What Republican could possibly run for President next?

It's still early, but Rand Paul would be my first choice. However, it is looking more and more like Jeb will run. If Jeb runs, he will get the nomination, and he will win the presidency.

 

Randy will give Jabba a run for his fat cat money.

In pursuit of the would-be Bush III and the American electorate, he's already moving back to the sane centre on immigration: "People who seek the American Dream are not bad people," and blasting the zanies in the GOP for attempts at voter suppression: “Everybody’s gone completely crazy on this voter ID thing. I think it’s wrong for Republicans to go too crazy on this issue because it’s offending people.”

If he continues to confront reality, he'll soon be offering the practical tweaks to the Affordable Care Act that Americans support.

After Christie's scandal, I had thought Turdblossom and the Establishmentistas could foist Jabba on the Party, but it's still undetermined who will be the 2016 model Willard. Even after Newtie, Carrot Top Adelson still seems to have a load to flush down his green-speech receptacle and Jabba reportedly passed his Fealty to Israel test. Obviously, Randy can't compete in that department, bur his alternative America First/Avoid Foreign Entanglements approach may have broader appeal - especially in the wake of the Bush's Iraq fiasco, for which Jabba is on the record as having been a neocon provocateur.

Go get 'im, Randy!

 

The GOP is, understandably, reluctant to name names. Whoever they settle upon will immediately alienate a segment of the already-divided party

They are much more comfortable running against, rather than picking a nominee or uniting behind a platform.

Unfortunately for them, bellywhinging endlessly about Affordable Care Act has become tiresome, and they have yet to proffer an alternative.

 

Personally, I like the idea of a Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal ticket. Either on at the top of the ticket.

 

With the extremely low approval rating of the "Tea Party Republicans" (about 22% as I recall) candidates like Sen Paul, a Tea Party Movement favorite, would have a zero chance of winning if nominated.

With the continued anti-minority and anti-poor agenda of the Republican Party it is doubtful that any Republican can win in 2016. With the ever increasing importance of the minority vote where over 95% of African-Americans plus about 75% of Hispanics voting Democrat the Republican Party is losing the demographic battle. Republicans just can't win by depending on "Angry White Men" to elect the president anymore. It sitll works in small Congressional districts but it won't continue to work anymore for the presidency.

If the Republican Party wants to win future presidential elections it's going to have to do a 180 on many of it's policies.

 

I agree with this. However, it is the Tea Party that represents that 180, or used to anyway. Republicans must abandon (or at least stop making it the focal point) social conservatism and focus instead on fiscal conservatism and reducing government.

 

From what I've seen the Tea Party Movement isn't fiscally conservative and never has been. For example I just created a thread on Sen Rand Paul's proposed revision to the tax codes and one of the points I condemn it for is that it is not fiscally responsible.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=357441&p=1063911399#post1063911399

A tax proposal that results in deficit spending is not fiscally conservative because it's not fiscally responsible and yet that is what Senator Rand Paul is proposing.

We should also note that the Tea Party movement doesn't want to address responsible spending cuts and I'll provide an example.

Social welfare spending mitigates the effects of poverty but never attempted to reduce poverty. To responsibly reduce welfare spending we need to reduce poverty. If the Tea Party movement had a viable plan that would reduce poverty then there would be no necessity to "cut" welfare spending because it would automatically decline with the reduction in poverty because fewer people would qualify for the welfare assistance.

I've made the same arguments with other libertarians on a libertarian forum I belong to. Assuming that "libertarian" economic beliefs are valid then if they are adopted they will reduce poverty and that will reduce the necessity for welfare assistance.

Just cutting welfare spending does not address the problem because the problem is poverty and the spending is just a symptom of the problem. We need government that addresses the "problems" and not the "symptoms" of the problems.

If we want to reduce the size of government we need to address the problems because the primary cause behind big government is that it addresses symptom of the problems while ignoring the actual problem. General welfare assistance, Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, and even Military spending all address "symptoms" of problems while ignoring the problems.

 

What is painfully obvious is you have nothing of merit to offer and can only assign phony emotions to the other side.

Then why do you have so much trouble trying to list or even discuss any substantive ones?

Yep you can't can, only engage in your specious nonsense.

But if you insist on only looking at it from an emotional standpoint what is to like about a woman who so demonized and attacked and tried to ruin the women whom her husband so sexually abused and harassed because he had power over them? What's to like about that?

Or if you want to try something substantive how about Haiti? Not only did she as SecState put huge effort into it, sending he Chief of Staff there 30 times, she and her husbands foundation targeted and the recovery.

So how did that work out?

 

There's such a thing as moderate Republigoons?

What is a moderate Republican?

Personally, think political parties should be banned outright.

 

If you need to incessantly kvetch about Hillary Clinton, or any other politician, for that matter, that is what you will do. However, the thread's topic offers a strong clue for those who are pissy because there is a strong likelihood that she will be elected by the American people to be the next president of the United States. You need to find someone who can run against her more successfully than Willard ran against President Obama. Stop sniveling about Clinton, and start touting an alternative. And if you do, his whining about the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund is not a winning strategy. Next thing, you'll be braying that she blew the sure bet of bringing amity and love to Israel/Palestine.

