Who will the GOP and DEm's trot out for 2016?

[Voltaire 4,558]

Hillary would be 70 by the time she would be sworn in. Not many youngsters are going to vote for a scary faced old woman. I don't think the democratic party would even chance it.

Once upon a time when I was a teenager, we had an old man who had been elected president at just about 70 who running for re-election at 74. Lots of kids my age, including me, loved that old guy. His age wasn't a hinderence to us.

 

He did an outstanding job.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

Once upon a time when I was a teenager, we had an old man who had been elected president at just about 70 who running for re-election at 74. Lots of kids my age, including me, loved that old guy. His age wasn't a hinderence to us.

 

He did an outstanding job.

That was then, this is now. Look at the shots McCain took on his age.

[hoytdwow 202]

 

The right generally nominates known quantities. Paul Ryan is at the top right now, but 4 years is a long time. Rick Santorum and Rick Perry will be back. Scott Brown is a darkhorse. These 4 will run and I assume that one will be nominated.

Agreed, and add Rubio and Christie to the mix. None of them can win. OK, maybe Scott Brown or Christie, if their moderate stance can survive the wingnut onslaught.

[MDC 5,890]

Pity you feel that way. I could easily say that the majority of democrats are moochers who want the government to take care of them and give them free stuff, because it is true.

 

That's pretty much the consensus of all forearm Repubs.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Agreed, and add Rubio and Christie to the mix. None of them can win. OK, maybe Scott Brown or Christie, if their moderate stance can survive the wingnut onslaught.

I left Christie off due to his love affair with Obama during Sandy. If he does not go on the attack sometime in the next four years to right the ship, he is dead in the water. Of course he may not even want the job, he certainly did not appear to want it this time.

 

The Republicans are going to be the favorites during the next election. It's nearly impossible to hold the office for 3 terms. It always happens that the lame-duck uses the bully pulpit and his hardline agenda screws the next guy.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I left Christie off due to his love affair with Obama during Sandy. If he does not go on the attack sometime in the next four years to right the ship, he is dead in the water. Of course he may not even want the job, he certainly did not appear to want it this time.

 

The Republicans are going to be the favorites during the next election. It's nearly impossible to hold the office for 3 terms. It always happens that the lame-duck uses the bully pulpit and his hardline agenda screws the next guy.

When Christie came on the scene people thought he may be a standard bearer for the Tea Party. Wanting the feds to pick up 100% of the cost of the damage from Sandy was the final nail in the coffin on that front. He is up for reelection this year, I think, so he will have to go hard left to get another term in NJ. He won't bounce back from that, and if he doesn't he won't get reelected and will fall off the map.

 

If he is on a ticket in 2016 it will be on the Dumbocrat ticket.

[kilroy69 994]

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/22/rubio-trashes-roe-v-wade-as-blatant-judicial-activism/ rubio just signed away any chance he had at president or vp. 70 percent of the u.s. does not agree with his stance. Taking him on would be far more of a minus to any ticket

[gocolts 300]

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/22/rubio-trashes-roe-v-wade-as-blatant-judicial-activism/ rubio just signed away any chance he had at president or vp. 70 percent of the u.s. does not agree with his stance. Taking him on would be far more of a minus to any ticket

Actually, pro-life is the majority now, albeit a small margin. It is split almost right down the middle.

[Voltaire 4,558]

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/22/rubio-trashes-roe-v-wade-as-blatant-judicial-activism/ rubio just signed away any chance he had at president or vp. 70 percent of the u.s. does not agree with his stance. Taking him on would be far more of a minus to any ticket

 

Doesn't bother me. A candidate's position on abortion never has and never will factor a blip on my opinion of them. What I don't like is his kissing religion dipsh*ts ass when saked about the age of the world but that is more than forgivable since I give him major props for being one of the very few senators (8 out of 100) who voted "no" on the fiscal cliff deal.

 

I love that "no" vote. I will never forget who those eight were and because of that one vote on the single most important issue that I care about, I'm going to keep a hopeful eye on this guy.

