Christie or Hillary in 2016?

[Ben Kenobi]

No, it would be like Christmas came early. Christie is pro-abortion and anti-gun, which will drive off the conservative base (which is why he won't get nominated).

How is this any different from Romney? Christie won't get the nom because he's a north Eastern liberal. North Eastern liberal wing of the party hasn't nominated a Republican president since Hoover. And that will be 88 years ago.

[DinoDoc]

Why don't we see how Christie stacks up to President Giuliani? You guys remember him right?
Italian American — check
Former prosecutor — check
From the Northeast/NY Metro area — check
Bully — check
Thin-skinned — check
Two-term chief executive — check
Built his rep on the backs of a disaster — check
Ridiculous hype about his prez aspirations — check
Questions about his conservative bona fides — check

Man. It's like they are a carbon copy of each other. Clearly Christie will walk to the nomination.

[Ben Kenobi]

A shock win by a wildly charismatic black candidate in 2008 must mean that Hilary couldn't possibly ever be nominated despite a hugely successful period as Sec State and polling showing she'd almost certainly win.

Again, you said she'd 'walk into the nom' against the most inexperienced nominee ever - and you were wrong then. You're wrong for the same reason now. People want a woman as president. They just don't want Hillary.

That is by no means the worst case scenario for the GOP, and if you think it is then you're the retarded one. I don't know where you get the idea that the house is now GOP for ever.

Dem's hit their high water mark in 2008. I'm not sure why you see their situation strengthening...

Please don't be stupid. The more extreme the GOP candidate the easier for the Dems it becomes.

Which is why Bush won and Romney lost.

It's could hardly be any goddamn simpler, you have around 30% of votes that you're going to get pretty much regardless unless your candidate gets caught ****ing a goat on live TV.

Taking the conservative vote for granted is why Romney lost.

The votes you're chasing are the ones in the middle where the line between GOP/Indy/Dem is blurred.

A fiscal conservative platform of government cutbacks pulls in the indies who are GOP leading. A platform of Dim lite, does not.

If you nominate some abortion obsessed, religious wingnut or Tea Party ****stain, you're going to lose hard.

Again, Bush won, as did Reagan. Pro aborts Dole and Romney lost. Moderate maverick McCain also lost. Over the last 8 elections, the record is 1/4 with moderates (McCain, Romney, Dole, Bush Sr, Bush Sr, vs Bush Jr, Bush Jr, Reagan, Reagan, while conservatives are 4/4.

If you nominate another candidate who makes women feel unvalued you're going to lose hard.

Women!= Single unmarried women.

If you ostracize the entire minority community of the country, you're going to lose hard.

Right, because you speak for all women.

It's really not hard maths.

You're saying that women are a monolith who always vote the same way. Wow, patronizing much? It's good to know you appreciate their vote so much!

[Ben Kenobi]

Man. It's like they are a carbon copy of each other.

No Kidding. I'm pretty sure Romney sends the message to the RNC - but maybe they don't get it - nominate a conservative. The RNC may just be stupid enough to go to war with their own base. They used to have a party that did that in Canada. They called themselves the progressive conservative party.

They were eliminated as a party, for the same reason the Liberals are getting destroyed. They lost their entire raison d'etre when another conservative party that catered to the western base of the party emerged. If enough conservatives tune out and the RNC goes to war with the Conservatives, it could happen again. It happened when TR went to war with the party on the progressive end.

[DinoDoc]

Christie (if he works at mending fences with the base) would be the dream Veep though for any potential candidate.

[kentonio]

Again, you said she'd 'walk into the nom' against the most inexperienced nominee ever - and you were wrong then. You're wrong for the same reason now. People want a woman as president. They just don't want Hillary.

I have absolutely no interest in engaging with you any more. Please stop replying to my posts, as I have no interest in anything you have to say.

Oh and as I didn't post here between 2003 and 2012, you should also stop telling lies about things I supposedly said in 2008.

