Author Topic: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates  (Read 180436 times)

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #200 on: July 22, 2014, 07:28:14 PM »
winning the general has little to nothing to do with substance and more to do with marketing. If this admin has taught us anything it should be that.

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 30817
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #201 on: July 23, 2014, 05:38:02 AM »
One would think "winning the general" (whatever) would be about appealing to the base and core group of the party.  If you can't rally your own troops behind the candidate, you sure aren't going to rally the independents behind him or her.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #202 on: July 23, 2014, 08:57:08 AM »
winning the general has little to nothing to do with substance and more to do with marketing. If this admin has taught us anything it should be that.

I'm not sure winning primaries have much to do with substance either.  The whole process is a mess. 

LurkerNoMore

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 30817
  • Dumb people think Trump is smart.
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #203 on: July 23, 2014, 11:34:41 AM »
One would think "winning the general" (whatever) would be about appealing to the base and core group of the party.  If you can't rally your own troops behind the candidate, you sure aren't going to rally the independents behind him or her.

Winning the "general" or winning primaries doesn't mean shit if you can't get your base behind the candidate afterwards.  If you can't convince your own party to support the candidate you can't convince anyone else like the independents or moderates either.


whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #204 on: July 23, 2014, 06:23:10 PM »
Yeah, I do make an independent decision on election day.  In 2008 I voted against a geriatric nimwit and his idiot running mate.  In 2012 I voted against a lib in disguise and his idiot of a running mate.

You voted against Obama and Biden? ;D


The people who gave us Obama was the GOP because they couldn't scratch up anything beyond the laughable shitty candidates they ran.  Now I see why you refuse to say you are a Republican.  I would be ashamed to admit it too. 

chadstallion

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2854
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #205 on: July 26, 2014, 02:24:05 PM »
Listen creepy stalker, he is smart, well spoken, comes from a big state, has good name recognition, will likely be a good debater, and being Hispanic doesn't hurt.  I have no idea if he will win, but he'll definitely be a contender if he runs. 

But you'll have your creepy head up Hillary's rear end, so you may not see it.  Make sure you check the board for regular updates. 
but if he's not supported by Fox News he won't stand a chance.
w

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #206 on: July 28, 2014, 09:06:22 AM »
but if he's not supported by Fox News he won't stand a chance.

So "Fox News" supports candidates?  How so? 

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #207 on: July 28, 2014, 10:10:52 AM »
So "Fox News" supports candidates?  How so? 


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #208 on: July 28, 2014, 01:35:40 PM »
Christie leads 2016 Republican field in New Hampshire, poll shows
The Star-Ledger By Brent Johnson | The Star-Ledger
July 11, 2014

TRENTON — Gov. Chris Christie's presidential prospects have brightened in the critical state of New Hampshire, according to a poll released today.

But the story would apparently be different if Mitt Romney entered the race.

The WMUR Granite State Poll of residents in New Hampshire — which hosts the nation's first presidential primary — showed Christie leading all possible candidates for the 2016 Republican nomination for president.

Christie drew 19 percent of the vote, followed by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky (14 percent) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (11).

Rounding out the field, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal each had 5 percent, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas had 3, Texas Gov. Rick Perry had 2, and U.S. Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania each had 1. All other candidates received less than 1 percent, and 15 percent said they were undecided.

With months to go before the GOP primary kicks into gear, no candidate has officially declared and the race still appears to be wide open.

But today's poll shows Christie — whose administration has been beset by multiple investigations at home, including two over the George Washington Bridge scandal — is bouncing back in New Hampshire. His 19 percent standing is higher than his showing in April (14 percent); in January (9), when the bridge controversy made the biggest splash nationally; and in October (16), before the issue erupted.

Christie, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, visited New Hampshire on a fundraising trip for GOP gubernatorial hopeful Walt Havenstein last month — just after surveys in this poll began. He is scheduled to return for another fundraiser on July 31.

Still, residents in the state appear to prefer Romney above anyone. The former Massachusetts governor, who lost the 2012 presidential election to Barack Obama, has repeatedly said he has no plans to run again. But if he were to declare his candidacy, Romney would lead Christie 39 to 7 percent, according to today's poll.