[kilroy69 994]

guess it comes down to who ya believe gocolts. I tend to believe that 70 percent of the us population is right on track no matter what the anti abortion activists say.

[kilroy69 994]

What’s more, seven in 10 respondents oppose Roe v. Wade being overturned, which is the highest percentage on this question since 1989.........which also points to you being wrong.

[gocolts 300]

guess it comes down to who ya believe gocolts. I tend to believe that 70 percent of the us population is right on track no matter what the anti abortion activists say.

Didn't realize Gallop was considered abortion activists. I have seen a lot of polls on abortion and I never seen one that shows the margin you are suggesting, not by a long shot. Most all of them have it close as fock no matter which side they claim to be in the majority.

[BunnysBastatrds 1,914]

Didn't realize Gallop was considered abortion activists. I have seen a lot of polls on abortion and I never seen one that shows the margin you are suggesting, not by a long shot. Most all of them have it close as fock no matter which side they claim to be in the majority.

 

 

Third term abortion doctors are few and far between. Wonder why that is?

[kilroy69 994]

I actually linked to the poll with those results so if ya didnt see that number its because you didnt look. seeing as how it is the latest poll I would say its pretty up to date.

[kilroy69 994]

According to the poll, 54 percent of adults say that abortion should be legal either always or most of the time, while a combined 44 percent said it should be illegal – either with or without exceptions.

Recommended: Obama takes ceremonial oath, tells nation 'our journey is not complete'

That’s the first time since this poll question was first asked in 2003 that a majority maintained that abortion should be legal. Previously (with just one exception in 2008), majorities said abortion should be illegal.

In addition, a whopping 70 percent of Americans oppose the Roe v. Wade decision being overturned, including 57 percent who feel strongly about this.

That’s up from the 58 percent who said the decision shouldn’t be overturned in 1989; the 60 percent who said this in 2002; and the 66 percent who said this in 2005.

By comparison, just 24 percent now want the Roe v. Wade decision overturned, including 21 percent who feel strongly about this position

[kilroy69 994]

the abortion-related events and rhetoric over the past year – which included controversial remarks on abortion and rape by two Republican Senate candidates, as well as a highly charged debate over contraception – helped shaped these changing poll numbers. so the republicans......just by being republicans are helping shore up support for the issue.

[MedStudent 56]

Pity you feel that way. I could easily say that the majority of democrats are moochers who want the government to take care of them and give them free stuff, because it is true.

What an idiotic statement.

[jerryskids 5,199]

What an idiotic statement.

 

Why?

[MedStudent 56]

Why?

 

Professionals have favored democrats in the presidential elections since 2000. Scientists are more likely democrats. Asian Americans voted 75% for Obama in 2012. Jews are overwhelmingly democrat. Those are not groups of people you usually associate with being moochers.

 

Grow the fock up Jerry. Just because someone doesn't have the same political ideology as you doesn't mean they are Moochers. There are plenty of fat lazy white red neck republicans who mooch as well.

[jerryskids 5,199]

Professionals have favored democrats in the presidential elections since 2000. Scientists are more likely democrats. Asian Americans voted 75% for Obama in 2012. Jews are overwhelmingly democrat. Those are not groups of people you usually associate with being moochers.

 

Grow the fock up Jerry. Just because someone doesn't have the same political ideology as you doesn't mean they are Moochers. There are plenty of fat lazy white red neck republicans who mooch as well.

Pretty much the response I expected. You see Med, I never said there weren't smart people on both sides. In fact I implied as much in my response to the assertion that conservatives are all toofless bible-thumping rednecks.

 

What I said is that the majority of democrats are moochers. Check out the map; by and large it is blue in large metro areas. Areas where entire wards vote democrat (allegedly), many of them bused in to vote. I'm pretty sure those aren't all scientists or the other stereotypes you mentioned.

 

The truth is that both parties have a minority of intellectuals and a majority of drones which tag along.

