- Jeb Bush 22%
- Scott Walker 17%
- Marco Rubio 14%
- Ben Carson 11%
- Mike Huckabee 9%
- Rand Paul 7%
- Rick Perry 5%
- Ted Cruz 4%
- Chris Christie 4%
- Carly Fiorina 2%
- Donald Trump 1%
- Lindsey Graham 1%
- John Kasich 1%
- Bobby Jindal 0%
- Rick Santorum 0%
- George Pataki 0%
२२ जून, २०१५
"Who gets left off that first debate stage?"
"The [new!] NBC/WSJ poll measured 16 GOP candidates in our horserace question. And here are the 10 Republicans who make our poll's Top 10 — the criteria being used for the first GOP debate in August — and the six who get left off:"
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५८ टिप्पण्या:
Scott will get the Rubio, Perry, and Huckabee votes when they drop out. JEB has all he will ever get.
Walker needs to lend Fiorina some per cents until the debate is over to. Be sure she gets her say.
Just one more and we have my "Seventeen gentlemen callers. Seventeen!" and we are arguing about where we are going to get enough chairs.
That could be cut to 6 if it were done by who's a legitimate candidate instead by the poll numbers listed. (And yes, I am comfortable saying that certain of those people are not real candidates despite their having numbers higher than other people who I do consider real candidates.)
I'd like to see a Ben and Carly ticket. That would make my 90 year-old mother happy.
Jindal is an excellent contender....and hasn't yet announced he'd run for president, yet is already showing up on polls. Nice.
I'd be disappointed to not see Trump trumping it up.
I don't know why the Republican Party can't just declare that Trump is out.
Carson is not serious nor is Santorum. I like Carson but he is not a serious candidate. I like Carly but have my doubts about her.
Huckabee and Trump are a vaudeville show.
It's way too early to be be handicapping.
Is "all of the above" a choice?
5, 9, 11-13 would be fine with me.
I'd rather Kasich and Jindal were in the top and Huck and Chrissy were not. Maybe it'll shake out that way after a few more news cycles. As a percentage, there are far more quality candidates running for the Rs than for the Ds. Gotta be hard to game-plan if your Hillary!
Other than Jindal, the excludeds are a waste of my time.
Christie and Huck are coyotes off the cliff, waiting for the gravity to kick in.
After non-wins in the first four contests, Jeb will smell the stink.
There's not a man in the race who would be a better veep than Carly.
tim maguire said...
That could be cut to 6 if it were done by who's a legitimate candidate instead by the poll numbers listed. (And yes, I am comfortable saying that certain of those people are not real candidates despite their having numbers higher than other people who I do consider real candidates.)
The second tier e.g. 6-10 are very long shots, but it helps the party to show that it has potential candidates that are young and minority, unlike the Democrats...
It's Jeb against the field. If it divides, he conquers.
I think Zsa Zsa Gabor's husband is also in the mix, somehow.
Consider this series: 1.McCain... 2.Romney... 3.?
I'll be okay with any one of the 16 in the NBC/WSJ poll — who won't lose to Hillary in the general.
Knock Trump out of there. He's obviously a leftist plant--think about it. If he were pulling a Stephen Colbert and portraying the media's caricature of what a know-nothing right winger would be, how would he act any differently? The man also has a long history of supporting Democrats. Forget him.
Carson and Carly may be smart people, but the presidency is not a starter job in politics (these days). If they are serious about public office, they can start at more attainable positions.
Huck--well, I suppose someone has to stand up for the tent revivalist faction. But he makes Santorum redundant. They should decide which of them drops out.
Cruz and Rand have low ceilings--neither will get nominated, but they have at least some plausibility.
Jeb, Rubio and Walker seem both plausible and have decent poll numbers (this early on). Early money is on one of them.
Hi Drill SGT., one of my considerations for who "is a real candidate" is if they've run and lost and not done anything significant since running and losing. So Carson and Huckabee are out on that count. I would leave Fiorina in. Perry is a maybe--maybe he deserves better, but his last campaign was an embarrassment. Jindal is in, Santorum is out. And so on.
