Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   How weak is the GOP's presidential nominee bench for 2016? Let's put it this way: In the latest survey Jeb Bush and Rand Paul are tied for first at 13% each, and part-time Count Chocula impersonator Paul Ryan is right behind at 12%   (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 125
    More: Sad, humans, ORC International, Republican nomination, Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, vice presidential candidate, GOP presidential, presidents  
•       •       •

534 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 May 2014 at 3:12 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



125 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-06 12:50:42 PM  
If you're choices are between cut-rate Ronald Reagan, a nutjob and an unabashed liar with a terrible grasp of economics you might as well just vote for Hillary now.
 
2014-05-06 12:53:00 PM  

Voiceofreason01: If you're choices are between cut-rate Ronald Reagan, a nutjob and an unabashed liar with a terrible grasp of economics you might as well just vote for Hillary now.


But ... but I don't WANNA vote for Hillary!
 
2014-05-06 12:55:21 PM  

HawgWild: Voiceofreason01: If you're choices are between cut-rate Ronald Reagan, a nutjob and an unabashed liar with a terrible grasp of economics you might as well just vote for Hillary now.

But ... but I don't WANNA vote for Hillary!


Bill was pretty far right for a Democrat and VERY pro-business and I don't see Hillary being any different. In a very real sense Hillary is the only moderate Republican running.
 
2014-05-06 12:58:30 PM  

Voiceofreason01: HawgWild: Voiceofreason01: If you're choices are between cut-rate Ronald Reagan, a nutjob and an unabashed liar with a terrible grasp of economics you might as well just vote for Hillary now.

But ... but I don't WANNA vote for Hillary!

Bill was pretty far right for a Democrat and VERY pro-business and I don't see Hillary being any different. In a very real sense Hillary is the only moderate Republican running.


Hey, don't get me wrong. I don't wanna vote for any of these other idiots either ...
 
2014-05-06 01:04:11 PM  

HawgWild: Voiceofreason01: If you're choices are between cut-rate Ronald Reagan, a nutjob and an unabashed liar with a terrible grasp of economics you might as well just vote for Hillary now.

But ... but I don't WANNA vote for Hillary!


Then join with the rest of us in praying Lizzie Warren changes her mind and runs
 
2014-05-06 01:07:34 PM  

Voiceofreason01: HawgWild: Voiceofreason01: If you're choices are between cut-rate Ronald Reagan, a nutjob and an unabashed liar with a terrible grasp of economics you might as well just vote for Hillary now.

But ... but I don't WANNA vote for Hillary!

Bill was pretty far right for a Democrat and VERY pro-business and I don't see Hillary being any different. In a very real sense Hillary is the only moderate Republican running.


Much like Obama. Only Romney was also a moderate republican, he was just pretending otherwise in a vain attempt to motivate the frothing loons in his base.
 
2014-05-06 01:11:11 PM  

Magorn: HawgWild: Voiceofreason01: If you're choices are between cut-rate Ronald Reagan, a nutjob and an unabashed liar with a terrible grasp of economics you might as well just vote for Hillary now.

But ... but I don't WANNA vote for Hillary!

Then join with the rest of us in praying Lizzie Warren changes her mind and runs


THIS^

She is the only person addressing what is actually wrong with our economy, instead of shouting about Jesus, abortion, gun rights, lieberals, and conservatards.
 
2014-05-06 01:12:03 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: Magorn: HawgWild: Voiceofreason01: If you're choices are between cut-rate Ronald Reagan, a nutjob and an unabashed liar with a terrible grasp of economics you might as well just vote for Hillary now.

But ... but I don't WANNA vote for Hillary!

Then join with the rest of us in praying Lizzie Warren changes her mind and runs

THIS^

She is the only person addressing what is actually wrong with our economy, instead of shouting about Jesus, abortion, gun rights, lieberals, and conservatards.


It's a pipe dream. Let it go ...
 
2014-05-06 01:15:14 PM  
Don't worry, Paul Ryan is working hard to really pump up those numbers:

rack.1.mshcdn.com
 
2014-05-06 01:27:38 PM  

HawgWild: ecmoRandomNumbers: Magorn: HawgWild: Voiceofreason01: If you're choices are between cut-rate Ronald Reagan, a nutjob and an unabashed liar with a terrible grasp of economics you might as well just vote for Hillary now.