[KSB2424 3,083]

The problem with the GOP is that there is a divide within the party. It's the fiscal conservatives / socially moderate crowd versus the Religious Right. Until they can somewhat come together and not ostricize one another, then the real bad guys (Liberal Democrats) will keep winning.

[MDC 5,890]

Pretty much the response I expected. You see Med, I never said there weren't smart people on both sides. In fact I implied as much in my response to the assertion that conservatives are all toofless bible-thumping rednecks.

 

What I said is that the majority of democrats are moochers. Check out the map; by and large it is blue in large metro areas. Areas where entire wards vote democrat (allegedly), many of them bused in to vote. I'm pretty sure those aren't all scientists or the other stereotypes you mentioned.

 

The truth is that both parties have a minority of intellectuals and a majority of drones which tag along.

 

You are overstating your case: the majority of Dems aren't mooches any more than a majority if reps are toofless rednecks. Both parties are huge big tents full of people with disparate interests. The stereotypes are just the vocal minority who get all the press.

[MedStudent 56]

I think Rand Paul would get cllobbered in a general election but he has a shot at the republican nominee. Ryan showed nothing during the last campaign.

 

Rubio or jindal would be good choices for the Republican Party.

 

For the democrats, I really can't see Hillary or Biden winning the nomination. I don't see any of the older democrats having a chance. I think you will likey see a younger candidate like a Tim Kaine come along and get the nomination.

[IGotWorms 3,311]

Professionals have favored democrats in the presidential elections since 2000. Scientists are more likely democrats. Asian Americans voted 75% for Obama in 2012. Jews are overwhelmingly democrat. Those are not groups of people you usually associate with being moochers.

 

Grow the fock up Jerry. Just because someone doesn't have the same political ideology as you doesn't mean they are Moochers. There are plenty of fat lazy white red neck republicans who mooch as well.

 

 

Plus the poorest states and the states that receive the most federal funds per capita are almost all red states. Funny how that works.

[KSB2424 3,083]

and the states that receive the most federal funds per capita are almost all red states.

This is not a true statement.

 

Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Virginia, New Mexico were all top 10 in federal funds per capita. None of which are "red states".

[hoytdwow 202]

 

Plus the poorest states and the states that receive the most federal funds per capita are almost all red states. Funny how that works.

the dumbest states and the states with the highest crime rates are also mostly red.

[KSB2424 3,083]

the dumbest states and the states with the highest crime rates are also mostly red.

Correct. Education (or lack thereof) breeds poverty and crime. Not sure your point.

[hoytdwow 202]

Correct. Education (or lack thereof) breeds poverty and crime. Not sure your point.

Well, I think there's a perception that dumb poor people vote Democrat so they can get handouts, but a huge swath of them are in red states.

[IGotWorms 3,311]

This is not a true statement.

 

Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, Virginia, New Mexico were all top 10 in federal funds per capita. None of which are "red states".

 

Really? Hmm, I'm gonna have to look that up, because I could swear I had recently seen statistics to the contrary.

 

ETA: Seems there are some contradictory numbers out there (perhaps explained by differing methodology?).

 

Slate has the top ten as New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, W. Virginia, N Dakota, Alabama, S Dakota, Virginia, and Kentucky. Almost all solidly red.

 

Bottom ten? New Jersey, Nevada, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Illinois, Delaware, California, New York, and Colorado. Almost all solidly blue

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Really? Hmm, I'm gonna have to look that up, because I could swear I had recently seen statistics to the contrary.

Wuzzat???

 

Worms making up numbers again?

 

I'm shocked, shocked I tells ya.

[IGotWorms 3,311]

Wuzzat???

 

Worms making up numbers again?

 

I'm shocked, shocked I tells ya.

 

Updated my post dumb sh!t.

 

I'm sure you'll demand a link, but I'm posting on my phone. Google search "Slate Blue State, Red Face" and it should come up.