So, if you can get your fixation under control,the pertinent topic is: "What Republican could possibly run for President next?" And win?

 

Well she is the ONLY prospective candidate the Democrats are offering isn't she.

Well stop praising her. So how did she do in Haiti? Let's discuss her on her merits and not the emotional as you tend to do. It was a MAJOR effort for her as SecState and the major initiative of her and her husbands foundation.

Excuse me? I was responding the YOU.
"All reasonable expectations are that Hillary Clinton is sure to carry women voters, "

If you are going to make such statements I am going to challenge them. If you don't want to be challenged then don't make them.

 

Yeah, Chris Christie, good choice, assumeing he hasn't been indited for any of his aledged malfunctions. The *********s hate him & the moderates distrust him.

 

When the H was this posted? Christie is well behind Bush & even Rubio in the polls.
p.s. Okay this is from Nov. I'm still learning about this site. Sorry, y'all.

 

I don't think anyone will announce untill the midterms are past.
Bernie Sanders has stated he will run if no other proggresive enters the race.

 

Now that would be rich, Hillary vs. Sanders.

 

Could be quite entertaining....for about a month.

If Huntsman comes out of the woodwork after midterms.....this would be a serious race.

 

WOW!!!

I just got back from the Middle East and I am ASTONISHED this Topic I created way back is STILL going strong!!

Sad thing is I STILL can't think of any Republican that realistically would be a good candidate to run for President next time around.

JEB BUSH is an absolute NO GO and would be a DISASTER for the Republican Party.

When I was over in the Hot and Sandy....I heard about this young...43 year old Moderate Republican....can't remember his name but I will call a friend who remembers that conversation better than I do....and from what I am told this young guy is JUST WHAT THE DOCTOR ORDERED for the Republican's.

AboveAlpha

 

This thread is, purportedly about a Republican candidate for the presidency, but Its hardly surprising that disgruntled folks instead revert to maligning the twice-elected President and his likely successor rather than offering a viable alternative. Theirs is the politics of negativity, stoked by their media entertainers whose habitual yowling gets them wee wee'd up as if they were caged Tasmanian devils reacting to some bounder beating on the bars with a stick - hardly conducive to dispassionately evaluating potential aspirants.

Who will be the '16 model Romney? Clearly, they don't want to think about it.

Mr Individual Mandate, himself, is again being touted, I see.

 

There actually have been alternatives proposed to ACA even before ACA was passed in congress. Some of the same stuff has been in them, such as getting rid of the previous condition being denied (one thing I like about ACA).
Also the GOP strategy has shifted from ACA to the scandals of the current admin such as the IRS and the swapping in afghanistan. Those two issues I believe will leave a bigger black eye come november then ACA. Unless more data comes to show an increase in premiums and reduction in care in the next 4-5 months, then maybe ACA will become a central issue again.
I BTW would support a Paul, Rubio(not a fan of his amnesty support but at least he's talking about reform), I'd love to see Jindhal run too. The GOP needs to find someone not on the extreme right. Unfortunately the leadership level is pulling the party more and more extreme, especially on social issues. I am fiscally conservative and socially mixed myself. At this point I'd probably support Rubio.

 

I would have preferred following the proven paradigm of advanced nations that cover everyone at around half the cost, but suddenly cutting out the extravagant middle man would result in a huge unemployment problem, so I advocate gradualism, an incremental lowering of the Medicare eligibility age to add the less-costly demographic, together with the slashing of the $250 billion annual taxpayer subsidy for employer-administered plans that Jindal has proposed. Whoever prefers private coverage can still go it alone in the free market.

An adverse Supreme Court ruling and the ACA's horrendous roll-out were its critics' big opportunities. It's too late to push for its repeal.

I expect the attempts to manufacture other such "scandals" will go the way of the "birther" business. For all Issa's smear attempts, he still has received more indictments than he ever issued. Making a deal with terrorists to obtain the release of an American soldier who is being tortured will never suffice as the "black and white" issue some would try to make it into.

I would enthusiastically support Paul - as the Foreign Policy President if the roles were bifurcated, and I look forward to his debating the would-be Bush III in the nominative process. If it devolves into a kvetchfest about a past administration, neither will get elected. Any GOP nominee has to present a coherent, positive agenda.

2014 looks like a great year for congressional Repubs, but their ascendancy for two years may seal the deal for a Democratic presidency in '16.

 

2014 should be anywhere form 4-11 seat pick up for GOP.
What will seal the deal for a dem president would be if the GOP candidate can not get at least 33% support from Hispanic and crack that 10% barrier on the black vote. Very hard to overcome 90% from one major demographic and 70% from an ever larger demographic.
Maybe a Carson run? I don't know enough about him though. A Rubio/Carson ticket would make smearing the GOP on minorities a chore for the Dems

 

That sounds about right. Given that Republican candidates for congress in 2012 received fewer votes nationally than their Democratic opponents and yet remained the majority bespeaks a systemic districting advantage. And with sparsely-populated states having the same representation in the senate, the party vote differential is even more stark. In national elections, those elective edges are eliminated.

I see no reason why Black and Hispanic Americans will suddenly switch party preference in significant numbers. The GOP's lack of diversity amidst changing demographics will have to be addressed eventually if they want to attract votes.

 

exactly.