Gyroscopic Investing

Hillary Clinton is probably going to be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016. What do people think are the realistic Republican options for beating her?

Chris Christie?

dualstow wrote: Chris Christie?

How could he possibly? He is disgusting for women to look at and he's a big socialist gangster right? How is he going to appeal to anyone? Who would he appeal to?

That would basically be the elephant people giving up in my opinion. They would just be hoping enough people would vote against Hillary.

There are only 3-4 states that decide the election: Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio & Indiana I think. Maybe there are one or two others....Iowa?

She will crush him in PA, OH and IN.

Rand Paul for P. I don't have a VP pick yet.

MangoMan wrote: unless Obama does something really stupid between now and then.

So 100% certain then......

Reub wrote: Didn't we already have a thread on this subject?

I envisioned this thread as a place to talk about alternatives to the Cruz/Palin ticket proposed in the other one, since it seems that those two evoke enough sentiment to merit a thread all to themselves.

If he wanted to run, John Kasich would be a strong candidate.

As far as the VP on a ticket like that, Marco Rubio would be a great addition.

A ticket like that would give you strong traction in Florida and Ohio.  I think that could be a winner.

MediumTex wrote: A ticket like that would give you strong traction in Florida and Ohio.  I think that could be a winner.

Yeah don't forget guys about 42 of the states are either completely decided before the candidates are announced or they don't even matter because they only have a couple votes.

If anyone wins just Florida and Ohio the election is over.

MangoMan wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

MediumTex wrote: A ticket like that would give you strong traction in Florida and Ohio.  I think that could be a winner.

Yeah don't forget guys about 42 of the states are either completely decided before the candidates are announced or they don't even matter because they only have a couple votes.

If anyone wins just Florida and Ohio the election is over.

Which is why the whole Electoral System is idiotic in the current era.

The entire concept is idiotic to me but that's been explored in other threads.

What I don't get is why people in Texas, Cali, New York and the 42 unimportant states even show up at all. It can't be because they care about the other races. In non-presidential years the voting numbers are like half.

Kshartle wrote: What I don't get is why people in Texas, Cali, New York and the 42 unimportant states even show up at all. It can't be because they care about the other races. In non-presidential years the voting numbers are like half.

Desire to balance out their political enemies to prevent them from unexpectedly reversing the state?

Pointedstick wrote:

Kshartle wrote: What I don't get is why people in Texas, Cali, New York and the 42 unimportant states even show up at all. It can't be because they care about the other races. In non-presidential years the voting numbers are like half.

Desire to balance out their political enemies to prevent them from unexpectedly reversing the state?

Completely irrational. They know on the day of the election how it's going to go if they even have a single brainwave. If they don't this just shows why having people vote for their masters is a terrible idea. That's another thread topic so let me not derail from the republican ticket speculation.

MediumTex wrote: Marco Rubio would be a great addition.

Rubio is articulate and I liked him very much.  UNTIL he agreed to support immigration reform.  Many people, myself included will never forgive him for that.

Kshartle wrote: Completely irrational. They know on the day of the election how it's going to go if they even have a single brainwave. If they don't this just shows why having people vote for their masters is a terrible idea. That's another thread topic so let me not derail from the republican ticket speculation.

Voting is completely irrational. You can't try to examine some inherently irrational with rationality.

Pointedstick wrote:

Kshartle wrote: Completely irrational. They know on the day of the election how it's going to go if they even have a single brainwave. If they don't this just shows why having people vote for their masters is a terrible idea. That's another thread topic so let me not derail from the republican ticket speculation.

Voting is completely irrational. You can't try to examine some inherently irrational with rationality.

+1

moda0306 wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

Kshartle wrote: Completely irrational. They know on the day of the election how it's going to go if they even have a single brainwave. If they don't this just shows why having people vote for their masters is a terrible idea. That's another thread topic so let me not derail from the republican ticket speculation.

Voting is completely irrational. You can't try to examine some inherently irrational with rationality.

+1

Agreed but that's probably another thread

Simonjester wrote: Rand Paul/Gary Johnson,  its waaaay to libertarian to get past the GOP or the MSM but if by some miracle it did, they would have appeal for fiscal conservatives, they would win enough votes in the middle and have enough ability to steal votes from the left to beat Hillery

Correct, especially considering the total lack of concern shown by the Democratic party for the anti-war faction of the population.

Chris Christie is a giant tub of awful.  If it were him running against Hillary with Satan as her Veep, I'm not saying I'd vote for a Hillary/Satan ticket, but I'd stay home.


