Handicapping the 2016 Republican Presidential Candidates

Discussion in 'Elections' started by argentine soccer fan, Jul 21, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
?

Who will be the Republican Presidential Nominee in 2016?

  1. Paul Ryan (US Congressman)

    6 vote(s)
    9.8%
  2. Chris Christie (New Jersey Governor)

    14 vote(s)
    23.0%
  3. Marco Rubio (US Senator)

    4 vote(s)
    6.6%
  4. Rand Paul (US Senator)

    9 vote(s)
    14.8%
  5. Jeb Bush (Former Florida Governor)

    13 vote(s)
    21.3%
  6. Ted Cruz (US Senator)

    2 vote(s)
    3.3%
  7. Bobby Jindal (Louisiana Governor)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  8. Condoleezza Rice (Former US Secretary of State)

    1 vote(s)
    1.6%
  9. Rick Santorum (Former US Senator)

    3 vote(s)
    4.9%
  10. John Huntsman (Former Utah Governor)

    2 vote(s)
    3.3%
  11. Other (Please specify)

    7 vote(s)
    11.5%
  1. Waliatiger

    Waliatiger Member+

    Jul 1, 2013
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    It will be Christie and Rubio as VP. Or if Jeb wants to run he would be odds on the favorite I doubt he runs though. Cruz won't run he will be more use in the senate as Jim DeMint times 100 times more lethal and cruz is unelectable nationally.

    Rand won't win because the GOP establishment does not like him nor trusts him. I have been right the last 2 GOP nominees it is rather predictable the most electable and moderate person usually beats the rest of the far right clown car opponents.
     
  2. American Brummie

    Jun 19, 2009
    There Be Dragons Here
    Club:
    Birmingham City FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    [​IMG]
     
    uclacarlos repped this.
  3. Waliatiger

    Waliatiger Member+

    Jul 1, 2013
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    I'm right your wrong. You probably thought Paul would win in 12 or Rudy would beat McCain in 08
     
  4. American Brummie

    Jun 19, 2009
    There Be Dragons Here
    Club:
    Birmingham City FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I have absolutely no interest in debating with you whether or not your prediction will bear out. I am horrified that you think because you predicted two GOP presidential nominations that you think it is an easy thing to do. For example, I have "predicted" around half of the last fifteen Super Bowl winners. I will never consider myself to be anything more than lucky. We humans are very good at patting ourselves on the back for predicting things despite being very, very bad at prediction.

    My prediction is that Rand Paul will be the GOP nominee because of the victories the Iowa and Nevada state parties are likely to grant him given his organizational strength there. Those victories will propel him to fundraising ability and organizational ability in the other early states. This "prediction" is only valuable if we all assume that the trends of 2008 and 2012 - where large financial capacity mixed with intense organizational capacity to propel Barack Obama to the White House - remains constant. There is no good reason for me to think that it will happen except that it has happened.

    Likewise, in 2008 John McCain was considered the front-runner as far back as a year and a half before the election. He stumbled but no rival could cement a frontrunner image. In 2012, Mitt Romney never earned more than 30% of the GOP electorate's support leading up to the polls but no front-runner could ever sustain a lead ahead of him. These were not easy predictions depending on how far out you were, but they were popular decisions. This does not make you "good" at predicting GOP nominations. This makes you good at predicting two GOP presidential nominations.

    This is not a personal attack. Nobody on P&CE is good at prediction. Nobody. That's why I like to abandon my preconceived notions of how wonderful and smart I am (in reality, I am not smarter than anyone else here) and rely on what empirical, systematic evidence tells me about the situation. The brazen flaunting of evidence by most of the posters here continues to amaze me.
     
    Mattbro repped this.
  5. Waliatiger

    Waliatiger Member+

    Jul 1, 2013
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Fair enough. But the Iowa caucus are irrelevant Huckabee won it in 08, Pat Robertson in 88, Santorum in 2012. The hard right Evangelical base dominates the primary and they propel nut jobs their to win. But they then cannot broaden there voter base beyond that. Rand Paul winning two insignificant primaries but get him the nomination. Christie or Jeb is the favorites.
     
  6. Mattbro

    Mattbro Member+

    Sep 21, 2001
    Wait, someone is crowing about accurately predicting that McCain and Romney would win the nomination? Those two were the popular choices long in advance. Everyone knew they would get the nomination.

    I'll make a prediction though: if Rand Paul is the nominee, the GOP will go down in flames as badly as it did in 1964. Please, Republicans, please nominate Rand Paul.
     
  7. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Just for fun, since I presume you're on Team Blue (Go Team!), who do you want them to nominate?
     
  8. American Brummie

    Jun 19, 2009
    There Be Dragons Here
    Club:
    Birmingham City FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think Democrats severely misunderestimate Rand Paul. The man can get people inspired. Not the types of people I necessarily agree with (on some issues, yes, others no), but compare him to vanilla wafer Bobby Jindal or Scott Walker, or to dangerous softie Marco Rubio, or brash Chris Christie, and he's got people excited.

