Mitt says he's not running

[Ron Burgundy]

A big part of the reason Romney lost is because he's a rich, old, boring white guy. Bush will have the same problem. We need somebody more dynamic and appealing to women, minorities, and ignoramuses who vote solely on soundbites and personality. While I personally can't stand Hilary, she has very high approval rating among the uninformed masses.

Wrong.

The reason he lost is because he wasn't all that conservative and the party base was split. Many ACTUAL conservatives like myself took our votes elsewhere instead of voting for DNC-Lite. The USA is still a conservative skewing nation and if the GOP wants to win they need to remember that their core values are small government, low taxes, fiscal responsibility, personal accountability and LIBERTY. Big government, the surveillance state and perpetual war are things that are bad for the country and best left to the Neo-Socialists.

I think you're both right actually. Also, and I have said this before, I was on the inside of Mitt's campaign in PA and I will tell you that his staff contained a lot of McCain retreads and he ran a horrible campaign from the nuts and bolts angle that I saw on the inside personally.

 

[Tibs]

Really hoping Elizabeth Warren enters the fray... she would be my first choice, by far.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Really hoping Elizabeth Warren enters the fray... she would be my first choice, by far.

Mine too (for the Democrats).

 

[Spike]

Really hoping Elizabeth Warren enters the fray... she would be my first choice, by far.

another wrinkled old white woman born in the 40's?

no means no

Elizabeth Warren Says She's Not Going To Run For President

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/13/elizabeth-warren-president_n_6464192.html

 

[Idioteque]

Hillary is unelectable. Too many skeletons will pop out of her closet. Come on Reps! Trot out Rand and you get my vote.

Obama is a walking closet skeleton and won two landslides. Why? Because of what OFTB and DBS pointed out. He ran as the hip, progressive rock star against old, rich, white guys with old, rich, white voices that sound old, rich, and white on Daily Show clips. And neither were conservative enough to compel Reps to the polls.

Rand Paul is the only (R) with any chance whatsoever. Jeb, Jindal, etc. lose baaaaadly.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

I think Scott Walker would have the best chance of winning. I like Paul, Cruz, and Rubio too. Some combination of the above.
"America...stay out da Bushes!" Only time I ever agreed with Jesse Jackson.

 

[EdReed4Prez]

Obama is a walking closet skeleton and won two landslides. Why? Because of what OFTB and DBS pointed out. He ran as the hip, progressive rock star against old, rich, white guys with old, rich, white voices that sound old, rich, and white on Daily Show clips. And neither were conservative enough to compel Reps to the polls.

Rand Paul is the only (R) with any chance whatsoever. Jeb, Jindal, etc. lose baaaaadly.

Which one of those words describes Hilldawg in any way?

 

[Hineswardkickedurpanzyass]

Which one of those words describes Hilldawg in any way?

First Dike prezzy. CNN will make it as hip as a Tupac reunion tour.

 

[SteelChip]

First Dike prezzy. CNN will make it as hip as a Tupac reunion tour.

...and this will result !

 

[Supersteeler]

First Woman President. That alone will make normally uninvolved people come out and turn it in to a landslide. People by nature want to be part of something and want to make history. Politics won't even come into this election.

 

[Yinzerlyn]

So to counter Hillary, Condoleezza Rice should run for the Republican side. First BLACK woman president?

That being said, I do wish Condi would run- she's awesome. (Except for her liking the Browns).

 

[Steeltime]

"America...stay out da Bushes!" Only time I ever agreed with Jesse Jackson.

Jesse would have benefited from following his own advice and spending less time in bushes.

 

[SteelChip]

First Woman President. That alone will make normally uninvolved people come out and turn it in to a landslide. People by nature want to be part of something and want to make history. Politics won't even come into this election.

I can see it as plain as day, the morning sun rises, "it is January 2032, and Chelsea Clinton has just been sworn in for her third term as President. She has been a leader even more progressive than her mother—whom she succeeded at the White House—and her signature achievement at the end of her second term was finally, after years of struggle, outlawing the use of 95 percent of fossil fuels in the United States. The rest of the world, including China, has also agreed to cut its use of fossil fuels by 90 percent. Rolling zones of “cooling,” formerly known as “blackouts,” have been instituted across much of the developing world, and even across large parts of the rural United States."

That statement was plagiarized but just seems so apropos.

Politico reported online Tuesday its sources say that Hillary Clinton is one hundred percent going to enter the race for U.S. president. Most people agree that Hillary's top quality is the historical nature of her candidacy. She could be the last Anglo-Saxon the Democrats ever nominate for president.

Hillary's campaign advisers commented that she is now "100% likely to run". Coincidentally, also her Mid-East foreign policy.

Hillary Clinton gave two paid speeches at corporate events in Canada last week accompanied by sixty U.S. Secret Service agents for her protection. Hillary's trying to sock away as much money as she can before she's required to announce for president. Prince Charles is less certain that he's next in line.

 

[Coach]

I think Scott Walker would have the best chance of winning. I like Paul, Cruz, and Rubio too. Some combination of the above.
"America...stay out da Bushes!" Only time I ever agreed with Jesse Jackson.

Walker is off to a fast start in Iowa based off a good speech and being from a neighboring state. Does he have a national following outside of Iowa and Wisconsin? How is his funding? We'll see. He could be a front runner.

 

[21STEELERS21]

Walker will never be elected President. He could sneak on as VP and someone dies.
He is the male version of Sarah Palin. Or Quail 2.0. He couldn't even finish college and has
never really held a real job. His life has been spent in Wisconsin state politics. He was on This Week
Sunday and stated someone with Big Ideas could get elected and then proved thru the rest of the
interview, he didn't have any ideas, big or little. Some candidates look good and then they start
answering questions and then it's Oops.

