[US Election 2016] Republican Primary Megathread

[Hanale]

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.

[Libreng]

I like former Governor George Pataki. He supports LGBT rights, is pro-choice, and has shown a willingness to work with Democrats on health care reform and other issues during his time in office. It would be a good race between him and Clinton. Aside from the obvious name debacle, I can stomach Jeb Bush.

Rand Paul is fine on guns, civil liberties, and support for smaller government. But his plans would not make sure all Americans can get health care in the absence of Obamacare. I agree we need to replace the law, but I want a free market model that still tries to achieve universal coverage. Cruz is too far-right and too "firebrandish" for my tastes. Carson has literally no past experience in the field and has very traditionalist views socially. Huckabee and Santorum are too willing to mix religion and politics. Fiorina is fine on immigration and drug policy, but is completely wrong on climate change and LGBT rights (though she is another one I may be able to stomach).

[Grave_n_idle]

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...

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?

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

The stats don't really mean anything yet. Remember how fluid they were in 2012?

Even if there were a clear front-runner at this point, it wouldn't really mean anything - it's still quite a long race to the line.

[Confederate Ramenia]

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.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

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.

[Diopolis]

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.

I kind of want to see a Santorum v Sanders election, maybe with Cruz and Warren as the runningmates.
That one would be fun.

[Patridam]

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.

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.

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?

Well, me, for one; and presumably many people on this thread judging by the poll.

He's reached out to groups traditionally thought outside the reach of the GOP - political ones, like isolationists, and certain civil liberals, but especially demographic ones, like blacks and youth. While the young Democrats of the country might not vote for him, there are young moderates and centre-rightists who believe in lassiez faire economics but want privacy and civil liberty (at least more than neocons can argue for).

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. If given the choice between a "crackpot libertarian" with the GOP nomination, and either the antichrist that they consider hillary to be or the communist they think Sanders to be, they will obviously pick Rand, every time.

As for the average Democrat situation:
1. That would point the average democrat being a selfish ass.
2. The same can be said of every other republican nominee, so it doesn't really matter.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

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.

He most certainly is a neocon. Don't equate Rand with Ron. He's departed from his father's ideology quite a bit.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

This. If Rand Paul is Republican candidate, and Bernie Sanders is Democratic candidate, that would be a good election.

I kind of want to see a Santorum v Sanders election, maybe with Cruz and Warren as the runningmates.
That one would be fun.

Agreed. Especially because it would almost certainly end with Sanders winning. Just because he isn't a fucking freak.

[Patridam]

I kind of want to see a Santorum v Sanders election, maybe with Cruz and Warren as the runningmates.
That one would be fun.

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.

[The Nuclear Fist]

So I wonder how many Republicans think Christie is still the guy that's going to save the GOP and deliver them the White House, like so many were crowing on about after the '12 election.

Whose the new supposed savior?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

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.

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.

[Libreng]

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.

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.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

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.

The GOP nominating a moderate will alienate the Tea Party grassroots and lose them the election.

[Patridam]

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.

Facism is accepting of all genders - we worship female faces now, too. Also, thought of this.

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.

Socialism is losing its associations in the US mostly because most Americans - we're even taught it as such in school - think that Social Democracy and Socialism are the same thing. If they actually knew what Socialism meant/used to mean it'd be treated more like the word Communism, which still maintains a fairly strong negative association.

I do in fact wonder what the sort of people who call Obama a socialist would call Sanders - is there something further left than communism they could use?

[The Nuclear Fist]

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.

Nominating a Tea Party purist will definitely lose them the election, though.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

The GOP nominating a moderate will alienate the Tea Party grassroots and lose them the election.

Nominating a Tea Party purist will definitely lose them the election, though.

Exactly. It's a win-win for the sane people.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Nominating a Tea Party purist will definitely lose them the election, though.

Exactly. It's a win-win for the sane people.

Eh, I'm wary about it.

[Patridam]

Nominating a Tea Party purist will definitely lose them the election, though.

Exactly. It's a win-win for the sane people.

So, anyone who isn't a Democrat is insane?

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

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.

Rand Paul (like his dad) has a lot of armchair warriors that won't translate into votes.

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.

As for the average Democrat situation:
1. That would point the average democrat being a selfish ass.

I'm not defending them.

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.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Exactly. It's a win-win for the sane people.

So, anyone who isn't a Democrat is insane?

Speaking as someone who isn't a Democrat, no.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

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.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

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.

I honestly think the Tea Party would rather stay home or write in than vote for candidates like Romney or Christie.

But that's only speaking from my experience with rural Southern Tea Partiers most of my life. Just an opinion.

[Patridam]

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.

In the legislature, yeah, probably, but that hardly seems to change anyway. I was speaking more that Sanders and Paul - or at least their rhetoric - promises more change from the status quo than Hillary's or Jeb's do.

Would the turnout for Hillary versus Jeb really be that much higher anyway? If it came down to two dynasties against one another, that'd punch a big hole in my delusion that my vote actually matters.

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.

Well, obviously this site is not representative of the real world, or America, in the least, but it shows that there are at least a few people out there that like Rand.

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.

That's certainly his biggest problem, getting the nomination would be more difficult for him than getting the presidency itself.

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.

Reagan's crossparty support came 30-35 years ago, though. It's not just the GOP - it's the democrats - and even the voters; everything in US politics is getting more and more polarizing, unfortunately.