2016 Republican Nomination Poll - July 2014
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:34:44 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  2016 Republican Nomination Poll - July 2014
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: Who will win the republican nomination in 2016?
#1
Chris Christie
 
#2
Scott Walker
 
#3
Jeb Bush
 
#4
Ted Cruz
 
#5
Mike Huckabee
 
#6
Paul Ryan
 
#7
Rand Paul
 
#8
Marco Rubio
 
#9
Rick Perry
 
#10
Rick Santorum
 
#11
Jon Huntsman
 
#12
John Kasich
 
#13
Peter King
 
#14
Ben Carson
 
#15
Mitt Romney
 
#16
Scott Brown
 
#17
Donald Trump
 
#18
Bobby Jindal
 
#19
Condi Rice
 
#20
Steve King
 
#21
Sarah Palin
 
#22
Mike Pence
 
#23
Rob Portman
 
#24
Brian Sandoval
 
#25
Rick Synder
 
#26
Allen West
 
#27
John Thune
 
#28
Kelly Ayotte
 
#29
Mary Fallin
 
#30
Nikki Haley
 
#31
Sam Brownback
 
#32
Susana Martinez
 
#33
Tim Pawlenty
 
#34
John Bolton
 
#35
Joe Scarborough
 
#36
Bob Corker
 
#37
Jeff Sessions
 
#38
Other
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 80

Author Topic: 2016 Republican Nomination Poll - July 2014  (Read 3584 times)
Bull Moose Base
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 04, 2014, 06:27:44 PM »

Still Pence, but no one has more than a 10-15% chance at this point. never seen something so wide open.

And I still think Perry is totally underrated. I think he will bounce back.

Bush, Walker, Cruz, Paul, Christie, Kasich, Huckabee, Rubio, Pence, Jindal, Perry, Santorum, Ryan. There's an argument those 13 people are all between 5-10% and the field is another 10%.
Logged
Alreet
Rookie
**
Posts: 51


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: July 04, 2014, 07:01:49 PM »

Rubio. Not even sure why, but I have a creeping feeling. Probably helps that he's no longer a complete lightweight.
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,624
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: July 04, 2014, 07:17:31 PM »

I've got no idea anymore.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: July 04, 2014, 10:01:35 PM »

Rubio. Not even sure why, but I have a creeping feeling. Probably helps that he's no longer a complete lightweight.

But he's still a complete lightweight. Nothing he says has any substance.
Logged
Alreet
Rookie
**
Posts: 51


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: July 05, 2014, 03:46:35 AM »

Rubio. Not even sure why, but I have a creeping feeling. Probably helps that he's no longer a complete lightweight.

But he's still a complete lightweight. Nothing he says has any substance.

He's got the largest set of policy proposals of any 2016 candidate perhaps short of Paul Ryan and had the only CPAC speech that was more than "muh conservative principles". He's done a lot in the past year to expand his influence and possible 2016 operation. You really can't call him a lightweight anymore.
Logged
Senator Cris
Cris
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,613
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: July 28, 2014, 08:19:58 AM »

Latest days! Smiley
Logged
dmmidmi
dmwestmi
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,095
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: July 28, 2014, 09:00:11 AM »

Rubio.

Because youth + diversity + handsome factor > professional accomplishments + experience
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: July 28, 2014, 04:02:43 PM »

Rubio.

Because youth + diversity + handsome factor > professional accomplishments + experience
Case in point: Obama vs. Hillary '08
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: July 28, 2014, 04:04:42 PM »

Rubio.

Because youth + diversity + handsome factor > professional accomplishments + experience
Case in point: Obama vs. Hillary '08

What accomplishments did Hillary have? Though I see your point - Biden was one of the few on that stage that actually had professional accomplishments, and look how well he fared.
Logged
"'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"
DarthNader
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 483


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: July 28, 2014, 04:57:39 PM »

Rubio.

Because youth + diversity + handsome factor > professional accomplishments + experience
Case in point: Obama vs. Hillary '08

What accomplishments did Hillary have? Though I see your point - Biden was one of the few on that stage that actually had professional accomplishments, and look how well he fared.

What were Biden's accomplishments? I guess you could argue he scuttled the Bork nomination, but that was more Kennedy's doing.

As for Rubio, there's some kind of magic line between handsome, charismatic JFK-ness and callow pretty boy. Clinton and Obama were on the right side, and Rubio is more on the Dan Quayle/John Edwards side. Not that he's dumb (Edwards wasn't either before ... you know) but he conveys zero gravitas.
Logged
"'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"
DarthNader
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 483


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: July 28, 2014, 07:55:33 PM »

Both Hilary and Biden have practically zero accomplishments.

Aren't Paulites against political accomplishments just as a matter of principle?
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,201
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: July 29, 2014, 02:41:38 PM »

Rubio.

Because youth + diversity + handsome factor > professional accomplishments + experience
Case in point: Obama vs. Hillary '08

What accomplishments did Hillary have? Though I see your point - Biden was one of the few on that stage that actually had professional accomplishments, and look how well he fared.

Marrying Bill Clinton? Tongue

I mean that's basically the only reason she is considered a serious candidate if she runs.  Otherwise she'd be as credible a presidential candidate as Evan Bayh was in 2008.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: July 29, 2014, 02:50:20 PM »

Rubio.

Because youth + diversity + handsome factor > professional accomplishments + experience
Case in point: Obama vs. Hillary '08

What accomplishments did Hillary have? Though I see your point - Biden was one of the few on that stage that actually had professional accomplishments, and look how well he fared.

Marrying Bill Clinton? Tongue

I mean that's basically the only reason she is considered a serious candidate if she runs.  Otherwise she'd be as credible a presidential candidate as Evan Bayh was in 2008.

