NFT: 1st GOP Presidential Debate: Who’ll be In, Who’ll be Out?

In comment 12393650 dep026 said:

Quote:

In comment 12393641 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said: Quote: Please! Jeb has the best chance of getting past HRC, so I would be careful what you wish for. Imagine a Bush/Kasich tandem?

If Bush is the nominee, the Tea Party/Koch Brothers wing of the party will have a sh*t fit if Kasich is the VP. They would strongly push Walker, who I am not sure is willing to accept VP slot, or someone like him

but if they are going to win the candidacy they may have too. As long as Bush is the main guy, the tea party has to accept it. Thats one problem with the republicans, they never board the same train.

Very much negated running against Jeb.

In comment 12393660 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:

Quote:

Very much negated running against Jeb.

But so will her money. It will be interesting. I still think, good or bad, his name still has staying power.

He is really much more hard right than he appears on the surface, and there is lots of evidence to back it up. Personhood amendment, anyone? And Wisconsin is not doing well.
Link - ( New Window )

Yea I saw that this morning. Same quinnipiac poll that has Bush +1 over Hillary also has Hillary +12 over Trump. Trump has no shot of ever winning anywhere close to a majority of voters anywhere, the best he can hope for is a plurality in a super wide field. That can make a lot of headlines 16 months from the big night, but as things advance the limitations of his candidacy will be revealed.

Back to the quinnipiac poll.... Bush +1 vs Hillary from quinnipiac today is a bit of an outlier though, Hillary does have him beat in most polls. In fact last night I saw a round of polling on one of the cable news shows (forget which one, and forget which polling outlet was responsible) where not only was Hillary beating all republican contenders in a head to head, but Bernie Sanders was too.

In comment 12393672 MarshallOnMontana said:

Quote:

Yea I saw that this morning. Same quinnipiac poll that has Bush +1 over Hillary also has Hillary +12 over Trump. Trump has no shot of ever winning anywhere close to a majority of voters anywhere, the best he can hope for is a plurality in a super wide field. That can make a lot of headlines 16 months from the big night, but as things advance the limitations of his candidacy will be revealed. Back to the quinnipiac poll.... Bush +1 vs Hillary from quinnipiac today is a bit of an outlier though, Hillary does have him beat in most polls. In fact last night I saw a round of polling on one of the cable news shows (forget which one, and forget which polling outlet was responsible) where not only was Hillary beating all republican contenders in a head to head, but Bernie Sanders was too.

These polls will have more validity to me once the Rep. field shrinks. 17 of them is just ridiuclous. Instead of working together to form a candidate to beat HRC, they are fighting each other. Thats going to be their downfall.

In comment 12389251 BeerFridge said:

Quote:

I think he could beat Hillary. Not sure if these schmoes can.

I think intuitively and (I've read) mathematically this is wrong. Romney is a very smart, very decent guy. He may have even been a very good governor and a very good businessman. But he was a terrible candidate. The guy defines the 1%. Fair or unfair, most people probably remember his 2012 campaign for his corporations are people too moment, and the 47% video. All of that stuff would still be a problem today. And then there's the Romneycare problem. Moreover, his condescending tone probably didnt hurt him a ton in 2012 (Obama's got that bug too), but I think it would have really hurt him against Clinton. And his lack of authenticity would undermine what I take it is a GOP attack on HRC (I actually think she's surprisingly folksy, especially because you always expect her to be Cruella de Vil).

I cant find it (which really undercuts my point), but I've read an analysis that says that Romney's actual election day performance was about as bad as possible. Obviously there werent 100% of votes available -- 90+% are already decided by party affiliation etc.. Romney's 47% was either the floor or almost the floor of what he could have gotten.

in fact, I think it amplifies them if it's bush vs. clinton.

It'd be a constant reminder of the established elitist class.

Would you consider voting for Kasich over Hilary SFGF? Curious just how tied to the party you are.

In comment 12393655 Mike in NY said:

Quote:

In comment 12393 Quote: In comment 12393641 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said: Quote: Please! Jeb has the best chance of getting past HRC, so I would be careful what you wish for. Imagine a Bush/Kasich tandem? If Bush is the nominee, the Tea Party/Koch Brothers wing of the party will have a sh*t fit if Kasich is the VP. They would strongly push Walker, who I am not sure is willing to accept VP slot, or someone like him

If Bush is the nominee I don't anticipate any of the other current candidates to get the VP nod. My 3 possibilities, and I'm sure there will be more, at this point are:

Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico
Rob Portman, Senator from Ohio
Kelly Ayotte, Senator from New Hampshire

I don;t know why, but Quinnipiac has Hillary running a lot weaker than any other major polling organization. CNN has Clinton doing 6 better against Bish, and 8 better against Walker. Interestingly, Quinnipiac has Biden doing at least as well as Hillary against both of them. Their numbers just seem funny.

it is really odd that Jeb Bush is the hopeful nominee for most Republicans

His father was a President who could not win a second term (although now in hindsight is considered not such a bad President )

His brother GWB was ummm less successful as President
His awfulness will take a few years to fully be realized but will go down
but he is definitely in the running as the worst two term President in the history of the US.

