Democrats, if it came down to it, which Republican candidate would you be okay with?

Who would you pick and why?

 

I'm sorry, but from the list of available candidates, there isn't one that I would be O.K. with. Of course, if a GOP candidate does win, I will take it with a grain of salt. I don't have sour grapes.

 

I'm not a Democrat, but a Reform Party member. Third party member or perhaps you would put me into the independent ranks. I made up my mind a long time ago, probably in December there were 5 candidates I would never vote for: Trump, Cruz, Bush, Hillary, Sanders and am open to all others. From the beginning my dream match up for November was a Jim Webb vs. John Kasich. That will not happen.

Christie is close to becoming number 6 on my list of no vote for. That leaves Rubio, Kasich, Carson and Fiorina that if they were the GOP nominee, I would consider voting for. Kasich out of that 4 is the only one for sure, followed by Rubio, Fiorina and Carson as possibilities in the order of the highest possibility to the lowest.

Perhaps hearing from a third party member is not what you had in mind, but third party members and independents make up between 40-45% of the electorate today, it is the this group of voters that both major parties must convince to vote for their candidate in order for them to win.

 

I am a Decade+ Registered Democrat, and I am appalled and repelled by what Obama&Crew have morphed the party into!

This is NOT the Party of JFK, or the Party which supports MLKing's Dream.

The 2016 Democratic Party is has devolved into something anti-American, Anti-White, Anti-Capitalism, and Anti-Freedom.

I don't want the establishment Republicans, like Jeb or Rubio, either, they are just play acting, place holder, Far-Left-rubber-stamping Shills, not a true opposition!

For now, unless things change considerably, Cruz will get my vote. I see no one else worthy.

-

 

Cant you find a least one corrupt enough to fit your model ? Best you stay where you are , you may find some integrity !

 

Gun to my head?

John Kasich


I'd say Trump because I know Trump would lose the election easily and take down Conservatism on his way down.....but I'm treating the question with the seriousness of "Which Republican would I atleast 'tolerate' becoming President?"

 

Chris Christie is the only one of the bunch that is closer to being a moderate. I don't know that much about Kasich as I never considered him a serious candidate.

The rest of the right candidates are just cuckoo birds, most of whom live in a make-believe world where votes are gained based on how much you blame the jabberwockys for everything or how much "moral majority" ass they're willing to kiss and pander to.

Most of the candidates on the left aren't much better. Sanders is really the only lefty candidate I'll consider and not because he's a socialist, but simply because I know who he is, period. I know exactly what I'm buying with a vote for Sanders. It's not that much different than the reasons some had for supporting Ron Paul. He too was a consistent candidate that you knew what you'd be getting with, except his problem was that he thought we are still living in 1835 and that things that worked then would work now. Consistency and integrity are important but so is knowing what century you're living in.

 

The funny thing is that i no longer see this as republican vs democrat anymore, these labels are outdated. I view democrats as moderate and modern and republicans as extreme and outdated.

I would definitely vote republican if the candidate was moderate and pragmatic. I would definitely consider voting for Kasich, he is experienced, moderate and reasonable. He also seems to be pragmatic and understands that compromise is crucial to success. He's likable and i have yet to hear him support the more extreme views that some conservatives believe in.

 

That is such a myth. Just because a person puts an I behind their name does not mean their voting habits change. People do not change their views on abortion or gun control because they are now an independent. 95% of all independents will vote the same way they always have. Out of the remaining 5%, 4% are single issue voters and only the remaining 1% are willing to frequently vote for either side.

 

He's already dropped out. Rand Paul was the only one who was against the war machine and empire. Everyone else on the right is a chicken hawk who would continue to sink us deeper into debt with the military industrial complex.

 

Kasich, the others are scum bags

 

A lot of people say that. If so we know the GOP candidate will receive 61 million votes plus or minus 1 percent and the democratic nomine 65 million plus or minus 1%. The election is decided give or take a million votes. The numbers are from 2012.

Gallup breaks it down to 29% Democratic base vote vs. 26% Republican base vote. History has shown that 90% plus of this base vote will as you state vote for their candidate. Gallup has independents at 44%. Of which 16% lean Democratic and 18% lean Republican as of 10 Jan 2016. History has shown that these independent leaners tend to vote for the candidate of the party they lean towards 75-80% of the time. This leaves 12% in the column of pure/true independents with no leans. A bit higher than your 1%.

