Jon Huntsman 2016

Pat Buchanan 2016. Accept no substitutes.

Fat chance. It's Hillary, rand or warren

Teenager wrote:

Fat chance. It's Hillary, rand or warren

If you think the America will vote for an idiotic, self-righteous, hypocritical, stuck-up, lying receiver of husband abuse then you are absolutely correct because the American public is that stupid.

Why are her husbands actions (presiding over a surplus) relevant? Also Hillary will win because the alternatives (besides maybe rand but wacko bird cruz will likely win the GOP ticket) suck

Jon Huntsman 2016

---------------------

So what ticket is he running on? Certainly not the GOP.

It will be Hillary/Sen.Warner(Va) v. Paul/Sen.Portman(Oh)

With Hilary we get Bill back- he fixed the country once from a Republican debacle and he (they) will fix it again.

The best thing for the Republican party is for Hillary (and Bill) to fix the economy (again).

Then, they (Republicans) can ignore the Tea Party loonies and get back to helping the country and not catering to the Koch Brothers and their loony friends.

I'm a dem.

In 2012, Huntsman is the only guy I would have considered voting for on the Republican Ticket. He is the only one who refused to make silly, hamstringing pledges.

In my book, the refusal to walk in lock step with members of one's own party is a pretty good starting place for competent governance.

I think Huntsman garnered 1% of the vote in the 2012 primaries....so much for electing those who are capable of competent governance

CoachB wrote:

I'm a dem.

In 2012, Huntsman is the only guy I would have considered voting for on the Republican Ticket. He is the only one who refused to make silly, hamstringing pledges.

In my book, the refusal to walk in lock step with members of one's own party is a pretty good starting place for competent governance.

I think Huntsman garnered 1% of the vote in the 2012 primaries....so much for electing those who are capable of competent governance

x2

IMO Huntsman was the only one in the republican primary I would have voted for and the only one who stood a chance of winning the overall.

It seemed everyone else was fighting over who could be the most conservative in order to win the primary, but in doing so alienated all of the independents.

Huntsman was the only one who was unabashedly pro-marriage equality, & pro-science.

FWIW, I voted for Gary Johnson and think he's far superior to Huntsman, but Huntsman would stand a better chance of winning the general election.

CoachB wrote:

I'm a dem.

In 2012, Huntsman is the only guy I would have considered voting for on the Republican Ticket. He is the only one who refused to make silly, hamstringing pledges.

In my book, the refusal to walk in lock step with members of one's own party is a pretty good starting place for competent governance.

I think Huntsman garnered 1% of the vote in the 2012 primaries....so much for electing those who are capable of competent governance

+1

Huntsman is the only Republican candidate who seems to have a grasp on science. He "believes" in global warming and evolution (Science is nothing but quantifying observations, it makes me sick that I must use the term believe). He understands there is a world of people outside of the United States and has shown the ability to act globally to solve local problems and vice versa.

Ummm, Huntsman isn't a republican. He's an MSBC republican, which means he's really a democrat. That's why all you libtards like him. He's a democrat.

not a democrate wrote:

Ummm, Huntsman isn't a republican. He's an MSBC republican, which means he's really a democrat. That's why all you libtards like him. He's a democrat.

Just because he realizes that denying basic science isn't something to be proud of and will only hurt the US in the future doesn't mean he's a democrat.

Huntsman is never going to get the Republican nomination. Never.

Weary wrote:

Huntsman is never going to get the Republican nomination. Never.

And a republican won't win the presidential election for the next 3 cycles for the same reason.

not a democrate wrote:

Ummm, Huntsman isn't a republican. He's an MSBC republican, which means he's really a democrat. That's why all you libtards like him. He's a democrat.

if one strays from the republican dogma just a bit they get labeled as a rino. The GOP has no room for deviation

Teenager wrote:

not a democrate wrote:

Ummm, Huntsman isn't a republican. He's an MSBC republican, which means he's really a democrat. That's why all you libtards like him. He's a democrat.

if one strays from the republican dogma just a bit they get labeled as a rino. The GOP has no room for deviation

mostly true, but avoid exaggeration, wouldja?

