I would refuse to endorse either candidate. They are both as revolting and bitchy as eachother.
I would refuse to endorse either candidate. They are both as revolting and bitchy as eachother.
Republicans will lose 10-15 more seats in the house, maybe one or two in the senate in 2014, forcing the republican party to bring another moderate to the presidential bid, only infuriating libertarians and conservatives even more, republicans lose control of all branches in 2016, and for the next 8 years following.
i dont think hillary will be running either. imo her window closed when obama was elected. i also think that rubio has a good chance at the GOP nod, basically because i think they believe that putting up a brown person will be enough to swing the election, without doing much else to change. im hoping they are wrong. imo they really do have to address their social policy
While I think a moderate is the Republicans only shot at winning in 2016, personally, I sort of hope they do run a full-on wingnut, like say, Rick, the former senator from Pennsylvania. Why? Because I think running a candidate the tea-party, the fanatics, and the zealots all fully support, and then watching him (or her) get utterly and completely crushed in the general election is the only way the Republican party will start to come to its senses and get moving back towards the mainstream of America. (I don't like either major party, but at present the Democrats are merely somewhere between 'mostly useless' and 'very bad' while the Republicans are mind-bogglingly, miserably awful and getting worse by the election. I'd like to go back to maybe having just two 'bad' parties during my lifetime. )
You're completely out of touch with reality if you think Jeb Bush would have a chance.
As I said way earlier in this thread - I'm sure Jeb will attempt to run, if at least to try to restore his family name. But it doesn't matter - the Bush name alone would keep enough Republicans away for him to win the Republican Primaries. If Sarah Palin taught you anything, is that the Republican Party cares way more about public appearance than actually helping out people and dealing with issues.
Even if he did win the Repub primary, MORE than enough swing-voters would simply go Democrat just due to the Bush name - not to mention people who normally don't vote, upon hearing the name "Bush", might be motivated enough to go out and vote just out of fear of another Bush-era again.
---------- Post added 2013-03-12 at 02:44 AM ----------
Nobody durring the VP search came to the forums and said "You know that quirky mayor of Alaska? You know... the one who likes to shoot wolves? Has anybody considered her for a VP nomination."
Nobody even HEARD of Sarah Palin until John McCain said "Lets find a woman who likes guns, JUST to appeal to the disenfranchised Clinton voters!".
Most peoples reactions to the Sarah Palin announcement was basically "Who the F#*@^ is Sarah Palin?"
It wont. Cubans generally already vote GOP, and pretty much all other Latinos vote Dem. There are also huge 'cracks' between different nationality Latino groups. I almost feel like Rubio being ran would turn off any Latinos that aren't Cuban that are thinking of voting GOP.
Please watch your language. Senator Rick from Pennsylvania is speaking at CPAC again this year. And while he may not agree with the Tea Party in all things, they did support him strongly in 2012.
Both are terms for someone who demonstrates excessive passion about their own specific beliefs and objectives. Fanatic has religious connotations that zealot lacks. (Both have religious connections in their original etymology, but zealot hasn't been specifically linked to religion in modern english usage. And by modern, I mean, like, since the invention of the dictionary. ) Ardent 9/11 Truthers would be zealots, while committed creationists would be fanatics. You could also call the aforementioned creationists zealots, but you couldn't accurately call the obsessed Truthers fanatics, unless you were attempting to imply that there was some religious dimension to their beliefs.
But while fun, the precise vocabulary is beside my original point: I'd like to see the nutjobs and bigots that are a part of the modern GOP manage to nominate a fellow nutjob and bigot, because I think the massive loss that would result would help American politics in general and the GOP in particular resume some much needed balance.
I can already see that, a gay republican nominee, the interview over social policy would be so ironic.
Interviewer: So what's your stance on gay marriage?
Nominee: I believe in traditional marriage.
Interviewer: But aren't you homosexual Mr. ...
Nominee: Ummmm...
Yeah, that election wouldn't happen unless Hilary jumped parties (not likely) and then she would have to get nominated (really not likely), she would also have to get back into politics.
My Personal vlog
No chance.
The Democrats could well put Hillary up there, but the GOP would never put Palin in front of a camera on official business ever again.
I see 2016 for the Republicans involving Marco Rubio, Luis Fortuño, Rand Paul, and Allen West. I strongly doubt any of them could defeat Clinton, though. To tell you the truth, I wouldn't be surprised to see the USA become more or less a de facto one party state in the not too distant future. The younger generation that will be old enough to vote by 2016 is so overwhelmingly supportive of the left, as are the new waves of immigrants who are also starting to vote along with those legalized by Obama's immigration reform, that elections will be little more than formalities in the future with the Democrats locking in a majority that will probably never again be challenged by 2024.