But enough of that, for a more mainstream GOP pick, I'd say Mitch Daniels, who won't run because his wife is apparently seriously damaged goods and doesn't want to have any kind of light shone on the dark corner she's hiding in.  But, he did some pretty impressive things from a budget perspective in my home state.  Got us back into the black.  He's the one that proposed the "social issues truce" during the 2012 campaign, back before his wife squashed his dream of running.

Daniels has repeatedly voiced opposition to using social issues for political gain in the next election. Most recently he told radio host Laura Ingraham he wanted to “mute”? topics like abortion and gay marriage for awhile while the country confronts the economic crisis.

In Thursday’s video Daniels said the country needs to make the kind of changes that will “restore America’s greatness.”?

“All I was saying was we’re going to need to unify all kinds of people and we’re going to need, freedom’s going to need very friend it can get.”?

A Mitch Daniels / Ron or Rand Paul ticket would get my vote, regardless of which direction the P/VP selection went.

Chris Christie is hugely popular nationally. He is the only prominent Republican not beholden to the lunatic fringe that seems to have taken over the GOP which means he might have a shot at moderates and independents. Off the top of my head I can't think of any other Republican who could stand up to Hillary.

Caveat: I am approaching this from a purely political perspective. This is not an ideological endorsement.

Ad Orientem wrote: Chris Christie is hugely popular nationally. He is the only prominent Republican not beholden to the lunatic fringe that seems to have taken over the GOP which means he might have a shot at moderates and independents. Off the top of my head I can't think of any other Republican who could stand up to Hillary.

Caveat: I am approaching this from a purely political perspective. This is not an ideological endorsement.

It's going to be tough for a guy like Christie to get through the primaries.

Ask Rudy Giuliani.

from a purely political perspective, Chris Christie has several major things going against him:

1. He's fat and ugly. No way around this.
2. He has no natural base. Conservative support for him is extremely tepid. Liberals hate his guts. Independents aren't convinced.
3. He can't carry his home state in a presidential election. Huge red flags there. Mitt Romney had the same problem…

Pointedstick wrote: from a purely political perspective, Chris Christie has several major things going against him:

1. He's fat and ugly. No way around this.
2. He has no natural base. Conservative support for him is extremely tepid. Liberals hate his guts. Independents aren't convinced.
3. He can't carry his home state in a presidential election. Huge red flags there. Mitt Romney had the same problem…

Running a certain loser didn't stop the republicans last year, and didn't stop the dems with Kerry. These elections look like WWE.

I'll be 37 for the next one. I'm gonna legally change my name to "none of the above" and see if I can get on the ballot.

Pointedstick wrote: from a purely political perspective, Chris Christie has several major things going against him:

1. He's fat and ugly. No way around this.
2. He has no natural base. Conservative support for him is extremely tepid. Liberals hate his guts. Independents aren't convinced.
3. He can't carry his home state in a presidential election. Huge red flags there. Mitt Romney had the same problem…

I'm not sure I agree. His weight problem gives him an ordinary guy image. He has public approval ratings near 70% in New Jersey. If he is the nominee NJ will likely go Republican for the first time since forever. His great weakness is that the far right hates his guts. While the Tea Party types constitute only about 30% of the GOP they vote as a block and they are dominant in some key Republican states. They are a minority but they have effectively hijacked the GOP. So yeah, that is going to be a problem.

But if he somehow manages to get the nomination (unlikely) he is the only one I think who can go toe to toe with Hillary and the Clinton machine.

Ad Orientem wrote: I'm not sure I agree. His weight problem gives him an ordinary guy image. He has public approval ratings near 70% in New Jersey. If he is the nominee NJ will likely go Republican for the first time since forever. His great weakness is that the far right hates his guts. While the Tea Party types constitute only about 30% of the GOP they vote as a block and they are dominant in some key Republican states. They are a minority but they have effectively hijacked the GOP. So yeah, that is going to be a problem.

But if he somehow manages to get the nomination (unlikely) he is the only one I think who can go toe to toe with Hillary and the Clinton machine.

That he has almost 70% support in a very blue state should ring some alarm bells. It's not just the far right; the less-far and only slightly far right hate his guts too. They think he's a total RINO. He's another east coast liberal in conservative's shoes, in their estimation. They think of him as Mitt Romney II with a weight problem and a "union thug" attitude.

If the Tea Party "hijacked" the GOP how in the world did Romney win the nomination?

Mdraf wrote: If the Tea Party "hijacked" the GOP how in the world did Romney win the nomination?

They couldn't agree on an anti-Romney candidate. It was a very weak field.