But ... but I don't WANNA vote for Hillary!

Then join with the rest of us in praying Lizzie Warren changes her mind and runs

THIS^

She is the only person addressing what is actually wrong with our economy, instead of shouting about Jesus, abortion, gun rights, lieberals, and conservatards.

It's a pipe dream. Let it go ...


I know. I won't dismiss the idea of her as vice president, though.
 
2014-05-06 01:41:42 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: HawgWild: ecmoRandomNumbers: Magorn: HawgWild: Voiceofreason01: If you're choices are between cut-rate Ronald Reagan, a nutjob and an unabashed liar with a terrible grasp of economics you might as well just vote for Hillary now.

But ... but I don't WANNA vote for Hillary!

Then join with the rest of us in praying Lizzie Warren changes her mind and runs

THIS^

She is the only person addressing what is actually wrong with our economy, instead of shouting about Jesus, abortion, gun rights, lieberals, and conservatards.

It's a pipe dream. Let it go ...

I know. I won't dismiss the idea of her as vice president, though.


To me that would be disastrous.  No real power to DO anything but forced to lend her "cred" to Hillary's pro-wall street agenda,  yeeeech


Just Remember that in 2006 Hillary was every bit as "inevitable" as she is now, and Obama every bit, if not even more, "improbable"

Hell, BILL Clinton only got the Dem nomination in 1992 because none of the A-list Dems wanted to waste their shot at being president by running against the "unbeatable" George HW Bush who had a 90% approval rating at the time
 
2014-05-06 01:57:42 PM  

Magorn: Hell, BILL Clinton only got the Dem nomination in 1992 because none of the A-list Dems wanted to waste their shot at being president by running against the "unbeatable" George HW Bush who had a 90% approval rating at the time


Jerry Brown started gaining momentum early in the 1992 primary process and suddenly was looking like he might be the guy to beat in that race, and he looked to be on his way to winning the New York primary and then possibly the nomination.  Then, right before the NY primary, he said that he would consider choosing Jesse Jackson as his running mate if he won.  This didn't exactly go over well in "Hymietown," as Jackson had called it, and Clinton then won the NY primary, recaptured the momentum, and took off from there.  If Brown hadn't made that "Jesse Jackson as VP" comment, Clinton quite possibly would've never gotten the nomination and never would've been president.

I'm not sure it that would've been a good thing or a bad thing at this point.
 
2014-05-06 01:59:57 PM  

HawgWild: ecmoRandomNumbers: Magorn: HawgWild: Voiceofreason01: If you're choices are between cut-rate Ronald Reagan, a nutjob and an unabashed liar with a terrible grasp of economics you might as well just vote for Hillary now.

But ... but I don't WANNA vote for Hillary!

Then join with the rest of us in praying Lizzie Warren changes her mind and runs

THIS^

She is the only person addressing what is actually wrong with our economy, instead of shouting about Jesus, abortion, gun rights, lieberals, and conservatards.

It's a pipe dream. Let it go ...


I'd rather have 50 more of her in the Senate.
 
2014-05-06 02:03:42 PM  

Cyberluddite: Magorn: Hell, BILL Clinton only got the Dem nomination in 1992 because none of the A-list Dems wanted to waste their shot at being president by running against the "unbeatable" George HW Bush who had a 90% approval rating at the time

Jerry Brown started gaining momentum early in the 1992 primary process and suddenly was looking like he might be the guy to beat in that race, and he looked to be on his way to winning the New York primary and then possibly the nomination.  Then, right before the NY primary, he said that he would consider choosing Jesse Jackson as his running mate if he won.  This didn't exactly go over well in "Hymietown," as Jackson had called it, and Clinton then won the NY primary, recaptured the momentum, and took off from there.  If Brown hadn't made that "Jesse Jackson as VP" comment, Clinton quite possibly would've never gotten the nomination and never would've been president.