    Elizabeth Warren.
     
    bigredfutbol and Smurfquake repped this.
  9. Mattbro

    Mattbro Member+

    Sep 21, 2001
    Who I want them to nominate is completely irrelevant, as Hillary Clinton will run and win.

    Now how about you? Since you're on Team Fantasy ("Let's nonsensically and futilely support a third party in a two-party system to condescendingly show our message board adversaries how independent-minded we are!"), who will you be supporting?

    Oh, he's capable of getting people excited. Unfortunately heat doesn't equal light, and no matter how excited his supporters are, they'll be vastly outnumbered in a general election like Goldwater's supporters were.
     
  10. Smurfquake

    Smurfquake Moderator
    Staff Member

    Aug 8, 2000
    San Carlos, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    (a) Rep for use of "misunderstimate" - let that Bushism never leave our lexicon.

    (b) The Republicans didn't pick the most exciting / most charismatic person in the last two primaries. In 2008, Mike Huckabee won Iowa and is a lot more interesting than McCain, but McCain won the nomination. In 2012, Mitt Romney was the boringest guy out of all of them, but he brought the money and crushed the rest of the clowns one by one.

    I believe the Republican money will get behind one candidate who is perceived as "most electable" by the people who give the money, and that candidate will use that money to wipe out the other candidates. I don't believe the money will get behind Rand Paul. I picked Jeb Bush in this poll (months ago), but I could see Chris Christie playing this role in 2016.
     
    American Brummie and bigredfutbol repped this.
  11. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I see your McCain and Romney and raise you Kerry and Gore.

    You Democrats keep making fun of Republicans, but remember the DP could end up with this guy.

    [​IMG]
     
  12. Mattbro

    Mattbro Member+

    Sep 21, 2001
    "This guy" would make a good candidate and a good president. Most of us are capable of seeing through the caricature created of him by the superficial, ratings-driven media. I only have to think back to how he demolished Paul Ryan in the VP debate and I would be more than happy to see him do the same to whatever sad sack the GOP ends up nominating for the top of their ticket.
     
    American Brummie repped this.
  13. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    LOL, well good luck with that.
     
  14. Mattbro

    Mattbro Member+

    Sep 21, 2001
    Great response!
     
  15. American Brummie

    Jun 19, 2009
    There Be Dragons Here
    Club:
    Birmingham City FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I would follow Joe Biden into a volcano. Blindly.
     
    Mattbro repped this.
  16. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    That is actually a good visual of what his Presidential campaign would mean for the Democratic Party IMO.
     
  17. American Brummie

    Jun 19, 2009
    There Be Dragons Here
    Club:
    Birmingham City FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Why?
     
  18. Mattbro

    Mattbro Member+

    Sep 21, 2001
    He was my early candidate in 2008.
    The Democrats could nominate Jon Corzine or Rod Blagojevich and he'd still be a less damaged nominee than whatever Republican is left standing after running the Tea Party gauntlet in 2016. Biden would do just fine.
     
    Smurfquake repped this.
  19. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Nominating boring candidates has not worked for the Dems in the last elections; Bill Clinton was anything but boring.

    Biden is Kerry 2.0 IMO.
     
  20. Mattbro

    Mattbro Member+

    Sep 21, 2001
    I've heard Biden described in many ways, but this is the first time I've seen the word "boring" used. Huh.
     
    superdave and American Brummie repped this.
  21. American Brummie

    Jun 19, 2009
    There Be Dragons Here
    Club:
    Birmingham City FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  22. Q*bert Jones III

    Q*bert Jones III The People's Poet

    Feb 12, 2005
    Woodstock, NY
    Club:
    DC United
    Is that a promise?
     
  23. American Brummie

    Jun 19, 2009
    There Be Dragons Here
    Club:
    Birmingham City FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    [​IMG]
     
  24. MasterShake29

    MasterShake29 Member+

    Oct 28, 2001
    Jersey City, NJ
    Club:
    New York Red Bulls
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'd welcome that nomination. Anything to help us avoid someone named Bush or Clinton winning a nomination.

    Will she run? I think so. Will she be elected President? No way.

    Who I support is irrelevant since my vote won't matter, but if Rand Paul wins the nomination, I would strongly consider voting for him (we will see how the campaign goes). Outside that, if Gary Johnson runs again he would get my vote.

    Yes, someone who thinks civil liberties are a joke, pro-war, pro-drone, and super pro-Drug War. Yup, he'd be great, unless you care about your fellow man. He would be a disaster.
     
    Val1 repped this.
  25. Mattbro

    Mattbro Member+

    Sep 21, 2001
    If she runs, she will win, that simple. No one on the Democratic side has the firepower to compete with her, and the Republican nominee will be irreparably damaged.


    Ah, now I remember. You're the broken record who is obsessed with drones and the war on drugs, just like every other Libertarian dreamer. Has the drinking game started already?

    If our choices are war, drones and the war on drugs vs. Rand Paul, I'll take the former.
     

Share This Page