Because We Have a Problem: 2016 Forcasting List

[madviking]

I would want a Tim Kaine/Mark Warner v. Bob McDonnell election.

VIRGINIA Y'ALL.

 

[GhostWriter16]

There goes the thread.

And let's get it back on track.

Fundamentally the question depends on who wins THIS time. While we'll get a whole plethroa of democrats no matter what I'm sure, if the GOP win this time, we'll be left with only Romney as a choice there.

So the GOP side may be irrelevant.

If Romney loses, on the other hand, we'll have many options from both.

Is Huckabee getting into this one, in that instance, do you guys think?

 

[_random_]

The Huckster seems pretty content with being a media personality. And with Christie, Jindal, and/or Rubio, I'm not sure he'd be terribly relevant.

I'd probably be okay with Tim Kaine if he ran. Feingold is probably my top choice, but I'm not sure how likely he is to run.

 

[JohnRM]

Mike Huckabee knows that he is unelectable. There is no sense in falling upon the sword for a lost cause.

 

[Antilogic]

There goes the thread.

We almost finished 2 standard pages too.

 

[vypernight]

I don't think Johnson will join either party. He's too liberal socially to be a Republican and too conservative fiscally to be a Democrat. I'd like to see him as the first Independent President. Maybe a ticket with Jill Stein as his running mate.

 

[Kraznaya]

Hillary will only be 68 in '16. Never underestimate Bill's ambition, either.

 

[Cutlass]

There's nothing at all "decent" about Ron Paul. He's just another corporate crony scumbag that would hurt millions of people to give welfare to the wealthy.

 

[downtown]

Ugh, can we stop with the Ron Paul crap?

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

If Romney loses in November, and Rubio doesn't win the GOP primaries, I'd be surprised.

 

[Murky]

I've been speaking to some conservatives about their opinion on the race. They all say they wouldn't vote for Obama. At the same time; they all wish that they had another option besides Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. What does that say about the state of our democracy?

 

[bhsup]

Well, it says about the same thing that Anybody But Bush said, I guess. I'm sure a lot of liberals wished Kerry wasn't their nominee.

 

[Cutlass]

I've been speaking to some conservatives about their opinion on the race. They all say they wouldn't vote for Obama. At the same time; they all wish that they had another option besides Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. What does that say about the state of our democracy?

It was obvious all through the primaries that the Republicans were not happy with Romney as nominee presumptive. That's why all the other dwarves had their moments in the sun. But there simply wasn't a candidate in that race that had less flaws than Romney (to the primary voters and donors eyes) and had any form of an organization to take advantage of the opportunity. Which again speaks to the strategic failure of the Republicans to get a better candidate up there.

 

[_random_]

If Romney loses in November, and Rubio doesn't win the GOP primaries, I'd be surprised.

I'd bet on Christie before Rubio, but that's just me. They're looking to have a very intimidating field in 2016, much moreso than in this election. Maybe if we're lucky we'll get a brokered convention.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Eh, Richardson's kind of shady. I like him and all, but there's a reason he didn't land a cabinet spot.

True story. I still like him and will continue to like him solely because of his stance on space exploration. It's my thing, you know?

I love how this is the best you liberals can do to discredit the rare decent person in our government.

I wouldn't call the majority of our government indecent. I don't like many of their stances, but I still believe that many of them are decent people.

I'm not really sure if Paul's position is inconsistent. It could well be equivalent to supporting privatization of healthcare but still using UHC if it exists. There's no inconsistency. Yes, you'd rather pay a private company than the government but if the government is getting that much tax money from you, you'd like to still benefit from it. Ron Paul may well be in the same vote, he doesn't want the government to do as much as it does, but at the same time, if its going to happen, he doesn't want to leave his district with nothing to show for it. I don't necessarily see a consistency issue.

His whole schtick is that he's a 'man of principle'. Except when it is politically expedient to abandon his libertarian principles a la the shrimp industry or his stance on abortion. That makes him inconsistent, not that you'll ever concede this or any other point though.

or Obama's absolute failure to change Bush's foreign policy

Really? Do tell me all the ways their foreign policies are identical.

You don't like his ideas, we get it. All of you people prefer a government-nanny that takes care of its people rather than protecting them from violence.

Stop mischaracterizing your fellow posters. This is not how I or many other liberals see the role of government.

Under a Paul presidency we would be much more free than ever before, but you choose to focus on your fiscal disagreements, or a random irrelevant issue, and thus seek to discredit him and defend the status quo.

If you have actual cases where he has been inconsistent, bring them on.

His inconsistencies have been pointed out but you don't care. So stop asking for proof that you are just going to ignore. 'random irrelevant issue' --> What are you talking about? How are his stances irrelevant to a discussion about the man?

Oh right, they make you think about things you don't agree with, which is bad.

The Huckster seems pretty content with being a media personality.

In this way he is exactly like Sarah Palin.

I still am shocked she quit the job of governor to do TV. That must be a slap in the face to the Alaskans who voted for her and for John McCain.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I'd bet on Christie before Rubio, but that's just me. They're looking to have a very intimidating field in 2016, much moreso than in this election. Maybe if we're lucky we'll get a brokered convention.

Rubio is a much better public speaker, and will be more suited to get people rallied behind his cause. So I think he will be the nominee.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Rubio is a much better public speaker, and will be more suited to get people rallied behind his cause. So I think he will be the nominee.

I'm not sure the Republican primary voters could take the leap of faith required to vote for a hispanic though. After all, they think Obama is a closet Kenyan.

 

[Murky]

The chances of Republicans nominating a non-white guy for President are very slim. They've pulled every string could think of to slow the tide of Latinos entering the USA and are even working to get more of them deported. Mitt Romney wants to make life so miserable for undocumented immigrants that they would "self deport" to their former countries. I wouldn't be surprised if politicians like Rubio started switching parties at an alarming rate.

 

[bhsup]

Man, it's almost a guarantee that the first time race is brought up, it's a liberal that is doing it. For all your baseless allegations of racism against conservatives, race sure never seems to be far from y'alls mind. Maybe some latent/closet racism going on there that you're ashamed of?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Here's a question:

IF Rubio got the nomination, would Latinos switch party allegiance?