I could see that helping his cause.

 

Hillary does add intrigue to the equation.

 

I mean, if you have the money and resources, months of effective negative campaigning can be the deciding factor.

 

As Saul Alinksy wrote, The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.

 

It also doesn't help that Obama approval rating will be, most likely, in the thirties. That won't help any Democrat, no matter the candidate. It can be even more hurtful in Hillary's case because she has had direct ties to this administration and was a huge policy maker.

I threw a bone to Jeb Bush. From this list its him or Rand Paul.

Jeb Bush brings a) name, b) a political machine, c) administrative leadership (i.e. a Governor). His problem is that brother and dad are now considered RINOs. The traditional base will not be happy without an appealing running mate. But that strategy failed in 2012. Can a Rubio or a Carson help in the second slot? Hard to say. Is it more important to 'fire up the base' or try to appeal to groups that may not come over to a big tent Repub ticket. A lot of catch 22s even with Bush.

 

Paul is solid. But he is still a first time Senator - from a relatively small state. He is labeled with the TEA Party logo and definitely has a Libertarian view on most things. Does the 'core' Repub function support him?

 

As for others.

 

Christie has blown up with bridge-gate.

Carson is interesting but not going to happen.

Rubio pulls the hispanic vote but he does not appear ready to run.

Cruz has already been painted as a radical mad-man.

Also, on the two above something called the Constitution could come into play but that would appear unlikely into the post-Constitutional world of today.

Northern Congressmen do not seem to do well - even Repubs.

Walker may be interesting - Governors usually do well as Presidents (Sorry Jimmy...) but its hard to be a sitting Governor and run a nationwide race.

 

Mr. Right (no pun intended) may still be out there and not on this list.

IMO Bridgegate is overblown. How many voters can tell you what occurred?

I threw a bone to Jeb Bush. From this list its him or Rand Paul.

Jeb Bush brings a) name, b) a political machine, c) administrative leadership (i.e. a Governor). His problem is that brother and dad are now considered RINOs. The traditional base will not be happy without an appealing running mate. But that strategy failed in 2012. Can a Rubio or a Carson help in the second slot? Hard to say. Is it more important to 'fire up the base' or try to appeal to groups that may not come over to a big tent Repub ticket. A lot of catch 22s even with Bush.

 

Paul is solid. But he is still a first time Senator - from a relatively small state. He is labeled with the TEA Party logo and definitely has a Libertarian view on most things. Does the 'core' Repub function support him?

 

As for others.

 

Christie has blown up with bridge-gate.

Carson is interesting but not going to happen.

Rubio pulls the hispanic vote but he does not appear ready to run.

Cruz has already been painted as a radical mad-man.

Also, on the two above something called the Constitution could come into play but that would appear unlikely into the post-Constitutional world of today.

Northern Congressmen do not seem to do well - even Repubs.

Walker may be interesting - Governors usually do well as Presidents (Sorry Jimmy...) but its hard to be a sitting Governor and run a nationwide race.

 

Mr. Right (no pun intended) may still be out there and not on this list.

 

Good analysis as usual.

IMO Bridgegate is overblown. How many voters can tell you what occurred?

 

I think Letterman is still giving Christie a jab at least once a week on the issue. Anyone who watches Letterman will be jaded.

 

I am not a Letterman fan but I am jaded on the issue. Christie has tried to distant himself from a very serious action that impacted thousands for political gamesmanship. But it was done by people in the inner circle and that makes it hard to believe he was not 'in the loop'. His 'I did not know' excuse is just to similar to the standard line used by the current POTUS on so many occasions.

I think Letterman is still giving Christie a jab at least once a week on the issue. Anyone who watches Letterman will be jaded. I am not a Letterman fan but I am jaded on the issue. Christie has tried to distant himself from a very serious action that impacted thousands for political gamesmanship. But it was done by people in the inner circle and that makes it hard to believe he was not 'in the loop'. His 'I did not know' excuse is just to similar to the standard line used by the current POTUS on so many occasions.

