2016 Questions

[H2O Man]

Who do you think will be the GOP nominee in 2016? Jeb Bush? Rand Paul? Chris Christie? Or someone else?

Why? Will this candidate unite their party, or divide it?

Do you think the rabid-right wing will determine the republican candidate? Or the party elders, who tend to work behind-the-scenes? Or, is it possible that the average registered republican will determine their party's primary outcome?

This is all speculation, of course. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer.

I note that Chris Matthews believes Rand Paul will be the republican nominee. Although I like Mr. Matthews, his record of predicting these things kind of reminds me of, back in the late '50s up to the 1970s, ex-champion Joe Louis was almost always wrong in predicting the outcome of heavyweight title bouts. I had been think Paul was in the best position among republicans, until I heard that Mr. Matthews said he would win the nomination.

Thank you for your opinion.
H2O Man

[awake]

1. Why don't we wait till at least the end of this year before going here

Or at lest till after this years election because the outcome of the 2014 election will effect 2016 a lot more than any thought we have now.

[H2O Man]

4. sure.

You do that.

[LWolf]

2. Oh.

My immediate thought when reading your thread title was that you were asking 2,016 questions. Oops.

I don't have any answers about 2016. I haven't thought about who the Republican nominee will be...probably because the name and personality is irrelevant to me.

I haven't thought about the Democratic candidate beyond wanting to tell people already pushing HRC to STFU. Wanting to. Not actually telling them that.

To be honest, my only interest in 2016 is whether or not there will be a non-neoliberal candidate on my ballot in the primary that I can vote for. There wasn't in '08.

I know there won't be in the GE.

[H2O Man]

7. Thanks!

It was pretty close to 2,016 questions!

I am hoping for a democratic candidate who is outside the box. The one I wish would run is Elizabeth Warren.

[LWolf]

28. At this point I'm interested in ANYONE

outside that box. I'd love a vibrant primary with some really energizing candidates who could, and would, carry us into a more hopeful future.

[femmocrat]

3. I have been predicting it will be Jeb.

I do not think Romney will run again. The rest of the field is so extreme, that Jeb will look like the only "sane" one left standing.

I think Christie will implode if the bridge scandal doesn't take him down first.

[H2O Man]

9. Very likely.

He would be acceptable to the corporate elite.

[JustAnotherGen]

30. Huntsman says he isn't running

But his PAC is very active. I think he is an outlier.

[H2O Man]

38. I agree.

[JustAnotherGen]

40. As an fyi - I know a few Republican

Fund raising "booster/insider" types - the Republican 'Billionaire Support' is going to be dramatically split in 2016.


Even among families - it's going to be 1992 all over again.

[H2O Man]

41. That makes sense.

The potential candidates the republican party is fielding seems to lack anyone who could unify them. So it isn't surprising that there would be similar divides among the wealthy who are invested in finding the least-worse of the group.

Thanks!

[awake]

5. Who the 2016 nominee is a a game that talking heads are playing

because it is so easy to discuss and really requires little or no critical thinking or research, unlike the tough problems which are facing us right now. I sometime think "who will run?" is an intentional distraction created by the right to keep people from relating to the power grab happing all around us.

[H2O Man]

8. Gosh.

For someone so opposed to this, you are posting quite a bit!

[awake]

14. Every one here is fee to post where and what they want (with in reason)

I just wanted to point out the possible pit fall of getting caught in the "game" of who will run 2 years from now, a game that started even before the last vote was counted in 2012. Hey what ever turns you on. My post was meant more as a comment on M$M talking heads including Chris Matthews than any put down of your post.

[H2O Man]

23. Oh, I'm not

telling you not to post. I'm merely enjoying a giggle.

[Boom Sound 416]

6. I'm agree with Steve Schmit(?) on morning Joe, er, this morning

It won't be a '40 something first term senator'

So I think Christie. I think Romney will endorse him as well which will unite (for lack of a waaaayyyy better word) the party.

