The Republican Candidates
- Thread starter SnakeTom
- Start date
I'd like to see Ron Paul. I identify with him on the issues best and I think he would not change once elected which would make him the best candidate.
Most electable would have to be Romney.
If Christie enters the race, does this change?
I don't think so. If you can make the point that Obama did not have enough experience to take over the Presidency well Christie doesn't have sufficient experience either. My biggest problem with OB is that he is not forcefull enough & has been unable to deal with congress. Christie is the reverse. Too forcefull & I doubt that he would be able to bully congress like he does with the legislature here in N.J.
Though I have not been a fan of Romney's in the past it seems that he is the most electable and among the GOP contenders would probably make the best President because of his business background and the fact that he is the most centrist of the candidates. Personally I prefer Huntsman from the little I know about him but he has no chance to win the nomination.
The two candidates I would definitely not vote for are Bachman & Perry (and of course Palin if she became a candidate).
Tom K
This post was edited on 9/27 1:50 PM by SnakeTom
Tom - you mention Christie being a bully - Funny comment because Stephen Sweeney (NJ Senate President) was recently quoted as saying he has to give kudos to Christie because he has worked with the Dem legislature to get things done. Now you could also say he has had his run ins with Sheila Oliver but honestly she is possibly the biggest idiot in the assembly currently.
Also the experience thing does not hold water unless you think it takes being a community leader to run the white house. Heck Obama hardly even experienced many votes as a Senator as he voted present for a big % of his votes.
Also the experience thing does not hold water unless you think it takes being a community leader to run the white house. Heck Obama hardly even experienced many votes as a Senator as he voted present for a big % of his votes.
Reread what I said. I have said that OB has proven that he DID NOT have enough experience when he assumed the office of President. I have said that on numerous posts. And I do not think Christie does either. Should we elect another President lacking in the necessary experience. I don't think so. My original question was who would make the best President among the Republicans running. Just pointing your fingers at Obama does not answer the question.
Tom K
I would like to see Paul win so the country can see someone who actually represents limited government and we can decide if that is what we want as a country.
Hard to qualify "best" from my point of view since I fundamentally disagree with the group, but Paul and Huntsman would probably be a notch above the rest in honesty and integrity.
Romney has the best chance in a general election, by far. Though Obama's approval numbers are really bad and he still polls ahead of any potential candidate. (see link)
Link
Chris Christie has said many times that he does not feel he is ready to be President. Just because Obama may have had less experience does not mean Christie does. It is not an either/or situation. It is situation where it is likely that neither has/had sufficient experience for the job. By the way if Christie does run he would have had only two years experience as Governor & one year devoted almost entirly to campaigning. No one runs for President part time. The only exception to that was Michael Dukakas and you see how far that took him.
Tom K
Tom K
It will be interesting to see if Christie runs. Unfortunately our country likes good orators and that will surely help him.
I personally like his practical approach to things and he has a knack of understanding what the important issues are unlike Obama.
In answering Tom's original question, I think Romney is the most electable because he could get some of the independant voters looking for something better. I like Ron Paul the best but the press won't even give him a sound bite. That is if Christie does not run.
Christie's problem will be with his weight and overall unhealthy appearance unfortunately. I don't think the experience thing will be as big of an issue for him. He will win crowds over big time but does he have enough time to put together a really good organization to beat Obama. Obama's strength in the last election was his organization and his teleprompter and Christie knows that I am sure.
I personally like his practical approach to things and he has a knack of understanding what the important issues are unlike Obama.
In answering Tom's original question, I think Romney is the most electable because he could get some of the independant voters looking for something better. I like Ron Paul the best but the press won't even give him a sound bite. That is if Christie does not run.
Christie's problem will be with his weight and overall unhealthy appearance unfortunately. I don't think the experience thing will be as big of an issue for him. He will win crowds over big time but does he have enough time to put together a really good organization to beat Obama. Obama's strength in the last election was his organization and his teleprompter and Christie knows that I am sure.
Christie is positioning himself well for a run in 2016 (assuming that a Republican candidate doesn't win in 2012). Maybe he's positioning for VP as well? Personally, I would like to see more results before he considers taking a run at the White House, but he's done some very good things thus far.
It's funny that so many glossed over Obama's complete lack of experience in 2008, just to "part of history". This just goes to show, that experience DOES matter.
As I've said all along, Obama is running against the unemployment number. And one thing that will also hurt him is not only the independent vote, but who actually DOES come out to vote. You could see a record low turnout this time around, especially in the younger age group that mostly helped Obama in 2008.
It's funny that so many glossed over Obama's complete lack of experience in 2008, just to "part of history". This just goes to show, that experience DOES matter.
As I've said all along, Obama is running against the unemployment number. And one thing that will also hurt him is not only the independent vote, but who actually DOES come out to vote. You could see a record low turnout this time around, especially in the younger age group that mostly helped Obama in 2008.
The youth vote is going to be interesting to watch. In an era of facebook, twitter and many other online resources. The youth seem to be more engaged in politics than when I was 18.
After a dip from 1992 - 2000, there was a large surge in youth voting in 2004. I don't really think Bush or Kerry were really that exciting for young voters.
The youth didn't turn out for the Corzine/Christie election.
I disagree that the youth are more engaged than any other time. If anything, they are discouraged that they don't have a job. I think I saw a stat the other day that the unemployment rate for the 18-25 age group was an alarming 52%. Another reason that bodes poorly for BO.
