Rubio ad

[crazed_hoosier2]

I can very easily see Rubio or Christie (who is gaining some momentum again) winning the GOP nod. 4th in Iowa is no big crater to dig out of. 4th in NH and SC are a completely different story.

I can see it -- but not easily, let alone "very easily." As of right now, it's pretty hard to imagine anybody other than Trump or Cruz emerging. But I was pretty surprised yesterday to see Bush hit double-figures nationally in Reuters. It doesn't sound like much and it may be too little too late. But, given where he's been languishing, that had to be very encouraging. I'm not sure what precipitated it, to be honest.

I'm still in Rubio's camp -- but my second choice would probably be Christie. I've heard some interviews he's given recently, and I thought his most recent debate performances were very good.

 

[DrHoops]

A lot of people talk about Rubio, but he's kind of a dud, really. Christie is so scandal plagued and has had to flip flop on so many things (he donated to planned parenthood. He ran on gun control), I just don't see it.

I can very easily see Rubio or Christie (who is gaining some momentum again) winning the GOP nod. 4th in Iowa is no big crater to dig out of. 4th in NH and SC are a completely different story.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I can see it -- but not easily, let alone "very easily." As of right now, it's pretty hard to imagine anybody other than Trump or Cruz emerging. But I was pretty surprised yesterday to see Bush hit double-figures nationally in Reuters. It doesn't sound like much and it may be too little too late. But, given where he's been languishing, that had to be very encouraging. I'm not sure what precipitated it, to be honest.

I'm still in Rubio's camp -- but my second choice would probably be Christie. I've heard some interviews he's given recently, and I thought his most recent debate performances were very good.

Kasich would be the nominee if I could pick him for the party, but I can't. He's my first choice and I'd likely pair him with Rubio. Kasich-Rubio would be a ticket that covers most of the bases. However that has a near zero chance at this point. After that I go with Rubio, Christie and then Bush. Bush was a very effective and very popular governor and if his name wasn't Bush would probably be the front runner. Trump isn't on my list at all. He's the biggest, fattest, loudest RINO in the field. Cruz is at the bottom of my list, but I'd have to vote for him over Clinton or Sanders. I can see a Rubio-Kasich or a Christie-Rubio ticket as being very strong. Haley could be in play as a VP too.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Kasich would be the nominee if I could pick him for the party, but I can't. He's my first choice and I'd likely pair him with Rubio. Kasich-Rubio would be a ticket that covers most of the bases. However that has a near zero chance at this point. After that I go with Rubio, Christie and then Bush. Bush was a very effective and very popular governor and if his name wasn't Bush would probably be the front runner. Trump isn't on my list at all. He's the biggest, fattest, loudest RINO in the field. Cruz is at the bottom of my list, but I'd have to vote for him over Clinton or Sanders. I can see a Rubio-Kasich or a Christie-Rubio ticket as being very strong. Haley could be in play as a VP too.

What's ironic is that the reasons often cited for Rubio and Kasich not getting traction are conservative heresies (immigration in Rubio's case, Obamacare in Kasich's). From my personal standpoint, I'd say that's more true for Kasich than it is for Rubio. But, still, this is being said while somebody who is quite blatantly non-conservative is running away in the polls....with a whole lot of support from the conservative media.

That said, I'd vote for any of them over Hillary -- including Professor Orangehair. But I really hope I don't have to do that.

 

[MrBing]

You just doubled down with unsourced BS from a moonbat website. You should get out of the hole and stop digging.

Remember that you said:

With only the possible exception of Paul and Kasich, none of them can honestly take the Oath of Office based on things they've all said regarding their religion.
​

You've still posted exactly nothing that credibly supports this silly assertion and you should notice that there are still exactly zero people that have piped up to support you on it. They're not going to jump in that hole and help you dig it deeper.

I think I'm going to have to disqualify you. You punched the guy several times after he was defenseless and the fight should have been a TKO. I'm also going to fine you. Two scotches ought to do it!

 

[zeke4ahs]

What's ironic is that the reasons often cited for Rubio and Kasich not getting traction are conservative heresies (immigration in Rubio's case, Obamacare in Kasich's). From my personal standpoint, I'd say that's more true for Kasich than it is for Rubio. But, still, this is being said while somebody who is quite blatantly non-conservative is running away in the polls....with a whole lot of support from the conservative media.

That said, I'd vote for any of them over Hillary -- including Professor Orangehair. But I really hope I don't have to do that.

I honestly still can't believe that anyone could consider Trump qualified to be President. Do you really think he has the temperament to be President? I can just see the first time things don't go his way, having the usual temper tantrum. I can see a case for anyone else on both sides, but I just can't see how anyone with an adequate IQ could possibly consider casting a vote for Trump.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I honestly still can't believe that anyone could consider Trump qualified to be President. Do you really think he has the temperament to be President? I can just see the first time things don't go his way, having the usual temper tantrum. I can see a case for anyone else on both sides, but I just can't see how anyone with an adequate IQ could possibly consider casting a vote for Trump.

