2016 Republican presidential nomination

[Bazrasha]

(Didn't see this around figured since we have a democrat one why not a republican one)

So with the presidential election two years away who do you guys think or believe will get the republican nomination for president? Please give reasoning and also let's not have this degrade into a "why liberals are bad" or just simply tirades against the current presidential establishment. You may bring up the president or congress if it adds to the debate however. Also what do you think the republicans need to focus on in order to secure the presidency?

Me personally I like Chris Christie and John Huntsmen although I doubt they will get the nomination and to be honesty I have no clue who's going to get it. My guess is the republicans are probably going to produces moderate establishment Republican and these been talk if Mitt taking up another run. As for how they can win I think they need to focus on the economy. There not going to win by arguing immigration, LGBT issues or foreign policy but if they can make the case that republican states tend to have good economies then they can easily find a niche and win the election. But I'm probably not going to vote republican this election but that is my two cents.

[MERIZoC]

I can guarantee you 100% that Romney won't be running again.

Edit: And you've got it sort of backwards. Republicans tend to do better in polls on foreign policy and immigration, while Democrats tend to do better on the economy.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Preferably no one and the party dies. Failing that, Bush because he has a funny first name

[Bazrasha]

I can guarantee you 100% that Romney won't be running again.

What makes you say that? From my perspective he seems to be doing what Nixon did when he finally won his presidential election.

[Geilinor]

if they can make the case that republican states tend to have good economies then they can easily find a niche and win the election.

Not exactly. Economic growth and job growth tend to be higher under Democratic presidents. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/luck-and-a-little-mystery-the-economy-grows-faster-under-democratic-presidents.html?abt=0002&abg=0

[Othelos]

I seriously doubt that Romney will try running again.

[Angostica]

I want Rand Paul because he is very much like his father and Ronald Reagan.

[MERIZoC]

I can guarantee you 100% that Romney won't be running again.

What makes you say that? From my perspective he seems to be doing what Nixon did when he finally won his presidential election.

I say that because once you've run in the general election, and lost, you don't try again. It just doesn't happen.

And what did Nixon do?

(Hey, that sounds a bit like Mike's flag. )

[Washington Resistance Army]

What makes you say that? From my perspective he seems to be doing what Nixon did when he finally won his presidential election.

I say that because once you've run in the general election, and lost, you don't try again. It just doesn't happen.

And what did Nixon do?

Didn't Bush senior run like three times?

[MERIZoC]

I say that because once you've run in the general election, and lost, you don't try again. It just doesn't happen.

And what did Nixon do?

Didn't Bush senior run like three times?

In the general? Or in the primaries?

[Geilinor]

I can guarantee you 100% that Romney won't be running again.

What makes you say that? From my perspective he seems to be doing what Nixon did when he finally won his presidential election.

Nixon spent 8 years in the political darkness before he won.

[Othelos]

I want Rand Paul because he is very much like his father and Ronald Reagan.

Tea partyers aren't going to win.

[Angostica]

Not exactly. Economic growth and job growth tend to be higher under Democratic presidents. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/luck-and-a-little-mystery-the-economy-grows-faster-under-democratic-presidents.html?abt=0002&abg=0[/quote]

Look at North Dakota, they have an economic boom while the rest of the country is suffering due to the North Dakota's conservative policies.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Didn't Bush senior run like three times?

In the general? Or in the primaries?

Primaries, still kinda counts though the guy never gave up.

[Othelos]

I can guarantee you 100% that Romney won't be running again.

What makes you say that? From my perspective he seems to be doing what Nixon did when he finally won his presidential election.

The only reason he won the primaries, was because people saw him as the only alternative to Obama that could win.

Even if he does try running again, he won't make it past the primaries.

[MERIZoC]

In the general? Or in the primaries?

Primaries, still kinda counts though the guy never gave up.

See, that's the difference. Plenty of people run in the primaries several times. But once you lose the general, you don't really have another shot.

[Othelos]

Look at North Dakota, they have an economic boom while the rest of the country is suffering due to the North Dakota's conservative policies.

North Dakota's economy is doing really well because of oil.

[Bazrasha]

if they can make the case that republican states tend to have good economies then they can easily find a niche and win the election.

Not exactly. Economic growth and job growth tend to be higher under Democratic presidents. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/luck-and-a-little-mystery-the-economy-grows-faster-under-democratic-presidents.html?abt=0002&abg=0

Never said that wasn't the case. I'm just suggesting shit they could run on. Doesn't really matter what the numbers are when your economic approval rooting looks like this

[Angostica]

The economy grew while Bill Clinton was prez because he believed in "neoliberalism." Its the same thing as conservatism, like lower taxes and lower spending.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Primaries, still kinda counts though the guy never gave up.

See, that's the difference. Plenty of people run in the primaries several times. But once you lose the general, you don't really have another shot.

I'm pretty sure Romney has also explicitly stated he's not running again.

[Proskoya]

If I really have to vote for Rand, I will, but he really isn't his father and I kind of wish that was the case.

[Trick Shot]

The Libertarian Party needs to swallow their pride and endorse Rand Paul because he is like a bridge between Libertarians and Conservatives. If the LP goes behind Paul and he wins the nomination, he could win the presidency.
Rand 2016
The revolution aint over bro! It's leadership just got changed!

[Tatooene]

As a primarily Republican voter, I think there are a few decent choices. This time last year, I would have said I would support Ted Cruz, but he's been making a fool out of himself recently.

My first choice at this point would be Marco Rubio, but I also like Rand Paul and Ben Carson.

In the future, I would also vote for Paul Ryan, though I don't think he's a got any chance pf winning the nomination in this election. Perhaps 2020 or 2024.

[Alf Landon]

Zombie Reagan 2016!

[MERIZoC]

As a primarily Republican voter, I think there are a few decent choices. This time last year, I would have said I would support Ted Cruz, but he's been making a fool out of himself recently.

My first choice at this point would be Marco Rubio, but I also like Rand Paul and Ben Carson.

In the future, I would also vote for Paul Ryan, though I don't think he's a got any chance pf winning the nomination in this election. Perhaps 2020 or 2024.

Oh, that's a good one...