Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Who's Next In Line For the 2016 GOP Nomination?

They do this every time. No matter who runs, the person has already been decided. They are lined up in advance. John McCain was the heir to the throne in 2008. Romney was the next in line in 2012. Who's the person who is "owned" the spot for 2016? No doubt the backroom deal has already been made.

by Anonymousreply 3009/25/2013

Some cunt.

by Anonymousreply 109/24/2013

I suppose, by conventional wisdom (for what that's worth), it'd be Jeb, assuming the rest all burn out early. I don't see any of the names bruited about going the distance.

by Anonymousreply 209/24/2013

It seems to be the person who nearly won the nom the previous time. Who was it?

by Anonymousreply 309/24/2013

Chris Christie, probably.

by Anonymousreply 409/24/2013

Ron Paul, but he's going to give it to his son.

by Anonymousreply 509/24/2013

They already told you. Jeb Bush.

by Anonymousreply 609/24/2013

Rick Santorum was the runner-up in 2012, but he is drastically behind the who's who of fellow right-wing crazies like Cruz, Paul, Bush, Christie.

I don't think that formula will hold this year because even the GOP base understands how nuts Santorum is and how toxic he would be in a general election.

Besides, Cruz and Paul are the newest flavor of the month for the GOP and have pulled the crazy fringe base from Santorum's end.

by Anonymousreply 709/24/2013

As R7 says, over the past several decades it has usually been the runner-up from the previous time. That would be Rick Santorum. But although he is running again, I think the GOP will break with history this time. Even they are not crazy enough to make him their nominee.

by Anonymousreply 809/24/2013

There was no one next in line in 2000, when W got it. There's no one next in line this time around either. Santorum thinks he's next in line this time, but he's not. It's just one big clown car.

by Anonymousreply 909/24/2013

R9, the reason there wasn't anyone directly in line is because the Republicans had been defeated in the previous 2 elections by Clinton.

However, the son of the most recent Republican President ended up stepping forward to carry the Bush banner again, so in a sense he did pick up from his father.

by Anonymousreply 1009/24/2013

R10 - Yes, he picked it up from his father.

by Anonymousreply 1109/24/2013

The point I was making is that George W. Bush may not have been a prior runner-up, but it was like Bush Sr. was running again, except it was Junior.

by Anonymousreply 1209/24/2013

They seem to go with what they is the "moderate" Republican, which is odd since the party is so batshit. Believe it or not, compared to the party as a whole, McCain and Romney are moderate Republicans - Republicans, but not Tea Party politicians. They did, however, have to cater to them, which will always be the problem. Remember when the Democratic party's problem was that it was a big tent party: all special interest groups? Now, that's true of the GOP. Everyone wants to take over the brand, and thanks to the internet, they're able to band together. The Tea Party is never going to stop trying to fuck everything up for the GOP. The GOP catered to them, they created a monster, now they can't get rid of them. For that party to become mainstream for the 21st century, they're going to have to splinter.

by Anonymousreply 1309/24/2013

Being a Bush trumps all other rules.

by Anonymousreply 1409/24/2013

I think its safe to say that the party has changes so much that old rules no longer apply.

by Anonymousreply 1509/24/2013

The nominee is going to be either Christie, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, or Scott Walker. No one else stands a chance. Cruz, Rubio and Jeb Bush have all seen their presidential chances destroyed in the past month.

The Syria crisis, and the public's total rejection of the Bush foreign policy doctrine, effectively ended Jeb's candidacy.

I think it's going to come down to Paul Ryan vs. Scott Walker. They're the only two candidates who appeal to all factions of the Republican party. I give Walker the edge because he's better-looking and more charismatic than Ryan. And Walker is the favorite son of the Koch brothers. I wonder if Walker could win Wisconsin over Hillary?

by Anonymousreply 1609/24/2013

Howard Dean won't say no to 2016 bid:

"You never say never in this business because you don't know," Dean told The Associated Press on Monday when asked about his presidential ambitions shortly before delivering a speech in Manchester. "I still have plenty of fire. What is it going to be directed at is the question."

by Anonymousreply 1709/24/2013

A right-wing asshole.

by Anonymousreply 1809/24/2013

Christie will run. It will be between him and Rand Paul.