With this track record Republicans want to nominate yet ANOTHER Bush

it is really amazing actually

Quote:

I think intuitively and (I've read) mathematically this is wrong. Romney is a very smart, very decent guy. He may have even been a very good governor and a very good businessman. But he was a terrible candidate. The guy defines the 1%. Fair or unfair, most people probably remember his 2012 campaign for his corporations are people too moment, and the 47% video

Don't forget his $10,000 bet offer with Rick Perry live on a debate stage. He made it incredibly easy to paint him as some younger Mr. Burns character

"The Best Bush in the Bunch."

It's compelling.

I like Kasich. I probably wouldn't vote for him, but if he won, I wouldn't be mopping around either.

I think he'd be a formidable general election candidate.

In comment 12393650 dep026 said:

Quote:

In comment 12393641 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said: Quote: Please! Jeb has the best chance of getting past HRC, so I would be careful what you wish for. Imagine a Bush/Kasich tandem?

Jeb is a horrible candidate. He shows no enthusiasm for the job and has all his father's and brothers advisors, bad move. All he has going for him is money. The base doesn't like him. He will get killed in the general election.

which Republican candidate seems compelling to you?

...they're all awful. Jeb is the best of the lot. I'm still confused why they were so quick to show Romney the door - he was leading in polls at the time, and was a better candidate than this lot.

Barring a crash of 'Edwards'ian proportions by Hillary, a bloodbath akin to 84' is likely, IMO.

No chance in hell HRC wins ala Reagan 84.

he gave up after the first debate where he destroyed Obama. He ran a bad campaign. He had his chance. I think he would be a good President, but he's a lousy campaigner.

In comment 12393713 manh george said:

Quote:

which Republican candidate seems compelling to you?

I like Walker or Rubio. I also like Fiorina, but I doubt she would get the nomination, maybe VP. Rand Paul is interesting, but he tends to turn me off and I've read that his campaign is imploding from within.

as you yourself throughout this process, have stated how much you'd prefer someone else to hilary.

I'm genuinely and excessively curious why so many people feel so tied and loyal to two parties that in reality give zero fucks about everyone as individuals.

I posted this when the CO/IO/VA Q poll was discussed, but I really question their methodology. They decided to weight the electorate as 26% Rep, 30% Dem, 44% Ind/other/DK/NA. That's utterly bonkers. The 2012 electorate was 32% Rep, 38% Dem, 29% Ind/Other (per the consortium exit poll).

Q is going to have to explain that massive shift in the electorate that they've modeled. I could buy the slight shift right (GOP relatively lost 2 fewer %). I cannot buy a +15 shift to Ind/Other. Rebalancing may actually help Bush (he's doing better on the partisan crosstabs), but it would add to the plausibility.

Also, any result that tells me Bush-Clinton is 42-41 is fucking irrelevant. The missing 17% is everything.

It's really pretty simple, I think. People don't love either party, but despair that if they vote for someone outside the mainstream, they will lose whatever influence they have.

Plus, as bad as the two major parties are, voting for a candidate with extremely limited experience and no effective relationships just isn't all that attractive an alternative.

There would need to be a full-blown, well-functioning third party organization before anyone would even consider it. Would that be from the left or the right? Hard to tell. And sadly, whichever side it comes from would just guarantee greater strength for the main party in the opposing camp.

In comment 12393704 MarshallOnMontana said:

Quote:

Quote: I think intuitively and (I've read) mathematically this is wrong. Romney is a very smart, very decent guy. He may have even been a very good governor and a very good businessman. But he was a terrible candidate. The guy defines the 1%. Fair or unfair, most people probably remember his 2012 campaign for his corporations are people too moment, and the 47% video Don't forget his $10,000 bet offer with Rick Perry live on a debate stage. He made it incredibly easy to paint him as some younger Mr. Burns character

Or binders full of women (debate line!).

Or his NASCAR team owner friends.

it's all just very nauseating and disappointing sometimes to watch people fervently defending and/or cheerleading their 'side', while serious things really need to start getting done and neither side seems willing to act accordingly

both parties suck at so many things, but there are also strong philosophical differences that drive voters to one side or the other.

I for example, find a lot in the Democratic party to dislike, and at the state/local level usually vote Republican but on Choice, Supreme Court nominations, taxation and a host of other issues, I just can't pull the trigger to the right at the national level.

This is also based on the assumption that Hillary or any replacement won't suck as much as Obama on Israeli issues.

In comment 12393699 giantfan2000 said:

Quote:

His father was a President who could not win a second term (although now in hindsight is considered not such a bad President )

I would vote for another candidate like Bush 41, particularly with respect to foreign policy, in a nanosecond. I might even get enthusiastic about it.

In comment 12393720 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:

Quote:

No chance in hell HRC wins ala Reagan 84.

Unless Trump runs a 3rd party campaign. Then all bets are off.

In comment 12393814 njm said:

Quote:

In comment 12393720 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said: Quote: No chance in hell HRC wins ala Reagan 84. Unless Trump runs a 3rd party campaign. Then all bets are off.

I actually expect exactly that to happen. It's gonna be a circus.

and he said he wouldn't.