[Phurfur 70]

Really? Hmm, I'm gonna have to look that up, because I could swear I had recently seen statistics to the contrary.

 

ETA: Seems there are some contradictory numbers out there (perhaps explained by differing methodology?).

 

Slate has the top ten as New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, W. Virginia, N Dakota, Alabama, S Dakota, Virginia, and Kentucky. Almost all solidly red.

 

Bottom ten? New Jersey, Nevada, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Illinois, Delaware, California, New York, and Colorado. Almost all solidly blue

 

Try to keep up, your government has come up with a new why to estimate poverty.

It is obvious that your list does not include Cost of Living which makes it useless.

 

November 16, 2012

 

The Golden State has fallen on hard times, with a poverty rate that is now twice as bad as West Virginia’s and substantially worse than the rates of poverty in Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas and Texas, according to a new measure of poverty developed by the federal Census Bureau.

California earned its last-place rank under the federal government’s new measure of poverty, which incorporates more detailed analyses of welfare payments and the local costs of food, gasoline and housing.

 

 

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/poverty/2012/11/16/left-wing-paradise-california-leads-nation-poverty#ixzz2Ip52P3hy

[Recliner Pilot 61]

So you admit there are contradictory numbers and you are talking out of your ass.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Try to keep up, your government has come up with a new why to estimate poverty.

It is obvious that your list does not include Cost of Living which makes it useless.

 

Are we talking about poverty levels or levels of mooching? I think that they are different.

[IGotWorms 3,311]

So you admit there are contradictory numbers and you are talking out of your ass.

 

Nope, keep trying

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Doesn't matter if you admit it or not. Thems the facts.

[The Moz 69]

If the GOP has any sense at all they Nom... Rubio. Okay he was against the dream act - so what. He is Latino and latino's will vote for him in droves. Did the fact that Blacks suffered worse than anyone under Obama's 4 years effect their vote? NO - they voted for him more.. Rubio is the ONLY way the GOP wins -- with Rubio - Illinois,Florida,and hell maybe even Cali are up for grabs. I would rather have Ryan but Rubio is just more electable based on being latino.

 

Dems -- I know Hillary will want to run but at her age I just don't know if she would run. Maybe some un known like Bill Clinton was rises up???

[hoytdwow 202]

If the GOP has any sense at all they Nom... Rubio. Okay he was against the dream act - so what. He is Latino and latino's will vote for him in droves. Did the fact that Blacks suffered worse than anyone under Obama's 4 years effect their vote? NO - they voted for him more.. Rubio is the ONLY way the GOP wins -- with Rubio - Illinois,Florida,and hell maybe even Cali are up for grabs. I would rather have Ryan but Rubio is just more electable based on being latino.

 

Dems -- I know Hillary will want to run but at her age I just don't know if she would run. Maybe some un known like Bill Clinton was rises up???

Putting aside the standard incoherence that is a hallmark of your postings, Bill Clinton cannot run again.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Putting aside the standard incoherence that is a hallmark of your postings, Bill Clinton cannot run again.

Corky strikes again!!!!

[IGotWorms 3,311]

If the GOP has any sense at all they Nom... Rubio. Okay he was against the dream act - so what. He is Latino and latino's will vote for him in droves. Did the fact that Blacks suffered worse than anyone under Obama's 4 years effect their vote? NO - they voted for him more.. Rubio is the ONLY way the GOP wins -- with Rubio - Illinois,Florida,and hell maybe even Cali are up for grabs. I would rather have Ryan but Rubio is just more electable based on being latino.

 

Dems -- I know Hillary will want to run but at her age I just don't know if she would run. Maybe some un known like Bill Clinton was rises up???

 

It's not that simple regarding Rubio. Sure, his being latino is very helpful. But he has to also be a good politician besides that, and I'm not sure that he is. He has a pretty extreme record--there's a reason he is a Tea Party darling--and he supposedly did not survive the vetting process as Romney's running mate.

 

You act like trotting any latino out there will get it done, and I don't think that is accurate.