"That could be cut to 6 if it were done by who's a legitimate candidate instead by the poll numbers listed. (And yes, I am comfortable saying that certain of those people are not real candidates despite their having numbers higher than other people who I do consider real candidates.)"
I certainly think many of these candidates are not "legit" in the sense that they have no real prayer of getting elected, but then I don't have any objective standard to use for it--lack of experience? Extremism of their views? Those can't really be measured in a way that would apply across the board.
Trump though can be dropped--he's only in this to sabotage the GOP. Don't let the scorpion into the frog's lair.
"Hi Drill SGT., one of my considerations for who "is a real candidate" is if they've run and lost and not done anything significant since running and losing. So Carson and Huckabee are out on that count. I would leave Fiorina in. Perry is a maybe--maybe he deserves better, but his last campaign was an embarrassment. Jindal is in, Santorum is out. And so on."
I wish we could have a "real candidate" standard, but unfortunately no measurement works. How would we define "significant"? How long do they have to be out of office (Jeb has been out of office 9 years)?
"The second tier e.g. 6-10 are very long shots, but it helps the party to show that it has potential candidates that are young and minority, unlike the Democrats..."
That all depends on teh candidates and how they act. Let's say a Dr. Carson spends a lot of time focusing on inner city reform issues, and getting black voters interested in the party. That could help, but then if he just trashes the eventual nominee it can backfire.
I don't know if it's so much "minority candidates" as it is "focusing on issues in a way that appeals to minorities". Much easier said than done, though.
I think Trump will be in the debates, if he ends up running for real.
Glad to see that Carly is on the list. She should be, no matter what.
Top. Men. of the Republican Party should retire to a smoke filled room and decide who is in and who is out. Five sounds like a good number to shoot for.
Graham is the only one with military service.
How about we draw three names from the bottom 6 and let them moderate the first debate?
Todd,
How about we draw three names from the bottom 6 and let them moderate the first debate?
I like it!
They should do a giant Hollywood Squares debate with the entire GOP candidate field.
They are only asking people to name one choice, and they are also not asking them, whom would they like to see in the debate.
Tha George PAtaki should be at the bottom, makes sense of course. John Kasich is not yet adeclared candidate, so his position may not indicate where he would be should he enter the race and get some attention. Lindsey Graham is well know, but he doesn't seem to be anybody's first choice and probably many people think he's not really seriously running for president.
Kark Rove said that, as of Friday, Donald Trump had not yet officially entered the race. There's a piece of paper he needs to sign, that doens't have much more than his name on it that would start a 30-day (?) trigger for a full financial report - the deadline can be extended two times by 45 days.
Donald Trumpclaims he likes Hillary, but not her politics. If an honest opinion, it shows a tremendous amount of unawareness (and or a successful cultivation of Donald Trump y the Clintons, and Trump beinbg too dumb to understand what's going on)
I say take a second look at The Donald. he has an innate intelligence mixed with a sense of what people like, and finally who but Trump can get 60% of the political groupies on both side mad at him for just saying, "Good Morning, I can fix this clusterfuck."
Any poll which showed Donald Trump at only 1% had to be rigged.
I'd bet money that Trump would get at least 3% even if you polled only Democrats.
The Democrat "debate" could be Hillary laying down the marching orders from a giant telscreen to a room full of obedient fake twitter followers.
I do agree though that trump is the only one that politically unaware Rebublicans I know seem to like. I can't see how he is at 1%.
I think he is a buffoon, but that doesn't change my observations.
Jindal is actually getting somewhat unpopular in Louisiana. He forced the state legislatuie to indulge in an amazing bit of fiscal gimmickry.
It seems like the budget is in deficit, and he has a pledge not to raise taxes.
He consulted with Grover Norquist and seems to have come up with this: (if I understand it right)
1) Raise tuition at Louisiana state colleges.
2) Give every student an equivalent tax credit that never even passes through their hands but goes directly to the colleges.
3) Raise some other taxes.