In comment 12394000 buford said:

Quote:

and he said he wouldn't.

Unless they're not nice to him.

he'll run so he can eventually extract a nice sum from the RNC in order to not run.

In comment 12394089 njm said:

Quote:

In comment 12394000 buford said: Quote: and he said he wouldn't. Unless they're not nice to him.

Came out yesterday....

Clinton 49 Bush 43 (Clinton +6) in a 2 person race. As for the effect of a Trump 3rd party run, they polled Clinton/Bush/Trump and it came out Clinton 44/Bush 29/Trump 20. So in the case of a Trump 3rd party run, Clinton wins by a landslide +15 margin, but doesn't come close to 50% because she is losing votes to Trump too (weird type of voter that is).

They poll Clinton vs every republican candidate, and it affirms most other polls with her beating everyone in the field. The Quinnipiac poll appeared to be an outlier at this very early stage. Here is Clinton's margin head to head vs everyone, of course Trump fares by far the worst in a two person race, just like every other poll. He has a clear ceiling because his unfavorability is so high

Clinton vs:
Trump +16
Bush +6
Walker +7
Rubio +5
Paul +5
Cruz +9
Huckabee +9
Carson +10
Christie +10
Kasich +10
Perry +7

Maybe close to 60% see Hillary as a big fat liar and yet the majority still vote for her. That's why I see this more as a societal election in terms of what are and aren't important virtues, not in our politicians but ourselves.

In comment 12398465 Bill L said:

Quote:

Maybe close to 60% see Hillary as a big fat liar and yet the majority still vote for her. That's why I see this more as a societal election in terms of what are and aren't important virtues, not in our politicians but ourselves.

Polls aren't worth toilet paper right now. Talk to me about a month from the Florida primary.

In comment 12388196 Deej said:

Quote:

In comment 12388181 bradshaw44 said: Quote: And then throw all of his support behind Cruz. you just described Hillary perfectly I think Trump is in it for Trump. It's kind of his thing. He doesnt give a half shit about the base or the party.

6:10 p.m. -- Fox News on Tuesday announced the 10 candidates who will participate in the first Republican presidential debate this coming Thursday. The candidates are:

Donald Trump
Jeb Bush
Scott Walker
Mike Huckabee
Ben Carson
Ted Cruz
Marco Rubio
Rand Paul
Chris Christie
John Kasich

and break it down by alphabetical order, escapes me.

In comment 12402119 ThreePoints said:

Quote:

and break it down by alphabetical order, escapes me.

The odd 7 out are getting their own debate on Thursday, earlier in the day.

In comment 12402119 ThreePoints said:

Quote:

and break it down by alphabetical order, escapes me.

Ratings. If you have 2 debates instead of 1 it dilutes the final product.

.

In comment 12402140 Bill in UT said:

Quote:

.

That does not bother me at all with his goggle eye glasses.

Perry in the big kid's debate just so he could fight with Trump.

pick whoever you want, but I dont understand why Perry gets no love. Unlike Walker, he's got an A++ jobs record as governor. No RINO, looks like he's out of central casting, and plenty of swagger.

Is it all the "oops" moment? Is that really the undoing of his whole candidacy?

"The idea that they have left out the runner-up for the 2012 nomination, the former four-term governor of Texas, the governor of Louisiana, the first female Fortune 50 CEO, and the 3-term Senator from South Carolina due to polling seven months before a single vote is cast is preposterous," Rick Santorum communications manager Matt Beynon said in a statement Tuesday. [...]

"While FOX is taking a lot of heat, the RNC deserves as much blame for sanctioning this process. They should not be picking winners and losers. That's the job of the voters," Beynon added.

In comment 12402230 Deej said:

Quote:

pick whoever you want, but I dont understand why Perry gets no love. Unlike Walker, he's got an A++ jobs record as governor. No RINO, looks like he's out of central casting, and plenty of swagger. Is it all the "oops" moment? Is that really the undoing of his whole candidacy?

The "oops" moment was a pretty big thing. It was embarrassing, and made him look incompetent. Perception is reality when it comes to politics, and I don't think Perry will ever be able to overcome the damage he did to his image in that singular moment no matter how fancy his eye glasses are.

In comment 12402240 sphinx said:

Quote:

"The idea that they have left out the runner-up for the 2012 nomination, the former four-term governor of Texas, the governor of Louisiana, the first female Fortune 50 CEO, and the 3-term Senator from South Carolina due to polling seven months before a single vote is cast is preposterous," Rick Santorum communications manager Matt Beynon said in a statement Tuesday. [...] "While FOX is taking a lot of heat, the RNC deserves as much blame for sanctioning this process. They should not be picking winners and losers. That's the job of the voters," Beynon added.

I have no favorite candidate at this point, but I think this is a pretty fair comment.

have effectively been campaigning for years each. You want to be at the debate? Convinced 1/50th of the electorate to support you 7 months out. It's not like people dont know who Santorum and Perry are, and for Fiorina the less they know the better for her.

You cant have a debate with 15 people. So who gets left out? People polling with 5x Santorum's support? Real sense of entitlement by Santorum there -- "Im a big deal!"