 

You and some others are in the vast minority who can even give a cursory explanation. That's why it is a non-factor in the general election and to a lesser extent the primaries.

If Cruz or Paul get nominated, I think the Dem wins. It is easy to marginalize those two and they will have a hard time winning the middle. Looking at electability in the general election, I think the best options are Ryan, Bush and Christie.

I think Letterman is still giving Christie a jab at least once a week on the issue. Anyone who watches Letterman will be jaded.

 

I am not a Letterman fan but I am jaded on the issue. Christie has tried to distant himself from a very serious action that impacted thousands for political gamesmanship. But it was done by people in the inner circle and that makes it hard to believe he was not 'in the loop'. His 'I did not know' excuse is just to similar to the standard line used by the current POTUS on so many occasions.

As bad of a candidate as Hillary Clinton would be, Chris Christie would have very little chance of winning a general election against her. Ditto for Jeb Bush. There is not enough difference in his positions and Hillary's to fire up the Republican base. A pro-amnesty Republican candidate will not win the 2016 election.

As bad of a candidate as Hillary Clinton would be, Chris Christie would have very little chance of winning a general election against her. Ditto for Jeb Bush. There is not enough difference in his positions and Hillary's to fire up the Republican base. A pro-amnesty Republican candidate will not win the 2016 election.

 

The Republican base has very little to do with winning the general election.

The Republican base has very little to do with winning the general election.

Actually, the Republican candidate's only chance of winning the general election is to turn out the base. Romney did well among independents in 2012 but the turnout was very low among the base. IMO, a successful Republican candidate in the general election needs to be able to convince voters that the American dream is not dead, despite the lurch toward socialism that has occurred under Obama.

Jeb would be my preference, because he was a great governor. However, I don't think he is electable and besides, I'm registered as one of these guys...

 

 

so I can't vote anyway. :banana:

Actually, the Republican candidate's only chance of winning the general election is to turn out the base. Romney did well among independents in 2012 but the turnout was very low among the base. IMO, a successful Republican candidate in the general election needs to be able to convince voters that the American dream is not dead, despite the lurch toward socialism that has occurred under Obama.

 

Go look at demographics and the breakdown of the last election. The voters that won that election for Obama have nothing to do with the Republican base. The Republican base has become a little like the African American vote. You know what they are going to do every election no matter who the candidate is. Those aren't the voters a candidate needs to get to win an election. The biggest demographic impacting presidential elections is the spanish voter.

Go look at demographics and the breakdown of the last election. The voters that won that election for Obama have nothing to do with the Republican base. The Republican base has become a little like the African American vote. You know what they are going to do every election no matter who the candidate is. Those aren't the voters a candidate needs to get to win an election. The biggest demographic impacting presidential elections is the spanish voter.

Thus the reason Dems don't want voters to have to prove citizenship. Trust me IF the Polls showed that Hispanic voters were supporting Bush, Rubio or Cruz the Dems would want Voter ID in a second!

Go look at demographics and the breakdown of the last election. The voters that won that election for Obama have nothing to do with the Republican base. The Republican base has become a little like the African American vote. You know what they are going to do every election no matter who the candidate is. Those aren't the voters a candidate needs to get to win an election. The biggest demographic impacting presidential elections is the spanish voter.

I have looked at the numbers. Moderate Republican candidates have struggled to get the conservative base to turn out in big numbers. If Bush or Christie is the candidate in 2016, turnout on the right will be low again. Whoever the candidate is, he will need to win the independents without alienating the base. I don't think that either Christie or Jeb Bush are capable of pulling off that feat. Unfortunately, I believe that both men have a shot at the nomination because the idiots running the party learned nothing from the losses by Romney, McCain, and Dole. Nor did they learn anything from the two wins posted by Reagan.

 

(I don't think many Spaniards will be voting in 2016.)

Those aren't the voters a candidate needs to get to win an election. The biggest demographic impacting presidential elections is the spanish voter.

Rubio might be the strongest of the bunch vs. Mrs. Clinton. But I don't see him winning the nomination. Right now I'd make Rick Perry the front-runner.