Trump wouldn't work with democrats either. He won't always get in charge Relm, in fact if Cruz became president I would be willing to bet republicans would lose the Senate in his second term

I said Trump would be terrible in terms of getting along with democrats...


should not matter, Republicans would hold the Senate...

I highly doubt it. Of course neither of us can control the Senate but so far republicans have done jackshit besides a couple weak attempts at removing Obamacare. If they keep it up, eventually The ideas of " free everything if you vote for me " will come back into style and a second controversial term of president Cruz would probably be just enough to get the Liberal flame going again

yes... because the "vote me for stuff" is really giving Obama alot of great ratings in opinion poles so far XD

I'M TIRED OF THESE MOTHERFUCKING REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES ON THIS MOTHERFUCKING ELECTION

+1 @Genghis

Well alternitavely we have Bitch Clinton (supported by Dick Clinton, who is busy giving sax lessons to every girl he meets)



A socialist. need I say more, or should I go into how Socialism is basically obstructing basic human rights 101



Jim Web, a Virginian war hero badass... who noone gave a shit about



Martin O malley... the "best" of the democrats in terms of politics... unfortunatly someone with the name Clinton ran




Then we have the Green,Independant, and liberatarion... who will never get anywhere unless you pull a Ross Perot and fuck over your own party

Sanders is a really cool guy. Anybody who doesn't like him is scared that he'll turn USA into CCCP2. It's not going to happen lol. Socialism is good for youseall.

Here's my outline on everyone's chances:

Rand Paul has essentially no chance and he knows that. As the only neo-libertarian and non-interventionist with clear foreign policy differences with the rest of the GOP, he's simply staying in the race to progress an alternate party policy. That being said he should focus on his Kentucky Senate Reelection campaign...Alison Lundergan Grimes is once again contesting in 2016 and Mitch McConnell had his hands full in 2014 defeating her.

Kasich is clearly not aiming to win a single state. His only goal now is to "audition" for the VP spot. He knows that as a popular governor of a hugely important swing state he has the leverage on any candidate the GOP decides to make the nominee. As Ohio goes, so goes the nation (as they say). If a movement conservative wins the Nominee (e.g. Cruz, Rubio, or Carson) expect Kasich to get the nod for his spot on the Ticket.

Santorum and Huckabee are going to be the clear casualties of the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary. They have no chance of placing in the top 5 in either one of those states and they won't have enough money in 1-2 months to carry on their pointless campaigns. They're candidates of a bygone era and generation...Huckabee hasn't been governor for I believe 1 decade. It doesn't really matter. NO GOP candidate is running on experience...the electorate doesn't care about the job record or experience in governance (its a huge turnoff). The SoCon vote is just too small to focus on...and its basically the only voting block that Huckabee or Santorum can court.

Jeb? or Jeb! What can I say about the "low-energy" candidate. Once the heir elect to be the GOP nominee, the dynastic black sheep of the family is a long shot at best. Even the establishment has their doubts now. He lacks the passion and clarity of voice to lead a disgruntled and highly fragmented GOP. Even if he miraculously plays comeback king like McCain in 2008 or Kerry in 2004 expect the GOP grassroots base to stay home at election day. 40% of the GOP has already said they refuse to vote for another bush...and I have a feeling America at large has the same feeling. If the establishment makes the mistake of pulling the cards for a Bush win expect a disastrous 2016 election and the official splitting of the GOP into 2 warring parties.

Rubio - Knyte (I hate agreeing with him) hit the nail on the head. Rubio is a lazy candidate. He already thinks he's won the nomination and shows little very ground effort in Iowa or NH to connect with voters. He may win the nomination though because no conservative outright hates him...and the election may come down to electability. National polls put him within striking distance of beating Hillary (losing by +1.5) and that may establishment republicans and foreign policy hawks to coalesce around him as the winner. In all honesty I would hate a rubio presidency...soft on immigration and too hawkish on the military.

Carson - He's just stuck in the middle between a very top-heavy field. He's lost all his momentum, replaced his top campaign advisers, and is sitting on too much cash with too little to use it on (attack ads and positive ads seem to have 0% effect on poll numbers this cycle). Expect him to leave after South Carolina. He was supposed to be the Messiah of the Republican party. Someone who could appeal to all wings and court Black voters away from Hillary...but new polls show only about 11-15% of African Americans support him. He offers nothing for the GOP...all polls show him losing a head to head with Hillary and he's not the right material for the VP spot. Expect him to fade into oblivion like Hermann Cain (although without all the controversy).