I'm not sure it that would've been a good thing or a bad thing at this point.


been a little curious why, particularly given the success of his "second act" in CA, Jerry Brown's name isn;t being thrown around more as a potential 2016 contender too
 
2014-05-06 02:11:50 PM  
Hmmmmmmm....

img.fark.net
 
2014-05-06 02:17:10 PM  

Magorn: been a little curious why, particularly given the success of his "second act" in CA, Jerry Brown's name isn;t being thrown around more as a potential 2016 contender too


One of the local (Sacramento) California political writers swears that he really believes Jerry Brown will run for President and be elected, but he seems to be the only one who says that.  Brown's currently 76 years old, and will be damn near 79 when the next President is sworn in.  (Plus he was diagnosed with prostate cancer a couple of years ago, though he seems to be dealing with it OK and seems to be in very good health otherwise.)  That seems kinda old to most voters, I would think.  I mean, hell, even the other old fart ex-Governor of California who got elected president (the oldest guy to ever get hold the office, IIRC) was "only" 71 when he took office, and by the team he left office he was shiatting his Depends and had to have his wife dress him in the morning or he would've forgotten to wear pants each day.

If he was 10 years younger, he would probably run.  And he would have a good chance of winning.
 
2014-05-06 02:17:34 PM  

Magorn: Cyberluddite: Magorn: Hell, BILL Clinton only got the Dem nomination in 1992 because none of the A-list Dems wanted to waste their shot at being president by running against the "unbeatable" George HW Bush who had a 90% approval rating at the time

Jerry Brown started gaining momentum early in the 1992 primary process and suddenly was looking like he might be the guy to beat in that race, and he looked to be on his way to winning the New York primary and then possibly the nomination.  Then, right before the NY primary, he said that he would consider choosing Jesse Jackson as his running mate if he won.  This didn't exactly go over well in "Hymietown," as Jackson had called it, and Clinton then won the NY primary, recaptured the momentum, and took off from there.  If Brown hadn't made that "Jesse Jackson as VP" comment, Clinton quite possibly would've never gotten the nomination and never would've been president.

I'm not sure it that would've been a good thing or a bad thing at this point.

been a little curious why, particularly given the success of his "second act" in CA, Jerry Brown's name isn;t being thrown around more as a potential 2016 contender too


Probably because he's 76 years old.
 
2014-05-06 02:20:52 PM  
Well ... my love of Count Chocula is probably ruined forever now.

/might be for the best
 
2014-05-06 02:21:23 PM  

kxs401: Magorn: Cyberluddite: Magorn: Hell, BILL Clinton only got the Dem nomination in 1992 because none of the A-list Dems wanted to waste their shot at being president by running against the "unbeatable" George HW Bush who had a 90% approval rating at the time

Jerry Brown started gaining momentum early in the 1992 primary process and suddenly was looking like he might be the guy to beat in that race, and he looked to be on his way to winning the New York primary and then possibly the nomination.  Then, right before the NY primary, he said that he would consider choosing Jesse Jackson as his running mate if he won.  This didn't exactly go over well in "Hymietown," as Jackson had called it, and Clinton then won the NY primary, recaptured the momentum, and took off from there.  If Brown hadn't made that "Jesse Jackson as VP" comment, Clinton quite possibly would've never gotten the nomination and never would've been president.

I'm not sure it that would've been a good thing or a bad thing at this point.

been a little curious why, particularly given the success of his "second act" in CA, Jerry Brown's name isn;t being thrown around more as a potential 2016 contender too

Probably because he's 76 years old.


far enough, though I would make the argument that with life span  and medical technology improvments 76 in 2014 is a lot younger than 71 was in 1980 when Reagan was elected
 
2014-05-06 02:36:11 PM  
Now I want some f*cking shiatty sweet cereal.

Thanks.
 
2014-05-06 02:50:58 PM  
I misread the second name as Bland Paul.
 
2014-05-06 03:08:15 PM  
That they've got half a dozen candidates with each taking circa 10% support merely indicates a broad bench.

That the current clowns are near the top indicates it's shallow.

/don't forget Huckabee
 
2014-05-06 03:17:07 PM  
Clinton might run? No more dynasties!!! Oh a Bush is running, ok.
 
2014-05-06 03:18:09 PM  
In the past month I have seen two bumper stickers for a 2016 GOP candidate.

Both stickers were for the same man- Rick Santorum.
 
2014-05-06 03:19:00 PM  
In a more real, patriotic, quantifiable sense, Sarah Palin is in the lead with Jesus%.
 
2014-05-06 03:19:00 PM  
I heard Jen Eric Republican could sweep the primaries this year.
 
