Prediction for 2016

[jasonnfree]

Christie guaranteed victory with an opponent ticket of Clinton-Warner.

You think so?

Wait till you see who the TeaTards stick Christie with as Vice President

How about a hint at least who it will be.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Hillary Clinton / Juan Castro - 56.2%
Jeb Bush / Mitch Daniels- 44.1%
other - 1.7%

--------------------------------------------

Hillary Clinton / Juan Castro - 54.2%
Chris Christie / Haley Barbour- 43.8%
other - 2.0%

--------------------------------------------------

Hillary Clinton / Juan Castro - 59.7%
Rand Paul / Jim DeMint - 38.7%
other - 1.6%


-------------------------------------------------

Hillary Clinton / Juan Castro - 62.8%
Ted Cruz / Paul Brown - 34.2%
other - 3.0%

 

[Statistikhengst]

For 2016, I predict

x-Ray glasses
Time machines
35 cent gas
A republican victory

You forgot A&W snowcones!!

 

[Statistikhengst]

In 2016, obama declares martial law, calls off all elections, attempts to send DHS troops across America to quell uprisings. DHS troops refuse after homes burned and family members killed. obama is arrested for treason and hung. Rand Paul/Ted Cruz are elected P/VP. Democrats lose elections for next 50 years.

Wrong. All wrong.

In 2016 the Borg come back through time to assimilate the earth and are stopped by the Atlantis as soon as it did in the wraiths, all the while watching a time-o-sphere being erected around the earth, where time now goes 10,000 times slower on election day than anywhere else in the universe.

So, the winner is........



......





.....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UULvGwjEpuA]The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)Trailer - YouTube[/ame]


(catch you 4,000 years)

 

[TheShinyOne]

In 2016, both parties will be split. There's no reason why to look at it any other way. Republicans vs. Democrats is an illusion. It's really more like Republicans and Democrats vs. Democrats and Republicans. I could rant all day about it, I'm sure. Federalism is gone as far as it can go. The parties need a plan of reformation that focus on something risky but innovative. America needs to have more independent entrepreneurship. Whichever candidate speaks to that the most will be elected.

 

[Katzndogz]

The younger democrats are further left. The younger republican are further right. The nation really needs to just split while we can still do it peacefully.

 

[FA_Q2]

Christie guaranteed victory with an opponent ticket of Clinton-Warner.

You think so?

Wait till you see who the TeaTards stick Christie with as Vice President

No one votes for the VP. That pick is nothing more than a shore to the base. The left likes to rant and rave about how they could never vote for Palin but in reality none of them would have voted for McCain anyway. Those were never votes to lose as they were never votes for the republicans in the first place.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Christie guaranteed victory with an opponent ticket of Clinton-Warner.

You think so?

Wait till you see who the TeaTards stick Christie with as Vice President

No one votes for the VP. That pick is nothing more than a shore to the base. The left likes to rant and rave about how they could never vote for Palin but in reality none of them would have voted for McCain anyway. Those were never votes to lose as they were never votes for the republicans in the first place.

Polling from 20008 shows you to be quite wrong. When McCain first picked Palin and announced it at the Nutter Center (how fitting), Wright State University, Dayton, OH, his national poll numbers shot up on par with Obama, for about 1week.

And then Palin opened her mouth for interviews, and the slide began for McCain, before the economic meltdown created by Bush 43 began.

In later polling, asked if Palin would be competent to assume the role of the Presidency, if needed, the resounding answer was NO.

A good VP pick may be overlooked, but a bad VP pick can kill a campaign. See: McGovern/Eagleton 1972, Mondale/Ferraro 1984. And now: McCain / Palin 2008.

So, yes, it made a difference.

 

[birddog]

You think so?

Wait till you see who the TeaTards stick Christie with as Vice President

No one votes for the VP. That pick is nothing more than a shore to the base. The left likes to rant and rave about how they could never vote for Palin but in reality none of them would have voted for McCain anyway. Those were never votes to lose as they were never votes for the republicans in the first place.

Polling from 20008 shows you to be quite wrong. When McCain first picked Palin and announced it at the Nutter Center (how fitting), Wright State University, Dayton, OH, his national poll numbers shot up on par with Obama, for about 1week.