That mirrors a separate poll of New Hampshire residents released last month. The Suffolk University/Boston Herald survey showed Christie neck-and-neck with Paul for the top spot among likely GOP candidates — but Romney out in front of both of them by a 3-to-1 margin when added to the mix.

In addition, only 10 percent of respondents in today's poll said they view Christie favorably. At the same time, 16 percent said they would not vote for him under any circumstances — the highest percentage of any possible Republican contender.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton remains the clear frontrunner. Clinton — the former First Lady, U.S. Senator from New York, and Secretary of State — leads all possible Democratic primary contenders at 59 percent.

In a distant second is Vice President Joe Biden at 14 percent, followed by U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts (8 percent), U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont (5), New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (3), and U.S. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia (1). All other contenders received less than 1 percent, and 9 percent said they are undecided.

Still, Clinton's support is down 15 percentage points from her 74 percent showing in the group's January poll.

Today's survey was conducted over the phone from June 19 to July 1 by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, polling 669 adults in the state. The margin of error was plus-or-minus 3.8 percent.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/07/christie_leads_2016_republican_field_in_new_hampshire_poll_shows.html

RRKore

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2628
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #209 on: July 28, 2014, 02:55:00 PM »
So "Fox News" supports candidates?  How so? 

Yeah, there's ol' BB being honest again, lol.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #210 on: July 28, 2014, 03:14:44 PM »
Yeah, there's ol' BB being honest again, lol.

Yeah, there's ol "RRKore" having nothing of substance to add again. 

RRKore

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2628
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #211 on: July 28, 2014, 03:30:58 PM »
Yeah, there's ol "RRKore" having nothing of substance to add again. 

Pointing out the the board's official conservative mod is trying to lie by saying he's unaware that Fox News pushes certain candidates has no substance, does it?

Please get real.  It's not possible that you're THAT out-of-touch with reality.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #212 on: July 28, 2014, 03:40:27 PM »
Pointing out the the board's official conservative mod is trying to lie by saying he's unaware that Fox News pushes certain candidates has no substance, does it?

Please get real.  It's not possible that you're THAT out-of-touch with reality.

I like to watch the news, knowing that station is support one candidate or ripping the other.  I watch MSN to see what repubs are doing wrong.  I watch FOX to see what dems are doing wrong.

I'd have to be the stupidest person on planet earth to watch FOX news and say "You know, I really don't think this channel supports either Romney or Obama... I think they're just giving honest facts, fair and balanced, and letting the viewer decide."

BB is either trolling at a really obvious level, or he truly believes, when he turns on FOX news, that he's seeing something that is fair and balanced.  It's probably why he believes only 30 or 35% of Americans are actually liberals.  He loves the "self-identify" thing.   A person hates guns, loves abortion, loves amnesty, hates personal freedom, but they did check this "Conservative" box, so let's just put him in the conservative category lol.

Whatever keeps him happy, I'm okay with it.  It's just politics, we're just here to have a laugh and keep up with what's going on in the world.  His line about Fox pushing neither dem nor repub, well, that's the funniest thing I've read all week here, so I thank him for that.

flipper5470

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1401
  • Getbig!
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #213 on: July 28, 2014, 03:42:29 PM »
Don't confuse "news" with "commentary"....

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #214 on: July 28, 2014, 03:45:33 PM »
Don't confuse "news" with "commentary"....

Bill Oreilly said it 7 or 8 years ago, we had a discussion here.  "Our job is not to deliver news that is 50/50 left and right.  No, our job is to make things fair and balanced by telling the conservative/right side of stories, since there are so many media outlets dedicated to telling the liberal/left side of things".

I respected the shit out of oreilly when he said that.  It must have been 2006, I remember the time period very clearly.  And he was 100% correct - Fox DOES balance things, and they do a terrific job at it.  And yes, MSN works to get obama elected.  And yes, FOX works to get repubs elected. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #215 on: July 28, 2014, 03:48:35 PM »
Pointing out the the board's official conservative mod is trying to lie by saying he's unaware that Fox News pushes certain candidates has no substance, does it?

Please get real.  It's not possible that you're THAT out-of-touch with reality.

I'm the "board's official conservative mod"?  Is that a quote from me?  I didn't write the info in the sticky thread, but you never let those pesky facts get in the way, being the dishonest liberal you are. 