Jeb Bush - with good genes and more sense than anyone else (the soulless asshole) - won't be Hillary Clinton's current age for six years. He, as everyone else, expects a Clinton landslide in 2016 regardless of economic issues, foreign affairs, or anything else. 2016 is a placeholder for any Republican with political savvy (not that many of the current maniacs have it). We will wait to see if Clinton burns in her first term, and try a reverse of "Clinton dislodging Bush," accomplished in 1992.

Christie has his own smarts, but in essence he is a bigmouth fat boy who is afraid to face his personal issues - his low self-esteem-and-ego combo will lead him to mistakes, such as thinking he could offer a reasonable alternative to Clinton, versus the Republican nuts.

But the Republican nuts now have the upper hand. They will point to Romney's failure as proof that it is time for the Revolution, and they're apt to place someone who plays to the only animated base the Republicans have left - the anti-government, near-secessionist fringe.

Christie would be better off losing to the nut alternative (establishing his national credentials) and face Bush in 2020. After the near-inevitable right-wing-nutter debacle coming in 2016, the party either will split or the almost-moderates will emerge well in control.

Actually, as far as Clinton's and the Democrat's end of things, it would be sadly advantageous for the crazies to take the Senate in 2014. It would make for two years of absolute hell for all of us, and eliminate the chance for Obama to secure the legacy he deserves. But the nation would be treated to the experience of permitting the worst political fuckheads in 155 years to take Congress, and they would be ejected two years later and allow Clinton to at least start with a solid Democrat-majority Congress.

by Anonymousreply 1909/24/2013

[quote]The Syria crisis, and the public's total rejection of the Bush foreign policy doctrine, effectively ended Jeb's candidacy.

Americans don't connect Syria to Right wing foreign policy. They connect it to Obama. They don't believe he's a Right wing asshole, so if he's out there begging for it, it's an Obama/liberal waged war.

by Anonymousreply 2009/24/2013

Christie is much too liberal to win the nomination.

by Anonymousreply 2109/24/2013

There's no obvious front runner. Christie is the closest to one. He's not really a moderate, but he looks like one in comparison with the others.

by Anonymousreply 2209/24/2013

I think there will be a battle (the final battle) between the conservatives and the moderate/establishment republicans. Conservatives will push, and perhaps successfully, that they went the route of a moderate with Romney and lost. Before that, McLame and lost. Now is the time for a full-on racist, hatemonger, christianist, bagger type.

by Anonymousreply 2309/24/2013

OP, you are really simple.

by Anonymousreply 2409/24/2013

[quote]Christie has his own smarts, but in essence he is a bigmouth fat boy who is afraid to face his personal issues - his low self-esteem-and-ego combo will lead him to mistakes

And I think that what people find currently appealing about him in New Jersey (frank, outspoken, honest, etc.) could hurt him on the national level. It's one thing to tell reporters and members of the public to go to hell in your own state, but it's another thing to do it on the national stage.

Christie comes across as very refreshing compared to many plastic politicians, but he would have to control his temper if he wanted to run for President and be a world leader.

by Anonymousreply 2509/24/2013

I can't see Christie getting the nomination without being forced to take state ON THE RECORD explicitly that he wants to repeal Roe v. Wade, etc. Enough state delegations will reject him based on the Obama hug picture. I don't "get" Rand Paul at all - what's so attractive about him? Paul Ryan got destroyed by Joe Biden IMHO, and did little he could point to as "helping" Romney (lose by less). If Scott Walker is re-elected next year, he'd stand a better chance.

by Anonymousreply 2609/24/2013

Speaking of Paul Ryan, it's interesting how fast he has disappeared from the scene and that very few people are talking about him as a frontrunner for the nomination.

by Anonymousreply 2709/24/2013

I'm sick of this Chris Christie is a moderate bullshit. He isn't.

by Anonymousreply 2809/25/2013

They will nominate a Broyhill dining room set.

by Anonymousreply 2909/25/2013

They want someone young and attractive to run. See if they start trying to get a movie made of Adam Kinzinger's heroic rescue of a woman attacked by a knife wielding domestic partner in Milwaukee.

by Anonymousreply 3009/25/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!