And then Palin opened her mouth for interviews, and the slide began for McCain, before the economic meltdown created by Bush 43 began.

In later polling, asked if Palin would be competent to assume the role of the Presidency, if needed, the resounding answer was NO.

A good VP pick may be overlooked, but a bad VP pick can kill a campaign. See: McGovern/Eagleton 1972, Mondale/Ferraro 1984. And now: McCain / Palin 2008.

So, yes, it made a difference.

Very little difference other than fodder for the MSM!

All three presidential candidates would likely have lost no matter who their VP was.

 

[Statistikhengst]

No one votes for the VP. That pick is nothing more than a shore to the base. The left likes to rant and rave about how they could never vote for Palin but in reality none of them would have voted for McCain anyway. Those were never votes to lose as they were never votes for the republicans in the first place.

Polling from 20008 shows you to be quite wrong. When McCain first picked Palin and announced it at the Nutter Center (how fitting), Wright State University, Dayton, OH, his national poll numbers shot up on par with Obama, for about 1week.

And then Palin opened her mouth for interviews, and the slide began for McCain, before the economic meltdown created by Bush 43 began.

In later polling, asked if Palin would be competent to assume the role of the Presidency, if needed, the resounding answer was NO.

A good VP pick may be overlooked, but a bad VP pick can kill a campaign. See: McGovern/Eagleton 1972, Mondale/Ferraro 1984. And now: McCain / Palin 2008.

So, yes, it made a difference.

Very little difference other than fodder for the MSM!

All three presidential candidates would likely have lost no matter who their VP was.

Possibly. But it is called a "ticket" for a reason.

 

[JoeB131]

Some creative and some idiotic comments. No one in the GOP can touch Hillary right now and it looks like the TP and the far right will keep Christie off the ticket in 2016. It is hilarious that the person with the best chance to win in 2016 for the GOP is being blackballed for doing his job as Governor of NJ. You just can't fix Stupid....

I think what happens in 2016 will have a lot to do with what happens in 2014.

If the Republicans take the Senate and make gains in the house, and the TEA Party is seen as having a role in that, I think that helps the TEA Party to get the nomination and then crash and burn in the general election.

If 2014 is basically a wash or the Democrats against all odds make gains, there will be a round of recriminations in the GOP.

I do think the most likely guy to be the GOP nominee is Scott Walker from Wisconsin.

 

[birddog]

Most Tea Party people will vote Republican. They will influence the platform, but will not control it.

Believe it or not, it is more likely to be Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, or even Christie.

A dark horse is possible also, and could be one of several, even a Tea Party person.

The Republican candidate will win especially if they are experienced, personable, outspoken against dishonesty and fraud(which Romney was not), and represent conservative principles.

 

[Iceman]

Hillary will chose Mark Warner of Virginia as her running mate. It will seal the fate of another GOP loss. He is a moderate, he swings Virginia Blue, and he has the Kennedy charm as a self made millionaire. Mark it down now!

My ticket

Ted Cruz/ Joe McCarthy's Ghost

 

[Statistikhengst]

Most Tea Party people will vote Republican. They will influence the platform, but will not control it.

Believe it or not, it is more likely to be Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, or even Christie.

A dark horse is possible also, and could be one of several, even a Tea Party person.

The Republican candidate will win especially if they are experienced, personable, outspoken against dishonesty and fraud(which Romney was not), and represent conservative principles.

Virtually all of them vote Republican. They ARE Republicans. They are controlling the platform far more than you are willing to admit, which is why the GOP just got another pasting last November.

Yes, a dark-horse candidate is possible, but we haven't seen one since 1920, or by 2016, 96 years ago.

 

[william the wie]

Generally major parties don't win open elections, the major opposition screws up. It is looking more and more likely that the Ds screwed the pooch in non-participating states . So, the GOP has to screw up bigger than the Ds to lose the election and that would be difficult even for them.

 

[birddog]

Most Tea Party people will vote Republican. They will influence the platform, but will not control it.

Believe it or not, it is more likely to be Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, or even Christie.

A dark horse is possible also, and could be one of several, even a Tea Party person.

The Republican candidate will win especially if they are experienced, personable, outspoken against dishonesty and fraud(which Romney was not), and represent conservative principles.