Because Evan Bayh was secretary of state for four years, and also ran in a long brutal presidential primary campaign where he won the popular vote.
Logged
Maistre
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 407
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: July 29, 2014, 05:05:32 PM »

Hillary won the popular vote? Where did you get that?
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: July 29, 2014, 05:20:05 PM »

Hillary won the popular vote? Where did you get that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008
Logged
Maistre
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 407
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: July 29, 2014, 05:25:12 PM »


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -4.52

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: July 29, 2014, 05:28:47 PM »

You can't just exclude certain states. Granted, Obama didn't campaign there, but the fact remains that more people voted for Hillary than Obama.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: July 29, 2014, 05:28:57 PM »


Either way it's splitting hairs. The popular vote was decided by <1% and the party was nearly split in half. Hardly an also ran like Evan Bayh, who didn't even make it to Iowa. But I do love the revisionist history myth that "Obama DEMOLISHED Hillary in 2008, and Sanders/Schweitzer can too!!!!!!"
Logged
Maistre
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 407
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: July 29, 2014, 05:49:43 PM »


...

Obama's name wasn't on Michigan's ballot. If your argument is that Hillary got more votes than Obama, shouldn't you only count contests where both Hillary and Obama's names are on the ballot?
Logged
Senator Cris
Cris
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,613
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: July 31, 2014, 06:10:16 AM »

Rubio.
Logged
Liberalrocks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,926
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: July 31, 2014, 11:31:35 AM »


...

Obama's name wasn't on Michigan's ballot. If your argument is that Hillary got more votes than Obama, shouldn't you only count contests where both Hillary and Obama's names are on the ballot?

Even if you deduct the 328,309 votes Hillary received in the Michigan beauty contest where Obama wasn't on the ballot from her over 18 million received in the total contests she would still lead Obama in the total popular vote by around 100,000. HILLARY WON THE POPULAR VOTE IN 08. FACT.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,718
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: July 31, 2014, 06:24:37 PM »

It's funny though that you never hear that from the Obamatards. The same people just go on and on about Al Gore in 2000 instead. Plus, I bet if the superdelegates had voted their conscience, they'd have picked Hillary too.
Logged
Bull Moose Base
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: July 31, 2014, 06:49:53 PM »
« Edited: July 31, 2014, 06:58:15 PM by Bull Moose Base »


...

Obama's name wasn't on Michigan's ballot. If your argument is that Hillary got more votes than Obama, shouldn't you only count contests where both Hillary and Obama's names are on the ballot?

Even if you deduct the 328,309 votes Hillary received in the Michigan beauty contest where Obama wasn't on the ballot from her over 18 million received in the total contests she would still lead Obama in the total popular vote by around 100,000. HILLARY WON THE POPULAR VOTE IN 08. FACT.

CHECK YOUR MATH.

It's funny though that you never hear that from the Obamatards. The same people just go on and on about Al Gore in 2000 instead. Plus, I bet if the superdelegates had voted their conscience, they'd have picked Hillary too.

Never hear what from Obamatards? We go on and on because the evidence suggests more Floridians voted for Gore than for Bush and the ballots were miscounted. Not to mention the butterfly ballot costing Gore thousands of votes. What does that have to do with Obama?
Logged
"'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"
DarthNader
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 483


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: July 31, 2014, 07:16:29 PM »

Both Hilary and Biden have practically zero accomplishments.

Aren't Paulites against political accomplishments just as a matter of principle?
Never heard that before tbh.

I forgot that libertarians were all about racking up LBJ-style legislative triumphs.
Logged
Liberalrocks
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,926
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: July 31, 2014, 10:47:27 PM »
« Edited: July 31, 2014, 11:20:33 PM by Liberalrocks »


...

Obama's name wasn't on Michigan's ballot. If your argument is that Hillary got more votes than Obama, shouldn't you only count contests where both Hillary and Obama's names are on the ballot?

Even if you deduct the 328,309 votes Hillary received in the Michigan beauty contest where Obama wasn't on the ballot from her over 18 million received in the total contests she would still lead Obama in the total popular vote by around 100,000. HILLARY WON THE POPULAR VOTE IN 08. FACT.

CHECK YOUR MATH.

It's funny though that you never hear that from the Obamatards. The same people just go on and on about Al Gore in 2000 instead. Plus, I bet if the superdelegates had voted their conscience, they'd have picked Hillary too.

Never hear what from Obamatards? We go on and on because the evidence suggests more Floridians voted for Gore than for Bush and the ballots were miscounted. Not to mention the butterfly ballot costing Gore thousands of votes. What does that have to do with Obama?


Oh I have the contests are still listed on this site. If you are somehow claiming he is leading slightly via caucus contests lets keep in mind that not every caucus was 100 % open and transparent. I am not saying her lead was huge but she did lead in popular votes cast for president even with Michigan removed from primary count. While not counting Michigan, I am counting Florida in my count, Although only a beauty contest both names were listed on that ballot.


I believe the point Haggard was trying to make about Gore and Florida was that the democrats protested Bush's win as not being legitimate because no recount could proceed and it was believed Gore may have had more votes. However when data suggested Hillary claimed more votes in the overall 2008 primary contest (no matter how you spin it) many democrats were still not willing to support her over Obama because they wished to crown Obama at the time.  There was a lot of pressure on delegates to "fall in line" behind Obama at the end rather then draw out the contest further although as Haggard said many likely would have preferred backing Clinton.

I do believe what happened to Gore was unfair and that a statewide recount should have proceeded. I also believe the 2008 democratic primary was not conducted fairly (ie the way caucuses were conducted and at time disenfranchised certain groups namely: elderly or working class non politico types) yet many did not want to investigate that further as we were given a nominee. Anyhow I suppose its water under the bridge now, Right?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 15 queries.