2014-05-06 03:19:11 PM  
What do the percentages have to do with it?

If they had a really strong field of half a dozen candidates, wouldn't they all be polling sub-20% anyway?  These are not compared to Hillary - the worse of these candidates would still probably get 40% of the vote.
 
2014-05-06 03:19:40 PM  

Voiceofreason01: moderate Republican


Is that some sort of mythical creature?
 
2014-05-06 03:21:19 PM  

Magorn: ecmoRandomNumbers: HawgWild: ecmoRandomNumbers: Magorn: HawgWild: Voiceofreason01: If you're choices are between cut-rate Ronald Reagan, a nutjob and an unabashed liar with a terrible grasp of economics you might as well just vote for Hillary now.

But ... but I don't WANNA vote for Hillary!

Then join with the rest of us in praying Lizzie Warren changes her mind and runs

THIS^

She is the only person addressing what is actually wrong with our economy, instead of shouting about Jesus, abortion, gun rights, lieberals, and conservatards.

It's a pipe dream. Let it go ...

I know. I won't dismiss the idea of her as vice president, though.

To me that would be disastrous.  No real power to DO anything but forced to lend her "cred" to Hillary's pro-wall street agenda,  yeeeech


Just Remember that in 2006 Hillary was every bit as "inevitable" as she is now, and Obama every bit, if not even more, "improbable"

Hell, BILL Clinton only got the Dem nomination in 1992 because none of the A-list Dems wanted to waste their shot at being president by running against the "unbeatable" George HW Bush who had a 90% approval rating at the time


In 2006 Obama was already getting talked about as the biggest star of the '04 convention.  By that metric, the GOP will be running an Eastwood/Chair ticket in 2016.
 
2014-05-06 03:22:30 PM  

Gonz: In the past month I have seen two bumper stickers for a 2016 GOP candidate.

Both stickers were for the same man- Rick Santorum.



i have no problems with that.
 
2014-05-06 03:22:47 PM  
Paul Ryan is the gold standard for which all other douchebags are measured, but they are only measured as fractions of a Paul Ryan because the level of dry heaving his presence induces is without precedent.
 
2014-05-06 03:23:07 PM  
Voiceofreason01:

Bill was pretty far right for a Democrat and VERY pro-business and I don't see Hillary being any different. In a very real sense Hillary is the only moderate Republican running.

This +1000.
 
2014-05-06 03:23:10 PM  
I don't give a damn about anything other than keeping the Senate and maybe peeling off some seats in the House in 2014.  GOP circus clown car act in 2016 is not a serious threat.
 
2014-05-06 03:23:32 PM  
images.sodahead.com
Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho  at 99%
 
2014-05-06 03:24:10 PM  
My god. Really. Rand Paul? Bush-the-even-lesser? PAUL RYAN? Those are the GOPs best candidates? This is amazingly wonderful. I cannot wait until we have another epic stage of fail like the one we had in 2012.

i2.cdn.turner.com
 
2014-05-06 03:24:10 PM  
Horribly weak field of unelectable people on the right. It's a shame it looks like we're stuck with Hillary. We could probably get an actual progressive into the WH.
 
2014-05-06 03:25:00 PM  
That's dumb subby. It could just as mean they are all strong candidates as being weak candidates.

Now how they match up to Hillary or other Democrats would show if they are strong or not.
 
2014-05-06 03:25:44 PM  

Gonz: In the past month I have seen two bumper stickers for a 2016 GOP candidate.

Both stickers were for the same man- Rick Santorum.


washingtonisbroke.com
 
2014-05-06 03:26:43 PM  

Magorn: HawgWild: Voiceofreason01: If you're choices are between cut-rate Ronald Reagan, a nutjob and an unabashed liar with a terrible grasp of economics you might as well just vote for Hillary now.

But ... but I don't WANNA vote for Hillary!

Then join with the rest of us in praying Lizzie Warren changes her mind and runs


I like her a lot too but I think it would be good for her to wait and have more experience. I really want someone who can twist some arms ala LBJ. Which I think Hilary would be good at. But yes I am nervous she is too pro-business.
 
2014-05-06 03:26:54 PM  

Gonz: In the past month I have seen two bumper stickers for a 2016 GOP candidate.

Both stickers were for the same man- Rick Santorum.