R

epublican convention delegates approved what some called the party's "most conservative platform in modern history" on Tuesday, demanding everything from the repeal of ObamaCare to low taxes to constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage and all abortions. Presidential candidates rarely embrace everything in their party platform — Romney, for example, supports exceptions allowing abortions in rape cases, incest, or to save the mother — so the documents rarely get much attention. This year, however, the abortion plank and several other hardline stances on social issues are generating unusual interest, and more Americans are interested in the platform (52 percent) than in Romney's speech (44 percent), according to a Pew Research Center poll. Will that make the platform a liability for Romney's campaign?

word. wrote:

The only reasonable conservative candidate for the Republican party. Hillary and every other liberal candidate suck. Huntsman 2016!

He is interesting and reasonable which is why the current crop of GOP voters will not vote for him. I actually feel sorry for the GOP...finally start to shake the crazy religious right tag and then the Tea Party folks jump in to crazy it up all over again.

I'm not a big fan of Hillary, but if she runs, she wins. And, unless someone shows their face who is a better choice, I'll likely vote for her...reluctantly, but I'll do it.

The wild immigration and voter-fraud rhetoric is guaranteed to get crazy again in 2016 starting in the Spring primaries and leading into the fall elections. That kind of foolishness will ice Florida and a slew of other toss-up states for the D's once again. If the GOP can plot an electoral win without Florida then perhaps God really is on their side. Probably not though.

Flagpole wrote:

word. wrote:

The only reasonable conservative candidate for the Republican party. Hillary and every other liberal candidate suck. Huntsman 2016!

He is interesting and reasonable which is why the current crop of GOP voters will not vote for him. I actually feel sorry for the GOP...finally start to shake the crazy religious right tag and then the Tea Party folks jump in to crazy it up all over again.

I'm not a big fan of Hillary, but if she runs, she wins. And, unless someone shows their face who is a better choice, I'll likely vote for her...reluctantly, but I'll do it.

Of course, McCain and Romney managed to get the GOP nomination despite having a significant streak of moderation in their political history, so perhaps someone with Huntsman's views could do likewise. (I realize that McCain and Romney were also willing to evade inquiries about their moderate views and to take a sharp right turn at some point during the process, though in McCain's case, the rightward turn came largely after he had locked up the nomination, and in Romney's case, he was still the most moderate of all of the significant non-Huntsman GOP contenders (e.g., Gingrich, Perry, Bachman, Santorum, Ron Paul, the Godfather's Pizza guy) during the primary process.)

Huntsman's bigger problem may be that he does not come across to most people as "presidential." Unlike Romney, he doesn't look like the president from central casting. Also, although Romney in earlier years had some of Huntsman's tendency to be maddeningly equivocal on stage and under the bright lights, Romney eventually developed an easy fraudulence that served him well enough in the nomination process, and served him even better during the general campaign. I'm not sure that Huntsman has enough of Romney's plasticity of character to pull that off (although a good acting coach could help). Finally, Huntsman may simply have a tougher field to run against; Romney was competing for the nomination against a collection of nuts (e.g., Bachman), dopes (e.g., Perry), shady characters (e.g., Gingrich), and combinations of all the above (e.g., Cain).

I wouldn't count out Huntsman entirely, since a good run in two or three early states (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina) can give a candidate enough momentum to capture the nomination. (McCain never would have made it to the finish line without a couple of good early results.) But it does seem likely that someone else (Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, maybe?) will capture the non-crazy portion of the GOP vote, squeezing Huntsman out of the picture.

By the way, I'm also not a fan of Hillary, and would be extremely reluctant to vote for her. Someone like Brian Schweitzer would be an interesting alternative, but Hillary does have a big and persistent fan base among Democrats.

I'm not optimistic about the choices that will still be viable in November 2016.

Avocado's Number wrote:

Romney eventually developed an easy fraudulence

did you think of that? love it.