Of this group of pure/true independents, here is how they voted from 2006 through 2014.

In 2006 the Congressional Democrats won 57% of the independent vote to 39% for Republicans, (Pew Research) In 2008, Obama won the independent vote over McCain 52-46. (Roper). In 2010 Independents voted Republican 55-40. (ABC News Exit polls) In 2012, Romney barely won the independent vote 51-48 (Pew) and in 2014 it was 54-44 voting Republican, (Pew)


2006 independents voted Democratic by a margin of 57-39 over Republicans. Democrats received 52% total congressional vote vs. 44% for the Republicans

2008 independents voted for Obama by a 52-46 margin over McCain. Obama won 53-46 over McCain.

2010 independents voted 55-40 Republican over Democrat and the total congressional vote was Republican 52% Democratic 45%

2012 independents voted for Romney by a 51-48 margin, close to a wash. Obama won the election 51-47.

2014 independents voted 54-44 for Republican congressional candidates and the total vote was 51-46 Republican.

Over the last eight years Republicans have received a low 39% of the independent vote to a high of 55%. Democrats on the other hand have received a low of 40% and a high of 57% from independents. That is quite a variance, much more than 1%.

Besides those who identify themselves as independents has risen from 30% 15 years ago to 44% today as the two parties have moved further to the right and further to the left leaving those in the middle and the more moderate voters without a party to call home.

 

Kasich has won over Democrats a few times now. Moreso than any of the others. But I doubt he could bring the party together.

 

It would have to be a big gun, but I guess Kasich too. I hear he's still running

The others are truly appalling. Dominionists and hatemongers to a man, it would be truly distressing to me to see even ONE of them as even a peripheral candidate for a major party, to see ALL of them so prominent while being such enemies of everything America is supposed to stand for is about the most dangerous political situation I have encountered in a long and eventful life.

 

I just to congratulate you guys. This has stayed civil and actually has real debate merits.

Kudos, guys!!

 

Trump. Because he has no desire to bow at the feet of the evangelicals (and I believe most of his controversial statements are done for attention, not because he would actually make any effort to do those things)

 

At this juncture I think Kasich would have the best chance of succeeding in the electoral college. The Republicans will be starting from 191 pretty solid electoral votes vs. 247 for Hillary and the Democrats. Kasich would add the swing state of Ohio giving the GOP 209. I do not think Trump could beat Hillary in Ohio, at least not today.

Then if Kasich added either Rubio or Bush as his VP nominee, probably Rubio who is a senator who is not seeking re-election, that could mean taking Florida off the swing state list along with Ohio. That brings the electoral vote count to 238 and pretty much even with the Democrats 247. that leaves North Carolina 15, Virginia 13, Colorado 9, Iowa 6, Nevada 6 and New Hampshire 4 to get to 270.

I that combo would carry North Carolina, probably Nevada which is 21 more to 259 leaving 11 more to get. Virginia with 13 would do it or a combination of Colorado along with Iowa or New Hampshire.

But again I am just looking at the numbers, not ideology.

 

Speaking of NH.


http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=443476&p=1065830607#post1065830607

 

Gallup is flawed in their model. They are breakin it down by party affiliation first and then doing the math which skews the results. If we look at registered voters, not actual party labels, the breakdown is 47% going for the dems and 47% for republicans regardless if they are independent or not. That remaining 6% votes all over the place for man different reasons so they are rarely a factor in anything.

Since no party even comes close to getting their entire base to turnout, only about 50% of registered voters actually vote, it leaves a lot of room for either party to overcome any specific demographic.

 

Yeah, but keep in mind New Hampshire is lily white. Clinton has nothing to worry about a loss in NH especially since it is most likely she walks away with more delegate regardless of the vote due to the super delegates pledged to her.

But here, look down at Arkansas and Michigan. First state polls since Iowa.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/

 

I'm a part of the 1% then, cool.(Actually, I'm forced to be a part of that 1%. If another party could stand up and win, then I'd be a party member of that party for sure lol.) As it is, the best chance for a real third party is the co-opting of the main two.