Yeah, I asked the same question up above and got told that it was okay because adaher said so.
Like I said, talk strictly about the nomination contest without discussing electability and we don’t have to talk about Clinton. Those of you who came to the thread mainly to declare all the GOP candidates losers are indirectly bringing the Democratic nominee into the discussion.
Tell that to Mitt Romney and John McCain.
Nah, they’d be losers with or without an election. 
I think you’ll find that’s extremely rare in publicly-traded companies. Any “CEO” with only a HS diploma heads up some company you never heard of.
Dial it back.
Let’s not get personal and vulgar when the primaries have not yet even started.
[ /Moderating ]
Actually, this is the fourth time in a month that Bill or Hillary Clinton have been brought into this thread. On this occasion, it was not Adaher who inserted them into the discussion.
Nevertheless, I agree that this thread should try to stick to just the Republican candidates.
Anyone wishing to continue discussing the Clinton presence should go open a new thread on “possible match-ups in the presidential election” or something similar and leave this thread to comparisons of Republican candidates or discussions of such candidates without comparison to any Democrats.
[ /Moderating ]
As you wish.
I’m afraid this is going to be the longest, nastiest campaign-and-election cycle ever.
That’s always predicted. I predict that it will be fairly mild as long as Bush isn’t the nominee.
Since we have the attention of many of the boards’ liberals, who is this year’s John Huntsman? Who is the Republican who you’d hate the least, or maybe even consider a vote for?
Why?
Most Democrats that I know have a certain amount of respect for GHW Bush and consider GW Bush to be the odd, “dumb” brother. What would cause Jeb’s candidacy to evoke greater nastiness than would Cruz or Rubio? I would expect much more negativity if Walker gets the nomination, with Kasich also being a contender for a “hated” Republican position.
Bush does not have the same “almost-sort-of-” appeal to independents and conservative Democrats that Christie might, but he is closer to “tolerable” than most of the rest of the Republican field.
I haven’t seen one yet. If forced at gunpoint, it would be very tough, but it would be between two choices (of the ones announced or strongly hinting) so far – Rand Paul and Jeb Bush. Jeb Bush because he might be like his dad, and he’s not as much of an idiot as most of the rest, and Rand Paul because he’s probably the least likely Republican to get us into a ridiculous foreign war and get lots of Americans dead. But both are awful choices, from my point of view – just the least bad of a very bad lot.
Cholera or smallpox, tough call.
Kasich. A Tea Party backlash against him is a plus in my book.
Yeah, Kasich could sorta kinda be the Huntsman of this cycle, but without the diplomatic experience, Mormonism or lying about just how actively he was campaigning behind the scenes (see the 2012 campaign book Double Down for more).
Make no mistake about Kasich though, he’s VERY conservative. And the Tea Party, much as I love them, backlash against everyone as soon as they actually have to govern. The Tea Party will probably just back Cruz, because in the Senate you can stay pure if you want.
Scott Walker grabs lead in New Hampshire in new poll
I realize that in February of 2015 this means precisely dick. But it does embiggen my claim that he will be a valid contender for the nomination.
Well, shit, who isn’t?
Nobody but nobody. The least despicable of this sorry lot would be Jeb Bush, who at least has shown some humanity on immigration. As far as considering a vote for- no way.