So, who will the Repubs nominate?

Who will the Republicans nominate?

Based upon their failures in recent Presidential elections, I believe that they will lift a tactic directly from the Democrat playbook;
They will find, and nominate, somebody who can be sold and marketed as a sexy, insincere rock star.
Qualifications don't matter, talent won't matter, and experience certainly doesn't matter.
As long as they look appealing in a swimsuit on the beach, and can be marketed and sold to a gullible, celebrity-adoring population as sexy and interesting, that candidate will be the one.

In that vein, here is my prediction regarding the Democrat nominee for 2016;
It won't be Hillary Clinton.

For all the reasons I stated above, it will not be Hillary.
She used to be sexy and attractive, and sadly, she is no longer so.

It's sad that this is what it has come down to, but there it is.
We have a culture of people who adore mindless, vapid 'reality' tv shows.
They adore no-talent bimbos like Kim Kardashian.
They care more about what's happening on American Idol than they do what's happening on C-SPAN.

PLEASE try to tell me I am wrong.

 

If you're trying to impress me, you'll need more than shallow, intellectually worthless Sean Hannity impersonations.

 

It's early yet, but Cruz and Rand Paul seem to be the favorites.

 

Let's just call it like it is.
The Republican nominee is going to be whoever the banks and media say it's going to be and that's final.

I really don't understand the purpose of pretending to not know how a movie ends that you've already seen a hundred times.

 

Why should I want to impress the likes of you? I'm not trying to impress anyone let alone a narrow-minded liberal that is incapable of learning the truth.

 

that poster is not a liberal, LOL.

 

Turdblossom and the Establishmentistas have crushed the TPs, mainly by placating the radical right with a modicum of lip service.

 

Taxcutter says:
A lot of sitting reps have made peace with the Tea Party. That's a practical thing to do when you don't want to face a primary every election cycle.

 

Neither am I ! LOL

Sorry if I misread someone's proclivities!

 

The era of Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Todd Akin, or Richard Murdock winning a nomination is over, unfortunately.

Turdblossom & Co. won't let that happen again. Even the most loathed US Senator, Turtle McConnell, is flicking off a once-touted TP upstart as if he were a gnat.

The GOP needs to move to the centre, where the electorate is, not pander to the fringe just to get the nomination.

 

Taxcutter says:
Does that mean more federal spending, more taxation, and more government in general?

 

Taxcutter says:
And to think people get all excited when I refer to a guy by his legal name - a name hung on him by his sainted daddy. I don't want to hear another gripe about my use of "Hussein Obama."

 

How about just move to the center on social issues... that would be a good start.

 

Taxcutter says:
Forget social issues until the size of government is reduced to less than 12% of GDP.

 

It could for the very wealthy, yes. It's a democracy and polls consistently show most Americans favour higher taxes on the very rich.

Folks seldom referred to "George Walker Bush who dubbed Carl Rove "Turdblossom,"
but if saying "Hussein" gives you pleasure, I see nothing wrong with your enjoying yourself.

 

It sure does, because I doubt most people in this country care for green eggs and ham.

 

Taxcutter says:
Who is dumb enough to think they'll ever get Soros & Buffett's money?

- - - Updated - - -

Taxcutter says:
Is that supposed to make sense?

 

That's no excuse.

- - - Updated - - -

No, but neither does Ted Cruz.

 

Who is dumb enough to believe none of the fortunate are ready to contribute their fair share?

The fanatical taxophobes would provoke economic collapse if their irrational phobia were indulged.

We've heard the same natterninnies before:

 

Taxcutter says:
Ted Cruz makes a great deal more sense than Post #41

 

If they voluntarily want to contribute, I'm OK with that.

If they want to send the corrupt IRS to shake money out of me for moochers' free stuff, I have a problem with that.

 

Past his green eggs and ham quote, I wouldn't know.

 

Turdblossom's War Against the TPs features numerous hissy prissy cat fights -

Son of Ron vs Carnival promises to induce a fugue state in a few Angry White Guys.

 

I'm betting Walker at this point with either Rubio, Martinez or Sandoval as his VP. I'd support any of them for president. I'd also throw Kasich and Portman in there as possibilities for the VP.

I don't think Bush will distinguish himself from his brother. Paul cracks under pressure and is prone to gaffes. Ted Cruz doesn't have the ability to gain wide support. Rubio has a shot, but for some reason people can't get their minds right that a Hispanic man would want to reform immigration. Christie remains to be seen, but he can be very strong if he continues to weather this bridge storm. Santorum and Huckabee are terrible.

 

a) Paul / Bush
b) Paul / Ryan
c) Paul / Rubio

I think Rand Paul is the best shot the republicans have at winning the election. Not only do I agree with a lot of his views, but I also think that Paul is by far the best speaker out of all the potential candidates. I think Bush would bring experience to the White House as VP, Ryan would bring a strong fiscal policy, and Rubio would broaden the base for the election.