Cruz - Loved by the grassroots base, the tea party, social conservatives, and libertarians he has the best chance of winning the nomination hands down. He has hard money (from both big and small donors), a strong ground campaign (he has a field office in every county of Iowa!!), and will gain an early lead from the large number of southern states that have primaries right after Nevada. Although he's hated by the eastern establishment wing of the GOP, he may gain their support if he becomes the only viable alternative to Trump. Expect him to gain in the polls when Santorum and Huckabee drop out, since their social conservative voters like Cruz's push for religious liberty. He's also the 3rd most likable candidate in the GOP according to NBC polling.

Fiorina - She's stuck. She may be auditioning for the VP slot like Kasich but I doubt she brings anything to the table. She may be a chaos candidate like Palin so I expect Kasich beats her out for the ticket. Who knows...maybe she is trying to fill her job resume to become CEO of Yahoo.

Trump - Oh man where to start. Trumpism is probably the death knell of the Republican party if he gets elected. Seriously all you have to do is ask yourself this question: will he help us increase the GOP share of latinos, asian americans, or african americans? If your answer is no move on to another candidate. 49% of Asian Americans voted with the Republicans in 2014...expect that number to be cut in at least half if Trump gets the nomination. He may have cash and have 40% of support among polling data but that does not translate into Caucus votes. People should read up on the rules of a GOP caucus. It requires extreme ground organization which Trump lacks completely. The process is not just go vote and leave. You have to be ready to sit by 7:00 PM and then sit with other people for 2-3 hours while the process takes place. There are a series of ballot votes among the people who show up. If your candidate doesn't reach a threshold number of votes you have to go vote for someone else regardless of your opinions. If all these low tier guys (Kasich, Paul, Huckabee, Santorum) don't get enough votes they're gonna go to Cruz or Rubio. Trump won't win Iowa. If he wins S. Carolina and NH...then well the whole race goes insane and I have no idea who wins at that point.

Christie - The bush alternative is the establishment candidate with the best chance behind rubio of beating Trump and Cruz. That being said he can't win any southern state or Iowa. He'll win NH and that's it.

All in all I basically agree. If Cruz Wins the nomination he can't best Hillary however. Hillary is the oddest Presidential candidate I have ever seen in all honesty. She is rare in the sense that she strongly attracts grass roots democrats ( taking second only to Sanders ) and yet she isn't extreme enough to throw off the swing votes....in fact she's moderate enough to have a good chance at getting them. The only Republican who could win honestly are Kasich, Rubio, And Christie. They have not very much baggage and they have the best chance of getting the swing voters. In fact, in American political history overall I find that usually the moderate Republicans have the best chance out of anyone n getting the votes needed to win a national election. It's because people like Republican Economics better then Socialism ( on average ) however most of America thinks republicans are backwards on Social issues and invading anyone who poses the slightest threat. Therefore, a moderate Republican is the best fit.

Edited 1/4/2016 20:50:30

Therefore, a moderate Republican is the best fit.

That seems to be the common consensus. However, they tried the "moderate Republican" approach with Mitt Romney and it didn't end well. Now, I'm not saying that it's better to pick the fringe option (I.E: Trump). However, a standard, run of the mill Republican just does not have a good chance of getting the job done. The GOP needs someone who's different enough to distinguish themselves without diving off the deep end into radical territory.

The root of the problem is that the electoral college system gives heavy advantage to the Democrats when it comes to presidential races. The "Blue Wall" which has emerged makes it twice as hard for a Republican to win compared to a Democrat. How the Blue Wall can be broken down is beyond me, but the GOP definitely needs to find someone who can do it if they want a chance in the future.

Trump wins the nomination. I like Cruz the most, but Trump is just in league of his own.

The root of the problem is that the electoral college system gives heavy advantage to the Democrats when it comes to presidential races. The "Blue Wall" which has emerged makes it twice as hard for a Republican to win compared to a Democrat. How the Blue Wall can be broken down is beyond me, but the GOP definitely needs to find someone who can do it if they want a chance in the future.

+1 You hit the nail on the nose. Hopefully the Supreme Court's decision later this year in Evenwel v. Abbott will change the way states and the federal government redistrict by finally (finally) prohibiting the inclusion of felons and illegal aliens and noncitizens in population numbers that determine the number of representatives given out. Hopefully this will take votes away from the over-represented urban areas that are heavily democratic.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/one-person-one-vote/394502/

Despite what is said about Trump being racist, he garners significant support among many immigrants and minorities bitter about illegals taking the lower-paying jobs they used to hold. Furthermore, he has less of a need for minorities because he, like Reagan did, is attracting many blue-collar Democrats. This is where he is different from people like Cruz, Bush, Carson, Fiorina. He is seen more as "Trump" than as "Republican".