[H2O Man]

11. Interesting.

Romney considered Christie for his VP in 2012, but determined that there was too much baggage. But republicans can change their "opinions" quickly.

I think Christie will be damaged further in the coming year. However, that party nominated Nixon. Being a crook doesn't disqualify them.

[Boom Sound 416]

17. ...

[bklyncowgirl]

26. They are pretty predictable aren't they. In the end the establishment guy always wins.

The base will get its chance to whoop and holler but in the end the establishment will put its foot (and its' money) down and someone will win who hits all the right points dear to the heart of the Chamber of Commerce and offers the rubes enough guns and god to get them to vote for him. I'm thinking Jeb Bush (if he decides to run) or something in a nice Northeastern or Midwestern governor type.

Problem is it's hard see who that could be. Christie IMHO has way too much baggage--not to mention his state is doing lousy economically and besides, he is anathema to the base. Walker's a hero to these guys but he too is carrying more baggage than a rented pack mule. Mitt could run again--don't believe for a moment that he doesn't want it. Kasich may be too boring. Then there's what's--his--name in Pennsylvania which is exactly the problem--his state is also in the economic doldrums despite fracking the hell out of every farm and forest in the shale region. They could of course turn to a Senator or Congressman but since the herpes virus has a higher approval rating than Congress that's not going to be their first option.

The only predictable thing is that I'm not going to like him (or very unlikely her) in any way shape or form.

[Boom Sound 416]

39. Agreed, all of the above

I think walker fit mold wholly and they'd love to bag Wisconsin, but he imploded.

[Proud Public Servant]

10. Can't predict the future, but I can read history

Two things are true:

1) Starting in 1968, and with the single exception of Ronald Reagan, the GOP has always nominated the Establishment candidate in their field over the conservative true believers.

2) Starting in 1968, the GOP has always nominated a candidate who has previously made a run for either the GOP nomination or (in Nixon's case) the presidency itself.

Now, the only way for both of those criteria to be met in 2016 woudl be for them to either run Mitt again -- which, note, they're talking about -- or to run Perry (please, God, please). At any rate, there's every reason to believe that their cadidate will meet at least one of those two criteria, which rules out Paul (as well as Cruz and other teahadist favorites).

[H2O Man]

12. Perry

would be delightful!

Thanks for a thoughtful response!

[Erose999]

13. I think the field will be Cowardly Ryan, Paulbot v.2, Frothy Rick, and some outsiders like a talk

radio clown and a CEO. I don't think Herman UnAbel will run again, but it'll be somebody cut from the same cloth. Theres two or 3 in every major radio market. There will surely be a Palin clone, too. And a milquetoast establishment guy who will be the inevitable nominee. Jeb, or someone like him.

[H2O Man]

19. Where is Michelle Bachman

at a time the nations needs her? (She isn't radio, but definitely fits the clown description!)

[Erose999]

31. Bachmann has said she won't be running for her House seat in 2014 and she's also in hot water with

the FEC over her 2012 campaign. I'd say her career in politics will be over soon.

[H2O Man]

34. Exactly.

Such a loss for the nation -- she was such a valuable ball & chain on their party.

[GeorgeGist]

15. Assuming their dementia is incurable ...

?w=640

[alsame]

16. I think the GOP

powers that be will never allow an isolationist like Rand Paul to be the nominee. I think their hearts lie with someone like Koch puppets Christie or Scott Walker, but those are very unlikely choices now.

Jeb is a definite possibility but I think they will wait to see what the public reception within the GOP base is like, given the Bush baggage and his stance on immigration.

At this point, my guess is that they will consider someone like Mike Pence or John Kasick, governors who have been largely out of the day to day fighting in DC and who are acceptable to the base. Assuming there are no indictments against them in the next 2 years

[H2O Man]

20. Very good.

I don't think that Paul is in a position to take on the republican powers. It should be interesting to see how they try to put him in check, if he doesn't make a mistake that causes him to fade away soon.

