2016 elections - because it's never too early

[jimmy olsen]

The Republicans have a very strong list of potential candidates from all sorts of wings of their party.

How many wings have you counted?

Five

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/romney-and-the-gops-five-ring-circus/

[Sheilbh]

The Republicans have a very strong list of potential candidates from all sorts of wings of their party.

How many wings have you counted?

I don't know. But off the top of my head:
Old School Establishment - Bush.
Reformist - Walker.
Full Tea Party - Cruz.
Paul - Paul.
Populist/Social Conservative - Huckabee.
Populist/Moderate-ish - Christie.

As I say that seems like a solid list of potential candidates - ignoring others like Rubio. All parts of the GOP have at least one candidate that they actually like and lots of others that they respect.  Romney's only previously won his party's heart when the alternatives were Santorum or Gingrich. He's dislikeable enough to reconcile the GOP to McCain

[Eddie Teach]

Remarkable how similar the rhetoric of politicians in those distinct wings is.

[garbon]

The Republicans have a very strong list of potential candidates from all sorts of wings of their party.

How many wings have you counted?

I don't know. But off the top of my head:
Old School Establishment - Bush.
Reformist - Walker.
Full Tea Party - Cruz.
Paul - Paul.
Populist/Social Conservative - Huckabee.
Populist/Moderate-ish - Christie.

As I say that seems like a solid list of potential candidates - ignoring others like Rubio. All parts of the GOP have at least one candidate that they actually like and lots of others that they respect.  Romney's only previously won his party's heart when the alternatives were Santorum or Gingrich. He's dislikeable enough to reconcile the GOP to McCain

I think, as a Republican, that I'm very disappointed in the Republican spread. The last 4 people on your list are all nutty - and the first two aren't anything to be excited about.

Actually I think I've been disappointed in both elections in which I voted (I could have voted for final term Bush but was apathetic ) what with wallpaper Romney and then old McCain + Crazy Lady.

[jimmy olsen]

Remarkable how similar the rhetoric of politicians in those distinct wings is.

Click my link, it has Venn diagrams!

[garbon]

Remarkable how similar the rhetoric of politicians in those distinct wings is.

Well do recall that Sheibh's main interest in our candidates is as a source of entertainment. Most on that list certainly have different, "strong" personalities.

[Razgovory]

I'm not sure I would call Huckabee "strong".  Or Scott Walker or Cruz.  I'd say that Rand Paul is a very strong candidate (he's also the one I like least), but I think he can tap something in the GOP that it hasn't had since Reagan.

[Razgovory]

Remarkable how similar the rhetoric of politicians in those distinct wings is.

Well do recall that Sheibh's main interest in our candidates is as a source of entertainment. Most on that list certainly have different, "strong" personalities.

Shelf like drama and excitement in politics.  I like the opposite.  I am always baffled by him.

[jimmy olsen]

I'm not sure I would call Huckabee "strong".  Or Scott Walker or Cruz.  I'd say that Rand Paul is a very strong candidate (he's also the one I like least), but I think he can tap something in the GOP that it hasn't had since Reagan.

Having a strong personality doesn't necessarily mean they're a strong candidate.

[garbon]

Remarkable how similar the rhetoric of politicians in those distinct wings is.

Well do recall that Sheibh's main interest in our candidates is as a source of entertainment. Most on that list certainly have different, "strong" personalities.

Shelf like drama and excitement in politics.  I like the opposite.  I am always baffled by him.

Yes, he likes the spectacle and theater of it, damn the consequences that we have to live with.

[garbon]

I'm not sure I would call Huckabee "strong".  Or Scott Walker or Cruz.  I'd say that Rand Paul is a very strong candidate (he's also the one I like least), but I think he can tap something in the GOP that it hasn't had since Reagan.

Having a strong personality doesn't necessarily mean they're a strong candidate.

I wasn't sure if Raz was replying to what I said - but to be clear I was using the phrasing strong personality in the pejorative sense.

[Eddie Teach]

I think, as a Republican, that I'm very disappointed in the Republican spread. The last 4 people on your list are all nutty - and the first two aren't anything to be excited about.

You agree with Jacob way too often to be a Republican.


Tim, I did check your link. I'm not sure I agree that "Tea Party" occupies its own space. There are just libertarian minded Republicans who consider the label theirs, and religious conservatives who consider it theirs. Also, I don't think anyone who might be considered part of the "moderate" wing has a chance in the primary.

[garbon]

I think, as a Republican, that I'm very disappointed in the Republican spread. The last 4 people on your list are all nutty - and the first two aren't anything to be excited about.

You agree with Jacob way too often to be a Republican.

Last time I checked there is no litmus test that one has to take before declaring a party affiliation (or for that matter when actually voting for candidates of a particular party).

Also, I wonder if Jacob has the same impression that he and I generally agree on issues.

[jimmy olsen]

I'm not sure I would call Huckabee "strong".  Or Scott Walker or Cruz.  I'd say that Rand Paul is a very strong candidate (he's also the one I like least), but I think he can tap something in the GOP that it hasn't had since Reagan.

Having a strong personality doesn't necessarily mean they're a strong candidate.

I wasn't sure if Raz was replying to what I said - but to be clear I was using the phrasing strong personality in the pejorative sense.

Hmm...I don't see why it would necessarily be a negative. Depending on the individual, having a strong personality could be a selling point.

[garbon]

I'm not sure I would call Huckabee "strong".  Or Scott Walker or Cruz.  I'd say that Rand Paul is a very strong candidate (he's also the one I like least), but I think he can tap something in the GOP that it hasn't had since Reagan.

Having a strong personality doesn't necessarily mean they're a strong candidate.

I wasn't sure if Raz was replying to what I said - but to be clear I was using the phrasing strong personality in the pejorative sense.

Hmm...I don't see why it would necessarily be a negative. Depending on the individual, having a strong personality could be a selling point.

It doesn't have to be. That's sort of why I was clarifying my usage.