I disagree that the youth are more engaged than any other time. If anything, they are discouraged that they don't have a job. I think I saw a stat the other day that the unemployment rate for the 18-25 age group was an alarming 52%. Another reason that bodes poorly for BO.
We all make mistakes Steve and that includes you. Unless of course you think infallibility is also one of your virtues-lol. My mistake was not supporting Hillary who in retrospect would have been a much better President than OB. As to McCain I was not going to vote for a candidate who seemed to favor never ending wars. However that was then the question is for now. Where do we go from here. Is there a candidate on the horizon better than we have. I'm not sure that there is.
Tom K
We'll see... It might not go up significantly, but I would be surprised if it went down. I am active on other sites where I have seen younger people wanting to be a part of the discussion.
They are disgruntled, but you may not agree with where they place their blame for our economic trouble.
Obama will look to engage that crowd again, and he will likely do pretty well.
Flew home from Cleveland with a young guy returning from an interview a few months back. I can tell you that he voted for Obama and will not do so again. Had a nice background too but cannot find a job in his field. He quoted the "fool me once" saying. And I just listened, not offering an opinion because I really wanted to see what he was going to say. Not saying he is representative of his generation but I am sure there are many like him.
Two of my three daughters who were of voting age in 2008, also voted for Obama and feel the same way. For them, it's not about jobs, but rather his lack of leadership and superficial nature. Even they think he's a lightweight, but they are seriously concerned about their future.
I voted for Obama in 2008 and will likely do so again, assuming the GOP nominee is Romney, Perry or Gingrich. I'm 24 years old.
I think there's a mob mentality out there when it comes to Obama. Everyone likes to gang up on the guy, even people who used to support him. He hasn't been the greatest president but there are many who've been worse. He's been an average president and, given the Republican field, that's good enough to win re-election.
This post was edited on 9/28 6:19 PM by shu09
I think there's a mob mentality out there when it comes to Obama. Everyone likes to gang up on the guy, even people who used to support him. He hasn't been the greatest president but there are many who've been worse. He's been an average president and, given the Republican field, that's good enough to win re-election.
This post was edited on 9/28 6:19 PM by shu09
Yeah. I am really not buying the "I voted for him last time but not this time" When it comes down to it, very few people who voted for Obama will vote for any one of the republican candidates.
That's why when a poll says: "Obama vs Republican" It is a tie
When you put a name to the republican Obama is ahead.
People may not be thrilled by Obama, but the republican field is horrible.
Romney is the only one that has a shot, and I could really see him winning if he picked someone like Christie as his VP candidate.
I've always been interested in the fact Ron Paul gets so much of the support from libertarians and all the media attention, while Gary Johnson - a libertarian who has demonstrated crossover appeal, has a record as a governor and was in a swing state - gets completely ignored.
The GOP field is scary bad at this point, but I think Romney will improve and ultimately be the nominee. The Republican primary is more moderate than assumed.
The GOP field is scary bad at this point, but I think Romney will improve and ultimately be the nominee. The Republican primary is more moderate than assumed.
You've been railing against him for quite some time now. Charter member of the anti-Obama mob and this post just cements that fact. I give the guy a fair shake. He's done many things I don't like and a lot of things I do like. That makes him average to me.
A moderate Republican? What is that? There is no such thing in the GOP field.
This post was edited on 9/29 12:54 AM by shu09
The thing I find amusing is that you like Christie for some of the same reasons you dislike Obama and the only major difference of their leadership is that Christie had the power of line item veto.
What makes you think Christie could work with a democratic senate better than Obama can work with a republican house? because honestly I just don't see it.
From day 1 of his presidency, the republicans have been told not to work with Obama. The only path for leadership from Obama is to gain public support which he is doing.
If the democrats did the same thing to any of the GOP candidates, you would likely be talking about how they are good leaders but are being held hostage.
Merge, we've been over this. Obama NEVER reached across the aisle from day one. He had all that public support at his inauguration and took his agenda in a partisan direction. He gave the Reps a window to play the party of "no" card. They're wrong too, but he has done nothing to bring the parties together.
I haven't claimed Christie to be perfect. Remember I didn't even vote for him, but despite his tough demeanor, he gets things done with Sweeney time and time again.
I haven't claimed Christie to be perfect. Remember I didn't even vote for him, but despite his tough demeanor, he gets things done with Sweeney time and time again.
Not any more they don't. The honeymoon ended when Dems went along with the Public Employee benefits plan in return for budget concessions. But Christie back stabbed them with the line item veto. Sweeney's comments about Christie are no longer that kind and I recall the word betrayal used in a NSL interview.
TK
Historically speaking the first President Bush does not belong on that list. George H.W. Bush was a middle of the pack fair to good President. But you left out President Warren G. Harding who is considered by historians to be the worst post 1900 President. Otherwise I agree with your list.
Tom K
Nixon will always be tainted because of the Watergate scandal. Historically speaking if you take that out Nixon was actually a decent President. He did get us the hell out of Vietnam. My top three worst would be 1) Carter 2) Obama 3) Harding.
Back on topic. I'm a huge Ron Paul supporter. If Perry or Romney are the GOP candidate it won't matter who wins between them and Obama it will be the same old stuff.
Back on topic. I'm a huge Ron Paul supporter. If Perry or Romney are the GOP candidate it won't matter who wins between them and Obama it will be the same old stuff.