[TheKentuckian]

44. Pence might be the ticket - Governor, former Congressional big wig, loon

[alsame]

45. He's very under the

radar right now but he's as batshit crazy as the rest of them.

[KoKo]

18. IMHO....John Huntsman with Colin Powell for VP

If they were smart and cared about moving the country forward for a new generation. ...But, they aren't. They are crazy and would prefer putting candidates up who are a laughing stock so that that Democratic Candidate Hillary can be attacked and trashed with dragging up the Clinton years and some of her own mistakes as SOS, plus what they make up to throw as red meat to their TP Base.

His bio is interesting and better than any other Repug I've seen touted for 2016. IMHO

On Edit: I believe that most Dem Party Ops would love another Repug Fiasco Candidate. Smooth sailing for Hillary.....but, the country might be in a very different mood by 2016....the way things are going lately.

I would vote for Huntsman/Powell. I can't stand Powell....but Americans do love their Military. And, Huntsman has his "OWN MONEY." There's a plus in that to me....the way things are going. I'm very tired of the same old theatrics. How many more elections do we have with this craziness of partisanship with the same old characters. We had our chance with Obama. It's time to move on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsman,_Jr.

[H2O Man]

22. Right.

I could see Huntsman adding balance to a republican ticket. He was too close to "normal" when he ran last time ..... and too much like Willard Romney to be picked as VP.

It's hard to find any option they have for president who could be elected. At least at this point.

[KoKo]

42. Might go to "Third Way" with him....

but, that's pretty impossible given the way it looks now...but, things could change dramatically in ways we don't yet know before the 2016 Primaries. International Issues might take over and drown out voices for destruction/antagonism at Home. Huntsman could be see interesting in Foreign Policy.

Don't get me wrong as advocating for Repugs ....but, the choices are so much "more of the same"....I'm trying to look for different and competence.....if it still exists...

Huntsman becomes either the Nader for Republicans...or folks all across the spectrum are fed up like when we elected Obama.

Who knows.......

[H2O Man]

43. A bit like

John Anderson did years back. I think that he considered that option in 2012.

[bigtree]

21. their primary seems to elevate their extremes

. . . Paul, I think, will be too 'liberal' for them. Whoever puts forward the most reactionary and extreme defense will get traction, and it's not beyond a candidate that isn't one of their nutcases to put forward those kinds of views as they campaign and draw support, like Romney. Their voters are pragmatists, in the end. they'll vote for the 'strongest' candidate in the end. However, the extreme positions they have to take to get through to that point make them as vulnerable as Romney and McCain were.

[H2O Man]

24. Way so .....

the more extreme, the better they do in the early-to-mid primaries. The establishment had to force-feed them Romney in 2012. Lotta good it did them.

[CK_John]

25. "Moderate Mitt" will be the candidate and may win the election depending on the economy.

[Joel thakkar]

29. what ?

mitt romney again ? noooooo

[CBGLuthier]

27. No idea at all but I am pulling for Rick Perry

Mr. Eastwood's empty chair could beat Rick Perry in a debate since it would, at the very least, not say anything as stupid as Perry would.

[H2O Man]

32. !!!!

I agree 100% !

[mainstreetonce]

33. I think the current crop will cancel each other out

And they will go wit Mitt.

[H2O Man]

36. It wouldn't surprise me.

Our party did something similar in 1956, although we ran a human being with a conscience.

[brooklynite]

35. There will be additional candidates...

Scott Walker or John Kasich as a "gets things done" Governor who's closer to the TP than Christie...

[H2O Man]

37. Good point.

Thanks!

[KoKo]

46. "TP" by then might have run its course...though.

There's just too much going on globally and domestically to assume things will go the way they have been going. Stagnation and John McCain/Jeb Bush, Rand Paul and the rest...etc..it's getting boring.