I can only hope.  I want the republicans to run the furthest right politician they can find. Maybe his running partner can be that rancher.  The only lost 2012 because they moved away from their base and tried to court the middle.
 
2014-05-06 03:27:20 PM  

Corvus: That's dumb subby. It could just as mean they are all strong candidates as being weak candidates.

Now how they match up to Hillary or other Democrats would show if they are strong or not.


Oh come now, there are plenty of people who would vote for a toaster if the person running against the toaster was a Clinton. That says nothing about the GOP's strength.
 
2014-05-06 03:27:29 PM  

JusticeandIndependence: Gonz: In the past month I have seen two bumper stickers for a 2016 GOP candidate.

Both stickers were for the same man- Rick Santorum.

[washingtonisbroke.com image 850x727]


LOL

Yes. I am laughing. Holy crap.
 
2014-05-06 03:28:30 PM  

abb3w: That they've got half a dozen candidates with each taking circa 10% support merely indicates a broad bench.

That the current clowns are near the top indicates it's shallow.

/don't forget Huckabee


interestingly enough, they recently convened an outreach to women panel that was also named 'shallow broad bench'
 
2014-05-06 03:31:07 PM  
we should start a "draft Nugent for prez" petition, maybe he'll sh*t his pants again.
 
2014-05-06 03:31:12 PM  
So I have a question for you Democrats who say you don't want Hillary. Would you vote for Biden over her?

I am not sure between the two which I would do for sure. I think I would lean Biden because he has a better pro-labor record.
 
2014-05-06 03:32:04 PM  

worlddan: Corvus: That's dumb subby. It could just as mean they are all strong candidates as being weak candidates.

Now how they match up to Hillary or other Democrats would show if they are strong or not.

Oh come now, there are plenty of people who would vote for a toaster if the person running against the toaster was a Clinton. That says nothing about the GOP's strength.


Sure they would. But that doesn't mean the percentage would all be the same. "Some people" is not everyone.
 
2014-05-06 03:32:18 PM  

JusticeandIndependence: Gonz: In the past month I have seen two bumper stickers for a 2016 GOP candidate.

Both stickers were for the same man- Rick Santorum.

[washingtonisbroke.com image 850x727]


Dear God...the debates that would happen would be epic.  Palin talking herself in circles independent of any question she was asked and Allen West War Criminal violently attacking strawmen.
 
2014-05-06 03:33:26 PM  

JusticeandIndependence: Gonz: In the past month I have seen two bumper stickers for a 2016 GOP candidate.
Both stickers were for the same man- Rick Santorum.
[washingtonisbroke.com image 850x727]


Having seen this image, writers for The Daily Show were collectively heard chanting "oh please, oh please, oh please..."
 
2014-05-06 03:35:15 PM  

Corvus: So I have a question for you Democrats who say you don't want Hillary. Would you vote for Biden over her?

I am not sure between the two which I would do for sure. I think I would lean Biden because he has a better pro-labor record.


Maybe?  There are clearly better choices, like Warren.  But my state is too late a primary state to have a real say.
 
2014-05-06 03:35:25 PM  

Magorn: ecmoRandomNumbers: HawgWild: ecmoRandomNumbers: Magorn: HawgWild: Voiceofreason01: If you're choices are between cut-rate Ronald Reagan, a nutjob and an unabashed liar with a terrible grasp of economics you might as well just vote for Hillary now.

But ... but I don't WANNA vote for Hillary!

Then join with the rest of us in praying Lizzie Warren changes her mind and runs

THIS^

She is the only person addressing what is actually wrong with our economy, instead of shouting about Jesus, abortion, gun rights, lieberals, and conservatards.

It's a pipe dream. Let it go ...

I know. I won't dismiss the idea of her as vice president, though.

To me that would be disastrous.  No real power to DO anything but forced to lend her "cred" to Hillary's pro-wall street agenda,  yeeeech


Just Remember that in 2006 Hillary was every bit as "inevitable" as she is now, and Obama every bit, if not even more, "improbable"

Hell, BILL Clinton only got the Dem nomination in 1992 because none of the A-list Dems wanted to waste their shot at being president by running against the "unbeatable" George HW Bush who had a 90% approval rating at the time


I voted for Hillary in the primary and as soon as I filled in the little circle I knew Obama would win the General.
 
Displayed 50 of 125 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report