- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Would you have a problem with Bush v Clinton in 2016?
Posted on 3/11/14 at 9:04 am
Posted on 3/11/14 at 9:04 am
Am I the only person that has a problem with this? I feel like I am in the Twilight Zone because there is a damn good chance this is what we will see. I hope Rand Paul is the Republican candidate but I doubt that will be the case. Should two families hold onto the executive office for 24 of the last 32 years?
16
Posted on 3/11/14 at 9:05 am to DanTiger
quote:
Am I the only person that has a problem with this?
No. I'm tired of both families and wish they would go away.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 9:06 am to DanTiger
quote:
Bush v Clinton in 2016
I will be voting 3rd party for Gary Johnson like a real American if 2016 comes to that.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 9:06 am to DanTiger
quote:
Should two families hold onto the executive office for 24 of the last 32 years?
of course not
Posted on 3/11/14 at 9:06 am to DanTiger
Yes. It smacks of monarchy. It's the same reason I hate the Kennedy mythos.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 9:11 am to DanTiger
quote:Yes.
Would you have a problem with Bush
His shot was 2012. He passed. He's done.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 9:13 am to DanTiger
I'm not registered as a democrat, but might change to vote against Clinton in the primary.
I'm certainly not voting for Clinton in the general election.
If I do not change my voter registration, and cast a vote in the Republican primary, it will not be for anyone named Bush. My top 3 choices are: Cruz, Paul and Carson, in no particular order. Carson is likely not running now. I would also listen to Mike Lee if he were to run.
No Romney. No McCain. No Santorum. No Christie. Jindal is less than likely, other than a VP spot (and, even then, more to balance out a giant, pale RINO like Christie, more than top a ticket himself.)
Cruz/Carson could be a compelling ticket against Clinton/(if I had to call it right now - Mark Warner) in 2016.
I'm certainly not voting for Clinton in the general election.
If I do not change my voter registration, and cast a vote in the Republican primary, it will not be for anyone named Bush. My top 3 choices are: Cruz, Paul and Carson, in no particular order. Carson is likely not running now. I would also listen to Mike Lee if he were to run.
No Romney. No McCain. No Santorum. No Christie. Jindal is less than likely, other than a VP spot (and, even then, more to balance out a giant, pale RINO like Christie, more than top a ticket himself.)
Cruz/Carson could be a compelling ticket against Clinton/(if I had to call it right now - Mark Warner) in 2016.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 9:15 am to DanTiger
quote:
Would you have a problem with Bush v Clinton in 2016?
Yes. Make it stop
Posted on 3/11/14 at 9:20 am to DanTiger
After 8 years of W, the Bush brand is so tarnished that I doubt we will ever see another one in the White House.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 9:20 am to DanTiger
quote:
Would you have a problem with Bush v Clinton in 2016?
Yeah. If its George Bush and Bill Clinton that's a violation of the Constitution!
quote:
Should two families hold onto the executive office for 24 of the last 32 years?
Only if the Electoral College decides it so.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 9:21 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Cruz/Carson could be a compelling ticket against Clinton/(if I had to call it right now - Mark Warner) in 2016.
compelling for who? That ticket would hand Clinton the whitehouse.
you can not be openly ant-government and think you have even a remote chance at the WH. Best bet is to appeal to the middle and get the independent vote and slowly chip away at big gov and handouts once in office.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 9:22 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
SpidermanTUba
Posted on 3/11/14 at 9:24 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Only if the Electoral College decides it so
The party primaries will decide if we see that ticket and not the electoral college.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 9:28 am to DanTiger
Both families need to go away. They have both done enough damage to this country.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 9:31 am to DanTiger
Yes.
Anyone who continually supports the American version of royal families has the IQ of a brick.
Anyone who continually supports the American version of royal families has the IQ of a brick.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 9:38 am to BobBoucher
quote:
Best bet is to appeal to the middle and get the independent vote and slowly chip away at big gov and handouts once in office.
Like Romney? McCain? Dole? Ford? guys who have gone exactly 0-fer against the dems over the past 40 years. (If you count H.W., then that kind of candidate is 1-5 against the dems in 38 years).
Regardless of what W did, he campaigned on a small government campaign - at least upon principles. The fact that he didn't live up to it was not what people voted for.
If the Republicans don't get a candidate who will run on principle, and just try to be a democrat-lite - they will lose for the foreseeable future.
This post was edited on 3/11/14 at 9:39 am
Posted on 3/11/14 at 10:00 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Like Romney? McCain? Dole? Ford?
Romney was completely unlikeable, and Palin tanked any chance McCain had.
The GOP has suffered from a dynamic personality who can appeal to broad swaths of people the past few election cycles. And some of the guys coming up who might have great public appeal on a personal level might be too far right to appear to the middle.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 10:02 am to DanTiger
Oh wow, could you imagine the low turnout in a Bush vs. Clinton election?
Posted on 3/11/14 at 10:06 am to BobBoucher
quote:
Palin
Was the reason he got any traction at all. I'm not saying she was a great choice, but she sparked quite a bit of interest and attention.
McCain lost because of McCain. Ford, HW, Dole, McCain and Romney are Republican insiders who do not hold principled stances on any (or, if so, few) issues - Ford was clearly a placeholder, caretaker who just happened to beat Reagan in 1976 - well 4 years of Carter people were ready for ANYTHING else. Ford, HW and Dole are just bland policy wonks, with zero dynamism.
How did W get elected? It wasn't pandering to the middle - that's for sure. Not, strictly speaking, "dynamic", but next to Gore (and Kerry - WTF were the Dems thinking?) he seemed downright charismatic.
But, by all means, keep allowing the Dems and the liberal press pick the Republican candidate and see how that works out...
Posted on 3/11/14 at 10:07 am to DanTiger
quote:
Am I the only person that has a problem with this?
No, I would have a problem with both of them. A Bush v Clinton ticket would just be a recycled version of the past 30 years. We need new ideas, new leadership.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News