And anyone who believes that a moderate/establishment/liberal/RINO Republican like Rubio, Bush, Christie has a better chance of winning than Trump/Cruz is crazy. Unlike Trump, they don't attract Dems and independents, especially Jeb!, who just needs to leave. We saw with Romney and McCain that trying to please everyone ends up pleasing no one. They can't incentive grassroots conservatives to get out and vote. They don't attract minorities because they try to be half-liberal but the minorities prefer the fully-liberal Dems. Furthermore, even if they DID have a chance of winning, and won, they would hardly be better than a Democrat. The moderates in the Senate and House do jackshit for their constituents. Why would Rubio magically start fighting big government when he becomes pres? The narrative that the only chance Republicans having of gaining minority support is caving and adopting liberal ideas is idiotic at best, and disastrous for our country and the world at worst. When we are principled and true to the ideas that made America the greatest nation on Earth, those principles including but not limited to: low taxes, small government, immigration (LEGAL), RULE OF LAW, helping others but putting AMERICANS FIRST, the right to bear arms, and freedom of expression.

We need a second Reagan, and we need to throw the RINOS out of the GOP and let them join the Democrats (the RINOS of today would have been Dems in 1960). We need a conservative who will reduce government size for the first time in decades, and we need someone who is more than just talk. Establishment candidates aren't any of those things.

Moderation didn't work in '08, it didn't work in '12, so why would it work now?

EDIT: If we don't stop illegal immigration and amnesty, there will suddenly be 15 million more Dem voters. Even if you win 5 million votes for letting anyone in (you won't get that many, but let's pretend) like Rubio and Bush want to do, that can't compensate for the millions of illegals that will vote Dem in future elections. Illegal Immigration is the most important issue in America right now, and anyone who even considers amnesty is selling out the GOP and America.

Edited 1/4/2016 22:05:15

Ronald Reagan called Nixon just before the final debate of his race. He told Nixon to stand firm on Republican Social values and economic values, and to not even slightly go into the mild zone. Nixon did not listen and he lost by 0.2% of the vote. Ronald Reagan stood firmly on his views and showed in the best ways why they were true. Unless we have another Reagan, or our school systems stop making little imbeciles who vote for the "free shit" candidate.


Ted Cruz seems to me like the closest candidate to this, as he stands firm on his opinions and will not sway to a mid ground when it does nothing good for the good of the people.

Trump can't outline a single policy perspective. He can't form one coherent sentence that sounds eloquent and forceful, sophisticated yet informed, principled yet common sense. Ronald Reagan won and was so popular because he was "The Great Communicator". Trump cannot communicate his ideology let alone policy on complex topics such as Syria and economic policy. Cruz has the experience, the record, and the communication abilities to lead however he's more ambitious than Reagan was. I'm wary of Cruz...he's played the political game his whole life and he's too damn good at it to make me comfortable.

Reagan played the same game, just he did it better in every way possible. Cruz is the politician we need, no matter how wary some may be to him he is still the best out of everyone.

The only reason I wouldn't want Rand Paul in the white house is I think he would be another Obama at foreign policy. We all know that is rand Paul became the nominee his campaign would sound like Wilson and Obama's foreign policy...basically don't intervene....ever. if Wilson had Lisened to republicans instead of bashing them calling them war hungry, WW1 most likely would Have ended much much sooner and millions of lives would have been saved. Now, if only Obama would listen to the people. The majority of Americans want Obama to send ground troops I'm against ISIS and quickly finish the battle then let the IG ( Iraqi Guards ) mop up. If Paul won, one day we would be in the exact position and if the fine came to intervene I don't think we could count on him too. Every single time America had a non intervention president in our modern era we failed lost lives, money, and time. D Roosevelt, Wilson, McKinley were all non intervention presidents that were eventually woken up out of there slumber by an attack that could have been avoided if they had listened to there advisors and done something sooner. I'm not saying we should get involved in every war we see but turning a blind eye to wars that clearly threaten our security and we should monitor is just bullshit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izGwDsrQ1eQ

I'm not going to predict who will win, or say who I want to win either nomination. That being said...

STOP CALLING IT OBAMACARE.

Call it the Affordable Care Act or ACA, which is what IT IS.

This was a republican idea in the first place. Romney made a similar system as Governor and the Heritage Foundation had been pushing the exchanges idea for years.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2013/1028/The-irony-of-Republican-disapproval-of-Obamacare

Whether or not it is good I won't debate (I have my opinions, but prefer not to debate politics online). That isn't the point. The point is to stop labeling it as his idea, which it was not.

Edited 1/5/2016 00:19:14