4) Since the taxes are offset by the tax credit, net taxes have not been raised! Tuition has been raised, but nobody pays it!
http://louisianavoice.com/2015/06/15/smarmy-exploratory-committee-teepell-emails-tout-jindal-leadership-in-incredulous-balanced-budget-leadership-claim/
We are, of course, talking about the ludicrous SAVE bill that saves nothing and which creates phony money in the form of tax credits to cover a phantom increase in college tuition that won’t generate any revenue for the state while not really saving higher education.
http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2015/06/09/it-depends-on-what-your-definition-of-pledge-is/
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/06/louisiana_legislators_grover_n.html
If passed, SAVE would set up a new higher education tax credit to cover a nonexistent student fee. In spite of the name, the credit wouldn't save families and students money on college bills. Primarily, it would create the illusion of a tax break, which Jindal can say will "offset" other tax increases in the budget plan.
Some legislators really hate this, because if this is used, Bobby Jindal and Grover Norquist have found a loophole in all no higher taxes pledges!
They said, maybe better balance a tax increase this year against tax cuts in previous years.
But Grover Norquist said no, apparently.
http://bobmannblog.com/2015/06/15/bobby-jindals-dishonest-scheme-even-fellow-republicans-are-embarrassed-by-this-one/
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s efforts to conceal a series of tax increases might not only undermine his presidential ambitions; the bizarre scheme he forced upon the state’s legislature to do it could eventually compromise the renowned anti-tax increase pledge created by Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR).
In the legislative session that ended late last week, Louisiana lawmakers passed $750 million in tax hikes to address a $1.6 billion revenue shortfall that threatened to close the state’s universities and cripple its publicly funded hospitals.
@KevinNR today had some choice things to say about the Trumpkins and Trump, funny enough to require a trigger warning.
More:
Safeguarding Jindal’s no-tax increase purity became more challenging, however, when he backed $350 million in additional revenue for higher education (a cigarette tax increase and other tax hikes).
That’s when Jindal and his staff proposed a convoluted, confusing student fee/tax credit “offset,” devised only so Jindal could claim his actions were “revenue neutral” and, therefore, did not increase taxes. With Norquist’s approval, Jindal pushed the so-called Student Assessment for a Valuable Education (SAVE) Credit.
http://theadvocate.com/news/legislature/12624380-123/louisiana-house-oks-save-provision
It would assess a fee of about $1,500 per higher education student and raise about $350 million total, but only on paper. Students wouldn’t have to pay anything because [of] an offsetting tax credit for the $1,500. Nor would universities receive any new money.
However, the SAVE fund would create a tax credit for the $350 million that Jindal could use to offset $350 million of the new revenue that legislators are proposing to raise.
Republican Rep. Chris Broadwater, of Hammond, acknowledged that the whole SAVE scheme pushed by Jindal was disagreeable.
But Broadwater said he felt it was necessary to ensure Jindal won’t veto the budget or the revenue-raising bills and to protect higher education from deep spending cuts.
If JIndal runs for president, everybody is going to hear about this.
There were times when Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had no chance, no chance at all.
Trump and Graham are doing better than I anticipated.
Keep the top Ten, except eliminate Huckabee and replace with Trump. I'm not voting for Trump, but he doesn't have to play by the rules, and can say a lot of things that need to be said, that the other's can't.
Top Ten also keeps Carly Fiorina. She can say things other's can't as well. Lastly, I would leave Rick Perry at home and give his spot to John Kasich. Perry made the GOP look like idiots in his 2012 performance
Then, whittle it to nine. Somehow close traffic lanes and make Christy late leaving an empty podium. Just for spite.
Well, Miss Lindsey can get some airtime during the debate if he climbs the SC capitol building and pulls down that flag he doesn't like...
Rick Perry had military service, flying C-130's, and unlike Graham, has never bullshitted about it.
The bankruptcy artist Trump and the contraband smuggler Fiorina have no place in this debate.
My own criteria for who should automatically be cut:
1) Never been elected to State-wide office before: Trump, Carson and Fiorina are gone. If you want to show that you’re serious about running for President, it shouldn’t be the first major office you run for. Also if you can’t run and win a statewide race, we ought to be asking ourselves whether you could run and win a national one.
2) No executive experience: Rubio, Paul, Cruz, Graham and Santorum are gone. I wouldn’t hire someone for the top executive job in the world who has never run anything more complicated than a lemonade stand.
