Republican 2016 Presidential Field

[PaleRider]

Because the GOP doesn't know how to appeal to us and personally, I think they are "afraid", to go and preach the good word of self responsibility and small government to us; why I don't know, but it's not like we bite or anything. They also don't know how to utilize people like RG3 and $cam Newton, both famous black athletes that happen to be Republican and can reach the youngins and inner city youth. I've been told by people that they would support the party based on its economic views, but they get turned off when they hear comments that seem like coded and aimed at disparaging black people ala "blahh people" from SelCrus' man crush, Rick Santorum.

Give credit to Michael Steele though; he was a bumbling fool that liked S&M clubs, but he laid the ground work necessary for the party to appeal to minorities.

Part of the thing is every time we try to, see Paul Ryan, we get disparaged as being racist and insensitive and such and its discouraging and why should we outreach to communities that until very recently hardly voted in strength in elections. Needless to say I am glad to see the GOP doing more outreach like that.

[Afrocentric]

Because the GOP doesn't know how to appeal to us and personally, I think they are "afraid", to go and preach the good word of self responsibility and small government to us; why I don't know, but it's not like we bite or anything. They also don't know how to utilize people like RG3 and $cam Newton, both famous black athletes that happen to be Republican and can reach the youngins and inner city youth. I've been told by people that they would support the party based on its economic views, but they get turned off when they hear comments that seem like coded and aimed at disparaging black people ala "blahh people" from SelCrus' man crush, Rick Santorum.

Give credit to Michael Steele though; he was a bumbling fool that liked S&M clubs, but he laid the ground work necessary for the party to appeal to minorities.

Part of the thing is every time we try to, see Paul Ryan, we get disparaged as being racist and insensitive and such and its discouraging and why should we outreach to communities that until very recently hardly voted in strength in elections. Needless to say I am glad to see the GOP doing more outreach like that.

Again,the GOP's problem is they don't know how to approach people w/o coming across as racist or insensitive. It's not that hard to talk to people without putting them down or making them feel dumb or saying shit that comes across as offensive and as I stated, if the party wants to survive for 150 more years, they have to appeal to DaQuan, Ping and Jose; not just David, Paul and Joe.

[EEL123]

Again,the GOP's problem is they don't know how to approach people w/o coming across as racist or insensitive.

Actually, I think that it is an issue of how people perceive the GOP. If Obama (or indeed even a white Democrat) said something entirely uncontroversial, that same thing would probably raise a hell of a hullabaloo if a Republican had said it. Which puts them in a bit of a dilemma: you'll be seen a racist whether or not you appeal to minorities.

[EEL123]

According to Politico, Ted Cruz's fundraising has gone south since the shutdown. This means that much of his appeal is based on him being an over-obstinate, asinine individual - which is also why most people hate him. I can't imagine him as a serious Presidential contender - even if he wins the primaries, he's going to fall flat in the general election.

[EEL123]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... gop-polls/

Here's another interesting piece. Huckabee is topping the polls in Iowa, which would give him huge momentum (although I suspect that New Hampshire might break that). Nonetheless, this augurs well for his (currently hypothetical) primary campaign - and augurs badly for Republican prospects if they want the White House.

[EEL123]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/c ... 06519.html

Well, now it has been shown (whether accurately or not; it's public perception that matters) that Christie is not only shifty and vindictive, but basically incompetent. The Republican nomination (and, by extension, the White House) is increasingly drifting beyond his reach - and towards that of Jeb Bush.

[PaleRider]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/christies-finances-106519.html

Well, now it has been shown (whether accurately or not; it's public perception that matters) that Christie is not only shifty and vindictive, but basically incompetent. The Republican nomination (and, by extension, the White House) is increasingly drifting beyond his reach - and towards that of Jeb Bush.

I say that indeed Christie is a damaged good. Personally i prefer Rick Perry, has an excellent track record in Texas. As much as i like Jeb, the Bush's need to cool it with the pumping out of presidents! The Bush's are working on number three but the Clinton's are still struggling on their second!

[EEL123]

Personally i prefer Rick Perry, has an excellent track record in Texas.

Oh, yes, Rick Perry, who would abolish the Departments of Commerce, Education and - what was it? I forgot. Someone remind me. Seriously, if he has issues recalling his core promises, I suspect that his mental capacities aren't sharp enough for him to occupy the Oval Office. And his last campaign was disastrous.

As much as i like Jeb, the Bush's need to cool it with the pumping out of presidents! The Bush's are working on number three but the Clinton's are still struggling on their second!

While I don't approve of dynasties in the sense that someone is elected to office more because of their name than their ability, if someone is qualified to do the job, just because he's a Bush or Clinton (or even a Nixon or Carter) should not be a black mark against their name.

[PaleRider]

Oh, yes, Rick Perry, who would abolish the Departments of Commerce, Education and - what was it? I forgot. Someone remind me. Seriously, if he has issues recalling his core promises, I suspect that his mental capacities aren't sharp enough for him to occupy the Oval Office. And his last campaign was disastrous.

Oh cmon man haha being Governor of a state, especially Texas is no easy thing and he's done a good job. Plus, he had a bad campaign all around i admit. He was undergoing back surgery or something similar at the time and he wasnt rehearsed or ready for the national spotlight. However over the past few years he definitely has matured and increased his discipline. He has a strong record in Texas (including criminal justice reform, strong economic performance and tort reform to name a few) and i feel he would do well as a candidate.

While I don't approve of dynasties in the sense that someone is elected to office more because of their name than their ability, if someone is qualified to do the job, just because he's a Bush or Clinton (or even a Nixon or Carter) should not be a black mark against their name.

While i too agree, image does play a role in politics. Since 1928, there hasnt been a winning Republican Presidential ticket that doesnt include a Bush or Nixon. As qualified as i think Bush is he would unfortunately run into difficulties based on the whole dynasty and former brother President image. That being said, if the Democratic primary becomes a fight to the bitter end, like in 2008 it could well damage them in the general election.

[EEL123]

Oh cmon man haha

No, I'm not being nasty because I can be, it's simply the fact that being unable to remember what you stand for before a national audience is going to torpedo any chance you have at the Presidency. Perry's 2012 campaign was a sewer of incompetence (whatever you might think of his management of Texas), and I see no reason as to why a 2016 campaign would be markedly better (and, if he wants to have anything close to even a miniscule chance, it had damn well better be).

However over the past few years he definitely has matured and increased his discipline.

He's had more than a bloody decade as Governor to mature as a candidate of national standing!!! If you can't do it in twelve years, I suspect that you can't do it in four.

Since 1928, there hasnt been a winning Republican Presidential ticket that doesnt include a Bush or Nixon.

Eh?

As qualified as i think Bush is he would unfortunately run into difficulties based on the whole dynasty and former brother President image.

I'm actually becoming less concerned (on Jeb Bush's behalf) about the Bush name. If you look at the polls, more people are blaming starting Obama instead of George Bush for the bad stuff that's happened, like the weak economy. I suspect that by 2016, the cross-over, when more people blame Obama than Bush, will have happened.