Survey;What Two Tickets/Candidates Would You Want To See Battle In 2016 Election?

[candycorn]

I can tell you one name that's been batted around this thread that definitely won't be the Republican nominee in 2016: Rice. In case you guys haven't noticed, she's black. And since the single strongest predictor of someone voting Republican is that they live in a region with a high frequency of searches for the n-word, do the math.

I think you're wrong.

 

[Polk]

I humbling disagree. It's his to lose right now.

Really; can you quantify that statement?

#1: Based on history, Obama's poll numbers are in virtual certain defeat territory for this point in the process.

#2: It's the economy stupid, again, historically he's toast.

Most of the polls have his approval in the ten most recent national polls averages 49%. 48% has been coin-flip territory, historically.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Haley is a boob and Rice is a possible war criminal.

I will stick with Romney and his choice for veep.

Haley is a first term governor on the come. Rice is anything but a war criminal. C'mon dude; you're smarter than that.

So...Bush wasn't a boob? He got 2 terms. Biden has had some "boobish" moments; has he not?

Unlike Bush and Biden; Haley has an Obama quality about her; Palin with gravitas.
If the GOP can field these two; the DNC would have no chance in my view.

My fault, cc. I thought you meant Haley Barbour, who is a boob, in my belief. And, yes, too many Americans consider Rice a possible criminal and war monger to make her viable as a candidate.

Now Nikki Haley foxed the Tea Party, who was instrumental in putting her in office.

She demonstrates, just as Romney is demonstrating, an ability to make the far right to believe she will do what they mean when in fact as governor works in the party mainstream.

Sure, Romney could select her as veep.

 

[kaz]

If you'e too lazy to cite your sources, one has to assume that you have no such sources.

If you're too lazy and without any intellectual curiosity to educate yourself on basic information, then you'll continue to be ignorant. You pay the higher price. I don't need to research the basic information I'm referencing, I already know it. Google is your friend...

 

[kaz]

Really; can you quantify that statement?

#1: Based on history, Obama's poll numbers are in virtual certain defeat territory for this point in the process.

#2: It's the economy stupid, again, historically he's toast.

Most of the polls have his approval in the ten most recent national polls averages 49%. 48% has been coin-flip territory, historically.

You're mixing job approval with personal approval. But the polls I'm referring to more specifically are his poll numbers versus Romney. Romney came out of a bitter campaign and the supporters of other Republicans who just dropped out typically like a cooling off period before jumping on board. Furthermore, Obama is POTUS and a lot of independents don't focus on the Republican until the matter is settled. It takes a bit more time for many of them to jump on board as well.

That Romney is neck and neck now with Obama is devastating historically to Obama's chances unless something catastrophic happens to the Romney campaign.

 

[Polk]

What am I mixing? That is his job approval number.

 

[kaz]

What am I mixing? That is his job approval number.

OK, that's a little higher then the last numbers I'd heard. But still, below 50% is historically weak going into a re-election campaign.

 

[rightwinger]

Al Franken and Ben Stein


The Franken/Stein ticket would be scary

 

[kaz]

Al Franken and Ben Stein


The Franken/Stein ticket would be scary

OK, that's funny...

 

[JakeStarkey]

What am I mixing? That is his job approval number.

OK, that's a little higher then the last numbers I'd heard. But still, below 50% is historically weak going into a re-election campaign.

46% is the cut off number for those who had been off term elections: 1948, Truman; 1956, Eisenhower; 1998, Clinton.

This is going to be a one-state decision in the end: Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Romney will carry VA, FL, and NC.

 

[Vast LWC]

After Obama's second term is complete, I'm going with a 3-way race:

Cuomo v Christie v a random real 3rd party alternative.

I'm thinking after the next four years, the people are going to be screaming for a third alternative, no matter what the outcome of the 2012 election.

