The following are Republican candidates seeking the nomination for President of the United States.
Which individual do you prefer to be nominated for Republican candidate for U.S President?
Fourteen have either announced their candidacy or filed with the Federal Election Commission. Two are impending in terms of announcing their candidacies.
Heh. First vote was Trump. Nice. (I swear it wasn’t me!)
The only names I recognize, I don’t think I want seated in The Big House. The Party needs to get serious about rebuilding its brand and thinning the field and marketing the non-clowns better. I’m assuming there is a t least one non-clown on the list?
The one I might “prefer” to be nominated could hinge on who I think the Democratic candidate would have the best chance again, since I don’t want any of these people to win in 2016. By that standard, perhaps Ted Cruz or Rick Perry (god help us).
If I were going to pick the one I would least hate to win it all, that would probably be Rand Paul or Lindsey Graham (god help us)/
Gotta say, this is like asking, “what’s the best turd on the ground at the dog park?”
I don’t think there’s a man or woman among them who would be remotely tempted to put country ahead of party, let alone rationality ahead of ideology.
I don’t want John Kasich to win. I want the Republican party to lose, and lose badly.
But I think that Kasich has a lot of similarities to pre-primary Mitt Romney. Relatively sane and pragmatic. Boring as hell. Way to the right of what I’m comfortable with, but not in the “Holy shit, do you actually believe that?” wing of the party.
I voted for Donald Trump. He is very interesting and even though I am a Democrat I would not mind for him to get the nomination. George Pataki and Scott Walker are sane candidates. Jeb Bush is sane also however he is a Bush in the end. If he becomes president then it will seem lime every other president will be a Bush.
I believe that Obama’s successor will be a Democrat.
Woohoo Pataki got a vote too!!
Answering the question frankly and literally, I hope Cruz is nominated. He would be perfectly representative of the nutbar right, and would finally fulfill their desire for a “true believer” candidate. And when he would be inevitably completely obliterated in the general election, it might fracture the Republican party (or at least shake them to their core as to how out of step they are with the country as a whole).
Alternately, I’d hope for Pataki. I think he’d be most likely to enrage the nutbar right enough that they might split off and form a third party.
Pataki, Paul and Perry are the only ones who seem even remotely presidential.
Not a single one of those people is qualified to lead a line of rats out of town, let alone the United States of America. Seriously, every one of them is a joke.
My vote is based on the premise: if the 2016 election is won by a Republican, which one would you prefer? So, Pataki. He is one of the last GOP moderates, perhaps even a liberal on some social issues.
My vote is based on the premise: if the 2016 Democratic candidate must defeat a Republican, which one would be easiest?
I voted for Jack Fellure.
I voted Ted Cruz because I think he is a total asshat and it would be fun watching him continue to make a complete fool of himself on the national stage. Trump is even more of a buffoon, but I’ve seen enough of him already.
As a Republican I can’t help liking iiandyiiii’s idea of Cruz cratering. I like it even more because the likely Democratic nominee is pretty damn centrist. Hitching the more liberal aspects of the Democratic party to centrist Hillary for a likely 8 years is just an extra bonus in my mind. Unexpected stuff happens so I wouldn’t vote that way and risk the worst case Sanders-Cruz general election choice, let alone any channce of President Cruz.
Pataki got my nod in the poll. He’s in a virtual dead heat with Kasich at this early point. Bush is third for the podium. I most heavily weight foreign policy issues in selecting a President. As former/current governors they all have a lot of questions to answer in that area. I could see voting for any of the come primary time.
Meant to vote for Marco Rubio. The right should have no trouble coming out for him as he’s a wingnut favorite. From a swing state. Young, vibrant looking would make a stark contrast to either Hillary or Bernie. He’d also be able to speak to swaths of the electorate almost exclusively. So the right shows up, evangelicals are lukewarm but turn out reluctantly, and he makes inroads with Hispanics and picks of a handful of young adults. We haven’t elected a party to 3 straight Presidential terms in 25 years and he’d be running against an old, grey, white person.
How’s that not a winning combo for Rubio?
Took the question literally: “Which individual do you prefer to be nominated for Republican candidate for U.S President?”
I prefer Donald Trump, because he has pretty much no chance of being elected and he’ll be the most amusing to watch over the next 18 months.
I also picked a bad GOP candidate because I want Clinton to win. However, instead of some of the crazy nutters, I chose Fiorina. My reasoning was that guys like Trump, Cruz, and Carson are so batshit crazy that even if I don’t think they have a shot at winning, there’s a small outside chance. As far as the GOP base is concerned, they have qualities that appeal to them and if Clinton stumbles, they have a shot.
But with Fiorina, I don’t think she’s crazy, yet I also don’t think she has anything at all that she can do better than Clinton. Trump can out crazy Clinton and appeal to the whackos. Cruz and Jindal are smart people pretending to be dumb, so they have bags of tricks we haven’t seen before. Bush has name and money. Walker has the anti-union thing and the appeal of seemingly like a normal person. But Fiorina? She has nothing I can see that she can appeal to the GOP base or the wider general election base over Clinton.
I do not know Jack Fellure, but the last name is a little like Failure so I picked him.
I’m glad to see that, with my help, Donald Trump is tied for the lead. I’m afraid I find neither Cruz nor Trump amusing; I wouldn’t pick Cruz because of the too-great risk that he’d win in November.
Unlike the optimists, I think we need a really bad GOP candidate to make Democratic victory likely: If the Democrats win November 2016, it will be only the 4th time the incumbent party won with a non-incumbent since Garfield did it in 1880 during Reconstruction. Taft did it in 1908 riding on the coattails of popular Teddy Roosevelt, Hoover in 1928 when Coolidge declined to run, and Bush in 1988 on the coattails of Reagan. The Democrats haven’t done it at all since 1856.
Jeb Bush will get the nomination. The country club/Fortune 500 set usually gets its way.
And he’ll lose badly to Hillary. But Jeb will go down smiling, basking in praise from the liberal media about the “positive” campaign he ran.