Projecting again.  You are a one trick pony.  Do you have specific examples of "Fox News" supporting Republican candidates, or are you just trolling again? 

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #216 on: July 28, 2014, 03:53:25 PM »
Do you have specific examples of "Fox News" supporting Republican candidates, or are you just trolling again? 

Um, read this:
http://gawker.com/5814150/roger-ailes-secret-nixon-era-blueprint-for-fox-news

FOX was dreamed up by nixon and ailes for the specific purpose of promoting the republican party lol.

They did a trial run of the network in the 70s but didn't have the audience for it.  They returned to tv two decades later with the exact blueprint - it's in their own handwirting from memos lol.

Fox News is run by the man who used to run Nixon's media operations, and to this day, they deliver the exact agenda and behaviors they said they would, in writing, in the early 70s.   

FOX is an amazing achievement and really gives americans something they need badly - a contrast to the liberal stations.   You're just trolling, beach bum lol.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #217 on: July 28, 2014, 03:57:21 PM »
Um, read this:
http://gawker.com/5814150/roger-ailes-secret-nixon-era-blueprint-for-fox-news

FOX was dreamed up by nixon and ailes for the specific purpose of promoting the republican party lol.

They did a trial run of the network in the 70s but didn't have the audience for it.  They returned to tv two decades later with the exact blueprint - it's in their own handwirting from memos lol.

Fox News is run by the man who used to run Nixon's media operations, and to this day, they deliver the exact agenda and behaviors they said they would, in writing, in the early 70s.   

FOX is an amazing achievement and really gives americans something they need badly - a contrast to the liberal stations.   You're just trolling, beach bum lol.

I typically read any link someone provides for me, but you have abused that privilege.  I have, on numerous occasions, read a link you posted that did not support whatever point you were trying to make. 

And I bet, without even looking it, that (1) you didn't read the link you posted and (2) it does not provide evidence that "Fox News" supports Republican candidates running for office. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #218 on: July 28, 2014, 04:02:14 PM »
Don't confuse "news" with "commentary"....

Precisely.  Even the president and his minions do this.  Back when the president was trying to censor Fox News, his people cited the Fox News opinion shows when criticizing how Fox News reports the news. 

RRKore

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2628
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #219 on: July 28, 2014, 04:11:37 PM »
..

Projecting again.  You are a one trick pony.  Do you have specific examples of "Fox News" supporting Republican candidates, or are you just trolling again? 

Give me a couple of mainstream sources other than Fox (New York Times?, CNN?, ABC?) that you won't reject out of hand and I'll find links for you.


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #220 on: July 28, 2014, 04:15:07 PM »
Give me a couple of mainstream sources other than Fox (New York Times?, CNN?, ABC?) that you won't reject out of hand and I'll find links for you.



No, I am not asking for op ed pieces from some website.  I am asking for specific examples of Fox News supporting Republican candidates.  That means formal endorsements by the network, not positions taken by the network and not commentary by someone on an opinion show.  

RRKore

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2628
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #221 on: July 28, 2014, 04:16:20 PM »
I typically read any link someone provides for me, but you have abused that privilege.  I have, on numerous occasions, read a link you posted that did not support whatever point you were trying to make. 

...

What a shyster you are, BB. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #222 on: July 28, 2014, 04:20:24 PM »
What a shyster you are, BB. 

What a dishonest liberal you are, RRKore. 

RRKore

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2628
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #223 on: July 28, 2014, 04:23:29 PM »
No, I am not asking for op ed pieces from some website.  I am asking for specific examples of Fox News supporting Republican candidates.  That means formal endorsements by the network, not positions taken by the network and not commentary by someone on an opinion show.  

Bwahaha.  Getdafuckoutahere.

That'd be like going to a prison and trying to find an inmate who'll say he's guilty.  

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates
« Reply #224 on: July 28, 2014, 04:27:55 PM »
Bwahaha.  Getdafuckoutahere.

That'd be like going to a prison and trying to find an inmate who'll say he's guilty.  


I see.  Yet another example of a knee-jerk liberal so used to regurgitating talking points that he is unable to think for himself.  You got nothing. 

Or maybe I'm wrong?  It's possible the network actually endorsed candidates and I was off in the nether regions of the world someplace.  Sometimes that happens.