 

[Vader]

Walker is 15% while Paul is 14%. They are neck and neck. Bush isn't polling great and has high negatives among reps.

 

[Coach]

Walker is 15% while Paul is 14%. They are neck and neck. Bush isn't polling great and has high negatives among reps.

Vader,

Romney had a high negative rating too, but won the nomination once the Republican base learned he was their best chance to win the presidency. IMO Romney was a C+ type of nominee. He was out of politics for a while.

In a similar fashion I think Bush or Paul is the Republicans best chance. Bush's ability to attract the Latino vote, and win Florida means the most. He also has a royalty name, and the deepest pockets. I'm backing him. The damage Obama has done to the nation has been great. Winning in 2016 is the most important thing before the nation hits the tipping point on debt, and hand outs. I do like Paul, but feel his 100% pro life stance will be an easy target for the Democrats to fire upon.

This is Iowa only! It favors the most conservative, and a person who was in the race the longest. I think Walker offer intrigue, but also feel geography has a lot to due with his early poll lead.

Remember Bill Clinton had 3% of the vote in Iowa in 1992

Santorum won Iowa in 2012, then Huckabee in 2008. Neither were long term factors for Republicans.

Gephardt won Iowa in 1988!

Check the below link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses

PS:

My preference is

1 ) Bush
2 ) Paul
3 ) Walker

I want Rubio, Perry, and Cruz to go away soon.

 

[Coach]

Walker is 15% while Paul is 14%. They are neck and neck. Bush isn't polling great and has high negatives among reps.

Vader,

Romney had a high negative rating too, but won the nomination once the Republican base learned he was their best chance to win the presidency. IMO Romney was a C+ type of nominee. He was out of politics for a while.

In a similar fashion I think Bush or Paul is the Republicans best chance. Bush's ability to attract the Latino vote, and win Florida means the most. He also has a royalty name, and the deepest pockets. I'm backing him. The damage Obama has done to the nation has been great. Winning in 2016 is the most important thing before the nation hits the tipping point on debt, and hand outs. I do like Paul, but feel his 100% pro life stance will be an easy target for the Democrats to fire upon.

This is Iowa only! It favors the most conservative, and a person who was in the race the longest. I think Walker offer intrigue, but also feel geography has a lot to due with his early poll lead.

Remember Bill Clinton had 3% of the Iowa caucus in 1992

Santorum won the Iowa caucus in 2012. Huckabee won the Iowa caucus in 2008. Neither were long term factors for Republicans.

Gephardt won the Iowa caucus for the Democrats in1988!

Check the below link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses

PS: PS:

My preference is

1 ) Bush
2 ) Paul
3 ) Walker

I want Rubio, Perry, and Cruz to go away soon.

 

[Max Power]

As bad as this country is, the same idiots that elected Bammy would flock to Billary Clintstone. Elected twice he was. We should be worried, very worried.

Iowa clearly doesn't mean crap.

The Republicans need an A+ candidate. They need someone electable and not necessarily the best one for the job.

 

[MT~Forged]

Every candidate has their flaws, some just more than others. I believe Rand Paul's biggest problem will be his Pro-Life stance.

I have e-mailed him a number of times about this, and actually got a reply. Now the reply may not have come from him, but it was a reply. My point to him was; I can respect your Pro-Life position, but the country needs you to tone it down so you can be elected. Make it clear that you would vote Pro-Choice as that is every ones right to choose, But that your PERSONAL choice would be Pro-life. Make that flammable issue go away. Stick to the problems that are most damaging to this country.

 

[MT~Forged]

.

The Republicans need an A+ candidate. They need someone electable and not necessarily the best one for the job.

Yeah, that is all we need, ANOTHER person elected that isn't qualified.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

They need someone electable and not necessarily the best one for the job.

That's what we were sold the last time with Mittens. "Here is your nice moderate Republican who's done some Democrat sort of things so they won't be able to attack him for being a right-wing hate-mongering anti-immigrant anti-woman anti-dog racist."

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Coach are you a democrat? Only democrats tout Jeb/Romney-like candidates as the best chance for republicans to win.

 

[Coach]

Coach are you a democrat? Only democrats tout Jeb/Romney-like candidates as the best chance for republicans to win.

I'm 85% Republican. I just want a person who will win. Too much is on the line in 2016. The Bush family are winners. I do agree a little with Democrats on some issues from time to time, such as the environment protection and fines, and social security for the elderly.

I'm strongly with the Republicans on the economy, foreign policy, Crime, National defense, Space, taxes, and no social quotas.

As for rights, I think the Republicans are better for the unborn, the rights to bare arms, and the right to compete without quotas giving jobs based on race or gender.

I think Obama was the worst president in my life time. Worse than Carter. At least Carter had some integrity.

 

[Coach]

As bad as this country is, the same idiots that elected Bammy would flock to Billary Clintstone. Elected twice he was. We should be worried, very worried.

Iowa clearly doesn't mean crap.

The Republicans need an A+ candidate. They need someone electable and not necessarily the best one for the job.

I agree Iowa means little.

I'd settle for a B+ candidate with limited baggage. One good thing about Waker is he hasn't been around long enough to be a target. 1 /3 of the nation will vote democratic, the other 1/3 Republican. What means most educating the low information voter types on who their candidate is. Since the Dem's have most of the press, the Republican's are better off with a known name. I think Bush ( who speaks fluent spanish and has a Latino wife ) can get the most of the Latino vote with is the key