http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/24/politics/sarah-palin-2016/index.html

Sarah Palin is seriously considering presenting herself as a candidate

...

Spoiler:

Please do ffs ....and run with Rand Paul or Paul Ryan while you're at it.

It'll guarantee a non-Republican win

I don't like the Republicans or the Democrats tbh... but i'll probably vote for Hillary if she runs just because i'd want someone experienced to run our foreign policy. Last thing we need is another noob.

McLewis wrote:Please do ffs ....and run with Rand Paul or Paul Ryan while you're at it.

It'll guarantee a non-Republican win

Too bad the obstructionists hounded all non-crazy republicans out of the party. A Colin Powell might've won this election, hell, probably even a McCain, or Steele.

Jeb Bush is going to be the republican candidate... and it'll be Clinton v Bush all over again.

The only people more "seriously interested" than Sarah Palin in Sarah Palin running for president are....Democrats. Not only would this nutcase make an even bigger fool out of herself than she already appears (which, though that takes some doing, is still well well within her capabilities), she'd drag the rest of the Republican candidates down with her. Even one far right, questionably sane hopeful (though that's not to say she'll not have help from the usual cast of clownish kooks Huckabee, Santorum, et al) spouting nonsense would allow the media to paint the entire field of them as extremist and out of touch. And really, would they be all that far off?
-

"Yeah, I mean, of course, when you have a servant's heart, when you know that there is opportunity to do all you can to put yourself forward in the name of offering service."

-

Says the woman who resigned from office as Governor of Alaska as soon as she thought - evidently rightly - that she could cash in on her failed Vice Presidential run and subsequent apotheosis among the only too willingly grift-able far right fringe.
-

Sarah Palin vs Hilary pls

M99 wrote:Sarah Palin vs Hilary pls

-

Will never happen but if it did, we'd be looking at a '72, '80, '84 -esque result.

Still think the worst thing to happen to America in recent political history was John Edwards porking his staff members, he was the only person running to make poverty an issue of the severity it deserves to be.
With the inequality in the US (and much of the Western world, sadly) being what it is, it really should be a big issue, and moderate to large projects of redistribution of wealth should be on the table, if only because large scope redistribution being openly discussed would make the small scale politically feasible.

Republicans need more neo-cons to run, otherwise the centrists will divide themselves the vote while the neo-cons like Pahlin or Huckabee will get the nomination (and have no chance at the actual presidency).

Viva that's why a lot of people want Elizabeth Warren to run. They recognize she won't win, but they want to force Clinton to move to the left rather than her current Frank Underwood stance of I'll believe in anything in exchange for power.

Liz Warren would be great, last one to champion the cause, with Edwards disgraced and Barney Frank retired...

Edit: I'd vote for Rahm Emanuel, though, lol.

Rahm rustles so many right-wing jimmies ....he's right where he needs to be though. Illinois is still an awful state to live in however.

I think any GOP candidate who harbors serious intention of winning the presidency must make significant in-roads with the Hispanic vote. This the fastest growing demographic in the country and if they don't take them seriously and find a way to stick to their guns on immigration without alienating this group, it's going to continue to be very hard to win back the White House.

McLewis wrote:

I think any GOP candidate who harbors serious intention of winning the presidency must make significant in-roads with the Hispanic vote. This the fastest growing demographic in the country and if they don't take them seriously and find a way to stick to their guns on immigration without alienating this group, it's going to continue to be very hard to win back the White House.

As mark Steyn said, republicans will have to twist themselves into pretzels to win the vote. They've lost the cultural war or at least they are currently losing it, they need to change tactics.

I don't think there's any way the Democrats will win in 2016... but in less than a month in congress Republicans keep shooting themselves in the foot

They refuse to approve the defense budget while the media is only covering Charlie Hebdo, they keep complaining and attempting to put stones in the way of Obama's widely popular approach to Cuba (especially amongst hispanics), they have gone after the "dreamers" (who also have nationwide sympathy), they have attempted to pass legislation to ease Dodd-Frank, and are trying to pass a bill in congress limiting abortions to 20 weeks. I think it's no coincidence Obama's public approval has gone from 40% to 50% in a month, he's getting a huge assist from the republicans.

the best candidates are centrist BC...  a lot of of partisan voting that goes on in senatorial/gubernatorial elections goes out the window for the presidential one.

Clinton, Jeb Bush, Romney, etc. will play their party's agenda for the primaries and then, whoever comes out of those, will go center for the presidential race. Problem for the republican primaries is that there's competition and they'll need to go very conservative to win... that will hurt the winner because it will be used against him/her in the presidential race. For the democrats, i don't think Clinton even needs to break a sweat. She can start her presidential message at the primaries... huge advantage.

The republican party is too fragmented and too extreme.

They might still win on the general notion that Americans hate the government, so whoever is in power is automatically at a disadvantage, this notion carries enough weight to spill a few votes over, same way that patriotism usually favors the incumbent after his first term.

Why they hate government?

Why they hate government?

badamtar wrote:Why they hate government?

Liberty, and uh, self reliance.

Only anarchists hate the government. Conservatives and Libertarians here in the States simply advocate for the government to reduce it's current role. They believe it should be much smaller than what it is today and that there should be less of its influence and encroachment on the lives of the citizens.

Just my take on it based on the conversations I've had with folks.

That's why I said they hate "the government", not "government". They hate the one you got, not necessarily the concept of it altogether. They don't like the politicians, they think it's too bloated etc. etc. - most people are fine with the notion that government should be a thing.

Just thought I'd bump this. Let's hope the tea party terrorists don't even get a third of the american vote. Then again, pigs can't fly..

Even when the government shut down, people still find a way to hate obama and the left wingers. Democrats are no saints due to lobbying and bankrolling but id bet my money theres a lot more honest lefties then tea party terrorists out there

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/02/27/yes-scott-walker-really-did-link-terrorists-with-protesting-teachers-and-other-unionists/

Here's another gem from the tea party propoganda machine.

Mathematically I don't think the Grand Old Party, as it currently is, will ever be able to win the white house again. Not only has the nation shifted mentally, but Demographics have made such a win for them impossible in their current incarnation.

Let this be a sign to people of what horrid things can happen when you allow your party to be dictated, and overrun, by the most disturbing of fringe elements.