I’d like to see the Republicans run a guy like Scott Walker or Mitch Daniels (aka sane goverors) and have a VP like Marco Rubio. You can tick a lot of boxes and not wind up on the extreme side like Rick Perry. I still can’t figure out how they thought Romney was a good pick. You’re going up against Obama and you pick a candidate that is the epitome of the .01%? Morons…
Hillary is Obama v2, seriously don’t even bother trying to hide it. disaster.
First the dems try the race card, then gender card. what’s next? the short guy card?
That was 1988.
I think we will have to agree to disagree for now regarding Hillary. While her seniority in the Democratic party makes her a viable primaries candidate, I do not think that she has the broad appeal to win a national election. I acknowledge many valid points that support Hillary, but I just think the negative points will outweigh the positive points. We will just have to wait and see what happens.
jmh: Not that I am the biggest fan of Obama, but I disagree that he has not accomplished much during his tenure. Obamacare was one of the most significant, and most contentious, pieces of legislation to be signed in modern history. Obama knew he would make many enemies and sacrifice future legislation to push this through. Congress is as much, if not more to blame for government dysfunction. Many people are mad at Obama for what he has done, not for what he has not done.
The problem was that many moderate Republicans who might have ran we’re alienated by the Tea Party. Romney was not an ideal candidate, but he was far more electable than the more right leaning Republicans in the primary. Now that the Tea Party movement has list some allure following the government shutdown and other incidents, and that the Republicans have fielded a younger, more cooperative Congress, perhaps stronger moderate Republican candidates will arise.
^ Jon Huntsman was a good candidate that was overlooked.
^I agree, but the tea partiers HATE him so he has no chance of getting through the primaries.
what is this tea party in america?
Q: with all their polling technology do you think the democrats have explored the posibility that women secretely hate being led by another woman?
“In the 60 years that Gallup has conducted this survey, women have never preferred a female boss.” http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-16/women-dislike-having-female-bosses-more-than-men-do
Started out as complaints about bank bailouts and Washington (tea party referencing the boston tea party, it’s not an actual party), but eventually was co-opted by the far right, more so on economic issues than social issues. They are seen as pushing the Republicans further right and preventing the Democrats from accomplishing anything the past four years.
^ I heard the “tea party” wants to do wacky stuff like make the Govt not spend more money that it earns, and reduce the $(100) trillion NPV of future cash flows.
Yep, and they believe the feds should mostly deal with defense and interstate commerce while being the ultimate court of the land. Pure nut jobs. Everybody knows the feds should take care of everything from feeding the poor to providing education and healthcare. These idiots actually believe that such programs should be abolished at the federal level and that the States can take care of their own people. Too funny. Bubba and Leroy in Arkansas couldn’t possibly govern themselves.
Duplicate
Sarcasm fail. Unsurprising…tell us more…
If the GOP nominates Rubio, Cruz, Santorum, or Ryan in 2016, I would love to see Huntsman run as an independent. He would pull enough of the moderate republican vote to guarantee the democrat wins. It will hurt in the short-run, but I think it would benefit the GOP, and the country, in the long-run. Rand Paul could potentially run as a Libertarian if it doesn’t look like things will pan out for him in the GOP, which would also result in a democrat winning.
if part of the election debate becomes wage equality between men and women, which it will, automatic hillary win. my prognostication relies on this and i am certain it will happen. obama barely had to move the ticker on african americans, hispanics and asians to win, do you know how little hillary has to move the ticker when it comes to women (i.e. ~52-55% of the vote)? you can say things like women won’t vote for a woman but if it at all becomes a woman’s rights issue, automatic victory for hillary. also, many women, even republicans see hillary as a celebrity, and though she’s not quite like princess diana, she has that draw for all women. she is what all ambitious little girls wanted to be and she’s as glamourous as all non-ambitious girls wanted to be. plus, she’s been through some $hit in her marriage and came out a hardened and strong woman (i.e. biotch) and all republican women can relate to that. bam!
^You heard it here from the Man. Guaranteed Hillary win.
So we can either all laugh at you or anoint you as AF Politics Czar in November 2016.
^^Democrats harped on the “war on women” for the mid-terms and it got them nowhere. Apparently war on women does well with single women, but hurt them with married women and men. They might change their approach in the next election I definitely wouldn’t say automatic win.
anyone willing to say “guaranteed repub win”? i didn’t think so. just solidifies my case. 60%+ women will vote for Hillary. there aren’t enough angry white dudes in america, suprisingly, to defeat that.
That would seem to suggest that the right republican strategy is to run a woman on their side. Then it becomes about the issues again. But who. Palin doesn’t seem to be very active right now, and neither is Bachmann.