too gaffe prone. Though the article says he wants to run, he'll run into the same age question as Hillary, except Hillary will be like five, 10, years younger.

Those in the 'not interested' tier could easily change their mind, especially if Clinton decides not to run. Also, Bernie Sanders? Lol, Theres always a few 'out there' candidates running every presidential election.

Of course though, there could always be some little known politician rising to the forefront, which is what happened with Obama.

[SealyStar]

Biden? No, he is WAY too gaffe prone. Though the article says he wants to run, he'll run into the same age question as Hillary, except Hillary will be like five, 10, years younger.

Those in the 'not interested' tier could easily change their mind, especially if Clinton decides not to run. Also, Bernie Sanders? Lol, Theres always a few 'out there' candidates running every presidential election.

Of course though, there could always be some little known politician rising to the forefront, which is what happened with Obama.

Except that Obama largely won in spite, not because, of his newness. Yes, there was "change" and "hope", but if the incumbent were a Democrat that wouldn't have been much of a message. As a "librul", I hate to admit it, but a large part of why Obama won was people pissed off at Republican Bush. And, even more painfully, because he was black.

The Republicans might try to replicate the Obama thing - find a rising-star minority to push a message of change (i.e. Rubio or Cruz).

Spoiler: Warning Bad Meme (click to show/hide)

[Frumple]

I'd expect the trouble with pushing a republican minority is, well... they'd actually have to put their money where their mouth is, to some degree. Actually do something that notably benefits minority groups -- otherwise it'd likely do nothing but backfire from every direction. And gods know that'll be like pulling hen's teeth for 'em.

E: On the other hand, the flailing antics involved would probably be absolutely amazing to watch. From a spectator perspective, a republican minority candidate would probably be the best possible option.

[mainiac]

A republican minority candidate would need to work twice as hard at the identity politics with the white base.  That's not a small task, look at Eric Cantors' defeat or the difference between John McCain and Sarah Palins' appeal to conservatives.  That gives them a very hard line to walk.  They need to go above and beyond playing identity politics with whites.  It's not like Black people see someone like Herman Cain or Charles Lollar (LOL-ar!) and change their voting behavoir en-masse so even a competent black republican would struggle to make up for black votes with lost white ones.  And there really aren't any black or Asian republicans worth mentioning right now.  So that leaves Latino candidates, i.e. Rubio and Cruz.  Rubio is generally seen as the more formidable of these two and he did win 55% of Latino voters to match his 55% of white voters in 2012.  But this is ignoring that Cubans in particular have a well known and longstanding conservative voting pattern compared to non-Cuban Latinos in Florida.  McCain was able to win 53% of the Cuban vote, just behind his share of the white vote (55%), which was 20% better then the 33% of non-Cuban Latino votes he won.  And while Cuban voters are a big deal in Florida, nationally they are 5% of the Latino vote and rare in any swing state outside Florida.

So a republican latino candidate just isn't that scary in 2016.  Really you are just talking about giving them a little bump in Florida.  But that's not enough:

http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bHjj

Florida was just the icing on the cake for Obama in 2012 after he'd already won the election.  The Cuban voters there don't cut into the democratic "firewall".  To do that it's non-Cuban hispanics that are needed.  Swinging 20% of those could mean a 7% swing in New Mexico, 3% swing in Colorado, 1% in Virginia and .8% in North Carolina.  That would shake of the race a lot.  But the thing is we haven't seen anything to suggest that any Latino republican could actually do that.  And we doubly haven't seen they can do that while still appealing to republican base voters in places like Iowa, Indianan and Pennsylvania.  They need those too:

http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bHjk

Republicans can't trade white voters for latino ones, they need to improve across the board.

[Darvi]

Am I the only one who finds this silly on the basis that appealing to one demographic can't compare to, well, all of them?

[Sheb]

Yeah, you're assuming that white republican will be turned off in large number by a latino.

[Darvi]

You're assuming that I'm assuming things.

[LordSlowpoke]

american politics in a shell of nut