Virtually all of them vote Republican. They ARE Republicans. They are controlling the platform far more than you are willing to admit, which is why the GOP just got another pasting last November.

Yes, a dark-horse candidate is possible, but we haven't seen one since 1920, or by 2016, 96 years ago.

The GOP got beat last year due to a weak candidate, democrat voter fraud, and a MSM that covered for The Kenyan! Get your facts straight dumbass! Denying facts I mentioned would make you extremely ignorant, extremely biased, or a liar IMHO.

 

[Iceman]

Most Tea Party people will vote Republican. They will influence the platform, but will not control it.

Believe it or not, it is more likely to be Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, or even Christie.

A dark horse is possible also, and could be one of several, even a Tea Party person.

The Republican candidate will win especially if they are experienced, personable, outspoken against dishonesty and fraud(which Romney was not), and represent conservative principles.

Virtually all of them vote Republican. They ARE Republicans. They are controlling the platform far more than you are willing to admit, which is why the GOP just got another pasting last November.

Yes, a dark-horse candidate is possible, but we haven't seen one since 1920, or by 2016, 96 years ago.

The GOP got beat last year due to a weak candidate, democrat voter fraud, and a MSM that covered for The Kenyan! Get your facts straight dumbass! Denying facts I mentioned would make you extremely ignorant, extremely biased, or a liar IMHO.

You have a very full beard.

You are a slice of old americana, I like that about you.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Most Tea Party people will vote Republican. They will influence the platform, but will not control it.

Believe it or not, it is more likely to be Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, or even Christie.

A dark horse is possible also, and could be one of several, even a Tea Party person.

The Republican candidate will win especially if they are experienced, personable, outspoken against dishonesty and fraud(which Romney was not), and represent conservative principles.

Virtually all of them vote Republican. They ARE Republicans. They are controlling the platform far more than you are willing to admit, which is why the GOP just got another pasting last November.

Yes, a dark-horse candidate is possible, but we haven't seen one since 1920, or by 2016, 96 years ago.

The GOP got beat last year due to a weak candidate, democrat voter fraud, and a MSM that covered for The Kenyan! Get your facts straight dumbass! Denying facts I mentioned would make you extremely ignorant, extremely biased, or a liar IMHO.

You mentioned no "facts". You spewed the usual regurgitated bullshit that is in no way based in fact.

So, I will help you out.

Your "weak" candidate, Romney, still scored the second highest number of votes for a Republican in US history. Bet you didn't know that one, eh? Only two Republicans have ever broken 60 million votes: Bush 43 (2004), Romney (2012). Must not have been so weak, after all, eh?

Voter Fraud in Ohio:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: EXACT voter-fraud statistics out of Battleground OHIO

0.0024%

Nuff said. RWNJs love to bitch about the fraud stuff, but the stats never back them up. The Secretary of State who posted those stats for Ohio? A REPUBLICAN.

Studies of media reporting show there were more negative stories in the MSM about Obama than were published about Romney. So much for the "MSM in the tank for Obama" meme.

There was no "kenyan" on the 2012 ballot. In case you don't know, only US citizens are allowed to run for President.


But thanks for letting us all see how deep the butthurt runs with you.

How about you bring some facts to the table next time, for a change? Give it a try, you might just like it!

 

[Iceman]

Trayvon Martin's ghost, Democrat Nominee 2016.

 

[freedombecki]

I like the idea of Scott Walker. He can stand up to a wall of opposition and climb over it.

His challenge would be to become president who is for all of the American people, regardless of social or business memberships, sex, race, creed, color, health handicap, or age, etc., and to assure people who do not care for him that he will be for them as POTUS.

He can do budgets, balance them, and work with opposition in legislative bodies for a common cause--the people represented in his state.

Liberals are afraid of him, though, and will work as hard as they can to insure he never gets the nomination in their state or even a listing on their ballots. If he does win, they're likely to be toast and they know it. That's why they will all but kill themselves to beat up his reputation before he forms a committee to find if he might win the GOP nomination.

He's ok looking, and he's young enough to handle stress. He will have to clear it with his family. He'd be a good candidate for the GOP and a real challenge to Lady Macbeth, er I mean, former NY Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.