Well, I've made clear that he's (pretty easily) my least favorite choice in the Republican field. I suppose some part of that has to do with temperament and all that. But I tend to follow the Buckley rule in casting votes -- which means that it mostly comes down to ideology, buttressed by some realistic assessment of a candidate's electability. So my primary reason for disfavoring Trump is that he's, by a healthy margin, the least conservative candidate seeking the Republican nomination. I think he's a huge question mark on the question of electability. At one time, I'd have said that he doesn't stand a prayer. But he's defied the CW enough by now that I've stopped trying to make predictions about what he can or can't do.

Still, if I'm offered a choice between Trump and Hillary, I'll vote for Trump -- for much the same reason that I oppose him in the primary: I'd say he's the more conservative of those two choices. Twenty02, BTW, doesn't agree with this...he thinks Trump is actually to Hillary's left. I don't think I agree with that -- but I could see why somebody would say that (his past support for a wealth tax and single-payer healthcare, and his present support for a tariff on Chinese imports are clearly positions that are to Hillary's left).

If Trump were still Trump (in terms of temperament and all that) but he was running a similarly populist campaign with more of a left-wing bent and he became the Democratic nominee matched up against, say, Rand Paul or Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz, are you saying you'd vote for the guys on the right....just because Trump's such a blowhard charlatan? If so, I'd say that's kind of short-sighted.

I mean, I said I'd have to hold my nose to vote for him. What more do you want? I can't very well vote for lefties -- not, anyway, for the presidency.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Well, I've made clear that he's (pretty easily) my least favorite choice in the Republican field. I suppose some part of that has to do with temperament and all that. But I tend to follow the Buckley rule in casting votes -- which means that it mostly comes down to ideology, buttressed by some realistic assessment of a candidate's electability. So my primary reason for disfavoring Trump is that he's, by a healthy margin, the least conservative candidate seeking the Republican nomination. I think he's a huge question mark on the question of electability. At one time, I'd have said that he doesn't stand a prayer. But he's defied the CW enough by now that I've stopped trying to make predictions about what he can or can't do.

Still, if I'm offered a choice between Trump and Hillary, I'll vote for Trump -- for much the same reason that I oppose him in the primary: I'd say he's the more conservative of those two choices. Twenty02, BTW, doesn't agree with this...he thinks Trump is actually to Hillary's left. I don't think I agree with that -- but I could see why somebody would say that (his past support for a wealth tax and single-payer healthcare, and his present support for a tariff on Chinese imports are clearly positions that are to Hillary's left).

If Trump were still Trump (in terms of temperament and all that) but he was running a similarly populist campaign with more of a left-wing bent and he became the Democratic nominee matched up against, say, Rand Paul or Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz, are you saying you'd vote for the guys on the right....just because Trump's such a blowhard charlatan? If so, I'd say that's kind of short-sighted.

I mean, I said I'd have to hold my nose to vote for him. What more do you want? I can't very well vote for lefties -- not, anyway, for the presidency.

Sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do. I've said, like Bing, that I can't see myself voting for Hillary, but in all honesty, if I still live in a state where I thought my vote counted, I'd probably end up voting for her just because she would be the lesser of two evils when compared to any GOP nominee. I'd rather have Hillary replacing SCOTUS justices than Kasich.

Luckily, I moved back to Indiana, and unless the GOP really does go all in on TrumpCrazy and shake up the electoral map, my vote doesn't matter, so I can make a protest vote if I want.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Well, I've made clear that he's (pretty easily) my least favorite choice in the Republican field. I suppose some part of that has to do with temperament and all that. But I tend to follow the Buckley rule in casting votes -- which means that it mostly comes down to ideology, buttressed by some realistic assessment of a candidate's electability. So my primary reason for disfavoring Trump is that he's, by a healthy margin, the least conservative candidate seeking the Republican nomination. I think he's a huge question mark on the question of electability. At one time, I'd have said that he doesn't stand a prayer. But he's defied the CW enough by now that I've stopped trying to make predictions about what he can or can't do.

Still, if I'm offered a choice between Trump and Hillary, I'll vote for Trump -- for much the same reason that I oppose him in the primary: I'd say he's the more conservative of those two choices. Twenty02, BTW, doesn't agree with this...he thinks Trump is actually to Hillary's left. I don't think I agree with that -- but I could see why somebody would say that (his past support for a wealth tax and single-payer healthcare, and his present support for a tariff on Chinese imports are clearly positions that are to Hillary's left).

If Trump were still Trump (in terms of temperament and all that) but he was running a similarly populist campaign with more of a left-wing bent and he became the Democratic nominee matched up against, say, Rand Paul or Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz, are you saying you'd vote for the guys on the right....just because Trump's such a blowhard charlatan? If so, I'd say that's kind of short-sighted.

I mean, I said I'd have to hold my nose to vote for him. What more do you want? I can't very well vote for lefties -- not, anyway, for the presidency.

I really think I'd vote for anyone, including Cruz, besides Trump. I think he is very dangerous. I agree he isn't really conservative, he's just pretending to be as he knew the rhetoric would fly better with the GOP base. I believe half the time he doesn't believe what he is saying. But I also believe he has a hair trigger temper , a gigantic ego, is arrogant, and would continually be saying stupid, ridiculous remarks that would not go over well with every other country in the world. When talking politics with friends in foreign countries, the first question I'm always asked now is how he can be taken as a serious candidate. I have no answer for them.