 

[RightWingFerret]

Republican Ticket: Jaws Shark&Orca
VS
Liberal Ticket: Miss Piggy/Stuart The Hampster

 

[JakeStarkey]

Heck, Beck, you may be very correct: a 3-way in 2016.

 

[BDBoop]

Al Franken and Ben Stein


The Franken/Stein ticket would be scary

Too much braaaaaaaiiiinss!!!

 

[kaz]

What am I mixing? That is his job approval number.

OK, that's a little higher then the last numbers I'd heard. But still, below 50% is historically weak going into a re-election campaign.

46% is the cut off number for those who had been off term elections: 1948, Truman; 1956, Eisenhower; 1998, Clinton.

This is going to be a one-state decision in the end: Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Romney will carry VA, FL, and NC.

I agree Romney will carry those three. I don't agree it's going to come down to one State. The Democrats are getting drubbed in traditionally blue States. Sure, Obama will carry the hard core Blue like California and New York. But Romney is likely to carry a bunch like Wisconsin that are usually blue if not by as big a margin as the deep blue ones. Scott Walker should scare the snot out of any Democrat not high on Kool-Aid. Heavy turnout in a Democrat State and the Republican won. A very, very bad harbinger for the criminal in chief.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, that's a little higher then the last numbers I'd heard. But still, below 50% is historically weak going into a re-election campaign.

46% is the cut off number for those who had been off term elections: 1948, Truman; 1956, Eisenhower; 1998, Clinton.

This is going to be a one-state decision in the end: Ohio or Pennsylvania.

Romney will carry VA, FL, and NC.

I agree Romney will carry those three. I don't agree it's going to come down to one State. The Democrats are getting drubbed in traditionally blue States. Sure, Obama will carry the hard core Blue like California and New York. But Romney is likely to carry a bunch like Wisconsin that are usually blue if not by as big a margin as the deep blue ones. Scott Walker should scare the snot out of any Democrat not high on Kool-Aid. Heavy turnout in a Democrat State and the Republican won. A very, very bad harbinger for the criminal in chief.

You are overestimating, I think, anti-Obama strength in places like WI, MI, etc., while those who overestimate Obama truly think he has a real chance in FL, NC, VA, etc.

I think we can both agree that this not going to be an Obama sweep, though I believe the Senate may stay Dem. I did not think that in the spring.

 

[kaz]

I think we can both agree that this not going to be an Obama sweep, though I believe the Senate may stay Dem. I did not think that in the spring.

I don't think the Republicans ever had it in the bag. The Senate is a toss up and probably will be until late election night. But everything that has happened to Democrats since spring has been bad. Unemployment, Walker, endless ineptness of the Obama administration. What would have happened since then that would make you think things turned towards the Democrats?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think we can both agree that this not going to be an Obama sweep, though I believe the Senate may stay Dem. I did not think that in the spring.

I don't think the Republicans ever had it in the bag. The Senate is a toss up and probably will be until late election night. But everything that has happened to Democrats since spring has been bad. Unemployment, Walker, endless ineptness of the Obama administration. What would have happened since then that would make you think things turned towards the Democrats?

I have not said that this was Obama's to lose since the spring. He and the Dems are trying to lose it. The Romney nomination makes a GOP victory very, very possible, maybe even probable at this point, but anything can happen between now and election day.

 

[candycorn]

Really; can you quantify that statement?

#1: Based on history, Obama's poll numbers are in virtual certain defeat territory for this point in the process.

#2: It's the economy stupid, again, historically he's toast.

Most of the polls have his approval in the ten most recent national polls averages 49%. 48% has been coin-flip territory, historically.

National polls are nearly worthless in Presidential elections.

 

[candycorn]

If you'e too lazy to cite your sources, one has to assume that you have no such sources.

If you're too lazy and without any intellectual curiosity to educate yourself on basic information, then you'll continue to be ignorant. You pay the higher price. I don't need to research the basic information I'm referencing, I already know it. Google is your friend...

Yes...you "know" it but if you're actually trying to convince someone (hence the public message board)....