I would leave in Bush, Walker, Huckabee, Perry, Christie, Kaisch, Jindal and Pataki for consideration. My own personal preference would be to also remove Huckabee as unserious because he went the infotainment route after leaving office same as Palin (also as the only Republican candidate to come out against entitlement reform, he’s the only one at this point that I wouldn’t vote for). Perry has a tough job to do to convince Republican voters to give him a second chance after his last showing but I wouldn’t exclude him. Pataki has been out of the public eye for a while since leaving office but he carries himself like a serious person and brings gravitas to the field. The rest I have no issue with their seriousness as candidates even though I may disagree on the issues and have a preference among them.
Fox News should eliminate the retreads; Perry, Huckabee, Santorum, Pataki (?) and the insane; Trump.
Rank them by age. The lower the age, the higher you rate.
Plus, you have to release all your finances for the last 7 years.
Walker, Jeb, and Christie are the only plausible presidents.
Rubio will be a good candidate but is Obama Redux.
I suppose Fox could winnow down the field quite a bit very easily--announce that anyone who is still a candidate for the GOP nomination after July 1, 2015 will no longer be eligible for a TV deal with that channel, ever.
Think about it, Huckabee, et al--you say you want to be president. Do you want to be president so badly you're willing to give up ever getting a lucrative TV deal? Don't make the primaries your chance to audition for Fox.
I'd cheerfully trade Jindal for Christie, but other than that I'm happy with the other five excluded ones.
I'd like to see Jindal replace Christie. Otherwise, the field is perfect.
Though I'd really like to see pool play/tournament of governors and senators and private sector (Fiorina, Carson, Trump, etc). Top two in each pool advance. That might be entertaining.
Yay! I'm so glad to see Carly Fiorina make the cut!
Good for Carly. She recognized making this top 10 as a required milestone (although she was considerably behind it when announced), didn't whine, but buckled down and achieved it.
She's leading the Veepstakes, and might do better. Remains to be seen, but a good development.
I'm SO glad Carly made it! I so want to see her in at least one debate with Hillary. The contrast of a poised, intelligent, accomplished Carly v shrill, entitled, made-famous-because-of-husband Hillary couldn't be more stark.
The number of candidates is going to start declining pretty quickly after the first few debates, as the thinly capitalized have to drop out or "suspend" their campaigns. Some (say half) of the following will be gone: Huckabee, Perry, Graham, Jindal, Pataki, Kasich, Santorum, Carson. That's before a single vote is cast. After Iowa, NH, and SC, some of the current "front runners" will be in trouble: Bush, Walker, Rubio, Paul, and Cruz each need to win one of the three and come in well in one other. Not much room. I don't see Christie winning anywhere before March. However, in a much smaller field he might be a second choice for supporters of some no-longer-active candidates, so Super Tuesday could be his opportunity, depending on which candidates are left standing by then. It's hard to imagine that there will be more than three viable candidates after March 1st, if that many; it may be over by then.
Trump won't run out of money, but he's not in this for real. Fiorina's running for VP, and so she'll drop out when it's most expedient to do so.
So that's the prophecy of a guy who favored Goldwater in 64, Baker in 80, Powell in 96, and Giuliani in 08. You can take it to the bank.
Santorum and Huckabee are the modern day equivalents of Pat Buchanan. They are making a show of it simply to perpetuate their franchise as "relevant". Their official job description is "perennial presidential contender" which somehow generates enough revenue for 3 years for them to live on.
As was pointed out, the sample size is so small that a change of 5 people can put somebody in the debate. And the MOE is rather large.
I'm gonna try to warm up to Jeb! Mind you, I greatly prefer Walker and/or Rubio, but I fear that Jeb! will benefit from all these splintering candidates and eventually get the nod.
And, since I've already determined that ANY of these GOP candidates would be preferable to Hillary, that means I have to prepare myself for Jeb! by slowly purging any latent sarcasm and mockery, I have towards him. It is truly a cross to bear.
Donald Trump comes in second in a poll in Iowa (at 11% next to Jeb Bush's 14%) but 11th when the same voters are asked whom they would like to see included in a debate. (and I suppose everyone could name more than one)
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा