Advertisement
by Hanale » Fri May 29, 2015 6:13 pm
by Libreng » Fri May 29, 2015 6:54 pm
by Grave_n_idle » Fri May 29, 2015 6:57 pm
Hanale wrote:PRESIDENT PAUL 2016
Because, Rand Paul is one of the few republican candidates who knows how to win over the people and do something right...
by Grave_n_idle » Fri May 29, 2015 6:59 pm
Merizoc wrote:Romalae wrote:Interestingly, a Quinnipiac poll released today shows that five of the leading Republican candidates are tied at 10% support:
10% Jeb Bush
10% Marco Rubio
10% Scott Walker
10% Mike Huckabee
10% Ben Carson
7% Rand Paul
6% Ted Cruz
5% Donald Trump
4% Chris Christie
2% John Kasich
2% Carly Fiorina
1% Rick Perry
1% Bobby Jindal
Obviously this is subject to change, but it certainly reinforces the notion that there is no clear GOP frontrunner. What do you think of these results and who do you think stands the best chance out of the top five?
That can't be right. There's no way Ben Carson has more support than Rand Paul. What the fuck.
by Confederate Ramenia » Fri May 29, 2015 7:14 pm
Hanale wrote:PRESIDENT PAUL 2016
Because, Rand Paul is one of the few republican candidates who knows how to win over the people and do something right, not to mention he isn't a fundamentalist or neocon like all the others.
The Flutterlands wrote:Because human life and dignity is something that should be universally valued above all things in society.
Benito Mussolini wrote:Everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.
by Grave_n_idle » Fri May 29, 2015 7:22 pm
Confederate Ramenia wrote:Hanale wrote:PRESIDENT PAUL 2016
Because, Rand Paul is one of the few republican candidates who knows how to win over the people and do something right, not to mention he isn't a fundamentalist or neocon like all the others.
This. If Rand Paul is Republican candidate, and Bernie Sanders is Democratic candidate, that would be a good election.
by Diopolis » Fri May 29, 2015 7:29 pm
Confederate Ramenia wrote:Hanale wrote:PRESIDENT PAUL 2016
Because, Rand Paul is one of the few republican candidates who knows how to win over the people and do something right, not to mention he isn't a fundamentalist or neocon like all the others.
This. If Rand Paul is Republican candidate, and Bernie Sanders is Democratic candidate, that would be a good election.
by Patridam » Fri May 29, 2015 8:12 pm
Grave_n_idle wrote:Confederate Ramenia wrote:This. If Rand Paul is Republican candidate, and Bernie Sanders is Democratic candidate, that would be a good election.
No, it wouldn't. Rand Paul is pretty much as unelectable as his dad, and Sanders has no real support.
It's only a 'good' election if you think low voter-turnout is good.
Grave_n_idle wrote:In what way?
He's despised even by his own party, and the average Democrat wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire.
Which people do you think he's winning over?
by Prussia-Steinbach » Fri May 29, 2015 8:14 pm
Hanale wrote:PRESIDENT PAUL 2016
Because, Rand Paul is one of the few republican candidates who knows how to win over the people and do something right, not to mention he isn't a fundamentalist or neocon like all the others.
by Prussia-Steinbach » Fri May 29, 2015 8:14 pm
by Patridam » Fri May 29, 2015 8:22 pm
by The Nuclear Fist » Fri May 29, 2015 8:24 pm
And you touch the distant beaches with tales of brave Ulysses. . .Farnhamia wrote:You're getting a little too fond of the jerkoff motions.
by Prussia-Steinbach » Fri May 29, 2015 8:25 pm
Patridam wrote:Prussia-Steinbach wrote:Agreed. Especially because it would almost certainly end with Sanders winning. Just because he isn't a fucking freak.
It would be a battle between "I can't believe it's not Socialism!" and "I can't believe it's not Facism!".
Actually, looking at that, I think Santorum might actually stand some sort of chance against Sanders. Certainly not against Hillary, but there are probably enough people in the US who would conflate Sander's positions with those of socialism/communism.
by Libreng » Fri May 29, 2015 8:27 pm
Patridam wrote:Prussia-Steinbach wrote:Agreed. Especially because it would almost certainly end with Sanders winning. Just because he isn't a fucking freak.
It would be a battle between "I can't believe it's not Socialism!" and "I can't believe it's not Facism!".
Actually, looking at that, I think Santorum might actually stand some sort of chance against Sanders. Certainly not against Hillary, but there are probably enough people in the US who would conflate Sander's positions with those of socialism/communism.
by Prussia-Steinbach » Fri May 29, 2015 8:28 pm
Libreng wrote:Patridam wrote:
It would be a battle between "I can't believe it's not Socialism!" and "I can't believe it's not Facism!".
Actually, looking at that, I think Santorum might actually stand some sort of chance against Sanders. Certainly not against Hillary, but there are probably enough people in the US who would conflate Sander's positions with those of socialism/communism.
If the Republicans want to win 2016, they are going to have to support a moderate candidate for the presidency. Despite what many purists say about "ideology being the key to victory," bridging gaps will always be the best solution.
Pataki seems to fit the bill for this. Maybe he can't gain enough support in the Cruz-primaries, but he'd provide good competition for Hillary.
by Patridam » Fri May 29, 2015 8:33 pm
Prussia-Steinbach wrote:Patridam wrote:
It would be a battle between "I can't believe it's not Socialism!" and "I can't believe it's not Fascism!".
Actually, looking at that, I think Santorum might actually stand some sort of chance against Sanders. Certainly not against Hillary, but there are probably enough people in the US who would conflate Sander's positions with those of socialism/communism.
Ah, facism. What an interesting ideology, based on the worship of the front of man's head.
Sure they would. And socialism, as a word, is losing its Red-Scare-associations by the day. His views, what he says, are extremely easy for many Americans to identify with.
by The Nuclear Fist » Fri May 29, 2015 8:35 pm
Prussia-Steinbach wrote:Libreng wrote:
If the Republicans want to win 2016, they are going to have to support a moderate candidate for the presidency. Despite what many purists say about "ideology being the key to victory," bridging gaps will always be the best solution.
Pataki seems to fit the bill for this. Maybe he can't gain enough support in the Cruz-primaries, but he'd provide good competition for Hillary.
The GOP nominating a moderate will alienate the Tea Party grassroots and lose them the election.
And you touch the distant beaches with tales of brave Ulysses. . .Farnhamia wrote:You're getting a little too fond of the jerkoff motions.
by Prussia-Steinbach » Fri May 29, 2015 8:37 pm
by The Nuclear Fist » Fri May 29, 2015 8:39 pm
And you touch the distant beaches with tales of brave Ulysses. . .Farnhamia wrote:You're getting a little too fond of the jerkoff motions.
by Grave_n_idle » Fri May 29, 2015 8:53 pm
Patridam wrote:Well, it'd mean that we'd actually see some sort of change - at least in the executive branch and its official positions, no telling how effective either of them would be. Compare that to the "battle of dynasties" scenario with Jeb versus Hillary - that'd be the worst possible election in my mind, even if they are leading at the moment.
Patridam wrote:Well, me, for one; and presumably many people on this thread judging by the poll.
Patridam wrote:For his own party - you meaning the hawks and the social conservatives in the party, at least - yes, they will certainly propose a problem, particularly in the primary. But if Rand gets the nomination, they're pretty well stuck with him.
Patridam wrote:As for the average Democrat situation:
1. That would point the average democrat being a selfish ass.
Patridam wrote:2. The same can be said of every other republican nominee, so it doesn't really matter.
by Prussia-Steinbach » Fri May 29, 2015 8:55 pm
by Grave_n_idle » Fri May 29, 2015 8:55 pm
Prussia-Steinbach wrote:Libreng wrote:
If the Republicans want to win 2016, they are going to have to support a moderate candidate for the presidency. Despite what many purists say about "ideology being the key to victory," bridging gaps will always be the best solution.
Pataki seems to fit the bill for this. Maybe he can't gain enough support in the Cruz-primaries, but he'd provide good competition for Hillary.
The GOP nominating a moderate will alienate the Tea Party grassroots and lose them the election.
by Prussia-Steinbach » Fri May 29, 2015 8:57 pm
Grave_n_idle wrote:Prussia-Steinbach wrote:The GOP nominating a moderate will alienate the Tea Party grassroots and lose them the election.
It probably wouldn't actually - it's the mistake the GOP keeps making in recent years - catering to the base, rather than the moderates.
They've GOT the base - those people aren't going to vote for a democrat, instead. It's the moderates you have to capture to win an election.
by Patridam » Fri May 29, 2015 9:02 pm
Grave_n_idle wrote:Patridam wrote:Well, it'd mean that we'd actually see some sort of change - at least in the executive branch and its official positions, no telling how effective either of them would be. Compare that to the "battle of dynasties" scenario with Jeb versus Hillary - that'd be the worst possible election in my mind, even if they are leading at the moment.
Actually, low voter turnout almost certainly means little or no change - incumbents are less likely to change seats with low turnout.
Patridam wrote:Well, me, for one; and presumably many people on this thread judging by the poll.
Nah, look at enough of the polls and compare them to the actual results, and you see these polls are meaningless.
Patridam wrote:For his own party - you meaning the hawks and the social conservatives in the party, at least - yes, they will certainly propose a problem, particularly in the primary. But if Rand gets the nomination, they're pretty well stuck with him.
Rand won't get the nomination. He's too fringe to get the nod at primary.
Patridam wrote:2. The same can be said of every other republican nominee, so it doesn't really matter.
Not necessarily - Reagan had massive cross-party support. The GOP just keeps picking extremely partisan candidates.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: A m e n r i a, Autumn Wind, Dimetrodon Empire, Floppa Lovers, Ifreann, Kager South, Pale Dawn, Philjia, Platypus Bureaucracy, Tarsonis, The Holy Therns, Tungstan, Turenia
Advertisement