[Ben Kenobi]

Christie (if he works at mending fences with the base) would be the dream Veep though for any potential candidate.

You want a VP who's willing to work to build the party behind the scenes and do the little things.

Does that strike you as the profile of Chris Christie? He'd be a terrible VP nom. Rubio would be better if you want that vague progressive feeling minus the backstabbery.

[Ben Kenobi]

I have absolutely no interest in engaging with you any more. Please stop replying to my posts, as I have no interest in anything you have to say.

Hillary's time has come and gone already. She's yesterdays news, but if you want to continue deluding yourself about how 2016 is just like 2008, please continue.

Oh and as I didn't post here between 2003 and 2012, you should also stop telling lies about things I supposedly said in 2008.

I'm wagering good money you were shilling for Hillary in 2008. Since you claim to be a 'conservative'.

[DinoDoc]

The only credible threat to Hillary at this point for the Dem nomination is Fauxcahontas. She won't win a general election but she has the potential to stop a Hillary nomination.

[Ecthy]

Should I start a Ryan vs. Cuomo poll?

[Ben Kenobi]

@DD - We're three years out...

[regexcellent]

A shock win by a wildly charismatic black candidate in 2008 must mean that Hilary couldn't possibly ever be nominated despite a hugely successful period as Sec State and polling showing she'd almost certainly win.

Her period as secretary of state was less than successful. In fact, it was chock full of huge ****-ups. Why isn't Condi Rice or Colin Powell president? SecState usually polls highly, although at the end Hillary was polling pretty ****ing badly because of the absurd mishandling of Benghazi (which didn't fully come out until several months after the election--that is, on news networks other than FOX).

That is by no means the worst case scenario for the GOP, and if you think it is then you're the retarded one. I don't know where you get the idea that the house is now GOP for ever.

It's not the worst case, it's the likely case. Things are only looking better as Obama's administration continues to unravel.

Please don't be stupid. The more extreme the GOP candidate the easier for the Dems it becomes. It's could hardly be any goddamn simpler, you have around 30% of votes that you're going to get pretty much regardless unless your candidate gets caught ****ing a goat on live TV. The votes you're chasing are the ones in the middle where the line between GOP/Indy/Dem is blurred.

If you nominate some abortion obsessed, religious wingnut or Tea Party ****stain, you're going to lose hard. If you nominate another candidate who makes women feel unvalued you're going to lose hard. If you ostracize the entire minority community of the country, you're going to lose hard.

Being anti-abortion and anti-gun control are very popular and very mainstream policy positions and not extreme at all. Supporting them is more beneficial to Republicans than it is harmful. Maybe in Britain where you have to be 18 to buy a butter knife and you can stick a quarter in a vending machine to coathanger your fetus it might seem extreme.

[Ben Kenobi]

Maybe in Britain where you have to be 18 to buy a butter knife and you can stick a quarter in a vending machine to coathanger your fetus it might seem extreme.

http://pjsaunders.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/most-members-of-cabinet-have-voted-for.html

"Of the 16 Conservative MPs in Cabinet, 13 actually voted for a decrease in the abortion upper limit during the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in 2008."



Britain has a ban on late term abortions. America does not.

[Hauldren Collider]

Hillary will walk to the nomination if she runs. Christie possibly won't run, but if he does he'll probably lose. If the GOP get hit as hard as I suspect next year however, a Christie nomination might actually work out and would end up being a bit of a nightmare scenario for the Dems.

This is what everyone said in 2008. Everyone. To the point that it was practically her campaign slogan. Then, because she is a talentless politician, she ran an incredibly ****ty campaign. Barack Obama ran a good campaign and beat her soundly. I expect that to happen again with some other dark horse Democrat.

[Hauldren Collider]

Maybe in Britain where you have to be 18 to buy a butter knife and you can stick a quarter in a vending machine to coathanger your fetus it might seem extreme.

Actually, we should be following Britain's lead on abortion. They are harder to get and more restricted there then they are here, thanks to Roe v. Wade.